Why *Dont* you like Forgotten Realms?

[Aldarc]

Other worlds. In 2E the multiverse was vast with multiple prime material worlds. The interloper deities were largely multispheric deities worshipped in more than one crystal sphere; they simply chose to expand their sphere of influence to Toril since belief=power as explained in Planescape supplements. Moreover many of the current people of Faerun were actually not people of Faerun; the elves, dwarves, grey orcs, likely the gnomes and multiple human populations (the Calishites both human and halfling, the Untheri and Mulhorandi) are all transplanted or invading populations from a different crystal sphere that also brought with them the worship of their deities.

Moreover the many human populations of Toril created their own pantheons over tens of thousands of years. Human were one of the creator races of faerun, present since the time of the Sarrukh and spread over the supercontinent and later continents with little contact. Yet it is documented that they all worshipped hosts of tribal spirits and possessed at least a semplance of divine and arcane lore (the compilation and codification of such lore being in part the nether scrolls). Within tens of thousands of years many of those divinities became part of small local pantheons. Spheres of influence of these pantheons; primarily the Illuskan, Tethyrian, Chondathan and Netherese ones were restricted in the location of their worshippers beyond the few common deities across pantheons that were there since the creation of the world (Chauntea, Shar, Selune and several deities that were created as a result of Shar and Selune's war such as Mystryl but also Tempus and others).

I would allege that the many diverse pantheons did not dissolve the boundaries of their spheres of influence until relatively recently in FR history as a result of the Dawn Cataclysm and Lathander's machinations. Likely those sphere had been dilluted earlier still because of the many human migration waves, particularly of the netherese and chondathan peoples, the latter of which had a tradition of religious missionaries.

I was actually vaguely aware of these racial migrations, and that deities came from other worlds. But that is the central problem. When many of these interloper deities have been directly lifted from our real world mythology? Yeah, that invalidates my sense of believability and internal consistency.

 

[Philosopher]

Mainly it's a matter of having a coherent theme and flavor that define the setting.

Dark Sun is an excellent example. The theme of Dark Sun is a brutal struggle for life in a dying world, where the tradeoffs people make to survive only hasten the downward spiral. All sorts of elements feed into that theme. You have city-states where tyrant sorceror-kings offer protection and subsistence in exchange for abject servitude. You have arenas where gladiators kill each other to pacify the masses. You have desperate shortages of water, metal, food, knowledge. You have magic that rips the very life from the earth.

(It's noteworthy that the Prism Pentad and the revised boxed set shifted Dark Sun away from this theme and toward a more traditional save-the-world epic fantasy, which is part of why those changes were so reviled.)

Or take Planescape. In Planescape, the dominant theme is philosophy-as-physical-reality; the way you view the world shapes the world. On the most basic level, there's the Great Wheel of the planes, in which each alignment is embodied as a vast planar realm. Then on top of that are the factions, groups of fanatical philosophers with powers that arise from those philosophies. All of this comes together in Sigil, where the Lady of Pain creates a kind of neutral zone for planar beings and faction members to engage one another without waging all-out war.

Thanks, that's helpful.

Personally, while I like settings that have an overarching theme, I sometimes like settings that don't have one. The real world doesn't have a single theme, so that makes the setting somewhat more "realistic". Now, I understand that "realism" may not always be desirable, so I can totally understand why some may not care for this style. But I kinda like a setting where specific locations have their own theme, even if there's no single theme for the whole setting. That way, I get to have different styles of adventure in the same world. Again, though, I can appreciate why not everyone would find this a draw.

 

[Philosopher]

I think any homebrew would include "personalization" and "investment" as things that any published setting would lack. Even if a game would appear little different from the FR to a truly independent observer, those two things change the enjoyment level intensely.

To reiterate, I've nothing against the Realms; I simply prefer homebrew, and make some different choices. But if specific points of variation are useful data, then:

- More focus on the martial, less focus on the arcane. Wizards and their ilk can be interesting characters for sure, but overall they have no particular positions of prominence in the overall setting's themes.

- Deities draw power from what they represent, not from worship. The god of justice grows stronger if abject agnostics or even atheists act to further justice, or grows weaker if zealous worshippers spread injustice throughout the land and call it "justice."

- No deities of mortal origin. Purely personal preference.

- Not as much emphasis on some of the more gently romantic thematic elements. Elves and cats and silver and moonlight and bardic music and things like that. I totally respect their inclusion, and am not trying to be contemptuous here: I think it's awesome that a fantasy world can go for that romantic side. But most of my players (including my wife) are more dwarf-metal or gnoll-tribal than elf-lyricism at heart.

- More customized monster palettes. I don't really use beholders, mind flayers or drow, for instance, and I like "gnome" to mean "earth elemental."

Very interesting. FWIW, I sometimes like exactly the sort of thing you describe, but at other times I'm in the mood for the opposite.

That raises another interesting question. How many people tend to like one specific style for all of their campaigns, and how many (like me) like to run/play in different campaigns with widely different feels? I guess those who like one specific theme may be less likely to enjoy the Realms.

 

[Barastrondo]

Very interesting. FWIW, I sometimes like exactly the sort of thing you describe, but at other times I'm in the mood for the opposite.

That raises another interesting question. How many people tend to like one specific style for all of their campaigns, and how many (like me) like to run/play in different campaigns with widely different feels? I guess those who like one specific theme may be less likely to enjoy the Realms.

Both. (Helpful, aren't I?)

The main reason I run a kitchen-sink world is that I can zoom in to any point and change the major themes of a campaign dramatically while retaining the themes of the world as a whole. I can up the incidence of wizards or elves by focusing on an area where they're more common, for instance, but I don't have to model the whole world around the idea that they're dominant.

The things I mention above are sufficiently important to me that I prefer them in any D&D game I play, but within those parameters I'm still running three different games off and on: a swashbuckler inspired by Renaissance Italy, a weird fantasy game in a Gormenghast-like city cut off from the Outside, and a gothic horror-themed fantasy a la Ravenloft and Castlevania. I find them sufficiently different that it's delightful swapping between them, but I also enjoy the continuity that comes from them all being expressions of the same overall world.

 

[Aldarc]

Thanks, that's helpful.

Personally, while I like settings that have an overarching theme, I sometimes like settings that don't have one. The real world doesn't have a single theme, so that makes the setting somewhat more "realistic". Now, I understand that "realism" may not always be desirable, so I can totally understand why some may not care for this style. But I kinda like a setting where specific locations have their own theme, even if there's no single theme for the whole setting. That way, I get to have different styles of adventure in the same world. Again, though, I can appreciate why not everyone would find this a draw.

I would expect that appeals to a number of different people for whatever reasons. I just find that settings need a particular spin that makes them unique or standout amongst others, especially other generic fantasy settings. A flavor or theme that pushes the setting forward. Eberron has different sub-themes across the planet depending upon the region and the continent, many regions often emphasizing a different style of play. But it still has over-arching themes that unify the feel and flavor of the setting. My first post in this thread answered your original question regarding the Realms lack of a unifying theme.

 

[Nymrohd]

I was actually vaguely aware of these racial migrations, and that deities came from other worlds. But that is the central problem. When many of these interloper deities have been directly lifted from our real world mythology? Yeah, that invalidates my sense of believability and internal consistency.

I will not disagree. During 2E FR suffered badly when TSR starting transplanting real world cultures to Toril. Even worse, 3E did not really translate those regions. Still more, about a dozen real world pantheons were transplanted into Planescape. The thing is that with the exception of Mulhorand (who uses the Egyptian Pantheon and part of its common mythology) most of the interloper deities of Faerun are well grounded in the Realms and barely related to their real world mythos. Of course there is a matter of nomenclature which is very important in all works of fantasy. But then again FR after the grey box has always been so huge that there cannot be consistency.

 

[Primal]

I would suggest reading the dozens of posts complaining about Elminster, instead of trying to read my mind over the internet.

I'm well aware that many who criticize FR think that Elminster is stealing the spotlight from the PCs and/or been overused as a protagonist. However, again I want to emphasize that it was TSR's (and WoTC's) decision to use Elminster as a "figurehead" for the Realms -- I doubt Ed would have made him as prominent if it had been his call. Also, you *did* kind of imply that if Volo had Elminster's contacts and powers, that alone would make him "overused".

You see, disliking the Realms and Elminster the character is fine by me; but when people make claims such as "Elminster is Ed Greenwood's alter ego!" or "Elminster is Ed Greenwood's DMPC!" (and I'm not saying *you* did, but others surely have on this thread), I get annoyed. What do we know of Ed's personality or his campaigns?

If it wasn't enough, some people equate Elminster's "conquests" and implications of sex in FR novels to Ed being a lecherous pervert -- and most of them haven't even met the guy. To all such posters I wish to say this: read a few of the most popular manga titles; I've pretty much read all sorts of literature, but I feel uncomfortable with a lot of the stuff in them. Even many of the teenager/young adult titles seem to feature not-so-subtle implications of sex (or at least the willingness for sex) between older men and young girls -- some of which are *minors*. And this is not some obscure hardcore titles I'm talking about; for example GTO and Naruto feature such content. However, I don't think that it tells anything about the authors' own sexual preferences or fantasies, but I *do* think it makes sexual scenes and implications in FR novels seem timid in comparison.

 

[Dausuul]

If it wasn't enough, some people equate Elminster's "conquests" and implications of sex in FR novels to Ed being a lecherous pervert -- and most of them haven't even met the guy. To all such posters I wish to say this: read a few of the most popular manga titles; I've pretty much read all sorts of literature, but I feel uncomfortable with a lot of the stuff in them. Even many of the teenager/young adult titles seem to feature not-so-subtle implications of sex (or at least the willingness for sex) between older men and young girls -- some of which are *minors*. And this is not some obscure hardcore titles I'm talking about; for example GTO and Naruto feature such content. However, I don't think that it tells anything about the authors' own sexual preferences or fantasies, but I *do* think it makes sexual scenes and implications in FR novels seem timid in comparison.

What is it with the weird equivalences? First Piers Anthony, now manga... "The ickiness of Elminster's sex life is okay because this other thing is worse?"

You should at least confirm that other people are not repulsed by your topic of comparison before using it as an argument. In my case, I'm not a manga fan and not particularly interested in becoming one; but were I to encounter the kind of stuff you're talking about, my reaction would depend entirely on how these older man/young girl relationships are portrayed. If the portrayal is more or less realistic, then okay. If it's some creepily idealized fantasy, it may or may not be the author's personal fantasy, but even if it's not--ick.

 

[Nymrohd]

I'm well aware that many who criticize FR think that Elminster is stealing the spotlight from the PCs and/or been overused as a protagonist. However, again I want to emphasize that it was TSR's (and WoTC's) decision to use Elminster as a "figurehead" for the Realms -- I doubt Ed would have made him as prominent if it had been his call. Also, you *did* kind of imply that if Volo had Elminster's contacts and powers, that alone would make him "overused".

You see, disliking the Realms and Elminster the character is fine by me; but when people make claims such as "Elminster is Ed Greenwood's alter ego!" or "Elminster is Ed Greenwood's DMPC!" (and I'm not saying *you* did, but others surely have on this thread), I get annoyed. What do we know of Ed's personality or his campaigns?

If it wasn't enough, some people equate Elminster's "conquests" and implications of sex in FR novels to Ed being a lecherous pervert -- and most of them haven't even met the guy. To all such posters I wish to say this: read a few of the most popular manga titles; I've pretty much read all sorts of literature, but I feel uncomfortable with a lot of the stuff in them. Even many of the teenager/young adult titles seem to feature not-so-subtle implications of sex (or at least the willingness for sex) between older men and young girls -- some of which are *minors*. And this is not some obscure hardcore titles I'm talking about; for example GTO and Naruto feature such content. However, I don't think that it tells anything about the authors' own sexual preferences or fantasies, but I *do* think it makes sexual scenes and implications in FR novels seem timid in comparison.

Kinda have to add that we do know a lot about Ed's campaign since his players have discussed it at Candlekeep quite often. And he does use his NPCs quite liberally (Storm more than El from what I gather).

 

[Primal]

What is it with the weird equivalences? First Piers Anthony, now manga... "The ickiness of Elminster's sex life is okay because this other thing is worse?"

Well, I don't think if I would personally call Elminster's sex life "icky"; besides, no Realms novels have actually described or portrayed sex in a realistic fashion so far, at least to my knowledge.

I threw in the comparison because I think it's a valid argument to consider contemporary literature and its phenomena -- and how they portray sex -- before judging anyone based on fiction they've written. Again, if we consider what some of the stuff what kids and young adults read these days, it makes FR novels timid in comparison. And it's not just literature; movies, games, Internet etcetera all influence our perceptions. For instance, if I were to write an essay on, say, sex in RPGs, I'd *have* to observe how sex is portrayed in other mediums of the contemporay popular cultural as well -- and how these other mediums influence and are related to RPGs. And in that context I'd say Elminster's sex life is, well, nothing spectacularly shocking (apart from the young girl/older man thing, but even that is more or less hinted at and not described vividly).

I said it before and I say it again: I've personally met authors whose books include pretty gross scenes featuring sex and violence, even though they're just ordinary people and not some sick, lecherous monsters. Look, I'm fine if someone says he/she thinks FR novels contain too much sex; however, it's not okay to claim that you don't like FR because the books reflect author X's own sexual fantasies.

You should at least confirm that other people are not repulsed by your topic of comparison before using it as an argument. In my case, I'm not a manga fan and not particularly interested in becoming one; but were I to encounter the kind of stuff you're talking about, my reaction would depend entirely on how these older man/young girl relationships are portrayed. If the portrayal is more or less realistic, then okay. If it's some creepily idealized fantasy, it may or may not be the author's personal fantasy, but even if it's not--ick.

Pardon, but I don't get your first sentence... should I ask everyone if it's okay to talk about sex in graphic novels? Not to be condescending, but do you feel it's okay that some people may freely post about sex in FR novels and how it supposedly reflect's Ed's own sexual perversions, but I cannot post a counterargument about how sex is portrayed in contemporary comicbook industry?