4E value < 3E value

[Rechan]

Feat from PH. Feat from Martial Heroes Sourcebook. Spell from Arcane Hero Sourcebook. Spell from FR Player's Guide. Magic Item from Adventurer's Vault.

I think you can still end up with player resources from multiple books in 4e.

Correct.

However, the topic is setting books. I never doubted that 4e would have splat books, after all; that's inevitable.

Having that issue with setting books isn't going to happen (unless you mix FR and Eberron and Setting #3 and so on) due to there only being one. For instance, it was frustrating when I was looking for Construct Grafts in two Eberron books, not finding it, only to discover it tucked away in the back of Faiths of Eberron, where it had no topical/organizational sense to be.

And as far as spells (powers, whathaveyou) are concerned, they're much easier to just write down all the pertinent info rather than reference.

On another topic, I'd like to say that more words isn't necessarily better. I never had a whole lot of use for the 3e content, even if there were more words per page or per book. Hell, compare the average page numbers for Prestige Classes versus Paragon Paths (especially those in later 3.5 books that spanned 8 pages). Even if I will never use that PP and have no interest in it, it's 60% of a single page I won't use compared to several pages.

 

[Mercurius]

OK, I can buy that there is a benefit to splitting the book into DM and Player's books, but I think it is pretty safe to say that compared to the 3E book, the 4E FRCS isn't as good value. Not only is the 3E version more detailed (and yes, much greater word count), but it is more complete. I think my main issue with the 4E version--which I overall like--is that it doesn't feel complete, especially because of the lack of a write-up on races.

There is also the "quality vs quantity" issue, which I also agree with, although feel is more debatable. Personally I like the 4E rules more, although the jury is still out (for me) on the fluff. Even if I say that I like the fluff from each edition about the same, a "fluff-heavy" book like 4E FRCS comes off as disappointing compared to the dense 3E tome...which is what inspired my original post.

So in summary, I agree that splitting the book is a mixed bag and does have a positive aspect. I also agree that quality is more important than quantity when assessing value, I still maintain that the 4E FRCS is worse value than the 3E FRCS, because its value is almost entirely derived from "fluff", and--given the assumption that both are roughly equal in quality (which is debatable)--the 3E book is of much greater value due to the quantity of fluffy goodness.

 

[I'm A Banana]

the 3E book is of much greater value due to the quantity of fluffy goodness.

If your main concern in value is how much fluffy goodness you get, then, yeah, the 3e FRCS is a better "value."

I think WotC figured that breaking it up (and jacking up the readability) would provide better value for each part. I believe they consider a dense tome of text as a removal of value -- it's not portable, it's can't be easily referenced, it's intimidating to first-timers, etc. All these things remove from its value, in WotC's mind, I think.

But value is notoriously subjective, so what makes it less of a value for you might make it a better value for someone else.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Maybe some of you are... I dunno, taking this a bit too personally?

Saying that one likes a book because it has a less cramped layout is not a thinly veiled insult or name calling. Saying that one does not like a book because it carries less information relative to its predecessors is a valid reason not to like something.

I think some people need to be more liberal with their ignore button. Or at least not let themselves get baited.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Since I won't be buying either book, this makes very little actual difference to me, but the truth is that I think splitting the player and DM information is the way to go. I used to get annoyed with having 50% of the 3E FR books devoted to players when I wouldn't be using or allowing the vast majority of it into my game. I wanted setting detail above all else, and when I was running an FR campaign, I was running it with core rules and non-FR splats for the most part.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm just surprised nobody yet has mentioned the horrifyingly bad adventure that makes up a good chunk of the book.

The 4e book took out a lot that was in the previous books, and replaced it with three things: bigger font, more white space, and that incredibly bad adventure. There's very little details, and what we are told is very sparce.

Overall, if you dislike 4e, you'll dislike the book. If you like the Realms up to and through 3e, you'll PROBABLY dislike the book. If you really like 4e, you MIGHT like the book.

It's simply the weakest 4e book that's been done yet, quite frankly.




All that said and done, the plan to purposefully exclude information in the book to force us to pay for DDI or the seperate novels is, quite frankly, disgusting. It also spits quite handily on the idea that the new FR would be mostly empty and author plot-armor free, and I don't just mean "spit" as in a little saliva, but a full blown hunk of spittle and phlegm right in the face.

 

[Fenes]

Since I won't be buying either book, this makes very little actual difference to me, but the truth is that I think splitting the player and DM information is the way to go. I used to get annoyed with having 50% of the 3E FR books devoted to players when I wouldn't be using or allowing the vast majority of it into my game. I wanted setting detail above all else, and when I was running an FR campaign, I was running it with core rules and non-FR splats for the most part.

The problem is that you'll need both books anyway, since from what I gather from Vayden's post, the details (or at least more details) I wanted about regions are actually in the player's guide. I don't exactly know what use the FRCS has in this case since it lacks just about every detail it should have.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What a happy thread!

Wanna have some popcorn?

 

[Kishin]

A very reasonable assessment.

Call a spade a spade, yo.

There are undoubtedly zealots on both sides. If you don't like the title, then don't act in accordance with it.

Just going to clarify that Obryn missed my point.

Maybe if you didn't enter the thread with several helpings of condescension, rudeness and finger pointing, people would be more likely to see your point. I, for one, still don't.

I've seen nothing in the 4E material I own so far (Which is admittedly, just the core 3, so I'm not qualified to comment on AV or the FR books) to make me feel as if I was being 'gipped' by comparison to my 3.5E books, and I've been seeing a lot of both sets since my 3.5 game is still ongoing. There is definitely an economy of the written word to the rulebooks but so far its been clear and concise. I haven't really hit a 'darn, I wish there was more of X here' moment yet, except for maybe in a few Monster Manual entries.

As people said, quantity does not equal quality. I'll pass my final opinion when I pick up a campaign setting (Eberron) or the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, because I loves me some swordmage.

 

[Fenes]

As for the original post, I have to say I also am not fond of the breaking into two books of the campaign guide; however, they are making up for it in my opinion by only releasing a limited number of supplements for each setting. As Rechan noted, fewer supplements that are FR-specific means a savings in the end, actually. I also understand why they did it, too - I'm not the only one who remembers all the complaints on multiple forums about "wanting campaign guides to be split into a player's guide and a DM's guide".

I disagree totally with this statement. I can always opt not to buy a book that's available and save money, but I can't buy a book I actually want or even need if it's not published. Less books are bad, period. Less information is bad. If I want to make up background info I can do that perfectly fine, but I shouldn't have to do that for just about every region in a setting because there is no usable info available at all.

IMC, I make my own regional sourcebooks with the details like NPCs and locations, but even there I like some guidelines, or starting points, if only as an inspiriation. The FRCS doesn't offer any such. No details about customs, bare bones if any about the political make up of regions in the southern part, none of the details that made the Realms so colorful in 2E and partially 3E.

All the book offers, to me, is some "and here's this clichee culture with no details, and there is that clichee with not details, just imagine them yourself". Not even historical information that goes much further than "Spellplague happened, now it's like this". That's especially galling after the Complete History of the Realms - I'd have at least expected a mere 100 years of history detailed as much as in that book, so we get a feeling for the new realms.

All in all, less is less. I won't be that much affected - I already have my setting, I am used to create my own regional material, and I can use 2E and 3E material as inspiration or as written - but a new DM will be left to make it up all by himself.