Least Favorite - FR

[nick yates]

>
>>i liked al-quadim, which IIRC was part of the realms. but frankly, the
>rest of it stank.<
>
>Which did not need the FR to be playable. And which was so good, it could
>be adated to almost any setting, even BR if you get rid of 99% of the
>demi-human NPC's. It would be perfect for Djapur I would think.

I seem to remember that it a Dragon from a while back there was an article
about the different realms in Al-Qadim and how they could be used as
Cerilian domains, with Guilds Sources and everything. Perhaps someone else
could fill me in with the exact number, the article is called Scions of the
Desert I think.

Nick

[LordSchmit]

Nick wrote:
>I seem to remember that it a Dragon from a while back there was an article
>about the different realms in Al-Qadim and how they could be used as
>Cerilian domains, with Guilds Sources and everything. Perhaps someone else
>could fill me in with the exact number, the article is called Scions of the
>Desert I think.

Yes, the "Scions of the Desert" article was in Dragon #233 on page 40. (:

[Jim Cooper]

James Ruhland wrote:
>
> >
> > After standing long opposed to the Realms I suddenly found myself with an
> > evening and three players, and the only thing on hand was one of Ed
> > Greenwood's first 2nd Edition offerings in the FR. "The Haunted Halls of
> > Eveningstar." They loved it, I loved it (again!) and discovered
> something
> > crucially important in gaming. The world is what you and your players
> make
> > of it. Now I know that is a tremendous BFO (blinding flash of the
> obvious)
> > to most everyone here, I think there's allot of jaded folks on this list.
> >
> Sniped a bunch of stuff but the above was the "meat" of T. Nutting's
> argument. Have I bought and enjoyed FR products? Yes.

Sorry to get off topic here, but does anyone else on the list not
receive certain posts? For example, I never received Tim Nutting's post
re:the above that James snipped. Why is this? BR Moderator, is there a
special command I need to send you that will allow me to receive all
posts to this list?

Darren

[James Ruhland]

I, in my ignorance, wrote:

Anything an NPC character* can do, be, or have a PC should be able to do
be, or have. And anything a PC can do be or have an NPC should be able to
do, be or have.

But forgot to append the note (I was busy ranting). I put in the little *
but forgot to add the notation:

*By character I mean any NPC which is class-based in general. I.E.
Elminster is a Mage. Thus anything Elminster can do, be, or have should be
*possible* for a PC to have, be, or do (though it might require an
exraordinary quest or deed to achieve that goal). What I do NOT mean are
Monsterous NPCs (I.E. this is not intended to say that because the Dark
Eight rule the Nine Hells (or whatever they're calling the place today) a
PC should be able to become a member of the Dark Eight and rule the Nine
Hells (or whatever they call them tommorow). Or that a PC should be able to
play a Dragon (though I guess they did try that).
But all character classes, kids, specialties (like Necromancer), skills,
proficiencies, weapons, magic items, etc. that are available to NPCs ought
to, in general, be available to PCs as well (and if you put something in a
module, especially a published module, you should know that this item is
likely to fall into the hands of the players. Saying "well, this is really
powerful, so the DM should make sure the players don't keep it", IMO
doesn't cut it. Why not just design it to be less powerful to begin with?
I.E. take my Egg of the Phoenix example: there was no reason related to the
plot that this artifact had to be nearly that powerful.
The quick & easy rejoinder, often found printed in the module (see, there
it is, right there; page 3.) is "if there's anything in here that you [the
DM] considers inapropriate to your campaign, just remove it." That's a good
policy, but IMO all too often it's just an excuse to set a bad example. A
very bad example. People, especially beginers, often take "official"
publications as their guideline of what is appropriate "see, TSR has it so
there's a magic item in every other room, so that must be the right
ammount."
The most munchkinized PCs I've ever had or seen were the result of playing
published adventures. Was the DM at fault? Was I at fault (as a player and
DM both)? Yes. But does TSR share *some* responsibility if their products
encourage this kind of thing? A few hopeful words about "game balance"
isn't enough if everything else sets the wrong example.
Shoot; this screed, like the last one, became far longer than I originally
intended. Sorry about that. This is just one of my pet peeves (I *really*
dislike it when something really wonderful is described, followed by the
statement "oh, and don't let your players have this item." (a statement
that should be followed by "we just couldn't help ourselves from being
munchkin game designers and putting it in here; please show more restraint
than we're capable of"). Gads! I'm really ranting today! I'll stop. . .(he
he; I'm like a power-mad game designer "stop me before I screed again!")

[Jason]

- --------------57C856CCF5891268F9118BB9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tim Nutting wrote:

> After all this, I discovered, to my chargin, that the realms weren't
> all
> that bad after all, as long as the DM did his job and shaped it to his
>
> needs.

I must admit, I have never been a big FR fan, but that's mainly because
of the way the game has taken shape, with the high magic and Elminister,
etc. But I do enjoy the rich history, and there are plenty of things
about it that grab my attention. One day in the future, I want to
challenge myself into running a FR game, but my version of the Realms:
there would be the big cities, the red wizards, etc., but the magic
would not be as prolific. It's tempting. I think one day I will do
it. It appeals to me.

Regards.


- --------------57C856CCF5891268F9118BB9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Tim Nutting wrote:
After all this, I discovered, to my chargin, that
the realms weren't all
that bad after all, as long as the DM did his job and shaped it to
his
needs.
I must admit, I have never been a big FR fan, but that's mainly because
of the way the game has taken shape, with the high magic and Elminister,
etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I do enjoy the rich history, and there are plenty
of things about it that grab my attention.&nbsp; One day in the future,
I want to challenge myself into running a FR game, but my version
of the Realms: there would be the big cities, the red wizards, etc., but
the magic would not be as prolific.&nbsp; It's tempting.&nbsp; I
think one day I will do it.&nbsp; It appeals to me.

Regards.
&nbsp;

- --------------57C856CCF5891268F9118BB9--

[Jason]

jonathan.w.ingram@exgate.tek.com wrote:

> Hmm, I just finished my second adventure session in my new Birthright
> campaign and I have yet to award a magical item in an adventure.

My BR campaign has been going for 18 months, and the total magical items
the players have is:

* 2 magical swords
* magical dagger
* Bracers AC 6
* various potions that have been consumed
* various scrolls that have been used

Never once have they complained.

Regards.

[veryfastperson@juno.com]

hmm, it seems a lot has been said about this, i guess my 2 GB's could be
thrown it too. i personall, was started one FR. i liked it. mostly
because we had a young DM who just made our (brand new) character's about
13th level, and with tons of magical items. now that i look back, we had
fun, but there really wasn't a difficult challenge (again, with our young
DM, we had a bard who had a harper's pin. he used that VERY well) so the
fun factor went down after about 1 gaming sesion. so truthfully, i don't
much care for GAMING in FR. but the one thing i LOVE about FR, is reading
the books. i like R.A. Salvatore's books on Drizzt Do'Urden (hmmm, he's
only a 15th level Ranger?? even if i had a 19th level fighter, i'd never
want to cross blades with him:) and even the harper series has captured
my attention. I like READING the books, but with so many NPC's
(Elminster, Drizzt, etc) the gaming hasn't been that good. That's what
brought me to BR. i love the way it is complelty open... low # of NPC's,
low magic, good gaming. I have had very good experiences with gaming in
BR.

well, that's just my 2 GB's

Erik

__________________________________________________ ___________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Samuel Weiss]

>James Ruhland's wonderful rants snipped<

Actually I agree wiht his main points on all things. Especially the
shocking abundance of magic items in the early modules. Part of the problem
with them, I would say, is they were originally tournament modules, and so
needed no game balance. But James is right, run T1-4, Temple of Elemenattal
Evil, or GDQ1-7 The Giants-Underdark-Lolth Supermodule, and the PC's will
be dripping with so much magic, they could choke a dinosaur with their
surplus.
Though I did have one extremely smart player. When I ran WG4, Lost Caverns
of Tsojcanth, upon gaining the artifact at the end of the module, he
promptly turned it over to high church officials, and let them with the
side effects. Smarter than EGG and DM alike I'd say. (I was really hoping
to hose him with the side effects.)

Samwise