Quote from: Haffrung;967941To be fair, it's not just FR where people behave like 21st century college-educated North Americans. That's pretty much the norm in almost every popular fantasy setting in the last 30 years. For reasons which I'm not clear on, a great many fans of fantasy today crave a very familiar and comforting world. Which seems like a paradox to me. Historical fiction actually presents stranger and more alien societies than fantasy offers.

Some of these settings could at least make an effort to throw a lampshade on it. My setting justifies more modern sensibilities by the setting being post-post-apocalyptic where the city-states that embody civilization were carved out of the ruins of a sci-fi-like magitech world by the more well off survivors (i.e. their ancestors rode out the immediate aftermath in well stocked bunkers that sheltered a thousand or more people vs. the barbarian tribes whose ancestors survived by luck and scavenging the wreckage) with less than three centuries removed from the cataclysm that wiped it all out (Things like representative government are rare when many places are just one strongmen and their well-armed friends away from being made into serfs, but the concept of self-rule itself isn't unknown).

The Realms has had plenty of past mega-cataclysms even in the recent past where they could have established a modern society prior to the collapse whose values endured even if the tech/magic-level that supported those values did not. But they never did. Instead these modern sensibilities basically just emerged from nowhere while having no more effect on the appearance of medieval society than the ready availability of powerul magic does (such as the extremely conventional castle design and use of siege engines when trained griffon riders and spellcasters with spells like rock to mud are an in setting known quantity).

Which is why the Realms (and to be fair, many other D&D settings) feel more like Rennfair theme parks than any sort of setting that would hold up to any degree of logical scrutiny.

That is probably fine for a number of people, but it pricks at my own particular brand of anal retentitive that wants an internally coherant setting before just about anything else.

Quote from: Haffrung;967941To be fair, it's not just FR where people behave like 21st century college-educated North Americans. That's pretty much the norm in almost every popular fantasy setting in the last 30 years. For reasons which I'm not clear on, a great many fans of fantasy today crave a very familiar and comforting world. Which seems like a paradox to me. Historical fiction actually presents stranger and more alien societies than fantasy offers.

Because at the end of the day, people don't feel like the good guy if they can't be good, modern people.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;968013Because at the end of the day, people don't feel like the good guy if they can't be good, modern people.

That sounds about right. Though for my part, I don't really need to be the good guy in a fantasy world. Even when playing D&D, I've leaned towards a WFRP approach to the setting and motivations - the PCs are self-serving scoundrels who manage to look good in comparison to the grotesque and malignant horrors they're confronted with.

It's hard to get players to read the ruleset, learn what dice to use and what skills do what, remember the names of the NPCs... It would be nearly impossible to get them to learn a different and foreign world view and apply it appropriately in game right from the get go - the players didn't come here for an anthropology lecture, they came to swing swords. Apart from a few specialized groups of players (e.g. all of them are classicists or something), I'd say we are stuck with 20th-21st century thought modern characters. And that's ok for a game.

Quote from: Haffrung;968020That sounds about right. Though for my part, I don't really need to be the good guy in a fantasy world. Even when playing D&D, I've leaned towards a WFRP approach to the setting and motivations - the PCs are self-serving scoundrels who manage to look good in comparison to the grotesque and malignant horrors they're confronted with.

Right, but that "goodness" is still likely framed in terms of Anglo-American, liberal, secular values. Nobody wants to play in a setting where, to use a grotesque example, keeping a slave boy as a "toy" is a respectable social institution, like you've got in present-day Kandahar. Or where amassing wealth means amassing slaves, like it has in nearly all the world until relatively recently.

The Forogtten Realms takes this to the extreme, where the morals and institutions of the people of Faerun closely track the left wing of Anglosphere politics so as to offend the least number of potential customers. Of course, then you end up with a setting that makes no sense, as Chris amply detailed earlier.

A lot of what I don't like about he FR can be summed up in the abilities of magical items like the greenstone amulet and how many low and mid-level nobodies in the Undermountain boxed set are given them.  

It isn't the Elminsters of the world, it's everybody else.

Quote from: EOTB;968036A lot of what I don't like about he FR can be summed up in the abilities of magical items like the greenstone amulet and how many low and mid-level nobodies in the Undermountain boxed set are given them.  

It isn't the Elminsters of the world, it's everybody else.

You're going to have to walk me through that one.

Quote from: Omega;967936Not really. By the stories the spirits of people can, and will, persist one way or another. Spirits can even be swapped. So theres an afterlife and its probably not pretty.

In the Dreamland stories characters die in a gutter but continue to live as kings in the Dreamlands so I'm not sure that's true.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;968125You're going to have to walk me through that one.

A lot of people focus on the heavy hitters of the FR and how annoying they are.  I agree, they are annoying but they're much easily ignored.  What I dislike about the setting as presented outside of basic world description sourcebooks like the early FR area guides produced in the 1E era is how Greenwood (mainly) would insert ridiculous amounts of magic nullifiers to any NPC or area that he wanted to play out in a certain way.  

It's not railroading per se, but the effect is the same.  "You, PCs not only will always be below the quasi-divine personages I've scattered in every location, but will also be unable to manipulate any DM asset I've placed for a particular purpose in a way that is outside of my intent."  It makes it very hard for a player meaningfully divert any mini-scenario from the way Ed envisioned it playing out.  Unless a DM rips all of this stuff out due to active recognition of it, and philosophical difference to it, a lot of the people/things they interact with will nullify their abilities at hello.

Here's the description for a greenstone amulet:

QuoteGreenstone Amulet

XP Value: 5,000
GP Value: 30,000

Fully described in FR4/The Magister, the powers of this item are summarized here. A fist-sized green stone which glows when operating, this magical item provides protection equivalent to a mind blank spell. It also confers immunity to spells and mental powers as if the wearer had a Wisdom score of 25. The amulet allows the wearer a save against Otto's irresistible dance, maze, and Tasha's uncontrollable hideous laughter (for half duration). The amulet is itself unaffected by magic.

Such amulets vary in their capacity to ward off magic of multiple castings; all greenstone amulets ward off the spells mentioned above. Most (including those found in Undermountain and environs) protect the wearer against 33 spell levels (regaining 1 level of capacity per turn) before being temporarily exhausted.

This description actually contradicts the FR4 Magister version in some places, but that's just an aside.  Giving the wearer the immunities of a 25 wisdom is no minor effect - that's immunity to: cause fear, charm person, command, friends, hypnotism, forget, hold person, ray of enfeeblement, scare, beguiling, domination, fear, charm monster, confusion, emotion, fumble, suggestion, chaos, feeblemind, hold monster, magic jar, mass domination, quest, geas, mass suggestion, rulership (rod), antipathy/sympathy, finger of death, mass charm, and otto's irresistible dance.  (Also noting the inconsistency regarding whether immune to otto or just gaining a save, but that's minor to the point).

The number of NPCs who would otherwise be peer challenges to PCs with these protections is ridiculously high.  I could see Durnan as a lord of waterdeep having one.

QuoteHe [Durnan] and his family will be armed and wearing various protective rings (e.g. spell turning) and amulets (e.g. greenstone) whenever encountered.

QuoteDandalus will trade with whoever comes through the gate. He makes no enemies—he merely charges more for services to those attackers or doublecrossers. Dandalus always takes the following
precautions: he wears a ring of spell turning, a ring of free action, and a greenstone amulet;

QuoteAvaereene has a wand of paralyzation (11 charges left). She uses it against PCs if she encounters difficulty in escaping. She wears a greenstone amulet (detailed in this book) and carries three potions of
extra-healing.

QuoteColstan customarily wears a greenstone amulet, a ring of spell turning, and bracers of defense AC2. He also carries at least two potions of extra-healing.

QuoteJhaniloth bears three magical items of interest: a glim-gauntlet, a blast scepter, and a greenstone amulet

QuoteAll of the band encountered in Waterdeep in this adventure wear greenstone amulets

QuoteThe Viper (CE hf T7) is AC 4 (leather armor plus Dexterity), has 39 hit points, a Dexterity of 18 and a Charisma of 16. She wears a ring of free action, a ring of spell turning, and a greenstone amulet.

QuoteFlaern is a handsome chaotic neutral 3rd level fighter, equipped with a ring of regeneration, a greenstone amulet, and a distinctive magical blade of the DM's choice.

There's a theme there - greenstone and spell turning.  You will not magically take control of the means of production.

And then there's the location-based spell nullifications:

QuoteOld, but still potent, protective magics placed by Halaster prevent many forms of teleportation and similar spells—word of recall, dimension door, succor, and even
passwall— from functioning within (and into or out of) Undermountain. No magical methods of escape are possible unless such magics don't touch or pass through any stone walls, doors, floors or ceilings. Exceptions to this are usually Halaster's magical gates, but various phase spells and abilities generally work, allowing creatures to merge with, and move through (as opposed to destroying, altering, or temporarily removing) stone.

ESP and similar 'scrying and prying' magics (even locate object) are similarily prohibited through walls, doors, floors, and ceilings. If attempted, they are exhausted (the spell lost, or item charges expended), but nothing occurs. Wizard eyes and projected images can move only to locations reachable via keyholes and similar gaps.

In a like manner, spells that summon creatures and items from outside the dungeon do not work. A monster summoning, for instance, only calls on creatures already in Undermountain. Most magical items that summon things from elsewhere (such as horns of Valhalla) do work. All items that create their own extra-dimensional areas (such as bags of holding and portable holes) also operate.

Any further exceptions to all of these magical prohibitions are noted in the text. PCs who wish to destroy any of Halaster's barrier spells wish to attempt nigh impossible deeds. They should be warned that they must determine how and where to dispel the many-layered magics—a process likely to attract many monsters and take many months.

Another obstacle in the path of the PCs is that someone (or something!) seems to repair and restore things around Undermountain from time to time. Destroying Halaster's life's work is often a thankless—and more often fruitless—task.

Note that the spells used by Halaster to construct and alter sections of the dungeon, and to protect it with the barriers noted, cause most walls, floors, and ceilings of undermountain to radiate magic. In some cases, it is specifically stated that an area or feature radiates magic so strongly that detect magic powers cannot locate hidden magical items. Detect magic also cannot distinguish the outlines of areas where magic is currently in use or has just been cast. In other cases, the DM should decide whether a detect magic will be able to distinguish a specific aura from the aura glare of "background" magic. Factors such as the current strength (and imminent danger!) of the party, the degree to which PCs rely on detection spells to avoid dungeon features, and the care with which the detection spell is wielded should all come into play.

It all screams "don't try to adventure in this dungeon on your own terms".  All of these spells were put into the game to allow the PCs to do the sorts of things Greenwood is specifically trying to disallow.  He doesn't want them to: escape, scry out danger before encountering it, or easily locate treasures or detect magic.  And if somehow they're managing to "avoid dungeon features" then the DM should "take that into account" in what they allow or disallow.

In other words, it's not what the location does or doesn't that should determine the course of play.  It's how the PCs are interacting with Schroedinger's Cat.

That sort of mindset is very unfun to play, for what I want out of AD&D.  In my experience it does not result in players who are trying to get ahead of the curve - because they often won't be allowed to.  It results in players who are happy to sit down and simply experience whatever the DM desires them to experience.

Quote from: EOTB;968249It all screams "don't try to adventure in this dungeon on your own terms".  All of these spells were put into the game to allow the PCs to do the sorts of things Greenwood is specifically trying to disallow.  He doesn't want them to: escape, scry out danger before encountering it, or easily locate treasures or detect magic.  And if somehow they're managing to "avoid dungeon features" then the DM should "take that into account" in what they allow or disallow.

I thought some of the examples above were more indicative of well prepared NPCs. That and and your description of Undermountain sounds like Eds usual take-that to adventurers which is a recurring theme. Its a theme Ed has stated more than ones is very ingrained into FR. Adventurers are more like pests.

And some of this is just Ed having fun with the "cleverer than thou" players who kept snidely commenting to him about how easy it is to ruin an adventure with this or that spell.

Quote from: Omega;968565And some of this is just Ed having fun with the "cleverer than thou" players who kept snidely commenting to him about how easy it is to ruin an adventure with this or that spell.

Ugh. If there's one thing this hobby doesn't need, it's more "I need a response for this guy, because they clearly think too highly of themselves"-ism.

Quote from: Omega;968565Its a theme Ed has stated more than ones is very ingrained into FR. Adventurers are more like pests.

And some of this is just Ed having fun with the "cleverer than thou" players who kept snidely commenting to him about how easy it is to ruin an adventure with this or that spell.

If "adventurers are pests" is ingrained into a campaign setting then I'm not particularly interested in adventuring there.  To each their own.

Quote from: EOTB;968584If "adventurers are pests" is ingrained into a campaign setting then I'm not particularly interested in adventuring there.  To each their own.

Luckily writers other than Ed either didnt get the memo, or ignore it. But from Eds comments FR is supposed to be very not hero-centric. I'll try and find that entry again if can. It sheds some light on why some things are as they are.

Quote from: EOTB;968249A lot of people focus on the heavy hitters of the FR and how annoying they are.  I agree, they are annoying but they're much easily ignored.  What I dislike about the setting as presented outside of basic world description sourcebooks like the early FR area guides produced in the 1E era is how Greenwood (mainly) would insert ridiculous amounts of magic nullifiers to any NPC or area that he wanted to play out in a certain way.  

This is unfortunately common in a lot of early D&D. Tomb of Horrors is full of bullshit secret doors and traps that can't be found by thieves (basically rendering them useless in an adventure where they should be shining), magical darts that can't miss, etc. And weren't there undead with amulets of unturning in Keep on the Borderland and White Plume Mountain?

Quote from: EOTB;968584If "adventurers are pests" is ingrained into a campaign setting then I'm not particularly interested in adventuring there.  To each their own.

Found Eds commentary.

QuoteEd Greenwood: Part of my writing goals have been to underscore the
 following things: "do-gooders" often do more harm than good, for the
 best of motives (Elaine's also been playing with this one); 'good' to
 one party is not 'good' to another (the old saying, "for one man to gain
 freedom, another must lose it"); and the best meddlers are those who can
 see farthest, not the brute-force-right-now brigade (which is what most
 PC parties of necessity are, and therefore their punishments/reward are
 immediate).

One postscript I almost forgot: with Elminster in particular and all of
 the Chosen, Steven and I (at least) are delving into "how insane do you
 go from living so long with godly power and gods messing with your mind?"
 Everything El and the other Chosen do should be read in this light;
 they're NOT sane. I've been hinting at this for a long time, but you
 have to catch the hints (like the good/happy endings, this was a Code of
 Ethics thing, which is why we can't show villains poisoning, or succeeding,
 or telling you their detailed plans that someone in the real world might
 copy or claim as inspiration, etc.).