|
It is a play style issue. Some people like a world the PC's take part in but that they are not the main attraction merely people living in the world. Other people like it where the PC's are THE hero's of the setting.
Least that has been my take broken down to the most basic points on the topic. It is of course more complex than that depending on the person in question. But to me that seems to be the main dividing point.
I don't play Forgotten Realms, though I own a lot of the source material, going way back through 2nd Edition.
But I have heard many stories of players feeling overshadowed by Elminster and Drizzt and what-not. I would say those two characters are probably hard to resist for a GM who is a fanboy, and as soon as those guys hit the pavement, they are bound to overshadow the PCs. I would suppose mostly because the GM wants them to, being such a fan of them.
A GM with any DMPC (a phrase I hate, but I will use it here), whether Drizzt or one he generated himself, is going to overshadow the PCs at some point with that character.
Personally, the only NPCs of high level I throw into my games are the people in charge (the King, Duke, Captain of the Guard, etc.) and the BBEG. I do so for the authorities because I have players who sometimes think it is funny to taunt and harass the authorities just to challenge me as GM, and I want them to be able to hold their own.
As a PS, I mentioned in a thread not too long ago, that what I notice of the effect of FR on most games is over-crowding of the map. GMs who've spent a lot time there seem to come away thinking that very tiny spec of the map should hold a dragon cave, tribe of orcs, or opening into the underworld. Supernatural and beastly encounters become granted and un-special because of it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Newer GMs, IMO, are more likely to fall into the trap of using a DMNPC that is X levels above the rest of the party, serving as both safety net and 'look how cool I am' golly-gee-whillickers wish fulfillment character.
And while I could blame it on their newness to the genre, it doesn't help them that much of the fantasy they base their conceptions on has exactly these sorts of tagalong demigod characters, like Gandalf tagging along with the dwarves and Bilbo or Fizban tagging along with the Dragonlance 'PCs.' They certainly come by this idea honestly, and, to someone who hasn't played a lot of D&D, reading articles or novels by Ed Greenwood might give them the impression that Elminster is *supposed* to show up and save the protagonists bacon on a regular basis.
It's easy for us jaded gamers to scoff at this, but, to a less experienced gamer, coming in from reading the Hobbit or the Dragonlance novels or Spellfire, they're just replicating what they've seen in their own fantasy-reading background.
If the powerful NPCs are used more like in Star Wars, where Obi-wan might become 'more powerful than you can imagine' but is basically limited to being a ghostly image that can offer encouragement to Luke, and Yoda, while possibly the most powerful character in the series, is left in a hut in a swamp, and dies without ever taking a role other than trainer-to-the-hero.
If Elminster (or whomever) is played more like Obi-wan or Yoda, and less like Gandalf or Fizban, then there's nothing wrong with super-NPCs. Building limitations into these characters is more important, IMO, than making them super-powers. Elminster can serve his story function *in my games* as offerer-of-advice and sage-counsel, as an 8th level Diviner, who has no epic levels, has no harem of epic hawt blonde girlfriends, and has not banged any goddesses.
And, when the world is going to hell, and only the heroes can save the day, I don't need an excuse for why the 8th level Diviner named Elminster didn't teleport in and fix it. He doesn't know teleport yet, and already did everything he could, by pointing the PCs at the threat and offering up a prayer for them to kick it's butt.
The problem I have with super-NPCs is one of how they are used. If the super-NPC is aware of the problem, and it would take, literally, two rounds, to end the situation, then I'm not going to create an artificial excuse for why they didn't do that. 'Too busy' to save the world isn't an excuse, unless the NPC is chaotic evil and a founding member of the destroy-the-world fan club. Instead of creating a tool and then having to constantly make up excuses for why I'm not going to use it, I'm just gonna bring the right tool for the job, which is, in this case, an NPC who, for whatever reason, will never overshadow the PCs or have the means or motivation to stomp all over their adventure.
::unlurking when I should be writing::
@ kyrt-ryder:
Despite the common wisdom, I don't think its high level NPCs themselves that cause 'Forgotten Realms Syndrome', but rather its the perception that the PCs themselves cannot create meaningful change in the campaign. In the case of Forgotten Realms, there was the perception that only NPCs are 'cool enough to change the world'.
To paraphrase a commercial from the Rachel Maddow Show, "PCs don't do big things. NPCs do big things. Eliminster does big things. PCs only do small things." To me, that is a more accurate description of 'Forgotten Realms Syndrome', rather than just pointing to high level NPCs. Though certainly a LOT of high level NPCs will contribute to the problem; I'm just suggesting that it is a symptom and not a cause.
One thing I like about Paizo AP's is that they do provide opportunities for PCs to do very and meaningful things. Certainly some people just enjoy some good ol' hack and slash, however I think many people crave the feeling that what their characters do is meaningful within the context of the setting and the campaign.
Sometimes I do have to unhook myself from the desire to see that reflected in the entire campaign setting (i.e. the Time of Troubles). However that is monstrously difficult to do, and to do well. As well as the fact that this setting is still quite young for anything like that, and that changing canon would upset people who are only recently getting into the setting with the Inner Sea Guide. As always, it's your own home campaign that really matters and you have the liberty to do whatever you like with it.
Just a few thoughts. I should get back to work.
The FR Syndrome appears to have more come about as a result of the 3E version of the setting. The prior versions had only a small number of very high-level NPCs (Level 20+), maybe a dozen at best, and the books talked at length about limiting their ability to impact on the campaign. I remember the 2E FR box set talking about how Elminster simply shouldn't be home 90% of the time the PCs show up to ask him advice, either as he's busy or simply ignoring in-setting fanboys (since in the FR Elminster is quite a famous individual whose place of residence is well-known).
In 3E the number of epic level characters suddenly shot through the stratosphere and the sheer number of Realms-shaking events introduced with the major characters of the setting playing major roles in saving the kingdom/continent/world twice a year created this perception that the Realms are all about uber-powerful NPCs saving the world whilst PCs watch in awe.
In fact, the old 1E-2E transition adventure series, the AVATAR TRILOGY, had a better way of handling the issue. The PCs are caught up in a massive war between the gods. At one point they ask Elminster for advice, but Bane's avatar shows up and the two have a massive showdown that ends with Elminster being vapourised (as always, he eventually gets better). The PCs then have to press on with sorting the situation out themselves since the setting's biggest hero just got splattered. This was a much stronger approach since it puts more pressure on the PCs - the most powerful person in the world just got (cough, apparently) killed by this menace and now you have to sort it out - and raises the stakes.
Of course, the key problem here is that it's the DM misusing the NPCs which appears to be the problem. As the player, there's not much you can do about that, except perhaps point out it's frustrating to be upstaged by some NPC wizard. Especially one whose novels suck :-)
The FR Syndrome appears to have more come about as a result of the 3E version of the setting. The prior versions had only a small number of very high-level NPCs (Level 20+), maybe a dozen at best, and the books talked at length about limiting their ability to impact on the campaign. I remember the 2E FR box set talking about how Elminster simply shouldn't be home 90% of the time the PCs show up to ask him advice, either as he's busy or simply ignoring in-setting fanboys (since in the FR Elminster is quite a famous individual whose place of residence is well-known).
In 3E the number of epic level characters suddenly shot through the stratosphere and the sheer number of Realms-shaking events introduced with the major characters of the setting playing major roles in saving the kingdom/continent/world twice a year created this perception that the Realms are all about uber-powerful NPCs saving the world whilst PCs watch in awe.
In all fairness, 2E FR had a lot of 15 level+ characters. In 2E, it could take years of gaming to get to 15th level. By that time, you had probably save the world yourself once or twice before, so you were part of the big guys of FR.
In 3E, getting to level 20+ became amazingly fast, so much that by the time your character reached 15th level, it had not "lived" much, didn't develop a network of contacts, didn't accumulated a hoard of petty or circumstantial magic items to give to followers and underlings (or if he did, they were sold for the big 6) and most likely didn't settled down in some sort of "base".
In other words, you can't really compare 2E with 3E on a level to level basis; the mighty and powerful were just as present in 2E IMO. epic NPCs became common because high-level PCs became equally common.
'findel
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that the Avatar Trilogy (and the Time of Troubles re-boot that came with it) had a lot to do with this. Those modules are REALLY guilty of railroading and NPC reliance (which really ought to be called "Dragonlance Syndrome"), to the point that Elminster even saves the party.
I think those modules were a jumping off point for a lot of people who initially liked the Forgotten Realms, and I think they had something to do with the establishment of "common wisdom" that held that uber NPCs were in control in the Forgotten Realms, and that player characters didn't really matter.
|
|
I suspect that the Avatar Trilogy (and the Time of Troubles re-boot that came with it) had a lot to do with this. Those modules are REALLY guilty of railroading and NPC reliance (which really ought to be called "Dragonlance Syndrome"), to the point that Elminster even saves the party.
I think those modules were a jumping off point for a lot of people who initially liked the Forgotten Realms, and I think they had something to do with the establishment of "common wisdom" that held that uber NPCs were in control in the Forgotten Realms, and that player characters didn't really matter.
It was for me, that was about the time I lost interest in FR. I was big into it till then. After that I keep up for a bit but slowly lost interest till I completely stopped buying anything for FR anymore.
I know that I've found my interest in FR wane over the years as well for similar reasons--extremely powerful NPCs are practically crawling out of the woodwork. The biggest thing I did like about the Forgotten Realms was FR elves, since it broke the generic D&D mold about elves being less powerful than humans by the amount of history elves had going back as far as the Crown Wars. The Last Mythal trilogy (and the 3.5 splatbooks that followed it) added a bit of a triumphal note to that "FR as not-quite-so-humanocentric campaign setting" thing that I liked: the elves came back to the mainland with a vengeance.
While I like Golarion a lot, I think it falls into the humanocentric campaign world trap a little.
The thing is, I believe this is more of a myth than anything else. Having been a FR follower for a very long time now, I have most of the stuff, and went back into it again after a long absence. I remember reading it back in the day and feeling that the realms was a place where Good triumphed. Where Elminster and the seven sisters solved everybody's problems, and where the Harpers made the world better.
Going back through it, I was surprised that this was not what I read into it today. The first edition had a much more gritty and dangerous feel to it, and above all, the NPCs were far lower level. Second edition had more powerful NPCs, but still, these were pretty evenly spread through the alignment chart. It also had "fanboy products", perhaps most famous of these is Seven Sisters, where all these characters are shown to be much more powerful than before. During third edition, they focused efforts on making the world darker... except reading between the lines, it always was. See, second edition had a policy of not showing villains to be successful. That, and the focus on powerful heroes from the Drizzt and Elminster/Knights of Myth Drannor books, are what I believe gave this image.
The truth of the matter is that civilization in the Realms has always been a chancy thing. There is always another orc horde, plague, flight of dragons, or magical disaster to wreck things. Nations have come and gone. Elminster and the Seven Sisters each have chosen places to live, to defend against chaos - and it's taking all their strength to do so. Using Elminster as an example, he has settled down in Shadowdale, a very dangerous place, thereby drawing a line against Zhentil Keep and sheltering the Dalelands. Even so, it's not something that prevents the Zhentarim from trying to invade, and this happens with surprising regularity. Now, Elminster also has to deal with lots of other stuff. He frequently disappears from his tower in Shadowdale for weeks without telling anyone. To deal with day-to-day problems, he is the sponsor of the Knights of Myth Drannor, just as Storm Silverhand has her Harpers.
Now, this means that Elminster is only as much of a problem as the DM wants him to be. Let's say that the heroes find out about a dastardly plot somewhere, something big. They need to find a way to contact him, something that is certainly not easy. Even assuming they get to Shadowdale in time, he could be away, or just not see them without explaining why. He could talk to them about it and tell them that they need to fix things themselves. While he's at it, he could put further problems on their shoulders, such as: The evil dragon they intend to fight has a fragile statuette in his lair that they need to fetch for him, or a book they need to give to an old friend of his while (mostly) on the way, only nobody's seen the man in a few months. Further, there are many enemies of Elminster that could learn about your affiliation and decide you're a problem to them. And if you ask him to kill the bad dragon, well, he needs to choose whether he rather does that than try to deal with his own problems.
Ultimately, running to Elminster should create at least as many problems as it solves. The big time NPCs are powerful, but also secretive, demanding and dangerous to be around.
I never saw the FR syndrome as a problem.
I don't think having over a hundred wizards capable of casting Wish is a small number of high-level NPCs, and FR had that by the end of 2nd edition. The sheer number makes it less plausible that they're all ignoring a serious problem, or that they're all so willing to abide by the Prime Directive. It might help more if some of them weren't just throw-away lines in a book.
The problem with that argument is that it is highly unconvincing to have a high-magic game system (and D&D has always been that, even if it took years to reach Level 20 in 2E rather than months in 3E) and not have any actual high-level NPCs in the world who have followed the same path. The Forgotten Realms setting has a history that, by the end of the 2E time period, goes back some 25,000 years. The notion that powerful NPCs would not have arisen in that time is quite unconvincing. If the players can do something, it follows that other people will have done the same earlier.
The FR setting itself also has the dangers of over-use of powerful magic built into it. The fate of Netheril, the destruction of Imaskar and so on show the dangers of unrestrained magic use, and indeed the power of magic itself has drastically been reduced over millennia (running an ARCANE AGE campaign in Netheril with spells like 'Create Volcano' available was an interesting experience in trying to maintain balance). Plus you have essentially several deities whose job is to maintain the balance of magic and power, because if they didn't the world would be destroyed. That's why there are brakes on what high-level villains like Szass Tam or Halaster can do.
I suspect that the Avatar Trilogy (and the Time of Troubles re-boot that came with it) had a lot to do with this. Those modules are REALLY guilty of railroading and NPC reliance (which really ought to be called "Dragonlance Syndrome"), to the point that Elminster even saves the party.
That raises an interesting question. If you're talking about the same incident, than yes, Elminster does 'save the party' by neutralising a threat - Bane - that the players are insufficiently powerful to deal with. However, this is very early in the campaign and is just one incident among many that the PCs do have to confront by themselves. IIRC (and I may be confusing the modules with the novels here), the players later do defeat Bane by trapping him in a dead magic zone in Tantras, which has the effect of killing him (until 3rd Edition anyway).
That's not the same thing as an NPC swooping in and saving the day and winning the campaign for the players whilst they stand around and watch. In fact, the idea of showing the player something that has to be overcome/defeated/reached/achieved in the opening of a story when they can't deal with it yet, and then they come back to it much later is a very common dramatic device and I don't think an invalid one, if used properly.
I have played in.... 5-7 Forgotten Realms games (there's some blurriness in there because at one point one GM took over for another), and not once did Elminster or Drizzt or the like ever show up. Two of these campaigns were in AD&D, a current one I am in is using 3.5 FRCS + Pathfinder rules, and the rest were 3.x. The first time I actually heard someone complain about Forgotten Realms' powerful NPCs overshadowing PCs, I thought, "People actually include the characters from the books in their own campaigns? Why on Earth would you do that for anything more than a very brief cameo?" Besides which, Abeir-Toril is huge and even if Drizzt is off fighting the Deadly Crumpled Snorkack in Icewind Dale, your PCs can be resolving a necromantic nightmare in Chult without ever needing to worry about bumping into each other.
The only game I played in that in fact would qualify for "Forgotten Realms Syndrome" was a game in a homebrew setting where the GM's Generic Powerful Pointy Hat Wizard GMPC tended to overshadow anything the (relatively high-level) party could do. But that was just a crappily designed campaign where the GM was on a continual power trip. Is the "syndrome" we're looking at really just an issue of bad GMing?
Now, the current Forgotten Realms campaign I'm in does have several notable powerful NPCs, though all of them are GM-created (they are the PCs' mentors). The interesting thing is I think the GM is trying to play with the idea is that the Realms are full of powerful adventurers and tons of magic--and how do you make a name for yourself in this kind of setting. But it's the first time FR has actually been presented to me AS that kind of setting so very blatantly, and I still don't feel like we're in any danger of bumping into Elminster and letting him get away with having all the fun.
So yeah--I think it isn't so much "Forgotten Realms Syndrome" as "Sad Fanboy Syndrome." And it falls in line with the issue of GMs that like to include their own powerful GMPCs into the story rather than run the damn game, and when that happens, it doesn't really matter if the GMPC is named Elminster or not.
Caveat to all this is--I am not sure if any of the FR games I've played were based on modules. I read Erik Mona's post about the Avatar trilogy and was surprised to learn that such NPC interventions were written in to the modules. NOW, if the modules were commonly written like that--more like acting out a novel than being the PCs--then that is a whole different issue. Not bad GMing, but bad module design (although a good GM can make a bad module work, but that takes a lot of work). Fortunately, if that was a trend in module design at one time, it's improved a great deal, from the modules I've seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only game I played in that in fact would qualify for "Forgotten Realms Syndrome" was a game in a homebrew setting where the GM's Generic Powerful Pointy Hat Wizard GMPC tended to overshadow anything the (relatively high-level) party could do. But that was just a crappily designed campaign where the GM was on a continual power trip. Is the "syndrome" we're looking at really just an issue of bad GMing?
So yeah--I think it isn't so much "Forgotten Realms Syndrome" as "Sad Fanboy Syndrome." And it falls in line with the issue of GMs that like to include their own powerful GMPCs into the story rather than run the damn...
I have always thought this. The idea that one could not use the forgotten realms adequately has been thouroughly debunked. It simply was an issue of poor game mastering. forgotten realms worked just fine, the excuses used to rewrite the realms were copouts, as most of the issues stemmed from intellectual laziness ultimately.. They rewrote the realms for all the wrong reasons.
I have always thought this. The idea that one could not use the forgotten realms adequately has been thouroughly debunked. It simply was an issue of poor game mastering. forgotten realms worked just fine, the excuses used to rewrite the realms were copouts, as most of the issues stemmed from intellectual laziness ultimately.. They rewrote the realms for all the wrong reasons.
I actually liked both the reasons and the concept behind the spellplague, just not the execution. Occasionally killing off npcs to make room for new ones is not a bad idea, except when you completely fail to actually kill the majority of them.
|
I actually liked both the reasons and the concept behind the spellplague, just not the execution. Occasionally killing off npcs to make room for new ones is not a bad idea, except when you completely fail to actually kill the majority of them.
I never followed FR, but that sounds a bit like Marvel's "House of M" storyline, where millions of mutants worldwide lost their mutant powers. Of these, maybe a dozen or so were even semi-important characters or had been relevent in the past decade or so. To make it even more of a non-event, most of the semi-important characters have managed to gain powers again. So instead of clearing house on the franchise that is the most overburdened with a ridiculous amount of main and supporting characters, they got rid of John Jones and Jane Smith, the mutants that had never actually been seen in a comic book.
Caveat to all this is--I am not sure if any of the FR games I've played were based on modules. I read Erik Mona's post about the Avatar trilogy and was surprised to learn that such NPC interventions were written in to the modules. NOW, if the modules were commonly written like that--more like acting out a novel than being the PCs--then that is a whole different issue. Not bad GMing, but bad module design (although a good GM can make a bad module work, but that takes a lot of work). Fortunately, if that was a trend in module design at one time, it's improved a great deal, from the modules I've seen.
It was just the Avatar Trilogy of modules... and holy cow, were they bad.
I actually liked both the reasons and the concept behind the spellplague, just not the execution. Occasionally killing off npcs to make room for new ones is not a bad idea, except when you completely fail to actually kill the majority of them.
Not me. That sort of stuff is entirely under the purview of the DM, AFAIC.
I actually liked both the reasons and the concept behind the spellplague, just not the execution. Occasionally killing off npcs to make room for new ones is not a bad idea, except when you completely fail to actually kill the majority of them.I never followed FR, but that sounds a bit like Marvel's "House of M" storyline, where millions of mutants worldwide lost their mutant powers. Of these, maybe a dozen or so were even semi-important characters or had been relevent in the past decade or so. To make it even more of a non-event, most of the semi-important characters have managed to gain powers again. So instead of clearing house on the franchise that is the most overburdened with a ridiculous amount of main and supporting characters, they got rid of John Jones and Jane Smith, the mutants that had never actually been seen in a comic book.
That's basically the impression I got of the spell plague. Change the minor stuff to "make it more interesting," but leave the bulk of the in world stuff that would actually be effected by such an event largely untouched in order to keep all the old fans, despite the stated reason for the spell plague being to rework the setting, and restart it from scratch.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was just the Avatar Trilogy of modules... and holy cow, were they bad.
Same with the Dragonlance modules that strictly followed events from the novels, from what I've seen. It's less a setting problem, as a problem with attempting to make an adventure out of a novelization that already has a set ending, and left no room for the PCs to do anything other than wave pom-poms or make snarky comments from the front row with their robot pals.
There was an Aberrant adventure along that vein as well. Stand around and watch the two most powerful NPCs in the setting have a scripted battle, and explicitly not be able to do anything to interfere. Less 'adventure' and more 'sit down and be told a story.'
It was just the Avatar Trilogy of modules... and holy cow, were they bad.Same with the Dragonlance modules that strictly followed events from the novels, from what I've seen. It's less a setting problem, as a problem with attempting to make an adventure out of a novelization that already has a set ending, and left no room for the PCs to do anything other than wave pom-poms or make snarky comments from the front row with their robot pals.
Weren't actually the Dragonlance modules written first and novels written later basing them upon the results of modules being played by Hickman, Weis and their party?
|
Same with the Dragonlance modules that strictly followed events from the novels, from what I've seen. It's less a setting problem, as a problem with attempting to make an adventure out of a novelization that already has a set ending, and left no room for the PCs to do anything other than wave pom-poms or make snarky comments from the front row with their robot pals.
A better attempt at making a trilogy of books into a trilogy of modules IMO were those that followed the "Hordelands Trilogy" (Storm Riders, Black Courser, and Blood Charge). I'm not saying these were modules of pure awesomeness, as they were still a ride on the railroad, but the PCs were not forced to simply watch the events of the novels unfold before their eyes while they stood around picking their noses...
I tend to agree with DQ in that the Forgotten Realms syndrome isn't so much the setting as much as the DM.
My very first time I ever played D&D was a FR module called The Azure Bonds,yes the pc's were rail roaded a little bit but only because the magic tattoos on their arms forced them to do stuff outta norm like try and kill the king then they had to try and kill a gods avatar before becoming his sacrifices and all kinds of other crazy stuff but the PC's still had plenty of options on how to try and get rid of those tattoos.
My shining moment disintegrating the avatar of moander with a scroll(it was in the module) of disintegration. I had a 90% chance of failure but rolled a 93. He failed the save vs spell( This was 2nd ed) so I technically disintegrated a god.
Another FR module was Halls of the High King. Lots of fun, great introduction to the Moonshea setting and no super powerful beings in sight. If the PC's failed against the forces of Bane then the 7 nor the harpers nor anyone else was gonna make it right.
Basically I can say that in 23+ years of gaming with most of that being in the Realms not one of MY DM's has every made us feel like what we do as heroes is not important.
Fan boy syndrome is my experience of running multiple FR campaigns over 25 years. Never once have I foisted Elminster or Drizzt or Seven Sisters or however on the party in any capacity.
But over the years, I have gotten a few 'fan-boys' at my table. On one occasion, I had a player convince the other players to buck the adventure I had planned to travel to Waterdeep to meet with Khelban Blackstaff. Now the party started in Eveningstar in Cormyr (level 1), the typical tavern get together (a oldie but a goldie standard campaign start). Out of the blue, despite dangling numerous plot hooks in front of the party, this one player decides to convince the party to head to Waterdeep for the express purpose of meeting Khelben Blackstaff (found out later the player was a big Blackstaff fan).
I informed the party of the obvious - Waterdeep is many months travel away. That as characters, none of them (being young adults from parents of Cormyr merchants/minor Purple Dragon soldiers) would even know of Khelben Blackstaff. And that I set the campaign start where I did for a reason.
Nope - they decided to listen to this one player and the whole group stated their intent to travel to Waterdeep... only to meet their end in the Stonelands due to some random encounter of some monster over their level while on route (As I warned them when they entered the Stonelands, there is a reason the Stonelands were not pacified by Cormyr - it is a dangerous place). Not an stellar way for a campaign to end.
Then I had another group in another FR campaign announce they wanted to go see Elminster despite the campaign starting in the Vilhon Reach. Same sort of thing as before - the 'Elminster rulez!' player talked the others into travelling to Shadowdale to meet the Old Sage and the Storm was 'hot' so they needed to visit her ... despite the campaign starting in the Vilhon Reach.
Here is what I think is the key issue. The novels attract a certain crowd of fans and those fans, either as DM or players, what to live out some vicarious fantasy of interacting with famous NPCs of the novels. As DMs, they inflict the Chosen or Drizzt on their players. As players, they want to meet the iconic NPCs and chum with them in some fashion. That to me is where the problem squarely lies.
Among my group, the "FR Syndrome" of every second store-corner shop-owner being a 20th level mage and every stable boy being a 15th level fighter is a common thing we joke about. So we kinda recognize the potential problem here although we still play in it for the most part without it being too much of a problem. However, there is a certain license the setting may seem to give to certain people to use such NPCs to the detriment of the players (by GMs) or to become too dependent on them (as players). While of course either of these could happen in any setting, it seems to happen a little bit more with Forgotten Realms. However, of course only a portion of the player base falls into these potential traps.
So the conclusion I've come to is that the "Forgotten Realms syndrome" is is a result of neither the player-base nor the setting itself, but rather how the two interact. In some players and gms, the setting can encourage the "Forgotten Realms" syndrome to set in (though of course this isn't the same as 'causing' it.)
Each setting seems to have its own potential pitfalls that can work in similar ways to put people of of the setting. For example:
-Golarion: alignment pigeonholing, world incohesiveness issues, too humanocentric
-Planescape: planar elitism/anti-prime material worlder bias, too much focus away from the pcs towards planar metaplots
-Ravenloft: dm railroading, uber darklord/villain npcs, player powerlessness
-Spelljammer: too wacky/out there, joke setting
All of these complaints, right or wrong, can be addressed in game by some groups simply enough, whereas for other groups the issues don't bother them or occur at all. However, all of these said issues do have some basis in how the worlds were designed and often have some less-than-stellar canon examples that may exacerbate the perception of each setting's particular hang ups.
So much of the FR Syndrome and related complexes is player based perceptions, but of course these can be egged on by certain elements of the campaign (whether it be close ties to novels or high level npcs, for example). And some players/gms might run into certain hangups with some settings but not others (knowledge of a particular setting could be a factor here, for example). So I guess for me, it's an issue of how player-setting interaction, rather than the blame being placed all on one or the other. Basically, it's a matter of finding players that go well with the setting you want to play in and the manner in which you want to play it in.
Thinking on it some more, part of the issue is that RA Salvatore's Drizzt novels have sold somewhere north of 30 million copies worldwide. That's a hell of a lot, far more than the lifetime sales of the likes of Terry Brooks, Ray Feist or Terry Goodkind. The only fantasy authors who have outsold Salvatore are Pratchett, Jordan, Lewis, Rowling and Tolkien. Certainly no other RPG tie-in novelist has sold anywhere near as many copies (even Weis and Hickman are a good 10 million behind him). To put this in context, the D&D core rulebooks across all four editions have probably sold significantly less than 30 million copies in 35 years.
One of the consequences of this is that there are a lot of people who find their way into D&D via Salvatore and his novels, and of course they want to play in the Realms and meet some of the same characters in-game, and some DMs may feel pressured to oblige. When you also throw in the other very high-selling FR novelists (Kemp, Greenwood etc), the BioWare computer games and so on, it's a problem that the FORGOTTEN REALMS almost uniquely have compared to other settings (especially since DRAGONLANCE is currently defunct). The FR are the only D&D setting (and one of the few RPG settings overall) that enjoys this level of insane popularity with people getting into it from other sources other than roleplaying.
I've seen STAR WARS games having the same problem, with players wanting to track down and hang with Han Solo and Luke and co, but the STAR WARS galaxy is so huge that it's a lot easier to thwart their plans in that case :-)
The only problem is players having trouble separating the player's knowledge from the pc's. This should be on the first page of the PHB or FRCS. A DM that has the NPCs doing the pcs job is failing automatically in any world. I much rather have a bunch of options for high level play than a huge hole between 15 and 35 (Eberron).
Also the difference between other D&D settings is simply that FR has a lot more characters in general. And the number of epic villains is significantly greater than the Chosen of Mystra (who are insane btw) and similar characters.
|
|
It is that high level characters don't make any sense...
...And that's where it pisses me off. NPCs over 5th or 6th level. Garbage.
And that is one of the flaws inherent within our game...
One that we either get over and move on, find a more realistic game to play, or play variations of the game like E6...
Personally, I find nothing wrong with a world that has NPCs over 5th or 6th level. But then I'm of the opinion that while the PCs are heroes, they are not the biggest fish in the pond...
YMMV...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
And that's where it pisses me off. NPCs over 5th or 6th level. Garbage. It is worse when your GM, in my opinion, stuffs the world full of 20th level people.
That's not quite a fair statement. It' only garbage if players are capped at 6th level.
As for what a 20th level NPC can do in its day? Not better, not worst than a 20th level PC. At my knowledge, a 20th level PC cannot 'wish the world to end', nor 'summon 100 dragons' casually. Why should NPCs?
Going with the full range of the game, a world where NPCs don't go beyond 6th level is ruled by powerful creatures instead (angel, demon, devil, dragon, you name it). Either way, you've got powerful NPCs in charge, humanoids or otherwise.
Without high level NPCs, Humankind and other humanoid races aren't able to govern their own world without some sort of guardian angels, which in turn cause the same problem as high level NPCs.
High level NPCs are coherently consistent with high level treats, which are part of the (full range of the) game. You can limit everything to level 6 (including the appropriate treats) but then you can't pretend that you're playing the full range of the game.
As many stated before, the Forgotten Realms syndrome lies in the fact that literature is intimately connected to the setting, leading to fans (DMs included) wanting to meet their heroes in-game. Not so much with the existence of high level NPCs.
The same has been observed in Middle Earth games; even if players don't seek to find Frodo Baggins, it is hard to ignore the elements of the Lord of the Rings because its characters make the Lord of the Rings in great parts. For many who are/were new to RPGs, Drizzt and Elminster are the Forgotten Realms.
'findel
FR syndrome to me was based on two things:
in 1E: Not so much that there were high level characters, but that 90% of the high level characters were WIZARDS.
In the original core books there was one cleric (of Gond) over level 20, and numerous wizards, and NO fighters or thieves. The king of Cormyr, at f/20, was the most powerful in the setting.
You had to wait for Bloodlands to come out to get a f/30, and Old Empires for a f/23. And I think Gondegal was a f/20 and rival of Azoun. And I don't recall EVER seeing an Epic level Theif/Rogue. I think Drizzt's dad was originally statted at level 23...
That's IT. Archmages? Archmages were everywhere. Archclerics? one in the kingdom-building book there at the end, making up the Epic spell so Lathandar can become Amaunator from 3.5. A drow priestess in one module, maybe. And then?
Now, to be on the safe side, 1E mages were squishy, and a high level fighter might easily take one out as soon as they were in blade range...they'd never get a spell off and would get hacked apart.
#2: Magic items. Since there was no wealth by level, you could get some insanely powerful magic items at some strange levels. Remember Daggerford? The royal Dwarf treasury? A stone controlling earth elementals? A dwarven Thrower?
In four from Cormyr, a border outpost has a sword of sharpness stuck under the table. WTH?
I just reread Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast. There's FIVE Staffs of Power in the hands of Wizard NPC's...most of them under level 10. Yeah, that's right. And they've got, uh, other stuff, too.
====
To me, it wasn't so much the levels that turned me off FR, but the overwhleming dominance of magic. Overcoming magic to cut through and kill the wizard? No, high level fighters were COLLATERAL DAMAGE. It was insane. THe idea of non-wizards overcoming high level wizards was laughable. Note that in all the Drizzt books, he hardly ever fights a serious wizard opponent...and when he does, they tend to be major levels under him (we're going to forget the idiot of a gnome).
And that's when I started looking elsewhere for more balance. I mean, c'mon, Drizzt is a walking dead man to any well-built fighter. He's got crap for gear and no stat buffs. He was cool in 1E because he was a max Dex drow fighter dual-wielding...that was ALL BY ITSELF, pretty bad ass. But all he does is pick up a new sword or two, and his bracers, and he's still pretty good, because that was what you could do in 1E.
No healer? Not until he's working with Cadderly. He is basically a high level fighter killing mooks who can barely hurt or hit him, because if they did he's got no means of recovery. The Drizz't books do NOT read like adventures, because he makes the reality of d20 combat go away. Drizzt is simply better then everyone around him. Once R.A. nods to the real d20 rules and he starts getting buffed and stuff, he actually becomes effective even against dangerous stuff.
===Aelryinth
Having high level NPCs beyond level 6 is not by itself a bad thing, but level 6 or so is an important dividing line. 90% of the population should reside at or beneath that level for most worlds to make sense. 9% should fall between that and say 15th or 16th level, and 1%, or at the very most, 2%, should be higher than that. This is where FR tends to fall apart. It isn't that there are higher level npcs, it's that there so many of them that everything from the economy to "why didn't someone else take care of this already?" issues can become awkward very quickly. Greyhawk, Eberron, and Golarion do a better job in that there are higher level npcs, in some cases very high, but the total number of them is low enough that requiring the PCs to handle the task in front of them is not all that unbelievable.
EDIT: The exact percentages may vary from world to world slightly, but varying too much from the posted ones tends to cause issues.
Having high level NPCs beyond level 6 is not by itself a bad thing, but level 6 or so is an important dividing line. 90% of the population should reside at or beneath that level for most worlds to make sense. 9% should fall between that and say 15th or 16th level, and 1%, or at the very most, 2%, should be higher than that. This is where FR tends to fall apart. It isn't that there are higher level npcs, it's that there so many of them that everything from the economy to "why didn't someone else take care of this already?" issues can become awkward very quickly. Greyhawk, Eberron, and Golarion do a better job in that there are higher level npcs, in some cases very high, but the total number of them is low enough that requiring the PCs to handle the task in front of them is not all that unbelievable.
EDIT: The exact percentages may vary from world to world slightly, but varying too much from the posted ones tends to cause issues.
Thanks to 3E and some of the population stats introduced in 2E, we know that the Forgotten Realms population is somewhere around 70 million, maybe considerably more. Now, I know there's a fair few high-level characters in the 3E FR books, but I don't recall there being almost a million and a half of them described ;-)
Part of the problem here I think is perception. If you actually went through the FR material and found every character over say Level 16 (who - importantly - survived the adventure and was still alive at the end of 3E), there'd probably be quite a few: dozens and maybe a few hundred. But in a world the size of Earth with the population of one continent (and not even the largest at that) in the tens of millions, there's really not that many.
And of course, if you are playing in the 4E Realms, almost all of them have been killed off by old age or the Spellplague anyway.
Having high level NPCs beyond level 6 is not by itself a bad thing, but level 6 or so is an important dividing line. 90% of the population should reside at or beneath that level for most worlds to make sense. 9% should fall between that and say 15th or 16th level, and 1%, or at the very most, 2%, should be higher than that. This is where FR tends to fall apart. It isn't that there are higher level npcs, it's that there so many of them that everything from the economy to "why didn't someone else take care of this already?" issues can become awkward very quickly. Greyhawk, Eberron, and Golarion do a better job in that there are higher level npcs, in some cases very high, but the total number of them is low enough that requiring the PCs to handle the task in front of them is not all that unbelievable.
EDIT: The exact percentages may vary from world to world slightly, but varying too much from the posted ones tends to cause issues.
Let's be clear here this is your OPINION, and not stated in the rules anywhere. this opinion does not seem to be the case from the way the rules are written.
Services- Spellcasting
The indicated amount is how much it costs to get a spellcaster to cast a spell for you. This cost assumes that you can go to the spellcaster and have the spell cast at his convenience (generally at least 24 hours later, so that the spellcaster has time to prepare the spell in question). If you want to bring the spellcaster somewhere to cast a spell you need to negotiate with him, and the default answer is no.
The cost given is for any spell that does not require a costly material component. If the spell includes a material component, add the cost of that component to the cost of the spell. If the spell has a focus component (other than a divine focus), add 1/10 the cost of that focus to the cost of the spell.
Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn't certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren't returning with the caster.
In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.
as to the sizes of these population centers:
Settlement Population Ranges
A settlement's population is left to the GM to assign, but you can use a settlement's type to help you determine just how many folks live in the city. Since the actual number of people who dwell in a settlement has no impact on game play, the number you choose is largely cosmetic—feel free to adjust the suggested values below to fit your campaign.Settlement Type Population Range
Thorp Fewer than 20
Hamlet 21–60
Village 61–200
Small town 201–2,000
Large town 2,001–5,000
Small city 5,001–10,000
Large city 10,001–25,000
Metropolis More than 25,000
So by the Rules a population of 10,000+ has not one but perhaps several casters of various classes of over level 11. If you need this person to cast resurrection at level 5 WHY AREN'T THEY DEALING WITH THE PLOT. Ohh that's right social obligations, the infamous tropes of:
"I don't have time to go trapes-ing around in smelly old ruins just bring me X.""As the lord mayor of this group of people I cannot risk their safety by heading out to do Y."
"I have equally powerful enemies and need (dis)honorable allies that aren't directly affiliated with me to get the task done."
Yes this also means that an economy based on powerful magic items should exist at least among the rich and powerful (PC's who far exceed the WBL of NPC's of the same level, churches, wizards guilds, powerful nobles, and nations).
The sooner people accept that the game is designed to run with high level NPC's, the sample king in the game-masters guide has 14 levels the prince has 11, and that the game from a literary perspective is much more high fantasy/ magical realism than the low personal magic folks want it to be some of the cognitive dissonance might be mitigated. IE it follows the FR tropes pretty accurately. It also may mean that a lot of folks aren't playing the best system to most effectively get what they want from the games/stories that they want to tell.
More stuff other than this:
The sooner people accept that the game is designed to run with high level NPC's, the sample king in the game-masters guide has 14 levels the prince has 11, and that the game from a literary perspective is much more high fantasy/ magical realism than the low personal magic folks want it to be some of the cognitive dissonance might be mitigated. IE it follows the FR tropes pretty accurately. It also may mean that a lot of folks aren't playing the best system to most effectively get what they want from the games/stories that they want to tell.
I have to agree wholeheartedly.
Part of the problem here I think is perception. If you actually went through the FR material and found every character over say Level 16 (who - importantly - survived the adventure and was still alive at the end of 3E), there'd probably be quite a few: dozens and maybe a few hundred. But in a world the size of Earth with the population of one continent (and not even the largest at that) in the tens of millions, there's really not that many.
I agree that a lot of the problem is perception, in that because of the novels, and the way the Forgotten Realms books are laid out, it can feel like higher level characters dominate the whole world, but part of it is that while every world has it's share of high level characters specifically called out and fleshed out, Forgotten Realms does have more than most, suggesting that the higher level characters have more direct power than they might have in Greyhawk or Eberron.
I agree that a lot of the problem is perception, in that because of the novels, and the way the Forgotten Realms books are laid out, it can feel like higher level characters dominate the whole world, but part of it is that while every world has it's share of high level characters specifically called out and fleshed out, Forgotten Realms does have more than most, suggesting that the higher level characters have more direct power than they might have in Greyhawk or Eberron.
That suggestion I think is a result of the FORGOTTEN REALMS setting having hugely more novels, rulebooks, adventures, box sets and sourcebooks than any other D&D setting (maybe any other RP world setting full stop). GREYHAWK has spent vast amounts of its 30-year history defunct with no new products coming out and EBERRON is nowhere near as old or as well-covered. If those two settings had 300+ novels apiece for them and hundreds more other products, I think we'd see a lot more characters (high-level or otherwise) for them.
OT, but has anyone heard about WotC doing anything for the Realms' 25th anniversary (in print as a D&D campaign setting, I know it was around for 20 years before that as Greenwood's personal project) next year? I'd assume they'd make a reasonably big deal out of it.
That suggestion I think is a result of the FORGOTTEN REALMS setting having hugely more novels, rulebooks, adventures, box sets and sourcebooks than any other D&D setting (maybe any other RP world setting full stop). GREYHAWK has spent vast amounts of its 30-year history defunct with no new products coming out and EBERRON is nowhere near as old or as well-covered. If those two settings had 300+ novels apiece for them and hundreds more other products, I think we'd see a lot more characters (high-level or otherwise) for them.
The point is, that regardless of the cause, that suggestion is there, and is something that anyone playing in the realms is going to have to account for. Forgotten Realms simply has too much history, and too many spelled out details on everything, even after the spellplague, to be able to completely ignore all of it.
That suggestion I think is a result of the FORGOTTEN REALMS setting having hugely more novels, rulebooks, adventures, box sets and sourcebooks than any other D&D setting (maybe any other RP world setting full stop). GREYHAWK has spent vast amounts of its 30-year history defunct with no new products coming out and EBERRON is nowhere near as old or as well-covered. If those two settings had 300+ novels apiece for them and hundreds more other products, I think we'd see a lot more characters (high-level or otherwise) for them.The point is, that regardless of the cause, that suggestion is there, and is something that anyone playing in the realms is going to have to account for. Forgotten Realms simply has too much history, and too many spelled out details on everything, even after the spellplague, to be able to completely ignore all of it.
Not anymore. The writers knocked out the rich history of the realms to make it more *Accessible*. I love that word. It used alot in education to say something nicely.
The wizards of the FR are the top caste, and they know it. Once you become powerful enough as a wizard, there isn't anyone who truly wants to fight you, or even risk your ire, so you have pretty much free reign to grow even more powerful. Thus, 10th to 15th-level wizards is a pretty common occurrence. Higher than that, and new principles kick in. First off, to truly shine as a wizard, it takes TIME. So much time that you really need to live for more than a human lifetime to reach those pinnacles of power. Most are ageless servants of the gods (Elminster, seven sisters, Khelben), liches, or remnants of earlier ages (Netheril comes to mind). Excepting these, at the 15+ level, there are actually not that many left. We also do not know that much about them, and it could well be that the above solutions apply to them too.
The lack of truly powerful clerics is a different matter. Reading the entries, my feeling is that there is a very high-level cleric in each of most towns in the Realms, but I might be mistaken.
|
|
And if he does all that, doesn't it defeat part of the point of the setting that every time the PCs show up in an important town or locale where important NPCs are supposed to hang out... those NPCs never seem to actually be there.
A huge pet peeve of mine, is when a game element, whether flavor or mechanics, is at odds with playability, and, when this is brought up, the 'fix' is to 'not use that.'
Why on earth does it exist, if I'm not supposed to use it? Good grief! If I wasn't meant to play with it, you shouldn't have put it in reach of my hands!