Why the hatred towards FRCS?

[omedon]

Rav

The feats could easily be left out (They weren't needed for the second edition to work were they?).

As far as shifting the time you play the game in; I don't think that would make it a new setting at all. I am willing to bet anyone who is playing in the realms is playing in the future. It may only be a few days or a few years but the fact is whatever you do in the realms is going to be taking place after the events described in the Campaign Setting and the Novels. What makes it still the realms whether you start your campaign a few months or a few years in the future is the same thing that makes it still the realms when you are playing 100 or 500 years in the future: the HISTORY.

When you play a game in the realms you are creating your own history that sits atop the history that has already been built by the settings writers. What playing further in the future does is allow you to add a few more changes to the setting than you would normally be able to if you were to start your campaign closer to the current realms timeline.

I guess my main point is that YOU are the DM. A map and history is really all that a campaign setting is if it was anything else (a future perhaps?) then it would be a novel and you would not be able to play in it. Some people who have posted here seem to have very fatalistic views and for some reason feel that they have to play the game a certain way; that they are locked in. I think that that is silly. If there was a time of troubles before why not say there was another one. Knock out have the faiths if you want in a glorious battle and have the PC's arrive on the scene just after the second deity war. The battle of the god's may have weakened some towns allowing orcs to overtake them, Clerics might suddenly find themselves without a deity, etc.

You may say that this is a stupid idea, that you might as well be playing a homebrew game, that playing in this manner isn't really playing in the Realms at all. Well perhaps, but every setting no matter what needs to have at least some level of DM input; otherwise you are just reading a book.

Any Campaign setting is effectively a big sandbox with a bunch of toys. Play with them how you like. If you like having high-powered NPC's constantly outshine your heroes that's fine. But you don't have to. Now if you don't like the cities, the histories, the geography, or the flavour then that is a very good reason to choose another setting, one where you find these elements are done better and are more interesting.

Remember YOU ARE THE DM.

 

[Renshai]

FR

Somewhat true, but still, the excpectations of the players are set on munc...errr... I mean epic levels

See, that comment is so ridiculous. Does the Dungeons & Dragons game have to stop at 10th level? Does it even stop at 20th? No. The game was meant to reach Epic levels. To call people who enjoy that kind of play munchkins is insulting, and just plain narrow. In most Dungeons and Dragons settings(published or not) there are hundreds of thousands of magic items out there. 9 levels of Divine Spells, 9 levels of Arcane spells. These items and spells did not create themselves. They were created by characters that reached what you call munchkin levels. Their had to be movers and shakers out there for a standard D&D game to have the current status quo.

It still doesn't solve the problems of illogical geograhy, power inflating feats and prestige classes, an excessively large pantheon, etc.

I don’t know about you, but when my players are crawling around in a dungeon somewhere, the placement of the Troll Mountains on the world does not come into play. Besides, the so called “illogical” geography is the direct result of the raising of Evermeet. An act that caused geographical problems all over Abeir-Toril. The statement above is a perfect example of someone judging something that they really don’t know much about.

Power inflating feats? The feats are no different from the ones placed in any Dungeons and Dragons supplement. I’ve been running them since the FR Playtest and their have been NO game problems with balance. I’m running a core adventure right now (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil) and the Forgotten Realms characters are having a very hard time of it. A perfect example that the feats and prestige classes are in balance. Have you run any long term games in FR 3E? If not, how do you know that the material for 3E FR is not balanced? You can only find out if a certain class or feat doesn’t work by trying it “in game”.

The pantheon is fine. We are talking about a fantasy setting where pantheons and gods shift with rise and fall of heroes and dark villains that aspire to godhood. Our own world has hundreds of pantheons…. Not very realistic I guess?


Ren

 

[I'm A Banana]

To make the Realms playable...

One way to play a game that nearly anyone can enjoy in the Realms --

Play As Villains

Now, you can travel to exotic towns, work for world-shattering consequences, and even manage to squish Elminster's skull between your evil, evil hands you bad bad man!

Seriously, as at least a one-off, this would be enjoyable. You now have PC's who have to work against insurmountable odds for the evil of the world...heck, some druids may even be involved (the whole balance-tilted-by-excessive goodness thing). You could make Blackguards, Assassins, Necromancers...and destroy Faerun, Once And For All (Dun Dun Dun!).

Come on, wouldn't this be fun? You find something wrong with the rules -- you blow it up.

 

[NiTessine]

I have nothing against the Realms. In fact, I run most of my campaigns in it, and dislike Greyhawk instead. The wealth of detail is a good thing, actually. I like being able to build an adventure plot around a good, strong frame.
Of course, I have a large collection of background material, and a very good memory concerning details, so it's not difficult. The uber-NPCs are not a problem. Drizzt has only once made an appearance in a campaign of mine, and back then he was a plot device, not a deus ex machina. The NPCs are meant to give the world flavor and to star in novels. Elminster has a lot better things to do that to run around saving the world if there's a bunch of perfectly good adventurers who can do it.

 

[Black Omega]

Frankly, I like the Realms. I prefer too much detail to to little. I can cut out anything I want. If I want to change something or I have an idea of my own I just add it in or substitute it for something else.

 

[Left-handed Hummingbird]

I like a lot of things from the FRCS, but, as many others have noted too, I find it has lost that sparkle that made it shine in the beginning. Instead of merely setting the scene, it has also provided the story; something I, personally, want to be the DM's prerogative.

I'm a big fan of the Dark Sun setting, but it began to show the same weaknesses: As Dark Sun novels were being published by TSR, they felt they had to incorporate the books' storylines into the adventures, thus railroading the campaign setting according to the "whims" of the novels' authors.

That way, TSR catered for the fans of the novels, but me, who never could be bothered to read any of the novels, they just annoyed.

 

[Voneth]

I think you have some very good points. However, the economics of the game simply won't support you very well.

Well, that's the point of the frustration about the gamers I was talking about. If people didn't by FR, they they would buy another middle ages, eurocentric, and cosmopolitin setting instead of something with more orginiality to it.

On a personal note, I was amused when someone asked why 3rd party publishers don't come up with something "more original," why should when it's been proven that more original settings don't sell most of the time.

I was floored when I found out that the Legend of the Five Rings setting and Deadlands is rather popular is now popular in certain circles.

In part I think it's a matter of the most common customer. When you make something that's a little off center, you gamble to get the attention of a smaller audience. When you stick to the safe stuff, you're bound to get some sales from the main crowd.

Heck, I've had people look at me wierd just for making Orcs the Mongolian horde of a game world. A competent horde.

 

[Ravellion]

Re: FR

I don’t know about you, but when my players are crawling around in a dungeon somewhere, the placement of the Troll Mountains on the world does not come into play. Besides, the so called “illogical” geography is the direct result of the raising of Evermeet. An act that caused geographical problems all over Abeir-Toril. The statement above is a perfect example of someone judging something that they really don’t know much about.

I work in a bloody gamestore for **** sake! I have read three incarnations of the FR, as well as DM'ed 5 campaigns in it, and I have about 15 FR novels under my belt! Yes, there are reasons for the geography being the way it is. Nevertheless, suspension of disbelief does quite often shatter when the players of the PC's don't know about these things (and their characters probably do not either) and in a short journey travel through all the climate types, with cultures who irrealistically don't mix with each other if you play them right out of the book. I am happy to say that I played 2nd edition Dragonlance right out the book. It needed no altering whatsoever. They just had to remember one big mountain fell out of the sky to punish mortals, and since then, life sucked big time. (Although my vision of DL is perhaps more gritty than that of most)

Power inflating feats? The feats are no different from the ones placed in any Dungeons and Dragons supplement. I’ve been running them since the FR Playtest and their have been NO game problems with balance. I’m running a core adventure right now (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil) and the Forgotten Realms characters are having a very hard time of it. A perfect example that the feats and prestige classes are in balance. Have you run any long term games in FR 3E? If not, how do you know that the material for 3E FR is not balanced? You can only find out if a certain class or feat doesn’t work by trying it “in game”.

The pantheon is fine. We are talking about a fantasy setting where pantheons and gods shift with rise and fall of heroes and dark villains that aspire to godhood. Our own world has hundreds of pantheons…. Not very realistic I guess?

I don't mind the multitude of pantheons, I dislike the main one. Besides, this is were "Realism" (because small pantheons are just as realistic, not less so) really gets in the way. Someone new to FR has real trouble getting to know each deity. This isn't a problem in, say, Hindu society, because those people live that religion. But the depth and extensiveness can be a real pain for a new player playing a biweekly game. I even see veterans switch gods' portfolios, dogma, alignment, alliances. I played in the FR for about a year with one group, and I think that by the end I could mention Lathander and Helm and they would know. In three months, the PHB pantheon was second nature to them. The same group did DL without reading the novels, and picked up on the pantheon almost immediatly.

I have found Level 8 wizards with 90% unsaveable DCs against most CR 8 opponents a case of power inflation (ie. shadow magic PrC with greater spell penetration, spellcasting prodigy). Perhaps your palyers don't min max enough to show the flaws of some of the possibilities in the FR. Then it would't be noticed. But even on paper, this is easily spotted, so I can't see how such a flaw has gotten past an otherwise exelently published and designed book.

About the "munch... errr.... epic" remark. My apologies, it was meant in jest, since I do not see the need for level 21+ gaming. The FR NPCs are mostly to blame for the view that it doesn't stop there I think. To come back to DL, People knew full well that level 18 was the limit. Done. All your arguments that "Epic level characters are the prime movers and shakers" are proven wrong in most of the campaign worlds. Didn't the original DS have this big dragon as a prime mover? GH's circle of 9 is mostly high teens, and they can move and shake all they need to. Spells can be perfectly researched by level 17 characters... in fact, if you are truly the first wizard, it seems quite logical that you would do it at level 17, not at 20+... might as well get 4 levels of use out of those spells now, don't you think?

Now, to come back to the topic: "I game in the realms, but I changed X..." There is a certain (mostly undefinable) line I draw when I consider it no longer the campaign world as published. When the recent history published is considered ancient history in the world, it has lost most of its impact. Quick! Who was the ruler of France in 1000AD? Right, even if you remember, you probably don't care, or at least don't live your life constantly aware of that fact. The current FR still live with the big legacy of the Time of Troubles. In a 1000 years, new facts will become important. Instead of the battle of Hastings, or the printing of the Gutenberg bible being really important in our day to day lives, terrorism, the emergence of the internet or election scandals become an important backdrop. It really becomes an entirely different animal after a 1000 year leap. A 10-30 year leap would still qualify as "Playing in the FR" in my view. You can still use more than 50% of the book then.

I'll happily defend my opinion again, since that is what it is, an opinion. No need to get bent all out of shape, I am not even a FR hater. I just dislike certain features of it, so choose to cannibalize it instead. Magic of Fearun is very good for that purpose.

Rav

 

[Renshai]

Yes, there are reasons for the geography being the way it is. Nevertheless, suspension of disbelief does quite often shatter when the players of the PC's don't know about these things (and their characters probably do not either) and in a short journey travel through all the climate types, with cultures who irrealistically don't mix with each other if you play them right out of the book.

You see, there is the problem inherent in your argument. Realism.This is fantasy, and the cultures of the Realms ( a fantasy setting ) were created and came into being because of fantasical reason. A perfect example were the millions of slaves that were once servants of the Djinns and Efreets of Calimshan. These people went on to overthrow their oppressors, creating a diverse culture. Things like this happened all over the Realms, and the reasoning behind it was stepped in fantasical cause and effect. Making a statement that a “fantasy” setting isn’t a good option because it isn’t “real” enough just seems comical to me. You know its funny, in ten years of running my players never once looked at the map and were upset at their setting because the geography just didn’t live up to their expectations. Two of these players were geologists, and one was a science graduate. Players who focus on the story and epic nature of adventuring should really have no time to wonder why this mountain range is situated just so, or why this culture is so different, yet so close to another.

I even see veterans switch gods' portfolios, dogma, alignment, alliances. I played in the FR for about a year with one group, and I think that by the end I could mention Lathander and Helm and they would know. In three months, the PHB pantheon was second nature to them. The same group did DL without reading the novels, and picked up on the pantheon almost immediatly.

Perhaps that is the problem of a player, no? My players don’t seem to have an problem grasping the deities of Faerunian Pantheon…. The Faiths and Avatars books are readily available to them, and they make use of them. But I digress, different groups vary in taste.

I have found Level 8 wizards with 90% unsaveable DCs against most CR 8 opponents a case of power inflation (ie. shadow magic PrC with greater spell penetration, spellcasting prodigy). Perhaps your palyers don't min max enough to show the flaws of some of the possibilities in the FR. Then it would't be noticed. But even on paper, this is easily spotted, so I can't see how such a flaw has gotten past an otherwise exelently published and designed book.

I have something of the like in my current game. An Elemental Savant/Sorcerer with Bloodline of Fire, Spellcasting Prodigy…. His spells are very hard to resist, yes. But not to the point so the game suffers because of it. He has, in the past met casters of similar caliber, and those encounters were very balanced. I am happy to say my players don’t min/max, but neither do they blindly put their characters together. I’ve run just about all the Core Modules for Realms characters, and there is no balance problem. I’ve wiped out parties, and had parties wipe out dungeons in return.

About the "munch... errr.... epic" remark. My apologies, it was meant in jest, since I do not see the need for level 21+ gaming. The FR NPCs are mostly to blame for the view that it doesn't stop there I think. To come back to DL, People knew full well that level 18 was the limit. Done.

There is no “blame to lay” anywhere for a need of 21+ gaming. Since the inception of D&D their has always been a wonder of what was next… The basic and rules encyclopedia sets expanded character advancement up to godhood status. Those games expanded to level 36 prior to that. The Realms was hardly to blame for that.

Stopping at 20 (or 18) makes no sense. That is unless the player decides to retire at that point. I always thought it was silly that Dragonlance made you stop at that level. Does your character simply stop learning? Does he never pick up a new skill? There is no reason someone of that caliber would end their pursuit of power.

All your arguments that "Epic level characters are the prime movers and shakers" are proven wrong in most of the campaign worlds. Didn't the original DS have this big dragon as a prime mover? GH's circle of 9 is mostly high teens, and they can move and shake all they need to. Spells can be perfectly researched by level 17 characters... in fact, if you are truly the first wizard, it seems quite logical that you would do it at level 17, not at 20+... might as well get 4 levels of use out of those spells now, don't you think?

Untrue. Their were always powerful characters and NPCs that were out there, and beyond the normal spectrum. Zagyg (sp?) and others of that nature were always beyond the mortal ken of normal characters. They were the people that made artifacts and had their names in the everyday spells of common mages. Saying that players can’t attain that status really isn’t fair. By the way, Mordenkainen has Epic Levels as well… so would Phillidor (sp?). Vecna and Kas would be considered to have Epic Levels before their disappearance. Powerful NPCs did not originate in the Realms, and rules for Epic Level Characters are not being created because the Realms has high level NPCs, they are being created because there is a demand for them.

Just because spells can be researched by a 17th Level Character, why would he not want to further his power. Further enhance his power with metamagic feats, gain more experience to fuel those spells that require a sacrifice? It all had to happen for the D&D world to exist in its current paradigm.

Ren

 

[Ravellion]

Untrue. Their were always powerful characters and NPCs that were out there, and beyond the normal spectrum. Zagyg (sp?) and others of that nature were always beyond the mortal ken of normal characters. They were the people that made artifacts and had their names in the everyday spells of common mages. Saying that players can’t attain that status really isn’t fair. By the way, Mordenkainen has Epic Levels as well… so would Phillidor (sp?). Vecna and Kas would be considered to have Epic Levels before their disappearance. Powerful NPCs did not originate in the Realms, and rules for Epic Level Characters are not being created because the Realms has high level NPCs, they are being created because there is a demand for them.

Just because spells can be researched by a 17th Level Character, why would he not want to further his power. Further enhance his power with metamagic feats, gain more experience to fuel those spells that require a sacrifice? It all had to happen for the D&D world to exist in its current paradigm.

Ren

Crap! I am not that familiar with Greyhawk... ummm. Yes, there are a few, but I can quite easily see Mordy as 20th, and I'm not alone on that one.

Anyway, you see it as unfair. Sullaf? Are you reading this? I am not a fair DM aren't I? (Ie. too bad, my players aren't taking on the gods)

But the "realism" (a word I didn't use BTW, I used "suspension of disbelief") argument DOES hold true. Some just draw the lines before others do. You perhaps draw the line with the game taking place on a Mercury (as in the planet) type surface, inhabited by Green intelligent (and often psionic) oozes, as well as Blue liquid odorless flame flying through the air at random, like leaves in Autumn. But suspension of disbelief is possibly shattered.

In DL, deities take very close interest in the mortal world. Perhaps they'd taken a look at the Faerunian pantheon, constantly overwhelmed with upstart mortals . They consider beings above 18th level a threat, so usually invite them over to "heaven" so they can't wreak havoc on the pantheon, or they must be content with their mortal position (most remain). Some get special dispensation by their deities, or bypass their force in some way. For "some" you may read "Raistlin".

Rav