Is there relaly a need for 4th ed Realms changes just for the *mechanics*?

[UngainlyTitan]

I agree with Rechan, in that clearing ground for the books was a major factor, probably also to clear ground for the LFR.
I also suspect that the Realms always has an RSE for an edition change played a part.

IMO, the 4e mechanics probably modeled the FR books i have read better than the 3e mechanics.

 

[Dykstrav]

I don't necessarily think that all of 4E Forgotten Realms changed to fit the mechanics, but I do share the consensus that the product could have been better.

To me, the best part of the Realms is the massive amount of detail. If I have to fill in the town, its important NPCs, adventuring sites, power groups, adventure hooks and the like... I could do that to enrich my own homebrew rather than to build upon a published setting. The motivation for me to buy a published setting is so that I don't have to do all of that for myself.

Rather than empowering me to "make the Realms my own," reducing the amount of detail encourages me to use something else.

 

[Kraydak]

I do agree about the "powerful NPCs" part, but the other three I have to disagree with. I rather liked the idea of the Realms being "the setting gushing with lore" coupled with a setting like Eberron or Greyhawk being the "sparse info" setting. There's room for a setting so detailed you feel like you could walk into it and live there tomorrow...

This. I would expect that the single biggest and most important region of setting-parameter-space to fill is the level-of-detail one. So WotC would have been better off with FR as the high detail setting, Eberron as the low or medium level and a possible third setting as the low level of detail setting. Then, for each region/element detailed (or explicitly not-detailed) you include a paragraph or three about what you need in surrounding regions to fit it into a different world/what anything you slot in that non-detailed region needs. Then, for completely uninterested reasons of course, for each region of FR/Eberron, you give an example place in Eberron/the 3rd setting, that it could slot into, and for any non-detailed place, you give a region from FR/Eberron that could slot into it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So WotC would have been better off with FR as the high detail setting

But you already have your high-detailed Forgotten Realms setting book. It just happens to have the 3.5 mechanics in it.

This is what I think was the smart thing to do when they made the 100 year jump... they left the door open for every FR DM out there to continue their game from where the 3.5 campaign guide left off if they so chose. If you liked the massive amounts of detail but still want to use 4E mechanics... then don't skip ahead 100 years and just retcon, not use or say "this was how it always was" to any 4E stuff that's been added to the game.

And let's be honest... if you are a highly knowledgable and competent DM, you probably have already made personalized rules and storyline adjustments to your campaigns by this point. You aren't running your Realms 100% by the book (and novel line for that matter). And if that's the case... then even if WotC hadn't made the time jump and the RSE changes to the fluff to fit the mechanics... you probably would have changed the rules and storylines they gave you anyway, so that your campaign continued as it was going.

So what's really the difference here? Using the 3.5 fluff for your Realms adventures, or using whatever 4E fluff they might have written without the RSE? You most likely would change them both to fit your needs. So why be bothered by WotC making their own changes too?

 

[Rechan]

And let's face it. If you're a knowledgable FR DM, you don't NEED the new edition's Campaign Guide unless you want to play with the imploded countries and stuff.

 

[AllisterH]

You know, that's an interesting point I didn't think about.

If the FR didn't have a RSE, what would be the differences between the 3e FRCS and the 4e FRCG if the timeline had only advanced the 7years that had progressed from the release of the 3e version?

Wouldn't it be exactly the same?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Wouldn't it be exactly the same?

Well probably not exactly... because WotC would create some new events to occur at the very least to create new plot hooks for each of the regions they describe in the book. But if you want a pretty good idea of what a 3.5 to 4E change of the Realms would be without an RSE and timejump... just look at the 4E Eberron book. That one had no timeline change to speak of, and only a few additions or retcons to explain away certain 4E features (like the Eladrin feyspires for example). But they added enough new kinds of plothooks and details on groups that had not yet been describe in much detail that they had enough to actually fill out the book and not have it be a carbon-copy of the 3.5 Eberrron Campaign Setting. Of course... they did have the advantage of not a large amount of novels to work around, nor the fact that I don't even know if the novels are a part of "canon" (if the folks in charge of the setting even care about such a concept per se).

 

[Rechan]

Of course... they did have the advantage of not a large amount of novels to work around, nor the fact that I don't even know if the novels are a part of "canon" (if the folks in charge of the setting even care about such a concept per se).

The novels are not canon. For instance, one of the Novel lines deal with the Mark of Vol, and that is one of those things that is Up to the DM to Decide. Another, the Heir of Ashes deals with the Mournland. Another thing that is Up to the DM.

About as canon as they get IIRC is one NPC group that Keith Baker made in his novels appear in one of the supplements.

 

[Belorin]

And let's be honest... if you are a highly knowledgeable and competent DM, you probably have already made personalized rules and storyline adjustments to your campaigns by this point. You aren't running your Realms 100% by the book (and novel line for that matter). And if that's the case... then even if WotC hadn't made the time jump and the RSE changes to the fluff to fit the mechanics... you probably would have changed the rules and storylines they gave you anyway, so that your campaign continued as it was going.

This is exactly what I do.


Bel

 

[I'm A Banana]

They didn't throw out the whole Realms, they just shook it up enough and poked enough holes in it so that players and DMs could have more stake in it, more freedom to customize it and evolve it in ways that they see fit.

Well, that's kind of misapprehending why people chose to play in FR. Part of the appeal of the setting for many fans is to go over those famous landmarks and mythic regions, to see the effects of mythic NPC's, to feel the history seeping from every tavern, and to have your intricate knowledge rewarded, though not necessarily required (I don't know of any real problem with players who read everything imposing the Way Things Are on DM's who were forced to acquiesce -- it's just a variant on the rules law, and is trumped by the same thing it's been trumped by since 1e, the DM's authority).

I mean, why choose FR over your own home campaign if all it is going to offer you is exactly the same thing that homebrewing offers you? Nobody was ever forced to DM an FR game against their will, so if you want to DM an FR game, you want to involve yourself in a well-detailed world.

I mean, I get wanting to free up some space and make room for individual DM's, and I can support that, but blowing up the realms was probably the most ham-fisted and awkward way to do it. They would have to use a lighter touch in the Campaign Guide anyway, so just giving a broad overview and some specific threats would have probably been just fine.

The specific ways it was done may be unique to the Realms, but this seems to be a guiding philosophy in 4E. It's a game of points of light in the darkness, and with enough holes and freedom to really make the game your own.

This approach is one of the things I've strongly supported in 4E.

Really, one of the things that is strongly supported in every edition of D&D is your ability to make the game your own, so 4e has no special dispensation to do that that OD&D didn't also have.

And if "it's a game of points of light in the darkness," then imposing that style on every setting is the exact opposite of letting us make the game our own, and it is unnecessarily limiting.

But really the core of the issue is that people don't play in FR, by and large, to play in a postapocalyptic realm of magical fallout. That's for the Mournland in Eberron, or individual DM's, or the entire Dark Sun setting to dabble in. The goals certainly didn't require that, and doing that may have ended up driving off more people than it attracts, because it doesn't offer much now to either fans of FR, or people who aren't fans of FR, whereas before it just excluded the latter.