What's so special about Forgotten Realms?

[Majoru Oakheart]

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?

The thing is, it never comes out like that. It comes out as a difference in expectations and a difference in perception. Any difference in these things between the DM and the players causes issues.

These things normally come out like this:

DM: "We are playing a Star Wars game set just after Return of the Jedi."

(sometime later during the game)
DM: "You see a moon sized space station up ahead"
Player: "The remnants of the Empire must have built a 3rd Death Star. Maybe it still has the same vulnerability and we can destroy it with a proton torpedo into the exhaust port. Of course, we'd likely have to be Jedi to hit it."
DM: "The smuggler you picked up at the last space port says, 'What are you talking about, Death Star? I haven't heard of anything called that before. Nor have I heard of anything called a Jedi.'"
Player: "You know, the Death Stars...the Empire built 2 of them. The Rebels blew them up in order to overthrow them. And Jedi are people with mystical powers. Rumor has it that Luke Skywalker was one. The guy who blew up the Death Star."
DM: "The smuggler doesn't know what you are talking about as there were never any Death Stars in my version of Star Wars. Plus, the Jedi never existed. Now, stop using out of character knowledge or assuming you know anything about my universe. Unless your characters specifically know something happened, you can't use that knowledge."

Which causes hurt feelings. The same thing happens when players and DMs understand a word differently. The DM says "A powerful wizard" and the player imagines someone capable of wiping out cities and nearly immune to damage from mortals. The DM meant someone who could cast fireball. It's the same concept...different understandings cause a disconnect.

And saying "We are playing in the FR" causes expectations.

 

[Uzzy]

In your case, Majoru Oakheart, the problem arose when the DM didn't tell the players of those rather striking changes. You're right that saying 'A Star Wars game' gives certain impressions, one of which is that there are (or at least have been) Jedi around in the Universe.

It's why it's a good idea to signpost big changes to the canon like that before you start a game. Say 'It's an alternate universe Star Wars game, with no Jedi.' That's just good DMing. Of course, don't reveal all the changes, but the big, game changing ones? You certainly should.

 

[Sunderstone]

IMHO (for anyone newly interested in FR), get the Original Grey Box and the FR# supplements from 1st and 2nd editions (like FR11 Dwarves Deep), ghet a few pals and strand yourself on a desert island (away from D&D communities, novels, etc) for the length of your campaign.

 

[Goumindong]

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?

Probably. I am certainly having a ball with a FR game that I am currently playing in.[set after the shakeup]. But i don't know much about the realms except that its a very high fantasy setting where the gods like to take an active role in things. I don't typically like the concepts of dungeons and the underdark, but those are small things that aren't going to get in the way of anything. Much of the problems of the realms comes by that absent the new cannon, you cannot simply wipe away the problems of cannon and NPC's. They've made too much of an impact on players.

To explain a bit further i'll say a bit about what I like about Eberron. The prime pull of Eberron for me is that so much is left up in the air for the DM and the Players to fill in. Much of the history is left up in the air, and much of the present is filled with things to be resolved and things to create. The Eberron cannon is set up in such a way that I can play one game in Eberron that has the Lord of the Blades, and then come back and play another which has the Lord of the Blades portrayed in a different way and not worry about either one getting in the way of the other. The Cannonical uncertainty lends for players and DM's to more easily be able to view the world on the same page whenever they start a game.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What's so special to ME about the FR???

Well, just imagine a third grader being given the old Basic and Expert D&D box sets. He's a nerd and loves the stuff...but really can't play the game. He can just read through the books and IMAGINE what a game might be like.

At the same time that nerdy kid picks up a couple games called "Dungeons and Dragons" for his Intellivision. Sure, they features literal dungeons and dragons, but aren't really anything like the game he has the books for.

Then, just a few years later that slightly older nerdy kid picks up another official Dungeons and Dragons game for his Commodore 64 called "Pool of Radiance".

Worlds explode as for the first time that kid actually gets to "play" Dungeons and Dragons.

Phlan will forever be the coolest city in any campaign world to that nerdy kid, although he later developed a certain fondness for Baldur's Gate....

DS

 

[Alzrius]

I also want to praise the sheer level of detail and diversity that was present throughout the 2E and 3(.5)E eras of the Realms. I absolutely loved how much of that was present, as it really helped to make it feel like a living, full fleshed-out world; a place that wasn't static, but where stuff was always happening, and adventure really was everywhere. It seemed the most "realistic" of the D&D settings to me, simply because it never stood still, the way our world doesn't.

I also much prefer to have stuff made up for a given area, instead of having to make stuff up myself; it's less work if there's already material on a given region that I can use.

One of my favorite anecdotes regarding just how in-depth the Realms are goes like this:

Back in 2005, during the Paizo era of Dungeon, there was a trilogy of Realms adventures published by FR guru Eric L. Boyd. The middle one, "Dungeon of the Crypt" (issue #127, October, 2005) had some characters that spoke Tethyrian as a language, and also had a monster called a grisgol, from the Monster Manual III - this monster was a construct powered by a lich's phylactery, with the lich trapped inside. Following this adventure's publication, there was a letter about it in issue #131's "Prison Mail" column that I got a huge kick out of (the italicized responses are from then-editor-in-chief Erik Mona)...

I SAY!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the three adventures in the Vampires of Waterdeep Campaign Arc, and plan to employ them in my FORGOTTEN REALMS campaign as soon as I can work them in. However, I notice that several of the NPCs speak "Tethyrian," a language to which I can find no reference in any third edition FORGOTTEN REALMS book. I assume that these entries should be "Chondathan," the default mother tongue of characters of Tethyrian heritage. While this is not a major problem for most FR DMs, I'm sure, I find it difficult to consider Mr. Boyd an authoritative source of "Realmslore" (as his bio indicates) when such a glaring error is included in his work. My home-brew FR campaign focuses a little more heavily on language barriers than most probably do, so I apologize if this seems trivial.

David Howarth
Magnolia, DE

If a FORGOTTEN REALMS fan doesn't care about trivia, is he still a fan of the FORGOTTEN REALMS? It's a philosophical problem that has puzzled us for generations, and it also makes a nice meditation koan. In any event, I passed along your concern to Eric L. Boyd, and here's his unedited response:

ERIC'S RESPONSE

I'm glad David enjoyed the Vampires of Waterdeep Campaign Arc. I enjoyed writing it.

As a designer, my three major "blind spots" in Realmslore include:

a) My own writing. (I tend to forget when I've played with an obscure fact before.)

b) Realmslore that changed between the turnover and the final product.

c) Realmslore that I wish was otherwise.

In the case of languages, I would have much preferred that Tethyrians had their own tongue, derived from an amalgamation of Alzhedo, Chondathan, Illuskan, and local tribal tongues. They don't in official Realmslore, but obviously I forgot when writing this campaign arc, for which I apologize.

I would point out that Tethyrians do have their own dialect of Common, called Calant, which may have contributed to my faulty recollection. (See FRCS, page 85.) Another contributing factor to my faulty recollection might have been Tom Costa's excellent second edition article in the 1999 Dragon Annual, page 28. The third edition FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting went with a slimmed-down version of Tom's article, which included two appropriate Tethyrian languages (Thorass and Thorasta).

A simple fix, albeit one with campaign implications, is to assume that Calant diverges enough from Common to require a separate language slot. (The rules are unclear on this point, as far as I know. I'm not aware if the Sage has addressed this issue yet.) In my campaign, we house rule that a dialect requires half the normal skill points to learn if you already know the base language.

Alternatively, replace Tethyrian for each NPC. I would suggest the following replacements:

Blood of Malar: None needed.

Dungeon of the Crypt: Fhang (Chondathan), Galguth Shund (Draconic), grisgol (Chondathan).

The Fireplace Level: Medechai (Chondathan).

Regarding the grisgol, one tiny bit of Realmslore that didn't make the editorial cut in "Dungeon of the Crypt" was the identity of the lich from which the grisgol was made, which I'll try to sneak past the editor again.

Riqysar Hazamir al Aktorral, the Caleph of Calimshan (104-107 DR) and Reqent Qysar of the Shoon Imperium (107-123 DR), faked his own death and embraced lichdom after relinquishing the qysar's throne to the young Qysar Shoon III in the Year of the Icy Axe (123 DR). Over two centuries later, in the Year of the Fearless King (361 DR), Shoon VII hunted down the fallen riqysar in the depths of Calimport and transformed him into a grisgol, built from broken and worn-out magic items and animated by the phylactery of the lich. The grisgol vanished from one of Shoon VII's lairs after its creator descended into demilichdom and was trapped in the Tome of the Unicorn. Artor Morlin captured the grisgol on the Fields of the Dead in the Year of the Seven Kings Horde (1131 DR), while battling an undead horde that threatened to engulf Baldur's Gate, and had it entombed herein.

See Empires of the Shining Sea, pages 25, 27-8, and Lands of Intrigue: Erlkazar & Folk of Intrigue, pages 8-12 for more details.

Again, my apologies for the linguistic oversight.

Eric L. Boyd
Via Email

If that last paragraph isn't enough to restore your faith in Eric L. Boyd as an "authoritative source of Realmslore," then I'm afraid there's nothing more I can do to help.

It's that sort of minutia that I absolutely love in a campaign.

 

[Henry]

It's that sort of minutia that I absolutely love in a campaign.

When I was younger, I loved it too; now that I'm older, it's the kind of thing that, were I Eric Boyd, would have me saying, "You have got to be KIDDING me!"

I do agree with one thing, though: The FR's unique claim to fame is its extensive lore. I think it had a niche for that reason, and though I really don't necessarily find anything wrong with the 4e version, it DOES seem to have lost something to me in the revamp; it actually seems to have more in common with the Scarred Lands now than with FR as it was the past 20 years - the magically sundered landscapes, the warring factions, the chaotic feel to the religions, the dead gods, etc. The "lived in" feel doesn't seem as prevalent to me, probably because of the lack of support beyond the three books and the occasional article in DDI.

I think Eberron or Greyhawk does well with the tons of unsolved mysteries and blank spaces, but FR was useful for its different tactic of "here's the history of this one tavern in Waterdeep for the past five hundred years" feel to it.

 

[Novem5er]

I've often asked myself this same question, "what makes the Realms special?" Instead of directly answering, I'll share my experience with the realms. I wonder if other gamers have had similar experiences.

2e: Played in a few campaigns with the same group of players. They'd already been playing for 10 years, off and on, with a revolving set of characters. Their version of the Realms was pretty simple. They'd carved out a section of land near the Moonsea that they called their own, and they went on adventuring campaigns from there. We did Dragon Mountain (not an FR product), fought demons in Myth Drannor, and battled Zhent warbands on occasion. Most of our adventures were heavy on "in the moment" detail, but they did not rely heavily on history and politics.

These games were fun, but it's because the players WERE the power players in the area. We focused on such a small area of the Realms, that nobody really cared much about the Harpers or Elminster. The Realms were really just used as a backdrop canvas to give context to the immediate world around us. "What's over those mountains?... ah, okay, we should go there sometime."

3e: Some other friends bought the FRCG and we all flipped through it. OVERLOAD! We all liked it, and were impressed, but we never really got a campaign off the ground. Us younger group just weren't experienced enough to digest all the info in the book. Sure, we attempted to just pick an area and run with it, but we always got the feeling that weren't doing the world justice. I mean, you have this giant atlas in your hand and you're just going to ignore 90% of it? I was known as the DM of our younger group and I didn't want to touch the realms. We just played homebrew campaigns that had Realms elements, like the Underdark and some of the pantheon (which we were more familiar with than the pseudo-Grayhawk in the core books).

My OLD gaming group ignored 3e Realms b/c they already had so much 2e stuff. They updated their characters to 3e rules, but they never bought any of the new FR books. Why bother, other than to get up to date NPC stats... but they never used the big NPCs anyway!

4e: I broke down and bought the FR books. Why? Soley because of the Spellplague and the 100 year advancement. I have to be honest. I love a good apocolypse. I love when new artists create their own vision of an established brand. I loved the new Star Trek! RE: the Realms, I loved the idea of them killing off lots of high level NPCs. I loved the idea that the geography changed. I loved the design philosophy that less is more.

I started a campaign in Loudwater, just as the new FRCG suggests. We've been playing every week for 6 months now and, in fact, I even pulled in my old 2e buddies! One of them likes the new Realms, and the other one hates it... but she still likes the game. Her complaints usually center on "where's the detail?" But as we're playing, that usually isn't a problem. Reading the Realms and playing the realms are often two very different things.

Running FR in 4e? Hmm... sometimes frustrating when trying to build a story. Who the heck are the Phaerimm? The Gray Vale is a trade hub... but from where? None of the rivers connect to anything. If the Netherese just blew up Tilverton, why don't they just invade Cormyr or the Dales?

These aren't too important when playing an adventure, but it gets a little difficult when constructing stories. My players and I are all old enough now where simple dungeon crawls or "kill the bandits" just isn't fulfilling. On the PLUS side the new realms has a lot going for it:

• Open spaces! Kindom borders are really fuzzy now and most places aren't powerful enough to control/patrol every square mile they claim. Lots of places for me to write in little features and for players to carve out a place of their own.
• The PCs ARE the heroes! There are no, and I mean NO, good aligned super-heros NPC statted out in the book. Heck, there aren't but a few that are even mentioned! One of my old 2e players commented the other night "so evil is pretty much winning, huh?" That's where we come in, I responded.
• Lots of hooks. The 4e designers did a good job with providing a list of threats that will make a game feel like the Realms. Some of these threats are old (the Zhents), but even these are changed. My 2e player laughed outloud when she found out what happened to all the Red Wizards. "Serves 'em right!" she said. Even the "new" threats have a history to work with; the Shadovar and the Blue Flame all have roots in previous editions.

Now, the funny thing about the "editions wars" is this. I would not even be playing D&D right now if it weren't for 4e, and I certainly wouldn't have bought any new FR books. HOWEVER, now that we are 6 months into a campaign, are higher level, and want to make our mark on the world... I've been reading the older 3e and even 2e books to get more detail on the world! Our campaign is centering around the actions of the Netherse empire, and I've now spent countless hours reading the 2e Netheril campaing book, the 2e Anauroch book, and the 3e FRCG and other books.

See, the funny thing about the argument of 4e removing all the detail of the Realms is that... the lore is all there. It's just printed in old books that would cost WotC millions to reprint and try to sell. Yes, some stuff may have been invalidated or no longer usable (if a kingdom disappeared), but I'm using so much of the old material with just little twists. The Bedine are no longer desert nomads... but parts of their culture still remain.

So to answer the question of the thread. What's so special about the Realms? The detail that has been developed over 20 years, and is now boiled down into a core set of realms and bad guys. All the history is still there, but for me, now it's in a usable format that leaves room for the players to still uncover mysteries and become leaders and heroes.

 

[Orius]

What's so special about the Realms?

Ed Greenwood.

Man, he can write! Just the sheer amount of material he developed for the Realms is amazing, and to think it all happened organically as he ran his 1e campaign. I mean, just look at the histories he gave to various spellbooks and magic weapons and stuff over the years, they were all created or owned by various NPCs of note, but then he always makes sure the go missing or get stolen in a way that a DM can use it in his game. Or some of the other columns he's written for Dragon like Wyrms of the North in late 2e that described a bunch of powerful dragons, but made them all unique and interesting in their own ways.

And that's where the biggest strength and paradoxically weakness of Realms comes in: the detail. It's popular for the detail because a lot of DMs were either bad at making stuff up or simply didn't have the time, and here the Realms gives them all the material they need and more. It's a weakness because pre-4e it's a massive amount of stuff to absorb. Of all the official settings, if I were to run one, it would be the Realms, because it's one of the most accessible settings. But I'd focus on a specific area (with input from the players first), and I'd make it clear from the start this is my campaign, and I'm not necessarily going by all the novel continuity out there.

 

[rounser]

If I want a small generic setting where the PCs are the most important people around, I'd use Thunder Rift. (Which I am. Funny that.)

The ironic thing, to me, is that when the Forgotten Realms gets used in a novel, computer game, or one of Ed Greenwood's original campaigns, it's usually as a mini-setting like Thunder Rift. I mean, here's some off the top of my head:

Phlan and surroundings.
Baldurs Gate and the Sword Coast.
Athkatla and Amn.
The Moonshaes.
Waterdeep and the North.
Undermountain and the Yawning Portal.
Eveningstar and the Haunted Halls.
Shadowdale and Myth Drannor.
Raurin.
Neverwinter and that pirate city which is it's enemy.
Daggerford and the ruins of Illefarn
Icewind Dale/Ten Towns.
Damara and Vaasa.

Which I think puts this into perspective:

3e: Some other friends bought the FRCG and we all flipped through it. OVERLOAD! We all liked it, and were impressed, but we never really got a campaign off the ground. Us younger group just weren't experienced enough to digest all the info in the book. Sure, we attempted to just pick an area and run with it, but we always got the feeling that weren't doing the world justice. I mean, you have this giant atlas in your hand and you're just going to ignore 90% of it?

I'd suggest that you don't sell FR as one chunk, nor do you need a whole world to support a campaign/novel/CRPG. Perhaps you don't attack FR with the razor gang because it seems overwhelming, but see it for the way it gets used: as a series of semi-discrete mini-settings, and emphasise that they should be used in this way more than 1E and 2E did. But I guess it's a bit late for that now.

I don't think there's an easy answer to the Elminster/Khelben/Symbul/etc eclipsing the PCs perceived problem in FR (and no, killing them all off isn't an answer IMO) because archmagi are a key part of the appeal and identity of the place, and probably something to do with why it is popular. FR without it's archmages isn't FR at all, IMO. Crazy benign liches are more of an FR calling card than out-and-out goodies, but benificient archmages are part of it too.