Why the hatred towards FRCS?

[Werewolf_26]

When I started DMing, I read through all the world building stuff I could find. I decided that I WANTED to make my own game world, rather than run someone else's.

I quickly found out a few things, in those early days: 1) If there is a book that relates to a setting, people will quote from it. 2) If you want the monsters to remain "secret", you have to create/modify them yourself. Its too easy for the groups with multiple DMs to know a monsters weaknesses etc.

There were many times that we were playing in that home brewed campaign of mine that someone stated, "This isn't how FR does it...Its this way in these books..." I really didn't care about what happened in someone else's setting as we were playing in one that I created.

The Realms was simply the first setting to assault my Home Brew Campaign in this manner. As I joined/started a new group later on, I found people who were fans of Planescape and Vampire to the same degree as the Realms Fans. Now one of the groups that I've started playing with have the Wheel of Time RPG book. We haven't played over a dozen sessions of that yet and already we have "This is how its done in that book..." again.

I don't mind that the books to any of these settings are popluar. I have used monsters out of both the FR Monster Manual(birthday present) and the Scarred Lands Creature Collection I books. They all have their own strong points and I'm glad people enjoy them.

I would rather spend more time on Creating a Campaign world than purchasing books on one (since creating it is a lot cheaper). I also like knowing more about the setting than the PCs, which isnt easily applied to the FR setting as there are a lot of books out there. I know as a DM its our job to pick and chose what we want in our campaigns. I just like creating whats there instead of fishing for the information.

I, for one, chose not to spend valuable game time on "Elminster did this in this book, and Drizz did that, and This WoT guy did this, and THIS is how the planes work because Planescape says so" arguements.

 

[J'quan]

Elmunchster is not what I would call a "small detail".

If people don't like aspects of the Realms, then don't use 'em! I think Faerun provides a nice, rich, environment to play in, and if you don't want to hassle with all the details (leaders of every city, organizations, etc.) you don't have to. As someone said back on page 1, it's about Framework. Pick an area, plop down your plot, and the he** with whatever trash novels have been written. Don't like Drizzt? He gets captured and sacrificed back to Lolth. Elminster got your shorts in a knot? Really sucked when the cultists and high priest of Bane captured him, and killed him, causing the huge religious war between Bane and Mystra right now.

No-one is invincible or invulnerable. Just because certain writers have decided to favour certain characters, and WoTC chose to near-immortalize them *cough*Drizzt*cough*, doesn't mean you have to.

 

[Chairman_Kaga]

J'quan is good...J'quan is wise. Heed his words.

 

[Renshai]

However, and my list is the only reason I point this out, The FRCS included a draft of those rules BEFORE they were even finished, BECAUSE decribing the main NPC's of the 'Realms was impossible without them. My point was rather that Epic levels are intrinsic to the setting, because so many characters there are above the Core range. Using Greyhawk and Dragonlance as an example, the PCs in those settings can be well-defined by using 20th level as a cap - even Mordenkainen, who has never shown any hint of power other than the abilities given in whatever edition he was printed under.

The is correct, but there are Epic Characters in other campaigns, and there are people out there that want Epic Rules for their own campaigns. The FR Setting alone did not drive the creation of these rules.

These things do not drive plots, but they ARE defining characteristics, because to outright say that you are removing them from the game or changing them takes away any difference between, say, the 'Realms and Greyhawk, or the 'Realms and Krynn. You can certainly downplay them for the sake of a campaign, but a cursory description of the Forgotten Realms always seems to include these elements, even from press distribution from TSR, and then WotC.

Elminster in his short stubby tower is not a defining characteristic. Sure he is paraded about as the primary expert on Realmslore, but his importance ends there. Just because WotC decides to use him in such a visible manner doesn’t mean we as players or DMs have to do so. If you wanted to run a campaign that was set in Shadowdale (and I’ve had a few) and things got out of hand inside the Dale, you need not expect Elminster to show up and solve problems. I imagine his attitude would simply be one of “wait and see”. Or , let the young whippersnappers handle these problems…

Alternately, if you want to run the return of the Shades from Netheril, the others are GOING to be involved. On an even lesser scale, if Orcs are about to overrun Silverymoon, you KNOW that Alustriel, Drizzt, some of the more competent warriors of Mithril Hall, and the leader of Silverymoon herself are going to step in. At no time would it make sense to "let Silverymoon fall if the PC's flub up", unless those worthies were physically incapable of doing so- say, being in Hell at the time

Excellent points, all. But it really is simple to leave everyone of those NPCs out those scenarios, with very little effort as well. If you want to run a campaign based around the Shades plotline, simply don’t let Khelben and Lady Laerl get involved. Maybe Laerl was seduced by the Crown of Horns again… there are always simple ways to do things like that.

Perhaps if Silverymoon fell under attack from an Orc Horde Drizzt would come to help. His help does not mean your player characters are ineffectual. If your characters ranged in the level 17 range they would make a hell of a bigger difference than Drizzt would. Keeping them in different parts of that way, on different fronts would be easy. Or perhaps Drizzt is away in the south trying to rid himself of Crenshinibon, or hunting pirates on the Sea of Swords.

If PC asked, “Well why doesn’t Drizzt show up and kill them all?”. My answer would be, “Hrmm, I don’t know. You would have to go find him and ask him.”

With the standardization of Epic Rules in the upcoming book, high level characters stealing the spotlight from PCs is no longer a problem. Attaining those power levels is simply a matter of surviving and sticking with a campaign for a couple of years….

Ren

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't really like the Realms. My basic reasons:
* It's too well defined - not enough room for creativity
* High-level NPCs - it's not just Elimster
* Low levels aren't possible - when first-level PCs are weaker than *everyone* they meet, they can't feel heroic
* No leaving your mark - until the super-high levels, characters are much too weak to make a difference in the world
* Rules balance - while internally balanced, FR's higher level of power in feats and spells makes using non-FR supplements difficult
* Lack of unique flavor - the Realms don't have anything truly unique, nothing to set them apart from other worlds (other than their NPCs )

 

[Renshai]

* It's too well defined - not enough room for creativity

Have you really tried? I find it sparks my creativity.

* High-level NPCs - it's not just Elimster

Comments like this just floor me. The current D&D game wouldn’t be the same if high level characters didn’t exist. Do you ever plan on your current characters reaching higher levels? Say you run Greyhawk for the next ten years, and in that time 14 of your PCs make it to the Epic Levels. Does this make your campaign not playable?

* Low levels aren't possible - when first-level PCs are weaker than *everyone* they meet, they can't feel heroic

Untrue. My PCs feel quite heroic. Elminster and Drizzt’s existence matters very little to them.

* No leaving your mark - until the super-high levels, characters are much too weak to make a difference in the world

Do you define leaving your mark by what level you attained? Or the deeds you performed? These sort of dislikes “usually” stem from someone not even giving it a try.

* Rules balance - while internally balanced, FR's higher level of power in feats and spells makes using non-FR supplements difficult

I’ve run, Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Heart of Nightfang Spire, and ¾ of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil for Forgotten Realms characters. Not once have the characters seemed too powerful for them. Again, something that you can’t know until you tried.

* Lack of unique flavor - the Realms don't have anything truly unique, nothing to set them apart from other worlds (other than their NPCs)

This is a matter of personal taste I suppose. However, I find that none of the other settings, (save for Scarred Lands) offer anything really unique in flavor.

Just my opinions…

Ren

 

[CRGreathouse]

Have you really tried? I find it sparks my creativity.

Yes, I've tried. I usually end up bulldozing whole areas and redoing it... it works, but it's inelegant.

Comments like this just floor me. The current D&D game wouldn’t be the same if high level characters didn’t exist. Do you ever plan on your current characters reaching higher levels? Say you run Greyhawk for the next ten years, and in that time 14 of your PCs make it to the Epic Levels. Does this make your campaign not playable?

It's not that there are high-level NPCs, it's how many and how widespread. I can't have any wide-reaching, world-changing events determinded by my PCs without either:
* Being on super-epic levels (30+)
* Bending realism by having *none* of the NPCs react.

Untrue. My PCs feel quite heroic. Elminster and Drizzt’s existence matters very little to them.

It's not the high-level NPcs, it's the fact that even merchants and city guards are higher level. A typical soldier in the DMG is a War1; in FR, I've seen "typical" soldiers as high as Ftr5 (Lords of Darkness, page ??). When a single rank-and-file soldier can beat the snot out of your whole group, you don't usually feel heroic - or at lerast my players don't.

Do you define leaving your mark by what level you attained? Or the deeds you performed? These sort of dislikes “usually” stem from someone not even giving it a try.

The deeds, which is the very problem. When world-changing events must logically be handled by a number of competing high-level NPCs, the players don't do much, despite reaching (reasonably) high levels.

I’ve run, Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury, Heart of Nightfang Spire, and ¾ of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil for Forgotten Realms characters. Not once have the characters seemed too powerful for them. Again, something that you can’t know until you tried.

Well, I'm glad they worked for you. In my excperience, it's noticibly off, though admitedly not something beyond a little tweaking.

This is a matter of personal taste I suppose. However, I find that none of the other settings, (save for Scarred Lands) offer anything really unique in flavor.

I agree with you on this point; that's why I stay away from published campaign settings! (Except as source material, obviously.)

 

[Renshai]

I suppose I can understand your views, if not agree with them. Those things just never come into play for games... it never seems less real because the NPCs don't react to some situations, I guess it is just that they never find out before the PCs take charge and take care (or try to) of it.

The PCs in my Temple of Elemental Evil Campaign know that something big is happening, and haven't once thought about going to tell someone big about it. Now, one of the PCs is a fledgling Harper that reports her progress on a regular basis, but the Harpers are leaving it in her capable hands. The PCs now that it is up them, and they enjoy it that way.

I've asked them about these probelms people seem to have with the Realms, especially the ones where the DMs think that the players will feel overshadowed... they just shrug their shoulders and say they don't understand how... they feel heroic... and that is all that matters. They know that one day they will be the high level characters... the sky is the limit in 3E.. and they like that.

I can truly understand that the Realms are not to some people's liking, for various reason. I think that some of those reasons include:
A) people that don't like it because they think Greyhawk was shafted because of it (not true)

or

B) The players can never feel like the heroes... (this seems like a DM problem...)

Ren

 

[CRGreathouse]

I suppose I can understand your views, if not agree with them. Those things just never come into play for games... it never seems less real because the NPCs don't react to some situations, I guess it is just that they never find out before the PCs take charge and take care (or try to) of it.

The PCs in my Temple of Elemental Evil Campaign know that something big is happening, and haven't once thought about going to tell someone big about it. Now, one of the PCs is a fledgling Harper that reports her progress on a regular basis, but the Harpers are leaving it in her capable hands. The PCs now that it is up them, and they enjoy it that way.

First, thanks for not flaming... I'd much rather have a calm discussion where we can learn from eac other's views than a shouting match.

The realism problem for me isn't that NPCs would be diving all over the world's problems, trying to fix them. For me, it's that no one is taking advantage of it. When huge, world-moving events happen, many people would want to be involved for purely selfish reasons; the PCs would be crowded out.

I'd comment on the Temple, but I don't have it.

I've asked them about these probelms people seem to have with the Realms, especially the ones where the DMs think that the players will feel overshadowed... they just shrug their shoulders and say they don't understand how... they feel heroic... and that is all that matters. They know that one day they will be the high level characters... the sky is the limit in 3E.. and they like that.

If they feel heroic, that's great - but mine don't. Again, it varies from group to group. The realism problem is mostly on the DM's end; the heroism problem is mostly on the PC's end.

I can truly understand that the Realms are not to some people's liking, for various reason. I think that some of those reasons include:
A) people that don't like it because they think Greyhawk was shafted because of it (not true)

or

B) The players can never feel like the heroes... (this seems like a DM problem...)

Ren

I agree that these are the two most common reasons people dislike FR, at the most basic level.

A. While I'll take a lot of flack from GH fans, I *like* what happened to GH when Wizards stopped supporting it seperatly. Now it's less of a world and more of a world-building kit; great for homebrew. I certainly don't hold this against FR.

B. The players don't feel very much like heroes when I use extravagant excuses to keep NPCs out, and they don't feel like heroes at all when I give in to "realism" (verisimilitude?) and have the NPCs pour in.

 

[weiknarf]

I think that part of the hatred for FR is due to the books, or the fact that these books are added to the FR 'canon'. So we have lots of stupid things written by bad writers added to a world that's meant for gaming.

This results in villains who always lose and superhero goodguys. Worst of all must be by Greenwood himself.

Greenwood addresses this issue here:

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/2566/ed-novels.htm