What's so special about Forgotten Realms?

[Daern]

I'm a original gray box FR fan myself, but hardly a realms expert. Still, I've always liked this answer to a similar question (how to run a "quintissentially FR" game) from 2005.

I think it still holds up. It strikes a chord with me, anyway, as far as what makes the realms special: so much so that I immediately thought of it when I saw the first post in this thread.

That was a good description. I would add that the old 2e module, "Haunted Halls of Eveningstar" by Greenwood, really captures this quintissential vibe.

 

[jdrakeh]

Agreed. If I'm running a historical WWII game and I claim the Battle of Midway was in 1943, the players can argue, but guess what?

This is a bad example.

In your example, the players are incorrect about a thoroughly documented historical event, while you (as the GM) are accurately representing history and can easily browbeat the players by pulling out nearly any textbook and faairly resolving the issue in your favor. That's a far cry from catsclaw227's example.

In catsclaw227's example, the players are citing thoroughly documented setting canon and browbeating catsclaw277 for attempting to deviate from it. His (or her) only recourse is to say "Shut up and like it! I'm the DM!" because the official sourcebooks don't support deviation from canon.

While it's true that the players could probably be more relaxed, saying that this is solely a player attitude issue is hardly an accurate representation of the situation.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

This is all well and good, but a couple of years ago, I asked a group of new players that I wanted to do a FR game and they brought up the uber NPC thing. I trotted out the explanation above, and was promptly told that they didn't want to play in a world where they were simply pawns in a chess game for big powerful NPCs. So we ran Savage Tide in Greyhawk.

I once DMed (or attempted for about 6 sessions) the realms right around the 3.5 revision and I had two players that knew way more about the FR than I did. Even though I explained that this would be my interpretation of the realms and that some of the novel canon and even the RPG canon may not be quite right. Some of the rumors and legends and stories were myth or false. That didn't seem to matter.... So yes, it was my game and I could run it that way, but there were too many different moments where I had to "argue" around a situation and the players were (understandably) frustrated because they didn't know what was canon and what wasn't.

I understand. It's always awkward if you run a setting where your players know more about the "canon" than you - the same situation exists when you run a historical game for a bunch of history buffs. And in our gaming group, we have four physicists - which makes for some interesting discussions in SF games.

I also get the "no playing pawns" thing. I suggest running a game of Exalted (or a setting with similar themes) to get that urge out of the system - this way, they might realize that being in charge and responsible can be far more scary...

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Sorry man but that's an issue with your players , Not the setting

Yes and no. Players touting their superior setting knowledge are a "problem", but the Realms exacerbate this problem by the sheer amount of material and detail. There are just too many toes for a DM to step on...

My own experience running the Realms is a different one: my players were not well-read in Realms lore, so I didn't suffer from them discussing contradictions with me. But how to give such players setting information? Requesting them to read books? Distilling the pertinent details taken from thousands of pages to hand over to them?

The campaign ended being rather generic, the Realmsian particularities being limited to NPC, place, and deity names.

 

[JoeGKushner]

And yet...

it is.

If I'm running Star Wars and the rebels failed to blow up the Death Star and my players don't like it... whose got the issue?


Canon is nothing more than inspiration.

If you get players so caught up in canon that they can't enjoy them selves and worse, start ruining the fun for others, in any game system, it's time to have a talk with them. If no one likes your version of it, then it's time to find another group.

This is a bad example.

In your example, the players are incorrect about a thoroughly documented historical event, while you (as the GM) are accurately representing history and can easily browbeat the players by pulling out nearly any textbook and faairly resolving the issue in your favor. That's a far cry from catsclaw227's example.

In catsclaw227's example, the players are citing thoroughly documented setting canon and browbeating catsclaw277 for attempting to deviate from it. His (or her) only recourse is to say "Shut up and like it! I'm the DM!" because the official sourcebooks don't support deviation from canon.

While it's true that the players could probably be more relaxed, saying that this is solely a player attitude issue is hardly an accurate representation of the situation.

 

[Runestar]

I asked a group of new players that I wanted to do a FR game and they brought up the uber NPC thing. I trotted out the explanation above, and was promptly told that they didn't want to play in a world where they were simply pawns in a chess game for big powerful NPCs.

How would playing in FR automatically make you the plaything of a far more powerful NPC? It is not feasible for the chosen to meddle in every problem out there (they simply don't have the time)? I am fairly sure there would be a small corner of the world where they can carve out their own niche.

 

[Barastrondo]

How would playing in FR automatically make you the plaything of a far more powerful NPC? It is not feasible for the chosen to meddle in every problem out there (they simply don't have the time)? I am fairly sure there would be a small corner of the world where they can carve out their own niche.

Not having much of a horse in this race, I'm still going to play devil's advocate here. If you offered that argument to my players, they'd be even more inclined to skip out on the game, not less.

It's the damning with faint praise effect. Every time someone says "the Chosen don't have the time to deal with the problems you would," it carries the implication of "because they're doing more interesting and important work." When you say the PCs might get "a small corner of the world," that implies that everything else is for the NPCs.

Now, I'm probably misreading your emoticon there, and you might be parodying this very effect (if so, I apologize). But this isn't the first time I've seen the argument that players should be perfectly happy in the Forgotten Realms, if they just realize that the NPCs more powerful than they are too busy doing cool stuff and shaping the fate of the world to involve themselves in the (strongly implied) pettier adventures that are more the PCs' speed. It's just not a selling point. It comes across as the idea that players should be grateful for crumbs from the table.

If you want to sell the FR, I'd think it would be more effective to say "Yeah, theoretically these NPCs should be the stars. But they're not. You're going to surpass them. When they come to you for help, they're going to be grateful for it, because you're saving their bacon. Want to find out how?" It's a useful tool, having NPCs as a benchmark to measure the PCs against. But if you want to really get the players' attention, it should be clear that said measurement will end up being flattering to the PCs.

I think that any game setting winds up having different needs depending on whether it's being actively gamed. Having Drizzt be the star of a grand show is great for selling the setting as something to explore. Having the player characters doing things more interesting than Drizzt is what makes a setting gameable.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

One final question, this one directed at all the people who say the Realms have a lot of problems with the high-level NPCs and intractable setting canon:

If you somehow didn't have to deal with those issues would the Realms be a good setting?

 

[Obryn]

One final question, this one directed at all the people who say the Realms have a lot of problems with the high-level NPCs and intractable setting canon:

If you somehow didn't have to deal with those issues would the Realms be a good setting?

Isn't that what we basically had in the grey box?

-O

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

One final question, this one directed at all the people who say the Realms have a lot of problems with the high-level NPCs and intractable setting canon:

If you somehow didn't have to deal with those issues would the Realms be a good setting?

It would be best if you got the book and read it and decided yourself. I would recamend the 3.0 FRCS. I have run the realms since 94 you want to know who many High level NPC's my players have even seen? Well if seen from afar 3 but ya know.

They did try to go get help from Elimister once, odd how he is never round isn't it.