D&D 5E The case for (and against) a new Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book

[Xenonnonex]

Not required, by any means.

The only reason to bring up another setting book is if the original book does not contain enough information. Hence your post.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I mean, I kind of agree with everything you've written here... except FR already has one setting book, the SCAG. Not sure why it deserves to have 2 released before GH, Ravenloft or DL have one.

But then why did Wizards release Tyranny of Dragons before other adventures? We already have Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat.

 

[amethal]

Okay. Cut out roughly two thirds of the adventure. Cut out the reason for even being there. Good show.

I think that most people who want to run a non-death curse campaign in Chult can probably come up with a reason for the characters being there. Presumably a reason connected to the actual campaign they plan on running.

They might even suggest playing characters who are native Chultans. I certainly will, if I ever run a campaign in Chult.

Adventurers might even explore the Forbidden City and the "Tomb of Horrors" in the absence of a death curse, so you can still use those parts of the book as part of a more generic Chult campaign. (From what I remember, the original 1st edition modules had hooks of "bandits are attacking caravans - go sort it out" and "hey, let's check out that tomb over there; it's bound to have lots of treasure".)

 

[Xenonnonex]

I think that most people who want to run a non-death curse campaign in Chult can probably come up with a reason for the characters being there. Presumably a reason connected to the actual campaign they plan on running.

They might even suggest playing characters who are native Chultans. I certainly will, if I ever run a campaign in Chult.

Adventurers might even explore the Forbidden City and the "Tomb of Horrors" in the absence of a death curse, so you can still use those parts of the book as part of a more generic Chult campaign. (From what I remember, the original 1st edition modules had hooks of "bandits are attacking caravans - go sort it out" and "hey, let's check out that tomb over there; it's bound to have lots of treasure".)

And this is my point. You need to do quite a fair bit of modifying to make a non Death Curse game.

I had to make extensive modifications to the ToA game I ran for my players. I was grateful for the book. But it does not pretend to be anything other than an adventure book. Containing information relevant to the adventure nothing more nothing less.

 

[amethal]

I think something like SCAG would do a good job of providing an over-view of the setting and a common baseline for writing adventures. I did find the SCAG itself lacking in some areas - for instance, it doesn't tell you whether Chult is an island or a peninsular (ToA doesn't either) because they cut off the bottom of the map - but I don't expect them to re-publish it to fill in a few of the gaps I didn't like.

I'd also have liked a bit more information about important NPCs, but we do get quite a few names, so presumably any DM's Guild adventures in Cormyr will all have Queen Raedra on the throne even if they might disagree on the identity of the head of the Purple Dragons.

 

[Fenris-77]

There are like fourty-two million maps of the Realms online, don't let the geography of Chult get you down.

 

[amethal]

There are like fourty-two million maps of the Realms online, don't let the geography of Chult get you down.

It's not getting me down, and I don't need on-line maps.

I have every single Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. They have maps in them. The first three show Chult as a peninsular (assuming they show it at all - I'm assuming 1st and 2nd edition maps had Chult on them, not interested in going back to check). The fourth one shows it as an island.

The fifth one is inconclusive. Presumably the map-maker didn't know if it was an island or not so chose to make it ambiguous. I consider this to be a flaw in the product.

 

[Fenris-77]

That's legitimate, but possibly inconsequential to most readers, many of whom posses neither your familiarity with the setting, nor your reams of previous source material. I think going online for a map is a natural and obvious choice to most folks who might have noticed the Peninsula Conundrum. I'm not hating, just saying the level of detail you're concerned with might not be shared by you average gamer.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The fifth one is inconclusive. Presumably the map-maker didn't know if it was an island or not so chose to make it ambiguous. I consider this to be a flaw in the product.

Or a nod to authenticity. Real maps are rarely completely reliable. Conquistadores from Waterdeep might simply not know if Chult is an island or not.

 

[Demetrios1453]

But we already have that with SCAG?

No.

As he said: "The core of setting from Moonshae to Thay, Unther and Mulhorrand, to the Dalelands and the Sea of Fallen Stars can be done with appropriate thoroughness as they have always been done in past corebooks or boxed sets for the Realms."

Those areas are not covered with "appropriate thoroughness".