Why *Dont* you like Forgotten Realms?

[Philosopher]

Really? Please provide me with the original Deities and Demigods entries for Mystra, Lathander, Cyric, Ao, Mask, and others.

Dragon Magazine #54 (Oct. '81), "Down-to-Earth Divinity", by Ed Greenwood. He describes how he made up his pantheon based on deities from Deities & Demigods. (Incidentally, he also appeals to Elminster the Sage, and mentions using a "Godswar" in which some gods are killed, others stripped of their power, new ones ascending, etc., in order to explain differences in moving from the D&D rules to the AD&D rules.) Some examples:

He explicitly says Azuth is a renamed Aarth (from the Nehwon - i.e., Fritz Leiber's - mythos. Bane is the equivalent of Druaga (from the Babylonian mythos). Loviatar and Mielikki are directly from the Finnish mythos (including the names). There are plenty of others that follow this pattern. Mystra seems to be his own creation (although he describes her as "a manifestation of the Cosmic Balance"), as do a few others.

 

[Diamond Cross]

The biggest thing that gets me about this is the claim of it being "too detailed of a setting".

Rubbish.

As a DM you have the option of picking what you like and throwing away what you don't like.

It does have a lot of information, but even at that it doesn't really restrain nor impair one's creativity when designing a campaign.

For example, who are the actual Lords of Waterdeep? There are families mentioned, but to my knowledge, no specific NPCs detailed. If you want, you can detail these NPCs as needed to your campaign.

And what if a Black Dragon actually likes humans and human companions? Who says a dragon has to be living in a cave somewhere? Maybe it's actually posing as a Cleric in a temple to Gond or Mystra? Maybe it actually has a large mansion right in the heart of Calimport?

Also, there's a lot of other places to go and see too.

Extremely little is known of Halruua. Maybe there's a rebellion going on there or a conflict between religion and magic? Who are its nobles and ruling class? Who are its enemies?

You don't like Elminster? Well, maybe it's just a legend, a myth, like Gilgamesh or Heracles. Maybe he just doesn't exist at all?

Don't like his stats? They break the rules? Well, change his stats so they reflect the actual rules. Or create your own powerful mage.

So on and so forth.

There is a lot of information for the Realms, but there's nothing that says you can't add your own ideas to the setting.

Having a lot of information on a setting restricts nothing. You can add whatever you like.

 

[Philosopher]

I'm finding the reasons for not liking the Realms interesting. Some don't like it because there's too much of a metaplot - others don't like it because it doesn't have a unifying theme. There seems to be a tension between these claims. I'm surprised that this isn't being debated.

I have some questions for those who find the Harpers too meddlesome. What do you think of the Circle of Eight that tries to maintain the Balance across the Flanaess? What do you think about the Wizards of High Sorcery who maintain control of magic throughout Ansalon and impose membership on all wizards?

There are things I don't care for about the Realms, but I still think it's a good setting. It has lots of good ideas, even if they're not implemented very well. But that poor implementation never really bothered me, because I never run a setting as it's presented, and I find it very odd that some people do. I try to keep it recognizable, of course - otherwise, there's no point to using a published setting. One thing I like to do is turn what's written in the books into myths and tall tales. For example, Elminster has a reputation for being a powerful wizard and being incredibly old, but perhaps he isn't really. People say the Harpers and the Zhentarim have a hand in almost everything that goes on, but that can be attributed to people's love for a good conspiracy (just as some think the Masons are controlling everything in the world today).

 

[Barastrondo]

I'm finding the reasons for not liking the Realms interesting. Some don't like it because there's too much of a metaplot - others don't like it because it doesn't have a unifying theme. There seems to be a tension between these claims. I'm surprised that this isn't being debated.

Man, I've done my time in the metaplot trenches (for something totally not D&D, mind), and I have to say, heavy metaplot does not necessarily connote a unifying theme. Metaplots by their very nature can easily spin out of control.

I have some questions for those who find the Harpers too meddlesome. What do you think of the Circle of Eight that tries to maintain the Balance across the Flanaess? What do you think about the Wizards of High Sorcery who maintain control of magic throughout Ansalon and impose membership on all wizards?

Again, I'm far more interested in a more martial-heavy approach to a campaign. However, I do like the idea of the Circle of Eight, because a) there are only eight of them, so if they're not treated as omnipotent, they're going to miss out on a lot of things, b) they're seriously fallible, having been gutted by treachery before, and c) they can play an adversarial role as well as a helping role, and thanks to b), that means that PCs can defy them in a way that proves interesting instead of just automatically losing. They seem eminently usable to me.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I can understand modules being called "railroady", but how does an entire setting get classified as "railroady"?

Powerful NPCs can be a railroading tool if they get in the PCs' faces. I'm not sure if this is encouraged in any FR materials or not.

These NPCs can also act as cavalry, riding to the rescue if the PCs get in over their heads. I believe Elminster is intended to serve this function. This isn't exactly railroading but it's not far off. It can annoy players if they feel they don't have 'freedom to fail'.

 

[Celebrim]

You do realize that when you say that, you need to back it up with something, right?

Thought I did. Clearly we have different perceptions.

Really? Please provide me with the original Deities and Demigods entries for Mystra, Lathander, Cyric, Ao, Mask, and others.

But this very carefully selected excerpt only serves to prove my point.

Tyr = Norse god Tyr.
Meilikki = Finnish goddess Meilikki
Tymora = Greek/Roman goddess Tyche
Akadi = Moorcock deity Lassa
Loviatar = Finnish goddes Loviatar
Oghma = Celtic hero-deity Oghma
Kossuth = Moorcock deity Kakatal
Sune = Greek deity Aphrodite
Silvanus = Celtic diety Silvanus
Ilmater = Leiber diety Issek of the Jug
Gruumbar = Moorcock deity Grome

And so on and so forth.

It's a bottom up pantheon composed of deities chosen out of the Deities and Demigods manual. I'm not sure thats even contriversial; it's a matter of historical record.

So, where do dieties like Mystra and Mask come from? They enter the pantheon because after Ed chooses his favorite 'god of Paladins', 'god of Druids', and 'god of Rangers' from the Deities and Demigods, he finds he lacks a 'god of Theives' and 'god of Magic-Users' with the simple portfolio he wants for each of his 'god of <class X>' buckets. So he creates deities like
Mystra to be the 'god of Magic' (which is kinda like being 'the god of Physics') and Mask to be the 'god of theives'.

Which is something the Greyhawk deities have yet to do.

Earlier you claimed the problem was I wasn't very familiar with the FR deities. Here I return the accusation to you.

So you think the Greyhawk gods were better developed because Heironeous and Hextor are brothers, is that it?

As a gross oversimplification, yes, yes I do. Although, once again, you keep substituting 'developed' (your point) for 'concieved' (my point). I freely admit much detail has been lavished on the Forgotten Realms. It has been my point all along that this has never served to make the setting particularly interesting.

But, back to the topic of family, it's that you can write sentences about the Greyhawk deities like:

"Berna is the third child of the serpent god Meyanok, transformed by the power of Xanag from a spirit of hate to one of passion. Her older siblings are Vara and Damaran. Her grandmother is Breeka and her great-grandmother is the sun goddess Nola, who was awakened by the creator god Uvot."

Which novel or sourcebook really outlined the multiple facets of Xerbo?

Here I must confess that if the multitude FR novels make the FR deities seem interesting, that I would have completely missed out on that. Sadly (or not), this situation is likely to persist and my opinion remain unchanged, because the few FR novels that were thrust upon me by eager friends proved to be almost wholly disappointing and in some cases rank with the worst fantasy fiction I've ever read. If it is your opinion that the FR novels make the FR deities and pantheon seem truly deep and interesting, then I can only take your word for it.

Beyond his portfolio, who is Phyton, really?

The incarnation of a very troubling philosophical question that remains throughly relevant to modern life, namely, "If nature is cruel and indifferent to man, is man's domination over nature a good thing, or is it merely destruction given a pretty face?" I'll leave it to the archivists and lore masters to dig up any instances of that being detailed in published works, but right off the bat reading his description I'd find him more interesting to include in my campaign world than any FR deity.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Some don't like it because there's too much of a metaplot - others don't like it because it doesn't have a unifying theme. There seems to be a tension between these claims.

I don't think there's any tension there. Just because the world contains fantasy ancient Egypt and fantasy middle ages Arabic nations and fantasy medieval France and fantasy Celtic Britain* doesn't mean the gods can't come down from heaven, wreck all of them and change the laws of magic again.

*This is something I have no problem with, I like kitchen sink.

 

[IronWolf]

Powerful NPCs can be a railroading tool if they get in the PCs' faces. I'm not sure if this is encouraged in any FR materials or not.

These NPCs can also act as cavalry, riding to rescue if the PCs get in over their heads. I believe Elminster is intended to serve this function. This isn't exactly railroading but it's not far off. It can annoy players if they feel they don't have 'freedom to fail'.

Yes, they could be used as such. I don't think they are intended to be used as such though. Or at least I can say I do not use them as such in campaigns I run.

I wonder how much is attributed to faults of the campaign setting when things such as these are more likely a difference in DMing styles and such? While I DM FR in a very non-railroady, non-"look at all these powerful NPCs" type of way perhaps other DMs are using these same NPCs in a much more overhanded manner souring people's impressions to the setting.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As a DM you have the option of picking what you like and throwing away what you don't like.

But isn't that true of anything? In talking about what we like/don't like about the Realms we have to refer to the published texts, not our home versions. If there's a lot in the text that's objectionable then that's a bad product.

 

[Odhanan]

1. Do you avoid Forgotten Realms products?

4e FR products, yes. Other FR products, not really, though I'm not running FR at the moment.

2. Do you like either Pre or Post spellplague only, and if so which one and why?

I prefer Grey Box FR. Pre-Times of Trouble. I'm okay with 3rd ed FR. The rest I can do without. I like the Grey Box because it's the most open, sandbox iteration of FR. It's free of uber-powerful NPCs, narrativist bent, metaplot BS, and it's just an amazing setting. 3rd ed FR is by contrast extremely detailed, shock-full of ideas, and yet still open in many ways. The rest is just crap, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm opposed to metaplots. Opposed to modifications of settings through in-world events just to fit the new edition of the game, whatever that is. Sick of novels dictating the future of the setting. All that stuff goes through the window with me. There's no such thing as "canon" as far as RPG settings are concerned, to me. Otherwise I just don't run said setting.

3. What Don't you like about Forgotten Realms?

See above.