D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[Hussar]

There's a lot of exaggerations flying around right now.

99% of the setting is one of them. No one is saying anything close to that. Remove parts you don't like is what we're saying. If you don't know what it is you don't like, then you don't know what the setting is about or whats in it. You can apply this argument to Zeitgeist. Why should I use Zeitgeist if I need to modify it to suit what I want? Why should I use Zeitgeist if I have to research it?

The difference being if I want to use Zeitgeist I have to read one book and I'm done.

Your argument is basically "Why should I use this setting?" which isn't an argument, it's a question for you to answer. Like an above user said, you don't HAVE to use Forgotten Realms. If you want to ignore it and resent it, you're free to do so. But you can't say you don't like it because it is a kitchen sink when you haven't even done enough research into the setting to know what it actually is. It's like saying you hate a certain type of food because you heard its name and other people like it without even knowing what the food is.

First off, there's no resentment on my part. Thus my point of complete and utter indifference.

However if I had to eat fifteen pounds of a food before I could decide whether I liked it or not and wanted to serve it to other people, I think it's fair to give it a pass.

 

[Caliban]

Oh, and that's totally fair. If you want to use the Realms, go right ahead. If you want to pick and choose this or that, more power to you. I'm certainly not above yoinking maps or NPC's or whatnot. That's totally fair game.

My response is more along the lines of, "I don't use the Realms as a setting (instead of simply a resource) because the setting material is a roadblock to me getting into the setting. There's just too much of it for me to get into it." It's the same for Golarian. I'm using one of the Kingmaker maps in my current adventure, but, I'm not going to go out and start buying Golarian material just for that. I used it because I found it in a Google Image search, not because it was from Golarian.

To give a different example, I wouldn't run a Star Wars game either. Simply because I know I couldn't do it justice. I've watched the movies, but, that's about it. I'm not an EU fan. The last Star Wars books I read were the Thrawn books back in what, the late 80's, early 90's? For me to even begin running a SW game, I'd have hours of homework to do and I'm just not interested. I'd play (and I have no problems playing in Forgotten Realms either), but I wouldn't run. If I was running a Space Opera game, I'd go with a different system and setting specifically so that I didn't have to do hours of homework to do it justice.

OK, but none of that is a question. It's a response to a question you yourself posed.

If you already know the answer, why did you ask?

 

[Caliban]

The difference being if I want to use Zeitgeist I have to read one book and I'm done.


First off, there's no resentment on my part. Thus my point of complete and utter indifference.

However if I had to eat fifteen pounds of a food before I could decide whether I liked it or not and wanted to serve it to other people, I think it's fair to give it a pass.

You're kind of missing the point I made - a lot of us already have this stuff from back when WOTC and FR was the only game in town. No need to go out and research it, that parts already been done. I've never even heard of Zeitgeist until you mentioned it. If I wanted to use that, I'd have to research it.

If I want to use FR, I just have to go my bookshelf or look at the maps I already have.

I'm sure a lot of people use the Pathfinder setting for the same reason - they already have the stuff, why not?

This is doubly true for anyone who plays in Adventure League or Pathfinder Society - they're going to be buying supplements to use with their characters in that setting, might as well get some more use out of it if you are running a home game.

I don't use the FR setting anymore, for much the same reason you don't - too much history and too many overpowered NPC's that players might argue with me about (although I know far more about FR lore than my current set of players do). I prefer to use my own setting and stories, but I still have maps and books. It's easier for me to re-use the FR pantheon and maps than create my own (although I did use my own maps in my current campaign for story reasons).

It's not "15 pounds of food" - it's more like "15 pounds of Lego pieces" - I already bought the sets, they aren't going anywhere, and I can use them to make my own stuff.

 

[MechaPilot]

Your argument is basically "Why should I use this setting?" which isn't an argument, it's a question for you to answer.

It's not a question for him to answer; it's a question for him to ask, and for the creators of the setting to answer. After all, they're the ones trying to sell the products to us; therefore the onus is on them to sell us on why we should want or need them.

 

[Caliban]

It's not a question for him to answer; it's a question for him to ask, and for the creators of the setting to answer. After all, they're the ones trying to sell the products to us; therefore the onus is on them to sell us on why we should want or need them.

Then he should be asking the creators and not random strangers on a forum.

 

[prosfilaes]

Better advertising (almost all D&D players are at least aware of the setting).

Shared Knowledge (Several books have been published set in the Realms that many players and DM's have read.)

Prior Investment (many of us grew up reading about and playing in the Realms and have old supplements and maps on hand).

And all of that can backfire on you the instant you try and change anything.

Comparing Golarion and Forgotten Realms:

They've both well-fleshed out (whereas I found the Zeitgeist setting to be insufficiently described in terms of religion, for at least one point.)

They both offer a variety of environments (Golarion's sections seem more distinct, which is good for providing sharper genre distinctions but feels a little unrealistic.)

Golarion offers very few major good NPCs; FR offers a number of them, that have solved everything in published adventures, and as published could frequently wake up, solve an adventure, and return home in time for breakfast. Given that one of the continuing questions in D&D games seems to be "why are the PCs the ones who are doing this/getting the job, besides the meta-answer that they're the PCs?", I prefer to have, at least at higher levels, the dearth of NPCs who could even in theory could do the job.

Golarion offers minimal metaplot, whereas FR seems to have blown everything up on a regular basis. Same complaint I have with Dragonlance and sympathize with on Traveller.

I generally don't set my games in the Realms anymore, but it is a ready-made trove of maps, supplements, and lore that I can raid when setting up a new campaign.

You could say the same about Greyhawk, Mystara, Scarred Lands, GURPS's Yrth, Golarion, Dragonlance, or any number of settings. Even if it is the most awesome source of parts, that doesn't say much about the setting as a setting.

 

[cbwjm]

One cool thing that I love about blowing everything up, is that you can run campaigns where the PCs stop said blowing up of the setting. Imagine a FR where the PCs stopped the spell plague from happening or saved/killed one or more gods during the time of troubles. Perhaps in Dragonlance they went and stopped the priest-king of istar and so the cataclysm never happened, what would the world of Krynn be like? These can make for awesome campaigns.

 

[Caliban]

And all of that can backfire on you the instant you try and change anything.

Or not. Any change will have some people that like it, and some people that don't like it. It's the nature of change.

Comparing Golarion and Forgotten Realms:

Why? I don't know Golarion, and don't really care. I don't play in that setting. I don't even run campaigns in FR anymore.

If you are trying to make a point about Golarian, you might want to address your post to someone who knows the setting and therefor might care about it.

You could say the same about Greyhawk, Mystara, Scarred Lands, GURPS's Yrth, Golarion, Dragonlance, or any number of settings.

Absolutely. And if I owned them, I might use parts of them for my own campaign. Since I don't own those settings, but do own several FR supplements...guess what I resources I recycle when creating my own setting?

Even if it is the most awesome source of parts, that doesn't say much about the setting as a setting.

Please note that I didn't say anything about FR as a setting, simply gave reasons why people might use it, or use parts of it. Since, you know, someone asked exactly that question.

Not sure what point you think I was trying to make.

 

[prosfilaes]

Or not. Any change will have some people that like it, and some people that don't like it. It's the nature of change.

That wasn't about whether people liked the change or not. It's about the costs of changing what people know and expect. It's about being caught in the middle of running an FR adventure realizing that a major plot thread depends on stuff you changed. It's about players assuming things to be true that aren't in your world, or you assuming players understanding something they don't.

I don't know Golarion, and don't really care.

Okay, I wasn't really addressing that to you; I was addressing it to the thread.

 

[Shasarak]

Golarion offers very few major good NPCs; FR offers a number of them, that have solved everything in published adventures, and as published could frequently wake up, solve an adventure, and return home in time for breakfast. Given that one of the continuing questions in D&D games seems to be "why are the PCs the ones who are doing this/getting the job, besides the meta-answer that they're the PCs?", I prefer to have, at least at higher levels, the dearth of NPCs who could even in theory could do the job.

Isnt it like the reason why Thor and the Hulk dont show up in an Iron man movie? Because it is an Iron man movie. Or is that just meta-thinking?