| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Grumpy Celt |
Posted - 25 Jun 2007 : 04:15:41
Often, when people do not like a Forgotten Realms product, they will complain about how it lacks the “Realms Feel.”
What, to you, is the Realms Feel? What constitutes the elements of what makes the Realms the Realms? Why do you think these elements are important to the setting?
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gyor |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 00:47:39
I came in around time of troubles roughly. For me its two fold. One is the basic theme that is right in the title. Forgotten Realms.
It works on multilevels. Its the rich history of the realms with it amazing forgotten cultures and empires. Its searching ancient ruins of a forgotten people. Its that it still has the living cultures of empires long forgotten and dead on earth (Mulhorand isn't Egypt like, it is Egypt, reborn). Its that undering Forgotten Realms such as Netheril matter, because forgotten realms can live again.
I mean take Mulhorand its not this isolated empire that has no effect on the nations around it. Its history has forged some of these and influenced the evolution of countless nationstates, its culture, trade, bloodlines and ideals have spread throughout the realms. The same can be said of Calimshan and Netheril and others. This adds depth and wonder and a sense of legacy.
Two is the divine drama that seperates it from other settings and the rich religions and philosophies. Hate to say most, but not all of my favour realms books have been RSE's books or at least regional shaking books, with a few exceptions, but I also prefer epic play. I like power.
Its what keeps the Realms from becoming a kitchen sink setting like Golarian (although Golarian is growing on me, alot). |
| Gyor |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 00:40:25
I came in around time of troubles roughly. For me its two fold. One is the basic theme that is right in the title. Forgotten Realms.
It works on multilevels. Its the rich history of the realms with it amazing forgotten cultures and empires. Its searching ancient ruins of a forgotten people. Its that it still has the living cultures of empires long forgotten and dead on earth (Mulhorand isn't Egypt like, it is Egypt, reborn). Its that undering Forgotten Realms such as Netheril matter, because forgotten realms can live again.
I mean take Mulhorand its not this isolated empire that has no effect on the nations around it. Its history has forged some of these and influenced the evolution of countless nationstates, its culture, trade, bloodlines and ideals have spread throughout the realms. The same can be said of Calimshan and Netheril and others. This adds depth and wonder and a sense of legacy.
Two is the divine drama that seperates it from other settings and the rich religions and philosophies. Hate to say most, but not all of my favour realms books have been RSE's books or at least regional shaking books, with a few exceptions, but I also prefer epic play. I like power.
Its what keeps the Realms from becoming a kitchen sink setting like Golarian (although Golarian is growing on me, alot). |
| BEAST |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 21:57:07
I said this in Eric's recent scroll on the same subject: for me, the signature aspect of the Realms is that whatever you're doing and wherever you are, there's a sense that there's still a whole lot more out there. The Realms feel like a lot of different countries and cultures with their own unique histories.
I would agree that connectivity is fun and cool. But for me, even if they don't connect, just to be able to have the sense that there are a lot of "others" out there doing their own thing at the same time that you are doing yours says "Realms" to me.
I actually contrast the Realms against Middle-Earth, which has always given me the sense that Tolkien wanted everything to tie back in with the central story of the One Ring. The connectivity there seems almost contrived.
The real world has a lot of people doing their own things, who never interact with people who are radically different from them. They are insular, like that. The Realms,therefore, should similarly have people/races/nations which have rich histories, but are not necessarily readily relatable to one another.
The overall effect should be to make you feel small, in a big, big world. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 19:14:28
Yeah, my answer from 2007 remains pretty-much the same. I didn't realize I was active here back then (probably just started getting active, when the WotC site 'got ugly').
I didn't bother to edit my posts for grammatical errors back then, either. 
The only thing I would add to that is that I was overly simplistic. The Realms has layers, and you can peel them back one at a time, and never get to the center. So I was talking just about the two most prominent layers, or even clusters of layers.
I guess that means Realms stories never have true endings - what they have is 'completions of current tasks', which often lead to multiple future tasks (which in turn branch out to even more 'roads' in life). I think its that branching and overlapping with other stories that makes the Realms feel so real - the characters are never acting in void.
At least, in the well-written stories they aren't. 'Connectivity' might be the Realms flavor. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 16:28:40
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
I think that WoG and FR are the two published D&D settings that most resemble one another. That's a good thing. It makes adapting materials from one setting to the other pretty easy.
Agreed. The dungeons and adventures I have seen from Greyhawk do transition between worlds nicely. Moreover, both do have great similarities in history and geography, as you pointed out.
The big difference that I have experienced is the villans. In Greyhawk, villans tend to be more black and white, whereas the Realms presents more of a colorful, or at least shaded grey villan.
A recent example would be the villan from the Erevis Cale trilogy. I won't post details because I don't want to spoil anything if anyone reading hasn't read it yet, but essentially, he isn't the typical, "I want unlimited power" badguy mage.
Again, my impression of Greyhawk might just be my limited knowledge and, frankly, a bad flavor in my mouth due to a DM who had very one-dimensional villans. Yet, the villans are what seperated the Realms from Greyhawk to me. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 15:56:49
I think that WoG and FR are the two published D&D settings that most resemble one another. That's a good thing. It makes adapting materials from one setting to the other pretty easy.
Some things the two settings have in common:
Both settings make fairly heavy use of ancient fallen empires that used funky magic and have been buried by the sand.
Heck--magically created deserts. Both worlds have more than one of these. Are there any natural deserts at all, aside from cold deserts?
Fantastic ice features. The Great Glacier and the Land of Black Ice.
The usual suspects bad guy races copped from Tolkien and folklore
Drow
The usual human and demi human/Tolkienian allied races (although with a somewhat different spin in each setting)
Lankmhar style cities complete with thieves guilds, big sewers, assassins, wererats, and all that jazz
Low population density and lots of wilderness, especially as compared with Medieval Europe (which neither setting really resembles very much)
Fantasy polytheism with active, meddling, physically manifesting gods (more active in the FR in the AD&D 2E stuff, but not so in the 1E materials)
Both worlds have a number of famous, powerful, godlike NPCs. Eliminster and the Chosen? Sure, how about some quasi deities and hero-gods like Murlynd, Heward, etc. :)
Fairly high magic levels-- arguably higher in FR stuff, but I think close look at the WoG modules will show that WoG is not written as a low magic setting. It can be certainly be run that way, but it's not actually set up like that in the published format.
|
| Delwa |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 14:55:26
What is "the Realms feel?" question is something my DM and I were discussing the other day. Mind, I personally have very little experience roleplaying outside the Realms, but I will echo my DM's word as I have no experience that would gainsay what he expressed.
To me, the Realms has depth and more multi-dimensional characters. In our experience, worlds like Greyhawk, for example, tend to have more "bwahahahah, I am eeeeevil" villans and dangers. Ravenloft is, by mere definition, just dark and twisted, and Dark Sun is more of a pure survival game. Dragonlance is alright, but it has a more... segregated feel than the Realms.
To us, the Realms is more inclusive. It also has a fleshed out history. It didn't merely design itself around dungeon crawl after dungeon crawl.
The Realms also has almost the right blend of technology and magic, whereas Eberron tends to be more steam-punk techy with magic mixed in.
Granted, all of this might simply be a failure on the other DMs we've played under. It might be that those DMs didn't properly portray Greyhawk, or Dragonlance, and that first impression tainted our opinions when we delved into the novels and sourcebooks of other worlds.
However, that's still our impression. To us, the Realms fits us. It's inclusive, varied enough culturally, technologically, and historically, and it feels like we're at home. |
| scererar |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 14:37:34
Cool. My answer in 2007 was the same as a couple of weeks ago when asked in Erik's recent scroll pertaining to the feel of the realms. |
| Caolin |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 07:47:29
quote:
Originally posted by The Grumpy Celt
Often, when people do not like a Forgotten Realms product, they will complain about how it lacks the “Realms Feel.”
What, to you, is the Realms Feel? What constitutes the elements of what makes the Realms the Realms? Why do you think these elements are important to the setting?
A sense of mystery and lost lore. I came into the Realms with the Old Grey Box, the Dark Walker books and the Crystal Shard trilogy. Back then there was this huuuuuuge world map put in front of you right out of the gate. But only two small books to fill it with stuff.
I remember taping those maps up on my bedroom wall and I would just stare at it trying to imagine what all the different places were like. It just really sparked my sense of wonder. When I read the novels I would just be dying to figure out where all the events were taking place on that huge map.
So in short, the Realms "Feel" is this feeling like there are things about this world that you don't know and the desire to uncover those unknowns. The problem is that when a world matures as the Realms has, it loses that sense of mystery and the unknown. I don't honestly believe that you can get it back so it has to adapt. I feel that the world is still huge and there is still a lot to be learned. But the mystery is almost gone. But what is left behind is this very diverse and interesting world where there are a million stories to be told.
Once we as fans come to accept that fact then maybe we can move forward in a more positive way. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 06:39:34
I suspect that a better way to put it would be that a given product does not feel 'Greenwoodian.'
FR is a shared world, so of course it contains a lot of different styles and elements.
The core areas of Faerun (Heartlands, North) do have a common set of elements. It's more than just all those L and TH names. :) I think that the early Dragon Magazine FR articles, most notably Down to Earth Divinity, went a long way towards establishing that feeling. I’d describe it as such:
• Free will for gods and men; the future is not set in stone
• Lore, lore, and more lore
• A mix of imminent peril and cautious optimism
• Many of the same fantasy and folkloric influences as seen elsewhere in Gygax and Arneson’s game; but with a stronger ‘Fairy Tale Old England that Never Was’ feel. Some bits of Narnia, which only reinforces the ideas of cross world travel and a certain fairy tale sensibility. Maybe a bit less drawn from historical war gaming, pulp sci fi, and weird fiction, when compared with World of Greyhawk.
• Mercantile activity and gainful trades are not skimmed over, but are integral parts of the setting. Cities, traders, guilds, etc. get a lot of love.
• Canada! It’s mostly geographic, but I do see a bit of Canada reflected in the North. This might just be my interpretation.
|
| Hawkins |
Posted - 25 Jun 2008 : 00:10:02
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
James Wyatt has little (if anything) to do with the 4e Realms.
He's certainly involved according to his blog, which I was referring to.
To be clear, I'm not speculating about what any of these designers really feels or wants, just pointing to their stated aims and preferences, many of which are either opposed or unrelated to those of the Realms as created by Ed and published, in its better moments, till recently.
Hmmm...I wonder when they pulled him in...he was not initially involved last September, but that easily could have changed. I stopped reading the blogs when pretty much none of them posted for awhile (I think that that period was between December and March) and never started back up again. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 24 Jun 2008 : 23:04:42
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
James Wyatt has little (if anything) to do with the 4e Realms.
He's certainly involved according to his blog, which I was referring to.
To be clear, I'm not speculating about what any of these designers really feels or wants, just pointing to their stated aims and preferences, many of which are either opposed or unrelated to those of the Realms as created by Ed and published, in its better moments, till recently. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 23 Jun 2008 : 17:09:44
Here is a link to my Why Do You Love the Realms? thread on the WotC forums. I copied the link right before the server decided to crash again.  If this a good indication of how the who DDi/Gleemax thing is going to work in the future, I don't know how they are going to create it into a successful business feature. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 23 Jun 2008 : 16:45:16
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Rich Baker, Chris Perkins, James Wyatt and Chris Sims have now given us a pretty coherent, if incomplete, picture of their priorities.
Back in his blog that he had for Gen Con and the months after (up to when they first moved R&R Blogs over to Gleemax from the forums, and I don't know what happened to it now), Chris Perkins pretty much owned up being the main person who is responsible for the story changes implemented in the Realms, as he was Story Editor (or some similar position) at the time. Now, Rich and Chris Sims have claimed to think that the changes are "cool" in the past, but I am not sure if they are allowed to say if the really think so or they have to to make sure they do not get fired. James Wyatt has little (if anything) to do with the 4e Realms. |
| Cbad285 |
Posted - 23 Jun 2008 : 15:41:36
What gives a product the Realms feel?
Each product, be it a source book or moduel should in some way add to the world as a whole. FR has always been a sortof carried on story world that each DM, each player effects and adds to. A product should be set into FR, but still be open enough to leave the resulting history in the hands of the players. When I use a product be it source book or moduel, I want it to alter my world when I'm done with it. I want it to cast a lasting shadow.
That makes a realm product, realmsy...imo |
| Faraer |
Posted - 25 Nov 2007 : 22:52:46
This was my stab in July at itemizing which qualities I find essential to the Realms, and that I find valuable and distinctive about it:quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
'as if real' worldbuilding
intertwined events (the Weave)
mix of picaresque sword and sorcery with high fantasy
open-hearted, fun, humanist, compassionate
egalitarian (local, not teleontological value)
librarian's love, lore and memory
proper names and language
roleplaying over rules
no cheap flashy cool
particular kind of immanent history
Rich Baker, Chris Perkins, James Wyatt and Chris Sims have now given us a pretty coherent, if incomplete, picture of their priorities. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Jul 2007 : 07:33:45
Eragon's backdrop reminds me of the Realms, but not the story so much.
I like the Dragon from Dragonheart, it had a Realms feel, but not so much the storyline (although I could see it) I mean, come on, Sean Connery has the perfect voice for a dragon. 
Some of the 'darker' parts of the LotR trilogy reminded me of both Thay and Zhentil keep, and the ancient statues in the woods definatley had a 'Realms Feel'.
Some of the magical aspects of the Indiana Jones movies had that realms feel (the ruins and dungeons, mostly, and the whole 'quest' thing).
The fantasy movie I think had the least 'realms Feel' was Dungeons and Dragons - I still get nauseous thinking about it.
As far as novels go, I can think of only two. The Mithgar novels by Dennis L. McKiernan, and the Belgariad. I like the world of the Belgariad a lot, and the group of adventurers going on a quest to save the kingdoms is very 'Realmesque'. The first series has Warrows, which are everything I imagine realms halflings to be. |
| Mark S. |
Posted - 11 Jul 2007 : 17:18:10
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
Few films have ever given me a feel of the realms with the possible exception of 'parts' of the movie Hawk the Slayer. (Yeah its cheesey, but it has its moments  )
HAWK THE SLAYER!!! Man, when I was 11 years old, that was the coolest movie in the world. Weekends were spent playing D&D while we watched HAWK THE SLAYER, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, and BEASTMASTER over and over and over again.
Do you watch LOST? Hawk is on that show. He's Jack's dad.
|
| Chyron |
Posted - 11 Jul 2007 : 17:04:59
While I have read some Realms books that totally lacked a Realms feel (for me), I really only recall reading two non-realms books that reminded me of the realms. One was the Paksenarrion trilogy (by Elizabeth Moon), but it was really only the first book that gave me the feeling. The other series was the Sword Dancer trilogy (by Jennifer Roberson). In part I think becuase both of these series were initially very light on their own lore in the early stages that I was able to merge them into parts of the realms as I read.
Few films have ever given me a feel of the realms with the possible exception of 'parts' of the movie Hawk the Slayer. (Yeah its cheesey, but it has its moments )
Interestingly enough I find the wilderness environments in the game Oblivion to be very much how I imagine parts of the realms, much more so in fact than any of the recent FR video games. I spend more time wandering around, picking flowers and plants and exploring the environs and marvelling at the landscape, than actually going on the quests, and I imagine the realms would have much the same effect. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 11 Jul 2007 : 16:27:43
quote:
Originally posted by Mark S.
So if you were trying to describe the Realms to a friend who had never read any Realms novels or even played D&D, what movies or other books would you compare it to? What movies or novels seem to mirror "the Realms feel" in your mind?
I tried making this list, and after the Richard Lester Musketeers films it gets more difficult: a lot of possibilities that mostly need qualification.
Bookswise, Fritz Leiber plus Roger Zelazny plus Guy Gavriel Kay would be a good triangulation.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The Realms has something for everyone, and there really isn't any single single 'feel'.
There isn't a single precise narrow register. If there wasn't an envelope of feel, it wouldn't be an imaginary place, just a collection of information. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 Jul 2007 : 21:46:54
There are two Realms, IMHO, and what you folks are disagreeing on seems to be on which you prefer.
There is the overall political environment of the Realms, where sometimes 'politics makes strange bedfellows' - In that Realms Ex-Harpers ally with Zantarrim, and Elminster makes deals with Red Wizards. This is basically the 'novel' Realms, in many respects, where the actions of a single individual, or a pair of individuals, changes the course of history (like a Dark Elf who fights a thousand Orcs...).
Then there is the 'Game Realms', the one from the sourcebooks. All of that other stuff mentioned above is just background. It's about a party of adventurers who have to defend a local village, one that probably very few people have heard of. Its the realms where a few friends stop at an Inn for a brew, and a group of assassins burst in trying to kill some unknown personage at another table. Its the realms where finding a child's Teddy Bear is just as important to the hero as saving the world. These many bands of adventurers don't move planets and shake kingdoms, they chip away at the small evils, hoping to make a better place for everyione... and just perhaps, make some cash along the way.
Somewhere in the middle is where these worlds collide, and adventuring groups get 'caught-up' in the kindom's politics. This is when our PCs go from being local heroes to the stuff of legends, and they themselves become part of the backdrop that is the Realms.
So you see, its really all a difference in playing style. The Realms has something for everyone, and there really isn't any single single 'feel'.
Except, just maybe, that adventure is always just around the corner... |
| Mark S. |
Posted - 10 Jul 2007 : 20:03:40
quote:
Originally posted by Snotlord
which makes "Hidden Dragon, Crouching Tiger" a better Realms movie than LOTR.
That's a good point.
So if you were trying to describe the Realms to a friend who had never read any Realms novels or even played D&D, what movies or other books would you compare it to? What movies or novels seem to mirror "the Realms feel" in your mind?
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 08 Jul 2007 : 23:43:25
quote:
Originally posted by initiate
This emphasis on single-handedly overcoming mighty challenges, (challenges amongst which ravening hordes of beasties feature far to prominently for a Realms product, with all the subtleties, layered intrigues, etc that the setting has on offer), just didn't feel right to me. As mentioned above, I think that part of this can be chalked up to the Realms's deep roots in D & D, which is at its heart a team game, a mentality which inevitably trickles over into Faerun.
Ah, yes, the NWN official campaign is notorious for being "aggressively individualistic", as you aptly put it (with the help of one rudimentary henchman--not "companion", henchman). Granted, I love NWN, its potential, and the many great modules it spawned, but the emphasis on a single hero over a party of heroes was never very much in line with D&D, IMO. Luckily, NWN2 was designed to be much more of a party-based game. |
| initiate |
Posted - 08 Jul 2007 : 23:14:41
I have not read the Watercourse books yet, but I agree with RF that aggressively individual accomplishment sort of goes against the tone of the setting. One product, (though admittedly not a sourcebook or novel), that I think illustrates this is the official out-of-the-box campaign from Neverwinter Nights. My reasoning is based on two points:
I haven't got the game's rules ready to hand, but iirc they feature some rather ... interesting adaptations of the 3.0 ruleset. Most prominent among these are the things which monsters are and are not immune to. Certain golems, for instance, don't seem to be immune to magic. The practical upshot of these changes is that the boundaries between base classes become rather blurred, and the game is quite easy to solo, which is a good thing considering that:...
In the original game and its first expansion you may only take one "henchman" with you at any given time; (they're not even "companions" or "party members"; they're "henchmen".) Throughout most of the games these henchmen possess virtually no meaningful personality or dialogues of the type found in Baldur's Gate 2, (exceptions, of course, do exist.) They are, for the most part, stupid, directable in fairly rudimentary ways, and generally not much use save as walking trap-triggering devices. In short, here again the game devalues the idea of working as a group in the single player game.
This emphasis on single-handedly overcoming mighty challenges, (challenges amongst which ravening hordes of beasties feature far to prominently for a Realms product, with all the subtleties, layered intrigues, etc that the setting has on offer), just didn't feel right to me. As mentioned above, I think that part of this can be chalked up to the Realms's deep roots in D & D, which is at its heart a team game, a mentality which inevitably trickles over into Faerun.
The on-line component of NwN is something which I view as an entirely different beast, and which I never really dabbled in, and thus can't really comment on.
Fascinating topic, btw. I'll type up some more thoughts later if I think of anything.
|
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 08 Jul 2007 : 23:07:08
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Elminster’s Ecologies
Out of sheer curiosity, what was it about this product that turned you off? |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 08 Jul 2007 : 22:17:19
Brian, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I think the underlying philosophy of a book is important, too (as important as lore references) and the Watercourse series espouses a philosophy that I felt not only doesn't fit well with the Realms, but with D&D in general. A character actually states--and the author agrees with this character--that anything worth doing is done for and by one man. I've always felt part of the point of this setting is that things are accomplished when people act as a team (and often for the benefit of many people), and this trilogy takes the opposite view (large groups of people are ineffectual if not downright venal). The characters in this series who argue on behalf of working as a team and for the benefit of many people are all villains! I just think that's a strange argument to make in a novel for a game setting that uses a rules system in which no one character can do everything, and where group play is considered the ideal.
In the spirit of what Faraer said, I would argue that the Watercourse trilogy doesn't try to be a good Realms trilogy so much as a Realmsified version of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, complete with strikingly similar characters and plot points (ie. Ivar Devorast = Howard Roark).
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 08 Jul 2007 : 14:43:29
quote:
Originally posted by The Grumpy Celt
What do you think is a FR supplement or book that has the FR label but does not carry the FR feel?
Some straightforward examples are FR9 Bloodstone Lands, FR14 The Great Glacier, FOR1 Draconomicon, FA2 Nightmare Keep, FRQ2 Hordes of Dragonspear, Netheril: Empire of Magic, Elminster’s Ecologies, Giantcraft, The Ruins of Undermountain II, much of Aurora’s Whole Realms Catalogue, and more novels than I want to try and list.quote:
Why?
Mostly because they were written by people who didn't care, know about and/or understand the Realms.quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
I would never include the Watercourse trilogy in a list of novels that lacks the Realms feel. Quite the opposite, this series cross-references lore from so many Realms sources, I feel like a kid in a candy store reading each chapter.
I haven't read the Watercourse books, but I have read Once around the Realms, which also compiles lore from lots of books. It takes names and events, ignores their underlying purpose and nature, and repurposes them for its own slapstick literary use. One could argue that it's a good novel, though I wouldn't. It isn't a good Realms novel because seemingly it doesn't try to be. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Jul 2007 : 01:54:00
As we've seen in the past, when personal opinions enter into discussions about Realmslore, some sparks usually start to flare. Thus, I'm placing a Mod Reminder here...
Let's try to remember fellow scribes, that both Brian and Rino are expressing their own personal opinions on the state of the "Watercourse" books. Please don't use them as a basis for debating an individual scribe's opinions on the novels.
|
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 18:27:28
I would never include the Watercourse trilogy in a list of novels that lacks the Realms feel. Quite the opposite, this series cross-references lore from so many Realms sources, I feel like a kid in a candy store reading each chapter.
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
The most recent example for me would be the Watercourse trilogy, mainly because it attempts to thrust Objectivism--in a heavy-handed fashion--into a setting where it doesn't really work too well (in my opinion). Note that I agree with some Objectivist principles, I just don't think it works well in the FR (for example, it's an atheistic philosophy).
|
| Jorkens |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 16:42:22
You are talking about The War in Tethyr. I know many people did not like it, but I enjoyed it. It may be that I like Milans writing style ( I read some of his earlier non-Realms books also) or that it is near to my own "Realmsfeel", but it is a pure subjective judgement. |
|
|
