Forked Thread: Compare FRCS4e to other Settings

[Wyrmshadows]

Forked from: What do you think about the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book

I admit that my opinion of the FRCS4e setting (on the previous thread) isn't exactly a ringing endorsement and I know that many feel the same way. However, I wanted to start a conversation comparing FRCS4e to the initial offerings of other published settings.

Here's a few:

Midnight (Fantasy Flight Games)
Dawnforge (Fantasy Flight Games)
Iron Kingdoms
Dragonlance
Aereth (Goodman Games)
Golarian (Paizo)
3e FR Campaign Setting
Wilderlands
Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas (Hamunaptra, Troy, Testament, Eternal Rome)
Oathbound
Kingdoms of Kalamar
Diamond Throne (Malhavok)

I would argue that even though FRCS4e's production values are good, the new FR doesn't stack up all that well against its 3e incarnation or against the strong initial offerings of unique settings like Midnight or Iron Kingdoms while at the same time being only equal to other vanilla D&D style worlds like Golarion (on a gut level I prefer Golarion but that IMO isn't an objective stance) and Aereth. Even 3e's KoK while being a bit dry and still in the mold of standard D&D fantasy was IMO far more compelling than FRCS4e. Did anyone get the old familiar charge from the FRCS4e that said "Wow, I can't wait to run/play a campaifn here"? I know I certainly didn't.

I really believe that WoTC dropped the ball with the FRCS4e and though I am no 4e fan I am very dissappointed. I have used FR for some of my most memorable campaigns and am disappointed at seeing FR as a shadow of its former self. Unfortunately, it is likely to stay this way because of WoTC's limit of 3 books per setting.

Please share your opinions.



Wyrmshadows

 

[Shroomy]

I'm beginning to plan out my first 4e campaign. At first, I was going to use the Nentir Vale, but after reading the 4e FRCG and some of the Dragon articles, and since the campaign is not likely to start until September when the Player's Guide is released, I'm now seriously considering using the Realms. I really liked the majority of the changes and I prefer that the setting has been largely unshackled from 21 years of supplements (of which, I own a fraction); I personally find the lack of detail liberating and it is making me consider running my first FR campaign since the early 90s.

That said, I do like setting detail, up to a point, and that point it usually when arguments about canonical materials start among fans.

 

[Jack99]

I haven't read all the campaign books you have listed. But, to me, it seemed that most of them had too much information. Too much for me anyway. When I buy a campaign setting, I want a framework for a campaignworld, that I can add too and make my own. I do not want a finished product where everything from quicky languages to menus in the inns to prices of different appartments in different cities has already been listed. I like to still be able to create other things than the adventures.

Of course, this is just my personal preference, and other people probably feel differently.

Summa summarum, I feel that it is no weaker than any of the books listed, but instead different, appealing to another type of DM's.

 

[Weregrognard]

I think comparing 4E FR to previous settings out there is a bit unfair. I would argue that 4E FR and previous campaign settings have had very different design goals.

It seems to me 4E FR is a move towards a not so new paradigm where macrocosmal campaign settings take second place to the microcosmal settings of adventures, which are (arguably) the meat and drink of D&D and RPGs in general. Another not so new design goal seems to be of the campaign setting book presented as a general sourcebook.

How is this not so new? Witness the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements for original D&D. They were not so much new settings as source material that happened to be from a specific setting. The classic adventures of 1E were "modules", meant to fit in your campaign even if they already had a place in Greyhawk. Same with Basic D&D's Known World/Mystara. Even Dragonlance was a set of adventures first and a setting second.

Later Greyhawk and FR supplements (to a greater degree) started a "settings first" trend of detailed, compelling (and eventually bloated and metaplotted) sandboxes for campaigns. Out of this grew innovative settings such as Dark Sun, Ravenloft (also originally an adventure), and others. Later settings were made to join these settings together (Spelljammer, Planescape). Successful tie-in novels excacerbated the negative aspects of setting detail. The rich detail that was once beneficial to adventure design could become an obstacle to DMs who wanted to "stay true" to the source material.

The settings of 3E were, in my opinion, the children of the detailed settings and thus (with a few exceptions) followed the same trend.

I think it is ironic that FR, which was once the king of detailed settings, is now on the vanguard of what may be a "lite" settings trend. I wonder if it will last.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

If there is anything that really bugs me about the FRCS4e, it is that so much has been excised that it feels less like an established, well trod setting with a lot of history and more like a D&D everysetting that though largely free of baggage doesn't really feel like the old FR.

And I have to ask, if WoTC was going to strip the setting down this much I think that simply creating a new stripped down 4e setting would have been the way to go.



Wyrmshadows

 

[rkwoodard]

I

How is this not so new? Witness the Greyhawk and Blackmoor supplements for original D&D. They were not so much new settings as source material that happened to be from a specific setting. The classic adventures of 1E were "modules", meant to fit in your campaign even if they already had a place in Greyhawk. Same with Basic D&D's Known World/Mystara. Even Dragonlance was a set of adventures first and a setting second.

I was going to post something like this in the other thread. The FR Campaign Guide, really reminds me of a hardback version of the old Greyhawk Gaz. The regional write ups are quick and dirty, that for me are perfect to spur my creative juices.

I really like the Campaign Guide as framework, module as the details.

RK

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Perhaps I've been spoiled by other books or settings, but the 4e FR book just doesn't feel complete. There's a lot of things mentioned vaguely that never go into ANY manner of depth - all you know are their names. To add to that, too many of the changes feel like they were done for no reason - change for the sake of change. A lot of them feel very poorly planned out, such as the god of duty somehow believing that a suit of armor was macking on his girl, the Goddess of Chance (SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT COUPLE, RIGHT?) all because the God of Lying to Everyone told him so. Or all the Drow gods and goddess who aren't Lolth dying for stupid reasons, which basically boil down to "Not having plot armor." I think that, ultimately, the big insult from the FR book is the idea that you ALSO have to go online to find the answers to some of those questions I mentioned in my second sentence - apparently, instead of making the book self contained, they felt it more important to add a really crappy adventure that doesn't even seem to have anything to do with the Realms.

 

[Scribble]

Is it fair to make this comparison, hiowever, before the player's guide to the setting is out? Seems like the two should be taken as the whole, rather then one or the other.

What would the 3e FR campaign book look like if you removed all the player info from it?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is it fair to make this comparison, hiowever, before the player's guide to the setting is out? Seems like the two should be taken as the whole, rather then one or the other.

What would the 3e FR campaign book look like if you removed all the player info from it?

Uh, virtually identical apart from it wouldn't have pages and pages wasted on pointless location/origin-based feats? Maybe missing some of the PrCs but they were dual-use anyway.

I think if there IS significant campaign info in the Player's part that's not in the DMG, then that's bloody CRIMINAL on WotC's part. This idea of yours, that a campaign setting cannot be judged on the y'know, the book called CAMPAIGN SETTING, seems pretty fantastical.

Considering that no-one seems to be comparing "crunch" anyway, why the heck would the player's book matter?

 

[The Little Raven]

I think if there IS significant campaign info in the Player's part that's not in the DMG, then that's bloody CRIMINAL on WotC's part.

I disagree. There are things the players' (and the DM, by extension) need to know, which should all be in the Player's Guide, such as the basics of races, classes, and details that PCs from a culture would know. Then, there's stuff that only the DM should know, which should all be in the Campaign Guide, like plot details and villains.