D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[hastur_nz]

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.

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 "time of troubles" adventures were the biggest piece of 2e "story-driven adventures" crap that I've seen, a big reason I gave up playing a lot of D&D not long after 2e came out because adventures went from simple concise site-based dungeons or similar, to over-blown novels trying to be an adventure. In the "time of troubles" adventures, the PC's get to watch gods battle, led around by Elminster, from near Thay, to Waterdeep, with an NPC who is better than any PC and must accompany them because she turns into Mystra at the end of the 3rd adventure. And another NPC also turns emo mid-way through and by the end he's the new god of murder. Honestly, I read all three adventures again recently, and struggled to see where the actual "adventure" was, unless the players got bored and just randomly attacked NPCs or Gods, and even then of course the silly PC's can't win and yet they must be lead by the nose to see the scripted ending. So you see, that's one example of why some people don't like the FR. From what I figured out even in 1e days, that seems to be the Ed Greenwood style of DMing... (or if it's not, his real style doesn't come out in what he's got his name on).

 

[Demetrios1453]

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.

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...

(By the way, definitely not a Realms hater, just going to post here to make some clarifications)

 

[Zardnaar]

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...

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.

 

[Demetrios1453]

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.

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!

 

[machineelf]

So why does FR persist if so many people hate it?

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.

But it is a great campaign world if you ignore the stuff that came after 1372 DR, imo. I didn't realize how great it was until I began to research and compile all of the 2nd through 3.5 edition content.

I don't want to over-generalize, because I am sure there are quite a few people who break this rule, but my sense is that the people who hate it usually are not familiar with the whole setting. They either understand small parts of the world and don't like what they see, or they know how large it is and are turned off by the effort it would take to understand all of it. But if someone did begin to understand the larger world, they might come to appreciate the largeness of it and the uniqueness and character of various parts of the world.

Having said that, sometimes a well-crafted and smaller world is a great option, because it would take far less time for your players to wrap their heads around the world. The FR games I run span the whole continent of Faerun, and it literally takes years for my players to learn all the ins and outs of it. It's really rewarding when they do, though.

 

[The Glen]

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.

As far as Mystara goes I've been working on a youtube channel to explain to new players what it's about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQvrdKNGclY&t=74s

 

[Hussar]

For me, I don't hate the Realms. But, that being said, I'll never actually use them either. There's just too much stuff. THousands and thousands of pages of material. To me, the setting completely jumped the shark when Ed Greenwood in one of the Realms articles he used to do on the WotC site, detailed the shape of windows in houses.

A 500-1000 word article devoted to the shape of windows.

I can honestly say, without the slightest trace of hyperbole that I could not care less about that. If that's the level of details you want in your game? Fantastic, go right ahead. Me, I don't.

So, AFAIC, any Realms supplements that come out are a non-starter for me. I remember back in 2e buying the Faiths and Avatars book (and the second one as well, the name of which escapes me at the moment). Chock a block with all sorts of setting goodies. Yay. Then I actually tried to use it... and it was an incoherent mess that no one ever gave the slightest rat's petoot about. No one cared what color robes a Gond priest wears.

After that, I just washed my hands of the whole thing. Give me a setting book, a map, and a handful of modules, and move on to the next setting.

 

[pogre]

Because the first reaction one should have to a dual-wielding Drow should be - "Somebody shoot that thing!"


I think one reason it is default for 5e is it is easy enough to remove the fairly generic setting dressing for homebrewers.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

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 will explain my disdain of Forgotten Realms later when I have more time, as I'm having to write this in a rush before leaving for work.

 

[Ath-kethin]

My dislike of the Forgotten Realms is twofold: one part generational and one part defensive.

My introduction to D&D was through the Dragonlance Chronicles ( though I didn't know at the time that the books were based on or in any way related to a game). My love for the novels translated to a love for the setting, and at the time there was a great rivalry between the Realms and Dragonlance, at least in my area. So like a Cubs fan, I planted my flag and stood behind it rain or shine.

Side note: y'all can whine about "world shaking events" messing up your game with their silly metaplot, but at least they didn't MAKE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME out of your setting at any point. </fuming>

My second reason for disliking the Realms is Al-Qadim. Like Eberron, Al-Qadim had distant gods that formed coherent religions instead of being a mess of squabbling high-power sacks of hit points waiting to be banged or killed by DMPC #41123.

Al-Qadim existed outside the FR timeline and metaplot (no dates corresponding to a FR calendar were ever given in any AQ product). I loved Al-Qadim, and to pollute it with FR claptrap would mean figuring out what all the AQ gods were doing during the Let's Kill Some Off For No Reason period - a tough task when only the vaguest information about each god was known.

While some have tried to rectify the two worlds into a coherent timeline, I vote leave well enough alone. Especially since the FR already has cultures with the same mythological and historical reports as Al-Qadim. Keep your generic Tolkien knock-offs and keep your damn hands off my evocative and distinct world.

Like I said, defensive.