| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Voland |
Posted - 03 Mar 2005 : 08:13:22
Well, sometimes, when you making game in your favorite FR, you're, maybe, think: "Damned, but I really need to placed a island HERE! Without this island I can't continue my game!"
For a long time ago I think (like pseudoromantic) what it's isn't right to change something in FR. But later I think - well, I'm making my games only by my owm modules, not by modules of WOTC or somebody else. So, why can't I change the world?! What a problem?!
But for me intresting another opinion - opinion of another masters, and players so on. What are you think, can anybody make a change in setting? And if you think "may", then "how YOU do this"? And is the different - make a little village or big city in Anauroch?
Let's begin...
P.S. Sorry, if you didn't understand a question because my English. But I'm didn't know it well (see from there I am).
|
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sigonan |
Posted - 07 Mar 2005 : 13:18:20
As a new DM my piece of advice is small, still I shall offer it.
I've been playing 2e and I'm going through the rules of the third edition as well, just in case it suits me to add a few changes. On the same time, I'm reading a few modules by the official FR bibliography. My conclusion is that officially, there are more changes in the Realms (I recently found about a prestige class called nightcloaks who learn to tame their werewolf traits... which by most DM's would be characterized as "no-can-do" case...).
Thus, the only problem is that most of the times you might need to stick to the spirit of the Realms. This is where the official products help a lot. But should you find something exciting I believe it is OK to add/change/whatever, as long as it does not disrupt the atmosphere of the Realms. Else, you might want to construct you own "homebrew world", which is as exciting.
For example, I tend to add whole organisations opposing the all-time classic Harpers and at the same time the Zhents. My players seem much more fascinated since it's something new.
Innovations in the Realms come from those who play in them, as much in the Realms, as well in the real world. So why not add an island? It is another thing if you don't like big cities (by the way, you might want to teleport your players someplace else if you don't like the scenery...).And who knows? You might decide that you can send this to the WoTC and get it published and someday I or others in this forum will get excited and play it  |
| Mareka |
Posted - 06 Mar 2005 : 01:05:50
When running published adventures it is almost always easier to adapt the settings used to already existing places in the Realms. Villages, small islands, and ruins are assumed to be there anyway, so adding them is easy.
Things often happen in campaigns that affect the setting or the timeline and a DM needs to have the versatility to adjust timelines and published Realms events to account for that. Otherwise nothing players do will ever matter. It's probably a good idea for groups to keep their own constantly updated timeline of things that they have done in their various campaigns. |
| EvilKnight |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 22:02:16
quote:
The reason I play in a predesigned setting is to avoid a ton of footwork. Its great to have a ton of **potentially** useful information at ones finger tips. No need for me to waste time or creativity better spent defining more relevent aspects of my campaign. Afterall, the cities, towns and nations passed through as the adventurers make for Dungeon X, are not the goal, the point, Dungeon X is the point, but those other features are there neverthless and its nice to liven them up, beyond a mere name and an inn or two ... to have some sense of the place to offer.
I agree with Beowolf here. The older I get the less time I have to muck around creating a world. My players want to explore an area, I have plenty of lore to peruse for ideas. I've never had any trouble taking a generic adventure and twisting it into something that fit in the realms. In fact, my campaigns have been strung together modules from 1st and 2nd edition realms-ified and placed in the realms.
EvilKnight |
| Beowulf |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 19:51:58
The reason I play in a predesigned setting is to avoid a ton of footwork. Its great to have a ton of **potentially** useful information at ones finger tips. No need for me to waste time or creativity better spent defining more relevent aspects of my campaign. Afterall, the cities, towns and nations passed through as the adventurers make for Dungeon X, are not the goal, the point, Dungeon X is the point, but those other features are there neverthless and its nice to liven them up, beyond a mere name and an inn or two ... to have some sense of the place to offer.
On the otherhand, sometime ago my players were going to make a trip out to Unther, but I didn't have any info other than what was provided in the old FRCS about Unther, so I detailed the area myself. Its very different from canon. Should I have held off on sending them there until I found a product that detailed the area? Why? Just to pay someone to do something I can just as easily do myself? And why shouldn't I feel free to play with the FRCS and nothing else if, for whatever reason, thats my perogative?
Incidently, I did end up buying the old 2nd Ed booklet on Unther and Mulhurond anyway. I still use my maps and my ideas though.
Come to think of it. There is "canon" realms, and then there is Ed Greenwood's, the FR Creator's (Big C) realms. If we played in the real realms, Ed's realms, how much different would it be from the generic, cookie cutter product? Moonshaes, Vaasa, Damara, the pantheons and cultres of the Old Empires, aren't those all things Ed didn't have or had (has?) different?
Another thing. I hate it when a player goes out, buys all available products, and then returns thinking they can trump the DM and spoiling everyones fun. I'm not playing trivia, but DnD. And this DM's not only the "pope", but the entire frickin Vatican around this DnD table. I doesn't serve my purpose as a DM for the players to have access and insight into all sorts of things they shouldn't. So, while I use canon-fodder at least as often as I don't, it seems a good idea to me to always keep them guessing.
A funny thing .... we have simliar discussion in various religious circles that I'm in; about what the ancestors believed and what we should believe. Perhaps some of you DnD canonfreaks can teach one or two of my peers a thing or two about respect and reverence for custom?
 |
| Kuje |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 19:51:25
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Wow thats harsh guys.
I have to come to the defense of those who change the setting. Yes I love and care for the realms and I hate unexplained changes but seriously, if you change things you are still playing in the Realms.
Now I do agree, partly, that there are times when you really have to think about the changes you are making and how it will effect everything but telling people they aren't playing in the Realms because they change thing is a bit harsh.
I'm not talking about ignoring a couple RSEs or adding a town here or a castle there... I'm talking about things like replacing everything outside of the Heartlands with your own setting, or having an entirely different kingdom in place of Cormyr -- things like that.
I understand that not all like RSEs. I don't agree, but I can understand and respect that. Likewise, I can understand those who decide there needs to be a town here or that NPC X needs to be replaced with home-made NPC Y.
What I don't understand it the people who "love the Realms" but feel obligated to write out Thay's existence, entirely replace Cormyr, say that Elminster never existed, replace the entire pantheon with 5 gods, things like that.
In other words, minor changes or holding at a specific point in time are perfectly acceptable to me. Removing elements Q, R, and S from the Realms because you don't like them is not acceptable to me. The Realms is the entire alphabet, not just a few letters here and there.
If I wanted a setting that felt like things were just tossed in with no rhyme or reason, I'd play in Greyhawk (no offense to GH fans, that's just how that setting has always felt to me).
That I can agree with, partly :) Which is why, as you know Wooly, I continue to argue about the planar changes or why some NPC's turned evil, etc. :) However, if the PC's or even the DM decide to do away with Cormyr or change it with a in game reason then that's thier right. My Cormyr is no where near the same as the canon version because of changes PC's did to it.
Sorry I just was annoyed earlier and decided to rant. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 18:52:36
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Wow thats harsh guys.
I have to come to the defense of those who change the setting. Yes I love and care for the realms and I hate unexplained changes but seriously, if you change things you are still playing in the Realms.
Now I do agree, partly, that there are times when you really have to think about the changes you are making and how it will effect everything but telling people they aren't playing in the Realms because they change thing is a bit harsh.
I'm not talking about ignoring a couple RSEs or adding a town here or a castle there... I'm talking about things like replacing everything outside of the Heartlands with your own setting, or having an entirely different kingdom in place of Cormyr -- things like that.
I understand that not all like RSEs. I don't agree, but I can understand and respect that. Likewise, I can understand those who decide there needs to be a town here or that NPC X needs to be replaced with home-made NPC Y.
What I don't understand it the people who "love the Realms" but feel obligated to write out Thay's existence, entirely replace Cormyr, say that Elminster never existed, replace the entire pantheon with 5 gods, things like that.
In other words, minor changes or holding at a specific point in time are perfectly acceptable to me. Removing elements Q, R, and S from the Realms because you don't like them is not acceptable to me. The Realms is the entire alphabet, not just a few letters here and there.
If I wanted a setting that felt like things were just tossed in with no rhyme or reason, I'd play in Greyhawk (no offense to GH fans, that's just how that setting has always felt to me). |
| Kuje |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 18:19:00
Wow thats harsh guys.
I have to come to the defense of those who change the setting. Yes I love and care for the realms and I hate unexplained changes but seriously, if you change things you are still playing in the Realms.
Now I do agree, partly, that there are times when you really have to think about the changes you are making and how it will effect everything but telling people they aren't playing in the Realms because they change thing is a bit harsh.
Even Ed makes things up and adds things, he's done it even for us on this site! But, again, most of us who do realize that we have to factor in how those changes will effect that nation/land/city/NPC/etc.
But I can't stress this enough that its a bit harsh to tell us who have DM'd in FR for years that we are not running the Realms because we changed it to suit our players or ourselves.
I know for a fact, and I've done it myself to some of my old DM's, that when I'm playing under a DM or when I'm DM and they or I change something I WANT or expect them to question the reasons why that NPC/nation/city/etc came into existance and how it effects the places/cities/land/NPCs around it.
Will I ever use that return of Shades? Probably not. I know for a fact I'll never use the ToT's and yes that event is so ingrained with realmslore it's hard to write it all out but I've done so and I've made a few errors over the years, because of it, but I corrected them and fixed them in my history of the setting. If Elaine writes her Tree of Soul story, that will never be included in my version because a PC planted the Tree back in 2e.
Right now I have another group that is part of a merc company and I made it up. It has ties to the Flaming Fist and Duke Eltan. I've also added a hamlet that grew up around it but to claim that I'm not playing FR because of that change, that just bothers me!
Okay rant off. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 16:40:13
quote:
Originally posted by Reefy
If you choose to ignore large amounts of canon, and I don't mean people like kuje who clearly care about the Realms and like it in a certain way, I don't see the point in playing in the Realms. There is such a wealth of detail and a wonderful world to play with, chopping and changing vast chunks of it just seems wasteful and pointless - why not just play a homebrew world?
I agree wholeheartedly. Either play in the Realms, or play in another world. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 14:33:29
It's a question of balance and obviously the more you add, the harder it is to keep things from making sense and the more detail you have to give something to make it consistent and fit in.
If you choose to ignore large amounts of canon, and I don't mean people like kuje who clearly care about the Realms and like it in a certain way, I don't see the point in playing in the Realms. There is such a wealth of detail and a wonderful world to play with, chopping and changing vast chunks of it just seems wasteful and pointless - why not just play a homebrew world? |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 05 Mar 2005 : 07:26:08
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Indeed. Adding larger features means you have to work them into the economy and history of nearby cities and such. And it's not just adding in a note or two on a timeline, either -- there will be alliances, conflicts, cultural influences... If, in established Realmslore, a city nearly fell to a huge orc horde, what happens when you put in another good-sized city nearby? If it's smaller, why didn't it fall? Did the orcs ignore it? If it's larger, why were the orcs attacking the other one? And so on and so forth.
Wooly! I'm getting horrible flashbacks about the time I was fleshing out my North Timeline! Stop it.  Now of course, I've got the same problems - except in the East. I just had to create a whole new Delzounian fortress in the North to accomodate a mountain on the borders of Sossal. Go figure.
-- George Krashos
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Mar 2005 : 23:16:38
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
The main reason not to add big towns and cities is you have to make them all up yourself, and adjust the area roundabout to accommodate them.
Indeed. Adding larger features means you have to work them into the economy and history of nearby cities and such. And it's not just adding in a note or two on a timeline, either -- there will be alliances, conflicts, cultural influences... If, in established Realmslore, a city nearly fell to a huge orc horde, what happens when you put in another good-sized city nearby? If it's smaller, why didn't it fall? Did the orcs ignore it? If it's larger, why were the orcs attacking the other one? And so on and so forth. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 04 Mar 2005 : 16:06:58
The official maps deliberately leave out hundreds of small islands, thousands of villages, and several dozen small self-proclaimed 'kingdoms' that we know are there. Apart from the largest social and geographical features, the known published elements of the Realms are just examples -- a lot of misconceptions about the Realms stem from misunderstanding that.
The main reason not to add big towns and cities is you have to make them all up yourself, and adjust the area roundabout to accommodate them. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 04 Mar 2005 : 05:27:37
I've added tons of things to the Realms. Founded cities, destroyed them, named and re-named them, created kings and queens, dynasties, wars - you name it. And I didn't change one bit of the published Realms in doing so. Of course, I worked damn hard to make all the above stuff fit in with the published Realms and my creations were (if I do say so myself) well thought out, cohesive and true to the setting, but basically if you work hard to make it fit - another village or town or island put somewhere where there is little or no detail is great! How do you think Ed created the Realms in the first place: by adding stuff as he needed it or thought it up. I say, go for it but do your research and try and tie your own personal creations into the FR bedrock as best you can. If you create a village a couple of days travel out from Baldur's Gate, detail its relationship with that city, how it developed in the shadow of one of Faerun's great metropolises, etc. etc. But above all, don't be scared to exercise your own creativity.
-- George Krashos
|
| Mareka |
Posted - 03 Mar 2005 : 22:21:24
I find that adding a small island or small town doesn't disrupt anything as long as it makes sense for it to be there and fits into the region well. Minor ruins work fine, too. With Lost Empires of Faerun you can acurately choose ruins that fit the area and how to portray them.
Events can get trickier. As DM, you don't want to be limited too much on what kind of story to tell, but you don't want to completely change the setting either. Compromise has always worked for me. Keep events reletively local, and adjust timelines to take account what PCs have done. |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 03 Mar 2005 : 21:52:05
The way I do it, is i stick mostly with canon stuff. If its not out then I dont change it. unless its unwritten details people may not know about. thats where I started. Everything afterword is events I recorded, and the heroes can do whatever I record It all. Then, when I run the next game, I don't go back to canon, but all my players build on the history set after my last campaign. Of course that means my modules arent reuseable, but its kindof cool when one player, justin as a name example is from a country that had an important hero, who happened to be from my old group, and justin knows the guy personally. I dunno, I dont make up Islands, but if im using a non fr module I'll find somewhere to put it in the realms. I also make alot of maps for cities that didnt come with them.
Basically the players are generally the only ones who can override canon material. I then treat all that new history as conon material for all future games. |
| Beowulf |
Posted - 03 Mar 2005 : 17:57:22
As an independent DM, who paid these guys to give him something to play with, and who isn't getting paid himself to produce or maintain something for popular consumption, I have always reserved the right to play with said toy however I please.
I mean, to do otherwise would tie the hands of the DM, leaving both DM and player alike at the mercy of canon as far as realms altering events go. The players would never be the central heroes, the real heroes, save for in lesser non-realms altering events, that are, as far as "canon" is concerned essentially meaningless. And while playing the lead role in a relams-altering campaign might be as rare as relams altering evetns should be, its nice to reserve that liberty and leave canon in the workplace it belongs in.
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 03 Mar 2005 : 17:41:26
I stick to canon when it suits me. But I also mess with the timeline and add in places because I've DM'd in 2e and it was "core" that the classes, at certain levels, got to build towers, guilds, castles, etc.
I've also added in many small to large towns, ruins, etc. As well as write out the RSE's or the changes I don't agree with.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Mar 2005 : 11:22:14
I try to stick with canon, but at the same time, I'll let some changes slide. I don't mess with the timeline or events, but minor things like adding a town or small island are perfectly acceptable to me. |
|
|
