The title says it all. Discuss.

It certainly deserves some of the hate, because WotC uses the setting as its vehicle for epic fantasy novels, which makes the game world subordinate to whatever world-sweeping event all these authors impose upon it. Ed Greenword is somewhat complicit in this, though I can't fault the guy, he's just enjoying the ride. You imagine your creation being pushed this way? And now he can always refer back to Elminster's Forgotten Realms, if people want to know how the original Realms were.

BUT: I'm in the process of buying specific 1E and 2E Realms material. There's a lot of iconic stuff in there. If you use it in the fashion of 70s D&D campaigns, with a central hub and a big dungeon nearby, there's few on par.

For example, I just bought the 1E realms boxed set, along with City System, City of Splendors, and Undermountain. Sprinkle some stuff from the Skullport supplement in there and you got a bangin' sword & sorcery campaign for years.

Both.

Like alot of TSR settings. It started off ok. But unlike the others. FR devolved REALLY fast. It also gets derided for its unimaginative WordWord naming convention that it over-uses.

The other problem is Greenwood progressivly baked into the setting the idea of Adventurers being insignificant, or even worsening things.

Its also one of the most hostile settings ever. It outstrips Dark Sun for sheer lethality and bleakness if you pay attention to all the background info.

There is undoubtedly a lot of group-think hatedom and selective animosity towards the Realms that either it doesn't deserve, or where our own preferred setting has equivalent flaws that we conveniently don't mind. On the other hand, It does have some serious issues that if I were designing a perfect setting I would remove/remedy.

The large number of high level, really important NPCs/author's pets is a big thing. The bizarre relationship the Realms has with its deities is another (the lives and loves and deaths and resurrections of the FR gods are like a bizarre soap opera). The push and pull of the metaplot/advancing history is this weird tension between preserving status quo and constant need for exciting things. This last one I fault the designers the least upon, even though it is the most annoying because it is hard to not do if you intend to keep putting out product.

But as I said, our own preferred setting has equivalent flaws that we conveniently don't mind. FR seems to be a kitchen sink of cool cultures. Well, Known World/Mystara (my favorite D&D setting) is almost defined by being a kitchen sink of poorly fitting together cool cultures, but it gets a pass from me for some reason.

The biggest problem with the Realms is WotC's obsession in making it the be all and end all. Taking in bite sized chunks you can get some good mileage out of campaigns but I'm personally sick of it being the source of all adventures and material for D&D

So yes hate deserved but WotC brought it on the setting.

Yes and Yes.

Second Edition with the removal of demons, devils, assassins etc. brought on the Time of Troubles, turned the Realms into the "Official Corporate IP Setting of D&D" and the Realms has never been the same.  Fourth turned the Realms into full on idiotic self-referential satire.

Reboot the Realms, make your own, it's awesome.

Echoing others:  FR 1E, perhaps being selective in the material used, and ignoring any related novels, deserves no hate.  It's not perfect, but it's highly usable for a GM with a little bit of a brain and a spine.   Once 2E appears on the scene, some hate is deserved, and then TSR/WotC steadily turned the deserved hate up to 11 over the course of 2E to now.

No and no.  There's a reason WoTC peddles it out so hard, it's the most popular setting.  It can and does encompass a wide range of playstyles suited to the modern gamer.  I has pretty much every type of historical era you can imagine, from early medieval to renaissance.  One can do a lot of stuff with it.

Now, that's not to say there aren't rough spots, or stupid ideas or even characters to hate (Namely the Drizzle and Elmunster) but it's got everything one needs to run as many campaigns as you could possibly want.

I personally don't like the setting, but to say the hate is justified or not is just silly.

My impression of Forgotten Realms is a lot of the things people complained about were only problems if you allowed them to become so. The 1st edition boxed set was quite good from what I recall and I never really bought more core setting books on it from there as I didn't run the setting. But I do remember really, really liking that boxed set. I also found a lot of cool things from FG over the years and used to draw occasionally from the modules, monster manuals, etc. Many of the novels I liked as well when they came out (some not so much). The setting always seemed quite gameable to me (and it had lots of different kinds of places to explore). The novels helped bring a lot of people to the hobby as well, and as much as we complain about them now, I don't remember anyone complaining all that much when things like the Icewind Dale Trilogy were coming out.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965520Yes and Yes.

Second Edition with the removal of demons, devils, assassins etc. brought on the Time of Troubles, turned the Realms into the "Official Corporate IP Setting of D&D" and the Realms has never been the same.  Fourth turned the Realms into full on idiotic self-referential satire.
.

I remember hearing an interview with RA Salvatore where he talked about how removing the Assassin almost resulted in Artemis Entreri coming out of the story line (I think they called him and said the Assassin was out so he needed to change the character-----and his justification for keeping him in was he was a multi-class rogue fighter or something).

I personally don't hate the Realms, but I am also one of those who do not run games exclusively within the "official" settings. My games are in My world which just happens to greatly resemble whatever is the official world of said game system, in this case the FR.

But I do understand the hate others have for it, and really wish that WotC would at the very least release world guides for each of the other worlds they have the license for.  It's not like they have to create whole new worlds, they already have histories and settings.

I really dislike the FR. It feels like a Hollywood facade of a setting, in part because it's a pseudo-medieval pastiche where none of the social arrangements or culture are even a cartoon version of the middle ages. Hard to put my finger on it, but nothing ever works or makes sense to me as anything more than a paper-thin backdrop for adventure.

It's a nice setting with good locations. I once set it around 1850ish DR, with the game starting at the Waterdeep Train Station, which basically let the players know all the novels they read will not help. More recently I have thought of running it using the classes from AIME. You certainly wouldn't have to worry about Elminster negating the need for PCs. My games never have Drizzt anything.

No-Hate - Greybox.

Hate All You Want - Post-Greybox.


I could tolerate 2e era Realms, but when 3e landed it went downhill really really fast into Freakshow and Meta-Plot Madness territory. 4e is the low-point.

Quote from: tenbones;965607....but when 3e landed it went downhill really really fast into Freakshow and Meta-Plot Madness territory. 4e is the low-point.

I think this was a WOTC problem, not a FR problem. Their attempt at Ravenloft (with the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) did not work for me at all either.