I disagree here. The metaplot is one of the reasons I like the FR and I would never bother to waste time with a "dead setting" like Eberron where there is no developing metaplot.TSR dropped the ball there. The metaplot thing was every campaign often wrecking the thing you liked about the setting in the 1st place.
Because it's the 4e problem all over again.On the other hand, they haven't given us any metaplot (to speak of) for 5E, and that's not exactly being greeted with cheers of relief.
FR fan, not a fan of the realms shaking events although the 2E to 3.0 transition was better than 1E to 2E or 3.5 to 4E IMHO.I disagree here. The metaplot is one of the reasons I like the FR and I would never bother to waste time with a "dead setting" like Eberron where there is no developing metaplot.
Because it's the 4e problem all over again.
The FR fans liked the FR for exactly what it was. A story setting driven by a developing metaplot. The FR haters hated FR exactly for that.
Now they again changed the FR to remove what the haters hated. Problem: The haters are still at best "meh" about the setting, while it's fans are now also driven off.
Just look at how basically all FR fansites died during 4e, got a short second wind during all the lead up to the Sundering and then quickly died down again once it was clear that it was just a bunch of empty talk with nothing to follow up on it.
FR fans want a 5e FRCs with every every nook and cranny spelled out. For them it's not a bug but a feature, they don't want a blank canvas full of DM freedom.
Sure, now those FR fans who disagree with me will speak up how I am wrong in my generalisation. Leaves one to wonder where all those FR fans are and why they let all FR comunnity sites die once the detail loving FR fans left.
There's an AD&D green book on playing in ancient Rome that makes for a good sourcebook. And then there's a 3rd party 3e book (and for some stupid reason I'm stumbling over remembering the publisher) on Greece called Relics and Rituals: Olympus.Any particular resources you use or are you just going with your own knowledge of mythology and history?
I ask because I've had an idea for a campaign setting in the back of my mind for quite a while which is situated around the Mediterranean using the myths of the various locations to fill out the available races as well as throwing in a bunch of free license to set up some areas as unique. As an example:
Religion: Demon worshippers (Taken from R.E Howard's Stygia and expanded upon. Not sure if I want to use the Egyptian Pantheon as the Demons or have their worship underground), Bes (worshipped by the slaves and halflings as a protector deity)
Common Races: Tieflings, Humans (slaves building the tiefling monuments), Halflings (Taking the place of Kushites. Raids, and are raided by, Egypt)
I disagree that the problem is "metaplot". I think the issue is "too much metaplot".TSR dropped the ball there. The metaplot thing was every campaign often wrecking the thing you liked about the setting in the 1st place.
But that's the whole point! In a fantasy world you *can* do this and have it work.Because they only work when you cut out a very small part of it and ignore the rest. But when you look at the big picture it does not make sense at all when you for example have ancient Egypt next to Arthurian England next to Renaissance Italien states next to tribal primitives.
Well, every game I ever run is going to have classical Greeks and-or Romans in it somewhere, and Celtic tribes, and Vikings, one or more renaissance-era cultures, and some sort of far-eastern (Mongolian? Japanese?) cultures as well...and Dwarves and Elves and Hobbits and monsters*. In my current game I've also got variants on Egyptian, Sumerian, Persian and early French (i.e. France just after the Norse invaded and settled down) along with one or two human cultures that I've made up out of nothing. My view of fantasy history pretty much lines up with Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert: throw it all in a blender and see what fun results.Such a constellation simply does not work with any kind of plausibility and it is really noticeable that the only reason for this to be that way is to offer everyone everything.
Where to me that's a point in FR's favour - there's always a bigger fish. And so there should be, whether it's higher-level characters, or deities, or immortals, or whatever.Saelorn said:If the world is so large that none of that other stuff has any impact on the campaign at all, then the PCs feel small and unimportant. By the time I hit level 20 in a game, I expect to have seen just about everything worth seeing in the world.
Yes. CSotIO is just the main city and not much else. CSotWE, which came later, kinda waves at the city but then goes on to cover much more area around it...and it's the area around it, with all the small towns and villages and adventure hooks, which makes it worthwhile.SkidAce said:Is that anything like the City State of the Invincible Overlord?
I'm told, by someone who read the book more closely than me, that the 3e book did make a number of changes, like Elves were no longer leaving like in Tolkien, and Dwarves started breeding properly so were no longer dying out. It advanced the timeline, only by a year or two, from 2e.The transition between 2e and 3e was so good because there wasn't any world shaking event (that I'm aware of) it was just a case of "These are the rules now." Mind you, I did enjoy reading about the time of troubles, never got a chance to play a game set during that time though.
There were a few minor to mid-level changes, but nothing really world-shattering. The return of Bane was likely the most notable event, and even that flowed logically to anyone paying attention to what was going on with Iyachtu Xvim over the course of 2e.The transition between 2e and 3e was so good because there wasn't any world shaking event (that I'm aware of) it was just a case of "These are the rules now." Mind you, I did enjoy reading about the time of troubles, never got a chance to play a game set during that time though.
And have a half decent map.There were a few minor to mid-level changes, but nothing really world-shattering. The return of Bane was likely the most notable event, and even that flowed logically to anyone paying attention to what was going on with Iyachtu Xvim over the course of 2e.
I think the Time of Troubles as the transition between 1e and 2e worked at the time since it was unique. As the 2e to 3e transition really didn't shake things up too much as well, the fact that the 3e to 4e transition was the result of another world-shattering event - that took place, in the setting timeline, only a couple of decades after the Time of Troubles - might have been a catastrophe too far. Had 4e just changed the ruleset with only a few cosmetic changes, and, more importantly, not have moved the timeline up a century (thereby invalidating potentially hundreds of dollars of product investment), the Realms 4e might have been a bit better received...
Don't get me started on the maps! Both 3e and 4e were major offenders there (although the 3e one did look good, if you could get past the fact that they had to seriously warp regions to get the full setting to fit onto a single map while minimizing blank areas). I'm so glad they have decided to go back to the original 1e/2e physical geography - as well as using Mike Schley as the overland map cartographer; I really hope that we will get a full map of the setting by him sooner than later!And have a half decent map.
The return of the Netherise was the other big thing with the 2E to 3.0 transition. Bane back was also a thing but it was logical with how it was built up to in 2E.
I don't know why it persists, because it is a big world and takes a lot of effort and time to really understand the whole thing, and they did change it around a lot over the years.So why does FR persist if so many people hate it?
As far as Mystara goes I've been working on a youtube channel to explain to new players what it's about.Mostly a mix up of Nithia/Osirion/ Mulhorand. Mining Mystara a lot atm because most players are not familiar with it so Nithia/Thyatis/Heldannic Knights are all new.
What you describe as Eberron's "dead" setting is what makes it feel alive to me: there is so much tension in that moment in the timeline that one could have a decade-long campaign or hundreds of smaller campaigns and still not explore all the issues at play in Khorvaire or Eberron at this moment. The timeline has only advanced by a year so far, and that is in no small part because of (1) Eberron's still relative newness as a setting at the time 4E came out, and (2) the tremendous pushback following the advancement of Forgotten Realms's metaplot in 4E.I disagree here. The metaplot is one of the reasons I like the FR and I would never bother to waste time with a "dead setting" like Eberron where there is no developing metaplot.