D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Shasarak]

I can totally get what you're saying. And, to boot, it really depends on whether you're looking for a wargame or an RPG. But, yeah, there's a bloody mountain of background material in Battletech. And, yuppers, I can see that as a huge turn off for trying to get into the game.

As a Battletech fan, I do have to say that the Catalyst Games stuff is very good. Their Basic Box covers the game pretty darn well and if you pick up one of the Tech Readouts (3025 is my favorite period - I have no love for the clan stuff that comes later), you're good to go for the wargame.

But, yeah, I can totally sympathise.

Cool, thanks. It is good to get some tips on where to get in and my group is looking for some new ideas to try out over the next few months until August.

 

[MackMcMacky]

500+ posts in, and I can only come to the conclusion that it's such a well-worn stick with which to beat the setting that those wielding the stick not only no longer question the validity of the argument, they willfully blind themselves to any counter-arguments to that point of view. Innumerable posts have been made here pointing out that high-level NPCs can be toned down, ignored, or even outright killed off if the DM running the game so wishes, with little or no detriment to the setting itself, yet those on the other side seem to continue to state that the Realms can only be faithfully run as the Realms if such NPCs are heavily used and abused. I can only assume that they believe that if through some black sorcery some FR-loving DM actually managed to break free of this adamantine literary bond and was able to run a Realms campaign with little or no mention of these high-level NPCs, Elminster himself would teleport in with Drizzt, and the drow would hold the DM at scimitar-point until such time as this egregious error was rectified!

If I disagree with you I'm "willfully blind"? Let me explain my position about the burden of a player/dungeon master to run a given campaign setting. There is none. Obviously, if someone is turned off of Forgotten Realms because of the numerous powerful NPCs that are inserted into the narrative and in some of the modules in a way that they don't like and they choose not to use the setting then whatever Positives you see about the setting barring those NPCs they simply don't appreciate them. Personally, I gave more reasons than powerful NPCs. When FRealms came out it was a patchwork mess, with powerful NPCs that were, for the most, boring to me, a goofy take on political systems, and lackluster adventures. And then it became the center-piece. And the guys who wanted to run around playing poor, misunderstood Drow rangers on the surface world annoyed me. Now I don't hate it. I just don't want to play it and I don't want to run it.

And I don't have to put the energy into re-evaluating that position every time they "update" the setting as I have found campaign settings I already like. If that makes me "willfully blind" in your estimation I think you need to reconsider how important Forgotten Realms is to you in your gaming experience.

 

[MackMcMacky]

And, unless they are elves or dwarves, and managed to survive a magical plague and two land-altering catastrophes, and survive not dying from natural causes during the century that has passed from the time the FRCS was current, all those NPCs you mentioned, along with any other high-level NPC mentioned in the FRCS with a few exceptions, are all dead now.

So, you are suggesting that we invest in a setting that is routinely altered in such a heavy-handed way we are likely to have to A) ignore future support of the setting and go our own way or B) make massive alterations in our theoretically long-standing Forgotten Realms campaign in order to use future support.

 

[prosfilaes]

And, unless they are elves or dwarves, and managed to survive a magical plague and two land-altering catastrophes, and survive not dying from natural causes during the century that has passed from the time the FRCS was current, all those NPCs you mentioned, along with any other high-level NPC mentioned in the FRCS with a few exceptions, are all dead now.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Elminster_Aumar says that Elminster is alive in 1491 DR (from the Death Masks novel by Greenwood), and http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Forgotten_Realms says the 5E Adventurer's League started in 1489 DR, so no, Elminister is not dead. And MaxPerson just said that whether or not there's high-level NPCs in the books, they're still there in the setting. Certainly it seems weird that a setting that supported many epic level characters now doesn't support many high-level characters at all.

The problem with a setting like Forgotten Realms (or Dragonlance or Star Trek or the Marvel Universe) is that the owners can declare things about the setting all they want, but feelings about the setting still reside, and it's easier to shake a positive feeling about a setting then a negative one. The all-new, completely the same product frequently blows up in the creator's faces; New Coke, anyone?

 

[Remathilis]

So what is it? Do multiple settings dilute the brand or can 5e support multiple settings (the Forgotten Realms, Middle Earth and Primal Thule)?

It seems to me that DnD is big enough to support multiple genre and WotC owns IP that supports multiple genre. So maybe the problem really lies with the management rather then the products.

WotC only produces one of those settings; the others are ogl conversions by other companies. Their success or failure does not hurt WotCs bottom line, and if they sell a few more PHBs because of it, so much the better.

The question is, how much does WotC want to complete against itself. First off, how many settings are we supporting? 2, 3, 5? What level of support are we talking, one and done campaign book, supplements and player books, full adventures? Which settings? What should the return rate be for sales on a setting like Ravenloft, Dark Sun, or Eberron?

I'm pretty sure WotC has looked at this; they tried both during 3e (with two unique product lines complete with adventures and supplements) and 4e (limited support for a setting a year) and I'm wagering neither model supports the return on investment...

 

[Demetrios1453]

So, you are suggesting that we invest in a setting that is routinely altered in such a heavy-handed way we are likely to have to A) ignore future support of the setting and go our own way or B) make massive alterations in our theoretically long-standing Forgotten Realms campaign in order to use future support.

Yes. Well, you may not, but I and others have been doing so since 1989 brought along our first heavy-handed routine alterations to the setting. You kinda have to go with the flow when it comes to these matters!

 

[Selvarin]

A) Agreed. Mordenkainen is the dude. A lot of character, and depending on your campaign level play, within a reasonable level range. In fact I pretty much like the whole Circle of Eight thing.

B) They kind of tossed the uber-power thing in FR after 3.*. They toned them down a bit--or what's left of them anyway. Which I'm fine with that. FR is more about the player's characters instead of always what bull-shenanegans are going on in Cormyr, which of the Seven Sisters Elminster is canoodling with, or how many tears Drizzt cried when writing his last journal entry.

C) Also in 5E they made it clear they heard fans' discontent with the trashing of the Realms. So 4E and some of the zaniness of earlier editions kinda went out like a dream Archer had while in a coma. (Anyone? Anyone? I'm sure someone here watched the past season of Archer...)

 

[billd91]

So what is it? Do multiple settings dilute the brand or can 5e support multiple settings (the Forgotten Realms, Middle Earth and Primal Thule)?

It seems to me that DnD is big enough to support multiple genre and WotC owns IP that supports multiple genre. So maybe the problem really lies with the management rather then the products.

It's not a question of diluting the brand as much as dividing the market. That's one of several problems faced by TSR based on WotC's analysis of TSR's business when they were planning to buy them out. Lisa Stevens then of WotC and now of Paizo was one of the people conducting that analysis and their conclusion was that supporting too many setting lines divided the market up too far for most of them to be profitable. That and TSR did a really bad job of determining if those products really had sufficient demand, whether they were being sold with prices set high enough to cover their costs, and more.

Every resource they devote to a second line is a resource not furthering a single more profitable line.

 

[Demetrios1453]

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Elminster_Aumar says that Elminster is alive in 1491 DR (from the Death Masks novel by Greenwood), and http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Forgotten_Realms says the 5E Adventurer's League started in 1489 DR, so no, Elminister is not dead. And MaxPerson just said that whether or not there's high-level NPCs in the books, they're still there in the setting. Certainly it seems weird that a setting that supported many epic level characters now doesn't support many high-level characters at all.

The problem with a setting like Forgotten Realms (or Dragonlance or Star Trek or the Marvel Universe) is that the owners can declare things about the setting all they want, but feelings about the setting still reside, and it's easier to shake a positive feeling about a setting then a negative one. The all-new, completely the same product frequently blows up in the creator's faces; New Coke, anyone?

Re: Elminster - hence the "with a few exceptions" in my post.

Well, it may be weird that the setting doesn't support many high-level characters now, but that seems to be the case. SCAG doesn't really give us much in the way in stats, and SKT, in its virtual gazetteer of the North, has most of the towns filled with commoners, scouts, nobles, and veterans when it comes to mentioned NPCs. Granted, there are a couple of archmages (in Everlund, which is a city notable for its magic), a random vampire, and some scattered dragons (which come with the territory give the game's name), but it appears that the complaint of each inn or shop being owned by a level 15+ NPCs is no longer a tenable position to hold. Perhaps the Spellplague, like the Spanish Flu, killed a disproportionate number of the strong compared to the weak?

 

[Soul Stigma]

Sometimes "I hate _______" actually translates to "I want to hate _______ but secretly fantasize about it in the dark."

In seriousness, though, as others have said, sometimes it's cool to hate something popular, to the point that people will claim hate but still use/play it.

Personally as a DM, I stay away from it, only because it's so familiar that it loses its edge with players. I have been home brewing for years and it's worked out well.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World