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

[Xenonnonex]

Clearly some of us feel the adventures offer a mini setting. Clearly some of us feel the adventure itself offers the material but does not offer more than that.
That is all fine.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Exaggeration simply does not make it true. You can run adventures from the content that you can extrapolate from the adventure. Anything else you are introducing substantial homebrew. And means the mini setting claim is not quite accurate.

If you want locate an adventure in Chult ToA gives you all you need. Forget about the Death Curse and all the related dungeons, just drop in whatever adventure you want to play.

That's something you can't do with the 3rd edition setting book. It isn't detailed enough. You have to put in the work to flesh out the location before you can use it. It's no good out of the box.

 

[Xenonnonex]

If you want locate an adventure in Chult ToA gives you all you need. Forget about the Death Curse and all the related dungeons, just drop in whatever adventure you want to play.

Then you are still making substantial changes to the adventure. To the narrative structure and to the implicit mechanics. To the flow on events. This is not a bad thing. I advocate groups to run however they want to run it. It is their own group after all. But the changes are unavoidable.

That's something you can't do with the 3rd edition setting book. It isn't detailed enough. You have to put in the work to flesh out the location before you can use it. It's no good out of the box.

The 2e Chult mini setting book is great. It is an actual mini setting. It gives you a lot to work with.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Then you are still making substantial changes to the adventure.

I wouldn't be running that adventure at all. I'm running a completely different adventure using the setting information from the book.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I wouldn't be running that adventure at all. I'm running a completely different adventure using the setting information from the book.

That is the clearly the opposite of "literally nothing much changes".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That is the clearly the opposite of "literally nothing much changes".

Wasn't me saying that. Clearly if you want to use ToA as a setting book, there is a lot of stuff you won't need. Just as if you want to use the 3rd edition FR setting book to set an adventure in Chult there is a lot of stuff you won't need.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Wasn't me saying that. Clearly if you want to use ToA as a setting book, there is a lot of stuff you won't need. Just as if you want to use the 3rd edition FR setting book to set an adventure in Chult there is a lot of stuff you won't need.

One of your points was to forget about the Death Curse and related dungeons. The reverberations from removing all of this is actually quite substantial. Since some npc and journey motivations are tied in to it.
Even if you drag and drop material substantial changes need to be made with use to the material.

With ToA there is a lot of information that should be there. This information simply is not there. If I try to drag and drop this into games there is nothing really to work with. Which makes the claim that ToA gives you all you need to simply be false.

 

[Mercule]

Considered by which many? The 3e FRCS certainly is a great book. It is however utterly laughable and ridiculous to claim it is considered by many to be the best campaign book ever published. Especially since many consider the 2e FRCS to be better than it and the 3e FRCS merely reproduces whole portions of previous text.

Dunno. I’ve heard lots of claims that it is. i can’t judge it on utility for running FR. What I can say, though, is that I’ve absolutely despised the Realms since 2E (it was only a mild disdain in 1E) and have had a “no money towards Realms material” policy since that time. I was sorely tempted to pick up the FRCS just as a template to structure my home brew material.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

With ToA there is a lot of information that should be there. This information simply is not there.

This is the false claim. You could quite simply drag and drop an adventure into Chult using ToA (and I have done - Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan). There is nothing that "should be there" that is not.

Which is more than I can say for the 3rd edition FR sourcebook. There is a huge amount of information that "should be there but simply is not" if you actually want to set an adventure there.

I don't believe people clamouring for an FR sourcebook are actually interested using it to play D&D adventures. I think they are just interested in reading fictional history and metaplot.

Because the nice thing about fictional history is you don't need to evaluate the veracity of sources, if it says it in the book it must be true.

 

[Xenonnonex]

This is the false claim. You could quite simply drag and drop an adventure into Chult using ToA (and I have done - Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan). There is nothing that "should be there" that is not.

Which is more than I can say for the 3rd edition FR sourcebook. There is a huge amount of information that "should be there but simply is not" if you actually want to set an adventure there.

I don't believe people clamouring for an FR sourcebook are actually interested using it to play D&D adventures. I think they are just interested in reading fictional history and metaplot.

Because the nice thing about fictional history is you don't need to evaluate the veracity of sources, if it says it in the book it must be true.

Your claim that ToA has everything you need to run any adventure in Chult is demonstrably false.
One of my players wants to play a native Chultan who worships Ubtao. They are deadset on worshipping Ubtao. Where is the information on Ubtao?

I want to run adventures set in the Valley of Dread. Or in the Sky Lizard Mountains. Or in the Sanrach Mountains. Or in Samarach. Because these look cool. Where is this information?
I have a memory of the Rundeen in Chult. Where is that information?