NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 8212973" data-attributes="member: 18182">Hey, gotta respect living your truth! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />D&D "defaults" (kinda) to the Realms for two reasons, 1) it's the most popular D&D setting ever, and 2) it doesn't really stray that far at all from "core" D&D. There isn't much, if anything, in the hundreds of Realms books that wouldn't work just fine in any standard D&D fantasy campaign. That's part of the reason why I have never understood the level of Realms-hate that gets expressed sometimes. I mean, some of the Greenwoodian naming-conventions get a bit goofy (Volothamp Geddarm?), but other than that . . .And again, other than (most) of the 5E adventure paths . . . none of the D&D 5E books are Realms books (EDIT: Oops, except the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. One). Volo's and Xanathar's books, despite their title characters being from the Realms, are NOT Realms books. Just as Mordenkainen's and Tasha's books aren't Greyhawk books. Is some of the lore presented borrowed from the Realms? Yup, but again, it's the highly portable lore that dovetails with non-Realms D&D lore or fills a gap where there is none.Heh, depends on what you mean by "standard bad guys". But I agree, having "bad guys" is okay, and to have a bad-guy organization that avoids being based on the obvious choices (fascists, nazis, slavers) but rather, lets say, an expansionist, capitalist democracy . . . . it'd certainly be a nice change!</blockquote>

Verification