Why *Dont* you like Forgotten Realms?

[jeffh]

FR's deities, imho, were much more one-dimensional (at least in their initial incarnation). Greyhawk's pantheons- because there are several- seem to have a lot more depth to me. But that may well be because of my personal affection for GH vs. my personal antipathy towards FR.

Have you looked at any of the FR products specifically dedicated to the deities? Faiths & Avatars and its two sequels (for 2E) in particular just seem obviously to be best-of-breed, at least to me. I can't imagine giving those a read and still calling FR deities "underdeveloped".

(Especially compared to Greyhawk ones - who do you have to kill to get any information about them? Some people seem to know a lot about them but I can't for the life of me figure out where that information actually comes from.)

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I bought the old 1e boxed set back in the 80s because a friend of mine raved about it. It was ok, but thought it didn't hold a candle to Greyhawk.

I bought the 3e version because of its production values - it's a work of art. But I don't like the world it describes. There's too much of everything in FR. I stole some feats, spells and prestige classes - thinking about it, maybe I wouldn't have bought it if there hadn't been such a dearth of 3e books when it was released.

I've never read an FR novel, and never will, so have no opinion on backstory, canon etc. and no attachment to continuity.

 

[karolusb]

No.

The number of realm shattering events can be frustrating. But I can work around those by simply playing in my preferred era. With so many territories and regions to play in it is easy to stay in the era you want and change the feel of the game.

The level of detail to some areas is a bit over the top. This is still relatively easily worked around by setting things in lesser known areas, advising players that you may not follow canon exactly or simply focusing the campaign on a more finite area or topic.

Issue 1:
So here I am, poor teenager, and a box set with the most beautiful maps I have ever seen comes out. I am poor (two years earlier AFDC poor), but I wrangle up what money I can and buy it. I was awesome. A brief sketch of a large world with beautiful (if horribly conceived) maps. Nice pantheons, a mix of the old and new etc.

Oh wait, shortly thereafter they kill half the gods, "break" magic, kingdoms change without so much as a nod to the products I have already shelled out for. I am not talking over 20 years, I am talking about the first 2.

Issue 2:
I hate Elminster. Yep hate him, hate the Harpers et. al.. At the end of the day FR appealed (if only briefly) to adolescent me. Some guy got to publish the setting where his character was a godlike figure. It was juvenile wish fulfillment at it's best. Not for me of course (unless I was GMing), but for some other guy.

As an adult, my characters have flaws, and so it annoys me when Greenwood's don't.

All that said I play FR if that it what is run. Heck I recently ran a game that was nominally FR. Bloodstone, though the original implies it is in Greyhawk, by the third in the series they had firmly retconned into FR, and one of the players was really excited that it was FR for their back-story (I didn't care, just needed a good map of Damara). I am just disillusioned with it. I wouldn't spend money on it, wouldn't dig out my old materials to really delve into it.

 

[Aldarc]

I do not hate FR, but I do dislike it. But where to start? People have already enumerated a fair amount of my problems with FR in this thread. So how about a thought experiment?

Q: How would you go about describing the setting of Dark Sun?
Re: Most people are quickly able to identify its primary features: dying world, harsh deserts, survival, tyrannical sorcerer-kings, defiling arcane magic, city-states, slavery, post-apocalyptic fantasy.

Q: How would you go about describing the setting of Eberron?
Re: Again, people only vaguely familiar with the setting will quickly list the prevalence of magic and magical technology, pulp noir, Last War, draconic prophecy, dragonmarks (and families), warforged, etc.

Q: How would you go about describing the setting of Ravenloft?
Re: Again, you will probably hear something about gothic/Victorian fantasy, lords of dread, mists, vampires, dark, terror.

Q: How would you go about describing the setting of Planescape?
Re: Probably philosophically-based factions, Sigil - a city of doors, planes and portals, metropolitan city filled with all races and monsters.

Q: Now, how would you go about describing the setting of Forgotten Realms?
Re: While FR enthusiasts may be able to perform this task, I have all too frequently encountered gamers, among friends and gaming strangers in gaming shops, who find the question challenging - even among people who claim to love FR. Even those I know who hate the first four examples were able to quickly identify the key themes, features, and flavor that unites the setting. Eberron is also a kitchen sink setting, but its central themes unites the world setting and gives these kitchen sink elements a focus.

IMO, Forgotten Realms lacks anything in particular that makes it stand out as a setting. While FR fans can tell me a thousand ways that I am wrong, it will probably do little to change my perception, because there are so many other things about the setting that turn my interest away. It is far too generic of a kitchen sink fantasy setting. It tries to do too much all at once - have every race and culture - and spreads itself thin in the process. The setting lacks unity. The world feels haphazardly assembled of various parts and lacking in focus. Through the reception history of FR, it sought to appeal to as many fans as possible by including as much as possible. "Let's put generic fantasy Asia land over here. Generic fantasy Mesoamerica over here. Generic fantasy ancient Egypt over here." And so on. FR apologetics in this thread have listed reasons why this is the case, but that does not absolve FR of the problem.

 

[S'mon]

2. The 'FR style' city maps give me the eye-twitch. Their buildings never touch each other, etc.

Aagh, yes - this is a big problem with a lot of fantasy-RPG cities though, not just FR. I experienced it with the Endhome City map when running Lost City of Barakus from Necromancer, I had to just mentally redraw it.

There are exceptions - TSR's Lankhmar set, Judges' Guild City State of the Invincible Overlord - but many more that have the suburban 'garden city' look like 2e TSR Greyhawk.

 

[Bluenose]

Have you looked at any of the FR products specifically dedicated to the deities? Faiths & Avatars and its two sequels (for 2E) in particular just seem obviously to be best-of-breed, at least to me. I can't imagine giving those a read and still calling FR deities "underdeveloped".

(Especially compared to Greyhawk ones - who do you have to kill to get any information about them? Some people seem to know a lot about them but I can't for the life of me figure out where that information actually comes from.)

Compare them to the treatment of religion in Book of the Righteous, Cults of Prax, Storm Clan, Harnmaster Gods, or even Faiths of Eberron. You will, I suspect, not feel quite the same way about them.

 

[Bluenose]

reported

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

I dislike how much of the setting is already mapped out and broadly familiar to most D&D players. That makes it great for computer games and novelizations, but for my style of play, I need to be able to make more stuff up on the fly. In a homebrew world, or any setting that has less material nailed down, I can just plop a sprawling metropolis down anywhere I like. If a player makes a character dedicated to eradicating the undead, I can put a kingdom run by a lich right next door. I can't really do that in the Realms.

yup, same here.

I LOVED the 1st "grey" boxed set for the Realms, gorgeous art, layout, made it feel a "wild open world", still think it's one of the best RPG products, ever

then BOOM! it all got "Elminsterized" to death, ugh! Mapped, explained, no mystery, so urbanized...bah!!
oddly I don't mind it as a "Player" but I HATE it as a DM.

"Player" alas, I rarely ever get to be a player as I'm perpetual DM, so I ger to be a "player" on the computer in Baldurs Gate etc.

 

[DragonLancer]

I have ran games in FR and been a player for FR campaigns, and I don't mind the setting as it is. The only aspect of FR that finally I grew tired off was the sheer size of it. The intitial western side of the continent was ok, but then over time you had Kara-Tur, Zakhara, Maztica... etc. It just seemed far too big. Obviously you never had to use all of it but it felt like too much of an expansion.

 

[CapnVan]

Aagh, yes - this is a big problem with a lot of fantasy-RPG cities though, not just FR. I experienced it with the Endhome City map when running Lost City of Barakus from Necromancer, I had to just mentally redraw it.

There are exceptions - TSR's Lankhmar set, Judges' Guild City State of the Invincible Overlord - but many more that have the suburban 'garden city' look like 2e TSR Greyhawk.

This may also be a necessity of the printing process. If you look at the color city map in, for example, FR1 Waterdeep, you'll see that the buildings are definitely touching one another, as they might be expected to in a big, crowded city.

But on a number of other maps, they're not. On the other hand, on a lot of those other maps, like FR Adventures, they're being printed in one color. In order to distinguish the building from each other, you need to leave some space between them - otherwise it would look like they're all one building per block.

But I don't think they're always meant to be taken literally that way, that there are spaces between each and every building.