Well, I'd hardly say "a lot"; Lady Hooded One has indeed described Ed's campaigns occasionally, but not that often. And yet (to my knowledge) she's the only player who has done so publicly. In all my years on that forum I've seen only a handful of longer descriptions featuring gameplay and plots -- it's more or less short comments (added into Ed's replies) like "We Knights have met this NPC twice, and one of these times took place at a masquerade and another time we glimpsed him flying over the rooftops of Suzail at a distance" (to give a crude example).
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Why *Dont* you like Forgotten Realms?
- Thread starter Sylrae
- Start date
- Status
Well, I'd hardly say "a lot"; Lady Hooded One has indeed described Ed's campaigns occasionally, but not that often. And yet (to my knowledge) she's the only player who has done so publicly. In all my years on that forum I've seen only a handful of longer descriptions featuring gameplay and plots -- it's more or less short comments (added into Ed's replies) like "We Knights have met this NPC twice, and one of these times took place at a masquerade and another time we glimpsed him flying over the rooftops of Suzail at a distance" (to give a crude example).
Well, speaking for myself, the reason I brought up Piers Anthony was because he is a much more respected author than a "gaming writer" like Ed Greenwood, and from what little I read of his work, he was a little more overt in sexual references than anything I read in Greenwood's novels, and I never heard Anthony attacked for that stuff. I certainly don't think comparing one novelist to another is "weird equivalence".
And to be fair, some of this is implied rather than overtly mentioned. The whole "opening sequence" of the FOR1 to me--at least when I read it, I never got the vibe that Elminster was in a relationship with that Drow woman, that all they were doing was talking.
I still want to know how having a detailed setting becomes fully detailed and extremely restrictive to creativity.
There is no such thing as fully detailed. No setting restricts a person's creativity.
Because if it were fully detailed, the Realms would fill up dozens of reams of paper.
For example, with Waterdeep large portions of it are empty for DMs to put what buildings they want there. If it were fully detailed it would be:
Each and every single building
Each and every single person inside the building
An illustration of the building
An illustration of each and every single person in the building.
Each and every single item in the building, from the most mundane to the most magical.
An illustration of each and every single item.
Each and every single piece of clothing.
Each and every single piece of furniture .
An illustration of each and every single piece of clothing and furniture.
Every single item that has been misplaced and where it is misplace.
The color of every single item piece of furniture, and clothing.
And all inscriptions on what piece of item, including details such as this is a salad fork and this fork was made to be used with the main course.
Who each of the craftsmen were who made each and every single one of those items.
How many articles of clothing for each person within the building. The color of the clothes.
Jewelry.
Each and every single hiding space and nook and cranny.
Stats for all people within the building.
Five page histories for each people in the buildings, including newborn children less than a few days old.
The architecture of the building.
The paint of the building.
The art of the building (such as gargoyle heads) and each of the artisans who made them where the artisans are located, even in another country, and their stats.
The paint of the building, who made the paint, who painted the building.
The enchantments in or on the building, and the people, and each and every single item.
The lawn and the grounds around the building.
And all of this full details for each and every single building in Waterdeep.
Oh, and of course there must be the disclaimer:
You do not have any permission to change any single detail on any single page. Doing so is a breach of copyright protection laws.
The FBI and Interpol investigates all claims of copyright laws and any violation requires a mandatory ten years in jail per violation and a $50,000 per violation.
So how does a detailed setting restrict creativity?
There is no such thing as fully detailed. No setting restricts a person's creativity.
Because if it were fully detailed, the Realms would fill up dozens of reams of paper.
For example, with Waterdeep large portions of it are empty for DMs to put what buildings they want there. If it were fully detailed it would be:
Each and every single building
Each and every single person inside the building
An illustration of the building
An illustration of each and every single person in the building.
Each and every single item in the building, from the most mundane to the most magical.
An illustration of each and every single item.
Each and every single piece of clothing.
Each and every single piece of furniture .
An illustration of each and every single piece of clothing and furniture.
Every single item that has been misplaced and where it is misplace.
The color of every single item piece of furniture, and clothing.
And all inscriptions on what piece of item, including details such as this is a salad fork and this fork was made to be used with the main course.
Who each of the craftsmen were who made each and every single one of those items.
How many articles of clothing for each person within the building. The color of the clothes.
Jewelry.
Each and every single hiding space and nook and cranny.
Stats for all people within the building.
Five page histories for each people in the buildings, including newborn children less than a few days old.
The architecture of the building.
The paint of the building.
The art of the building (such as gargoyle heads) and each of the artisans who made them where the artisans are located, even in another country, and their stats.
The paint of the building, who made the paint, who painted the building.
The enchantments in or on the building, and the people, and each and every single item.
The lawn and the grounds around the building.
And all of this full details for each and every single building in Waterdeep.
Oh, and of course there must be the disclaimer:
You do not have any permission to change any single detail on any single page. Doing so is a breach of copyright protection laws.
The FBI and Interpol investigates all claims of copyright laws and any violation requires a mandatory ten years in jail per violation and a $50,000 per violation.
So how does a detailed setting restrict creativity?
I've pulled back from making from that particular claim, since other people have made the legitimate point that Ed Greenwood should be treated with the same respect as a poster on this board.
I do, however, stand by my statement that his descriptions of the sex lives of major Realms characters--like the post linked to a couple pages back--often come across as, well, ick. And that has nothing to do with how much sex they contain, and everything to do with how it's portrayed... more precisely, how the people having the sex are portrayed.
For all I know, Ed Greenwood set out to achieve that effect on purpose. Maybe it's a very sophisticated condemnation of society's stereotypes about gamers. Regardless, it adds that tiny little bit of ick-by-association to the Realms, to top off the much more significant reasons I dislike the setting.
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?
I'm saying that before you make an argument based on the premise that people think X is icky but Y is perfectly fine, it's wise to find out people's opinion of Y.
And you can post whatever you want; you just may get snarked at for it. This is the Internet, after all.
Last edited:
Nevermind, not worth it.
Last edited:
Come on, let's not make this about Ed himself, let's just keep to the original topic.
I like most campaigns outside of FR and Greyhawk. But let's hit my homebrew.
Religious is ambniguous - no tiresome Hellenistic pantheon. Kingdoms all have their quirks and their cultures are largely based on real life ones - no "I can't believe it's not Tolkien!" elves. The setting is largely uncivilized and there's no small amount of wilderness and old ruins of a bygone and more powerful era - and there's a good reason for them being there, too. There's full societal advancement throughout history. There are no "good" or "evil" countries - everyone is doing what they feel is best, even if it involves doing something horrible. The setting is low magic civilization with high magic "outside;" no archmages and high clerics in every village. The adventurers aren't just random yahoos that are prolific for no given reason, there's an active and politically involved guild of explorers. There IS a theme, and it's very 1600's Age of Discovery based.
Everything I mentioned here is the opposite of what it's like in Forgotten Realms.
Player expectations mainly. Many posters have complained about the annoyance of having players who know the Realms better than they do, and the constant clash of expectations that results. Once you start changing stuff, you're asking these players to keep two separate models of the Realms in their heads--the "canon" Realms and your version--and inevitably they're going to get mixed up.
It's not a problem I've had to deal with, at least not in this context, but I can easily imagine how it would happen.
If I had to guess, Ed's primary motivation for implying that FR characters are sexually active, even experimenting with or preferring partners of the same sex, probably has more to do showing that they're "real" people than writing about his sexual fantasies. I don't think Ed was trying to shock readers or make a statement; rather, I believe he just wanted to add another "layer" of believability to these characters and the world.
I'm an adult, and sexually active in RL, and my characters have occasionally had sex in RPGs, too; therefore I don't see it as an issue, really. And it's not as if Ed Greenwood is the only fantasy author whose books contain implications of sex; even Pratchett's Discworld novels do. So far I haven't seen a single passage in Ed's novels that I would call "icky", so I cannot fathom why you're making such a big deal out of it, especially as you claim to dislike the setting for more significant reasons.
- Status
Similar Threads
