D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Demetrios1453]

So, since this is apparently supposed to be restricted to what I hate about the Realms...

I hate that starting as early as 2e they started dumping any and every "cool idea" into the Realms. It greatly diluted the feel of the setting, and only got worse as time went on. Every supplement in 3.x had new races and classes. Some of the classes were OK, but the races just get annoying because adding another intelligent race to the mix and pretending that it always existed alters the relations and relationships of the cultures, politics, etc.

4e, of course, went much, much farther. I could handle the Spellplague (seems appropriate enough for what the Realms had become), but didn't like the jump forward 100 years. Floating islands and stuff was OK, but returned Abeir was wrong on so many levels. Reworking the planes and the gods to match all the core of 4e was a big miss. Oh, and the big holes in the ground and the other changes in geography. And eladrin. How I hate eladrin. And dragonborn. And tieflings.

Many of the novels suck. Poor writing, poor stories, very poor adherence to the physics and nature of a D&D world, and too many epic "save the world" adventures. There are some gems out there, but the glut of mediocrity wasn't limited to the supplements.

Sembia. In the OGB it was specifically stated they would never populate or describe Sembia besides the outline in the OGB because it was left for the DMs home campaign. And then it wasn't. Perhaps it was too close to Cormyr and the Dalelands to leave untouched?

The changing geography in general. The 4e changes were one thing. But the 3e map rearranged things to fit on one page, and condensed them so travel distances were all screwed up.

Too many reprints. Much (50%+?) of the material in 3e was 1e + Volo's Guides reprinted. The 2e stuff was mostly cut and paste from the 1e stuff. I get that it needed to be updated to the new rules, but one of the advantages of the FR supplements in 1e is that there isn't a whole lot of crunch. So most of the fluff has been printed at least 3 times. Waterdeep more than that probably.

Too many cooks. This isn't a problem relegated to the Realms. Lots of people came and went at TSR, and of course there was the move to WotC. But Greenwood has always been available, and writes prolifically (more like vomits forth lore copiously). I'm sure there was stuff to deal with contracts, and such. But that was a huge miss in my book.

Reworking the Realms as the default setting. I had forgotten that when 3e came out, Greyhawk was the default setting again. Well, it was never the official default setting, but since AD&D was Gygax, everything matched his world at the time. I just think Greyhawk makes the better default (I won't say generic) setting because of that. Had they maintained that, perhaps 4e wouldn't have screwed up the Realms so much.

Inconsistency in presentations. I like things like different currencies for different countries, regions, city-states, etc. It makes sense to me. Ancient coins lie in ancient tombs. That sort of thing. They were/are very inconsistent about those sorts of things over the years. This is another problem in D&D publications as a whole, where they haven't maintained a consistent presentation within an edition. So if you're going to list the coins of a given realm in one supplement, do it for the realms in another supplement.

Every damn thing in the 4e FRPG. No wait, there's a picture on pg. 48 that I love. Probably a couple of others.

Arcane Age. And Under Illefarn. Under Illefarn was released before the OGB if I recall. They provided information for the rulership of Daggerford. Conan and Sonja. Really. The supplement was pretty good, but that was just absurd. The Netheril box set (part of Arcane Age), had silly names and a lot of poor writing. The idea is that the past was a period of much greater magic (10th level and greater spells!), and that many of the dungeons found today are from that era. A real wasted opportunity.

The Horde. Maztica. Anything to do with Spelljammer in FR.

Anauroch is both amazingly cool, and a lost opportunity dumping the Bedine in there (although a greenwood written supplement, I'm still convinced he was told to do the Bedine). The coverage of the culture is really good, but has no business there. If anything it would have worked OK in Raurin.

I'm on the fence with Old Empires. The use of Egyptian gods could have been a decent starting point, but it's too incongruous. The cultures are pretty cool, and the idea of a land where the gods are native to the prime plane and rule the countries works for me too.

The Complete series of books specifically for the Realms. So much junk, with perhaps a few decent things. I forget. I'll have to dig them out and see how much they bum me out.

Moonshaes. I don't think Ed's Moonshaes were a copy of the British Isles. I'm pretty sure that the novels and the future supplement were tacked on. With so much material to work with right at the beginning, why did they feel the need to tack on so many non-Greenwood things.

Too many gods. Some of them were added by others. Some I'm OK with, after changing some of the dogma and such, like Oghma and Deneir.

The 5e lore. Here we go again. Tons of stuff I can't absolutely stand in VGtM. The background of SKT. The fact that within 3 years we've apparently saved the world from Tiamat, all of the Demon Princes, a transplanted Greyhawk theme, and all of the giants. Having said that, and despite it being another Greyhawk inspired transplant, I'm looking forward to ToA. For now.

The video games. So much badness (and a few decent ones, but really still off the mark).

Really, it comes down to the non-Greenwood stuff that I like the least. Don't get me wrong, there have been a few very good authors that took their stewardship seriously (and still do), and they provided some really great stuff too. But there has been too much crappy stuff to go with it.

To me, if you don't care for Greenwood's writing or ideas, fair enough. Although Ed the fiction author is very different from Ed the adventure author and Ed the supplement author. To me he shines as a supplement author. A master of flavor and fluff. Mediocre as an adventure author at best, and really hit or miss with his fiction. I actually really like his dense writing style (guilty pleasure), but the stories on the other hand aren't fantastic. On the other hand, I do know that a lot tends to get cut from the drafts, and that probably has an impact. (One of my favorite books is Piers Anthony's But What of Earth? - not because it's a good book, but the annotated version compared to the published version is amazing. Along the same lines as Terry Gilliam's movie Brazil.

I know there's a lot more, but those are things I can think of now. Did that help?

I tend to agree with much of this - especially the Netheril box. Some really intriguing ideas, totally lost among the dross of stupid names and some really poor ideas.

I'll disagree with you on Maztica and the Horde though. I thought Maztica was an interesting addition to the setting, while the Horde - well, you have steppe horsemen, you're going to get a horde from time to time. And I very much like how it tied to both east and west.

I'm a bit more forgiving towards Mulhorand and Unther though. I know that originally Greenwood said they had a bit of Egyptian and Mesopotamian flavor, and the author of Old Kingdoms just ran with it, but I'm not displeased with the final results. My main problem with that accessory is that the map was of a different scale from virtually all the rest of the maps published for the setting, so I couldn't include it when I decided to cover the floor with a dozen or so FR maps! (Shining South was the other big offender here).

I do agree that pretty much any actual accessories done by Greenwood, or those who worked closely with him or obviously heavily influenced by him, are really what make the Realms unique. If you wanted to run a FR campaign, you could do far worse than just use the Volo's Guides alone - they are hugely in-depth, provide incredible immersion, and actually cover a substantial portion of the setting. My only complaint with them is that Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate II, while obviously a cash-grab to tie into the video game, is just too short; it should have been a full-sized guide and completely covered all of Amn and Tethyr (and ditched the silly name - couldn't they have just put a blurb or something on the cover?). Oh, if only they had let Ed continue the series further... Beyond the Volo's Guides, there is a really good run in mid-to-late 2e where we get Eric Boyd's books on faiths and deities ("Wow, this makes specialty priests cool!" was one reaction a friend of mine had after reading them) and several nice boxed sets and accessories (Steven Schend's works come to mind here, as I loved his Amn, Tethyr, and Calimshan stuff).

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm not sure I've seen that mentality in a game.

I've know a few that have always felt this way, but it really seemed to become common near the end of 3E and at the start of 4E. I suppose there's nothing wrong with the playstyle, but it's really not for me.

I also have a question for the Realms folks out there - has anybody actually used Elminster, Drizzt, or other famous NPCs in their Realms campaign? I can't say I know of a campaign personally that did. For some reason I get the sense that the haters think that a Realms campaign is full of all of those NPCs and the PCs are an afterthought.

If done well, they can be a nice addition to a campaign/adventure, but they need to be in a supporting role. I've had Mirt the Moneylender as the patron of our adventuring group. I've also met Hallaster, who took a particular interest in one of the PCs (while scaring the crap out of the rest of us). We also met with Kheldon Blackstaff and Elustrial (sp?) during a campaign with heavy political overtones. They added a lot of interest in the game, especially for those of us who had read some of the novels, but they never took away from our adventures. I think too many early FR DMs overused them, which took away from the PCs, rather than supplementing them.

Is the same perspective/hate directed towards Middle Earth RPGs, or Star Wars, or other settings that have famous NPCs? Or is it just reserved for the Realms?

Hard for me to say. The only one I've ran was L5R, and I had one player who wanted to kill as many famous NPCs as possible "because he could." I think if the NPCs are used heavy-handedly, then I suppose it would have the same problem.

 

[JeffB]

It is your game and on the other hand what a waste of potential resources. It is hard enough to get Players interested in the setting without kicking out the people that actually care.

He kicked himself out for ruining the game for everyone. He instead should run his own game where adherence to canon is supreme. Not tell me how mine should or how other players should play in the realms.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, but in this world religious conflict generally translates into mass murder and smear campaigns.

Do the followers of Helm go out and destroy the shrines built to Sune? Do Waukeen’s followers despise and look down upon the followers of Mystra?

I don’t know as much about the Realms as some, but that all sounds absurd to me. At worst you are looking at something more similar to the fighting between those who like Coffee and the people who drink Tea. Sure, each one thinks the others choice is wrong, and maybe a little gross or snooty, and they’ll try to get their friends to convert over, but at the end of the day that’s about it. Friendly competition sure, but nothing that could be considered a “conflict” or “war” between the two religions.

I'm not sure why there needs to be conflict or war between two good religions. Remember, the loss of followers diminishes the power of a god. There is already conflict between good gods and evil gods, so even more conflict would be something to be avoided.

I don’t want this to devolve too far, it’s just I find this set up of “The Good gods vs the Evil Gods vs The Demons vs The Devils” a little too convoluted. The good guys almost never fight each other, because it doesn’t make sense for them to, and if you have Demon Lords and Archdevils that can almost challenge the gods, why do you need Evil gods?

Well, the demon lords and archdevils can't almost challenge the gods. They can almost challenge a demigod, the weakest and smallest class of god. Most gods could destroy them with a flick of a finger.

 

[SkidAce]

Well, the demon lords and archdevils can't almost challenge the gods. They can almost challenge a demigod, the weakest and smallest class of god. Most gods could destroy them with a flick of a finger.

/tangent

Why hasn't Torm taken out Orcus then?

/end

 

[Dorian_Grey]

I have my issues with FR, but the "NPCs steal the show" is only an issue if the DM/Players make it so. I have run games where a hardcore Realmsophile tried to utilize that kind of knowledge to their benefit "lets go find the contact for The Harpers that I know lives in this town"...or "Elminster would never let that happen". That kind of thing. I can't deal with those kinds of people, so he got pissed and quit after a few sessions of me nixing all his pent up Realms-lore. Adios. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Sheldon.

This. x1,000 times this. I stopped using the realms because of this exact type of person. No matter how many times you say "This is a non-canon game" or "Anything in the books didn't happen" you will always get someone (or more than one) who will say "But... in the books" It's EXHAUSTING. It's easier to just say "You have entered the Kingdom of the Happy Forest" and wing it then it is to try to go though all the necessary mental aerobics necessary to deal with a realmophile.

One of the reasons I switched to Mystara in the mid 90s was because none of my players knew anything about it so I was able to use Karameikos: Kingdom of Adventure and enjoy the benefits of a pre-made campaign setting without the annoyance of the realms.

Finally, as a note someone mentioned Dragonlance. I was in a run through of the various modules that track the books. The DM started by stating: "The heroes of the lance and other aspects of the book are not going to be what happens here. YOU are the heroes of the lance... assuming you find the dragonlance and survive." Everyone at the table was a huge DL fan. We had all read the books back to back (Dragons of Autumn Twilight was the first major chapter book I ever read actually at the age of 7).

Not a single person said to the DM "But... in the books". Now this is anecdotal of course. It's not a pattern, it's not an indepth study. But it is why I hate the realms and will never ever play them, and one of the key things driving me back to older editions of the game since the realms is taking over every aspect of 5th edition. 5th Edition could have been named D&D: FR Edition. Now, if you like the realms, and love all the lore - that's awesome! Congrats! If you don't though, it does put a damper on things. Thankfully, there is enough other material out there for me to enjoy

 

[Mercule]

Yeah, but in this world religious conflict generally translates into mass murder and smear campaigns.

In this world, we have multiple, monotheistic religions that claim the others are wrong and potentially evil. I've never really figured out how that translates into mass murder, but digging too far into that would probably violate some rules of the forums.

In the Realms (and most other D&D worlds), there generally aren't any religions that claim a monopoly on "the truth about good and evil". They may disagree, but can be allies, as can their followers. Much like real world NATO soldiers could fight beside each other: The American, Brit, and German may all believe their nation is a bit better than the others, but they can still be friends and share a common goal. They may even feel that it's in everyone's best interest to have the others specialize in certain things. Heck, there's even espionage between the groups, but it's rarely at the level of actively destabilizing the others and the soldiers in the field can still get along (usually).

If you look at real world pantheons -- specifically, Greek and Egyptians -- you see a combination of peaceful coexistence and territorial strife. Zeus, Dionysus, Aphrodite, and Hera could all be venerated in the same city, by the same folks with no problem. Apollo, Athena, and Ares all had areas where they were venerated or vilified -- Athena and Apollo, especially, didn't mix and Athena won the PR war. Heck, even Set was considered a good, protector god in some areas of Egypt.

Anyway, the Realms model has very active, undeniable gods coupled with an absolute system of good and evil that comes with detection spells. So, it has the luxury of using just the happy coexistence of gods and simplifying the relationships. I'd be very interested in seeing a setting with the breadth of gods found in the Realms and Greyhawk, but with the alignment squishiness of Eberron. That's not what the Realms (or any standard-issue D&D world) gives, though.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I tend to agree with much of this - especially the Netheril box. Some really intriguing ideas, totally lost among the dross of stupid names and some really poor ideas.

I'll disagree with you on Maztica and the Horde though. I thought Maztica was an interesting addition to the setting, while the Horde - well, you have steppe horsemen, you're going to get a horde from time to time. And I very much like how it tied to both east and west.

I'm a bit more forgiving towards Mulhorand and Unther though. I know that originally Greenwood said they had a bit of Egyptian and Mesopotamian flavor, and the author of Old Kingdoms just ran with it, but I'm not displeased with the final results. My main problem with that accessory is that the map was of a different scale from virtually all the rest of the maps published for the setting, so I couldn't include it when I decided to cover the floor with a dozen or so FR maps! (Shining South was the other big offender here).

I do agree that pretty much any actual accessories done by Greenwood, or those who worked closely with him or obviously heavily influenced by him, are really what make the Realms unique. If you wanted to run a FR campaign, you could do far worse than just use the Volo's Guides alone - they are hugely in-depth, provide incredible immersion, and actually cover a substantial portion of the setting. My only complaint with them is that Volo's Guide to Baldur's Gate II, while obviously a cash-grab to tie into the video game, is just too short; it should have been a full-sized guide and completely covered all of Amn and Tethyr (and ditched the silly name - couldn't they have just put a blurb or something on the cover?). Oh, if only they had let Ed continue the series further... Beyond the Volo's Guides, there is a really good run in mid-to-late 2e where we get Eric Boyd's books on faiths and deities ("Wow, this makes specialty priests cool!" was one reaction a friend of mine had after reading them) and several nice boxed sets and accessories (Steven Schend's works come to mind here, as I loved his Amn, Tethyr, and Calimshan stuff).

I don't have a problem with Maztica and the Horde per se. I just think that they were based too literally off of real world cultures (or at least the common perception of them), and didn't fit well with the Realms itself. Of course, they probably wouldn't have sold many otherwise.

I've used Old Kingdoms a lot, particularly Mulhorand. I forgot about the map! Back in the day I had all the maps mounted on foam core, both sides, so I could easily store and use them.

Yeah, the Baldur's Gate II guide was a joke. Particularly since it didn't even cover Baldur's Gate. But for what it's got I've used it frequently. Eric and Steven's stuff was generally very solid work. Faiths and Avatars is considered by many to be a high point in 2e design.

The ultimate issue with the bloat is that not only did it dilute the Realms, but it also added to a lot of the haters, I think. It's kind of like the difference between hating Tolkein and hating the Hobbit movies.

Rumor is that Ed is working on more Volo's Guides for DMs Guild, or at least something like them.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

In this world, we have multiple, monotheistic religions that claim the others are wrong and potentially evil. I've never really figured out how that translates into mass murder, but digging too far into that would probably violate some rules of the forums.

In the Realms (and most other D&D worlds), there generally aren't any religions that claim a monopoly on "the truth about good and evil". They may disagree, but can be allies, as can their followers. Much like real world NATO soldiers could fight beside each other: The American, Brit, and German may all believe their nation is a bit better than the others, but they can still be friends and share a common goal. They may even feel that it's in everyone's best interest to have the others specialize in certain things. Heck, there's even espionage between the groups, but it's rarely at the level of actively destabilizing the others and the soldiers in the field can still get along (usually).

If you look at real world pantheons -- specifically, Greek and Egyptians -- you see a combination of peaceful coexistence and territorial strife. Zeus, Dionysus, Aphrodite, and Hera could all be venerated in the same city, by the same folks with no problem. Apollo, Athena, and Ares all had areas where they were venerated or vilified -- Athena and Apollo, especially, didn't mix and Athena won the PR war. Heck, even Set was considered a good, protector god in some areas of Egypt.

Anyway, the Realms model has very active, undeniable gods coupled with an absolute system of good and evil that comes with detection spells. So, it has the luxury of using just the happy coexistence of gods and simplifying the relationships. I'd be very interested in seeing a setting with the breadth of gods found in the Realms and Greyhawk, but with the alignment squishiness of Eberron. That's not what the Realms (or any standard-issue D&D world) gives, though.

But like real world allies, things are often far more complicated (and temporary). We were allies with Russia during WWII after all.

The Realms as a whole, though, has never featured large scale wars like our medieval Europe, or even Greyhawk. They are more regional, more localized. And Bane is frequently the driving force in the core years due to the connection to both the Zhentarim and Red Wizards. But I don't really see them as allies, even though they both venerate Bane. They might work together (as they have in my campaign) for a short period, but I see that as a very tenuous alliance, and at any given point in time, both sides think they have the upper hand and are controlling the situation.

My campaign has the concept that there is a cosmic definition of good and evil, and it has an impact in the planes. But on Faerun itself it's not a thing. People are people, and aren't measured in strict terms, nor is it detectable - I differentiate between actionable evil, such as a fiend, where magic can have an impact, and the actions of people.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok, I don't hate the realms...it's a great place for novels. It's just a horrible place to play in.

I will put a caveat on that. If the players have the same thoughts and knowledge of the realms as the DM it can be cool. The problem comes when one person or some groups have different ideas of what the setting means.

I wont run star wars for paul...he has read every book, goes on all the youtube videos. I also wont run realms unless its an almost un known player base.

I don't want to play in the realms unless it uses the 4e books.


I often get asked why. I can tell you about my game that was going fine and I kept all the big NPCs I knew of out...until by mistake I took the party to somewhere that they thought they knew better. I also had to put up with as a PC being told NPCs couldn't help with 0 reason given... I also had to put up with about elminster being basicly a molester that you can't do anything about...