Where I'm going, is simply, WHY, oh WHY, do people say such derogatory things about any CS, when a CS is the same as any other CS in one regard: Use what you will, toss the rest aside.
I've yet to read ANY CS book that told me 'This MUST be run like thus'. Never once.
This rant seems a bit silly. Sure, you can find something of merit in every campaign setting. Presumably the same could be said for every d20 book in print. Does that mean they are all equally valid, and worthy of being purchased? Or that no discussion can ever be had in which the bad elements are criticised?
elmunchkin is in many things. he is actually intellectual property and cannot be killed as per Hasbro law team's orders.
many of the iconics are like that.
to remove them from your campaign is no problem, but it requires work. as the basic premise of why the FRCS works is based on the fact that X character exists. now if you want to write out X character you also have to make up a reason why other things may need to be changed. replace X with Y. or scale down the system b/c X doesn't exist or....
and with each subsequent release you must add/subtract/multiple/ and divide.
Kalamar's Dark Elves where not meant to look, act, or resemble the Drow. I think they were originally slated to be more like H.G. Welll's Morlocks from The Time Machine, or perhaps some other mythology.
As an underground race, they should be nearly abino pale with huge bulging eyes...
At the least though, they were intended to be something wholly new and very different from Drow. They may be called Dark Elves still, but they look like Drow, and are described like Drow. This is a sore point with a section of the Kalamar fan community - that WotC forced their vision on our chosen setting rather than something more sensible and original.
Well, I am tired of Realms cheerleading, so there is no love lost between us.
Forgotten Realms
Pros:
The Realms is the most popular setting for D&D. More players like it than any other. Furthermore, this means more players are familiar with it and you don't need to explain who the Zhentarim is.
That is because WOTC devotes so much time and energy to it. Well, that and the fact that there is no accounting for taste.
Rather than trying to cram D&D concepts into a pseudomedieval world (Greyhawk, cough cough), FR makes magic and monsters a relatively common part of life.
It was a decent book, but even so its ad hoc explanations could not justify such an ill-conceived, patchwork pantheon (it is clear to me that ol' Ed mindlessly cribbed many of his gods from the old Deities & Demigods, without any further research).
BTW, for anyone who claims that the FR geography is nonsensical, why not take a moment to actually read the book before saying so.
The desert of Anauroch is unusually dry because of numerous Lifedrain spells cast by the Phaerimm in their attack on Netheril, and the Great Glacier is also unusually cold because of other magical effects. Wow, magic actually plays a role in the geography of worlds.
I bought the original boxed set when I was 11 and the 2e update a year later (I didn't realize until later that you needed other books to play). I also have FRCS. I have been a player and a DM in the FR. So, I am qualified to make a judgment concerning FR, and my judgment is that it sucks.
As for a glacier abutting a desert, that taxes my credulity overly much. I believe campaigns should strive for what Walt Disney called the "plausible impossible."
Every world has pros and cons. Because a con is not a concern to you does not mean that someone else won't have a problem with it. Obviously, if you want geological realism, you are going to like Kalamar more than FR. But arguing that liking geological realism is good or bad is not going to produce any results. Those who want it want it. Those who don't, don't. You can argue whether it fits the criteria, but you two seem to be arguing TASTES, which is futile.
Setting discussions always do. Every single time. There's always one who cannot respect another's setting and does not have the maturity to refrain from using words like "your setting sucks". Don't know why but it always happens.
Setting discussions always do. Every single time. There's always one who cannot respect another's setting and does not have the maturity to refrain from using words like "your setting sucks". Don't know why but it always happens.
First of all, the Forgotten Realms is not your setting; it is Ed Greenwood's and/or WOTC's setting. You just happen to use it for your gaming. Moreover, mature people can and do use the term "sucks" to convey their disdain for something. I suppose I could have been more verbose and said the Realms are nothing more than cheap, dumbed down, pulp fantasy, but I doubt you would have taken that any better.
