D&D 3E/3.5 5e Forgotten Realms - should it be closer to 3e or 4e?

[avin]

While I don't "hate" FR, I would hang Elminster, Drizzt and other mary sues on a big oak tree and wait for vultures do their job, just to be sure

Time of Troubles smells as fishy as the Spellplague which, let's be honest here guys, some people hate just because it's related to 4E.

Up to me I would do the "and the realms are slowly curing from the Spellplague and returning to normal"... as I'm not a fan, feel free to ignore my post

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If I must pick one, I pick the grey box + that hardback 1E Realms supplement (forget the name, the one with the different gem explanations in it). There is stuff to like in everything that came after, but Time of Troubles was so badly handled, I don't think the Realms has truly every recovered. (It's like the Phantom Menace--it travels in time and makes Episodes 2-6 worse than they otherwise would be, simpy by existing. )

But instead of a mushy timeline, how about a merging, "Best of the Realms," version? Take advantage of all the pretty maps, detailed cultures, etc. Mix all the gods up in a big barrel and pick the ones that work the best together. Take a look at all those things shoehorned onto Toril for supplement sales (e.g. Maztica, the Oriental Adventures setting, etc.) and only keep the best ones in the Realms. Let Elminster save the world exactly one time.

 

[Kzach]

I'm one of those blasphemers who actually liked the 4e incarnation of the setting.

As much as I agree that the 1e version was probably the best, going backwards isn't the answer especially since the 1e version is really just a Greyhawk clone with different names. Not saying Ed copied GH, mind you, just that Greyhawk is pretty much default vanilla fantasy fare and that FR 1e is much the same.

Do we really need another version of the same thing?

Whereas the 4e version turns a lot of the fantasy conventions on their head whilst remaining true to many of the core fantasy elements. Eberron moves past fantasy and well into technomancy and pulp fantasy so having Greyhawk, Eberron and FR 4e would give us three very different fantasy settings to play in.

 

[Zaukrie]

4E has a story, 1E and 2E especially are just another typical fantasy world (with a ton of details). 3E books were/are awesome, no doubt.

But I don't know how the 1E and 2E aren't just another world. Its super easy to ignore returned Aebir and races you don't like.

 

[Banshee16]

I much prefer the 3E presentation of the Realms, which was large and expansive, which to my mind is exactly what the Realms should be.

I disagree with the idea that the Realms need to be reset to how they were in the 1E gray boxed set. From what I understand, this presented a little-detailed area, without much context of where it existed in a larger world, so that DM's could freely flesh out the world as they liked.

I say that's a bad thing, if for no other reason than we've already had a campaign setting that does that. Which one? ALL OF THEM!

Seriously, the descriptions of the 1E FR campaign setting sound like Greyhawk, like Mystara, like Birthright...hell, in terms of level of detail it even sounds like Dark Sun and Ravenloft!

The thing I liked most about the Realms was the vast amounts of detail it presented; so much detail that you could dig into it in a scholar-like fashion, the way Tolkien fans could for Middle Earth. I liked that D&D had a setting that rich, that developed, that expansive that you could learn so much about it.

For those who didn't like that level of detail, you can just ignore it or rule it out in your games. Is the fear of having some annoying "canon-lawyer" really so bad that you'd prefer the entire campaign line be reset rather than allowing for one D&D setting to be rich in depth?

[/rant]

I agree......I liked the detail in the realms. Seems to me like they ruined the setting for 4E, to satisfy those who didn't like it, and STILL didn't manage to bring in new fans. I think they just need to de-emphasize the Chosen and other mega powerful characters. Some of the additions in 3E, like the Shades, were pretty cool.

I *did* like the grey box, but I liked the 3E hardcover better. More of the FR treatment was something I was hoping to see for other settings, like Dragonlance, where the utility of the setting for games OTHER than a recreation of the WotL was limited by virtue of most of the books (before 3E days) being too focused on just fleshing out that one aspect of the setting. The 3E books by Sovereign Press were finally "getting" it by offering enough details for a GM to hook into.

The grey box approach was nice....but makes a lot more work for DMs. I think some parts of 4E's changes were good though. In 3E, we never saw much of anything in the Moonshaes.....yet they were always one of my favourite areas of the realms. I really liked the idea of the return of a kingdom of Fey casting out the humans in the area.....particularly as I was reading Tad Williams' "Shadowmarch" series at the same time that 4E was coming out, so the idea of darker fey returning to Faerun and making an area inaccessible to mortals was rather neat.

3E got things right in terms of making the world more "evil" than it had been in 2nd Ed. It's something WotC got right......the forces of evil were far more competent in the 3E depictions of FR than they were in 2nd Ed.

Banshee

 

[MooMan68]

Why does the description of a campaign world have to be tied to *any* edition?

Publish an "edition agnostic" hardcover description of the setting. No stats for anything - it is sufficient to describe somebody as an "elite fighter", a "legendary thief", or a "peerless mage". The country descriptions, cultural notes, monsters, etc. can all be done without any reference to any specific rules set.

There is no reason this ever has become to obsolete. I don't care if you add a new MonkeyBirthed race to the Players Handbook, they don't have to be part of a specific campaign world that has already been described.

For any given edition, a small supplement (or downloadable PDF) can be made that gives detailed stats for setting specific monsters, NPCs, classes, themes, etc.

 

[Glade Riven]

Personally? I'd prefer a Hard Reboot, like Trek 2.0.

We already know what is going to happen, though - WotC already said what they were going to do was make it so that anyone could play any era. My guess is that it'll be split between things exclusive to the FR across all eras and which optional core rule modules go with which timeline, with a brief overview of each era and landmass. Returned Abner, Maztica, and other lands outside of the main continent will probably be ignored in the first book so they can sell more splats.

 

[Stormonu]

My favorite is definately the Gray Box. However, I think it would be wise for WotC to support all versions, as a sort of penance for the 4E version.

 

[Deep Blue 9000]

Why does the description of a campaign world have to be tied to *any* edition?

Publish an "edition agnostic" hardcover description of the setting. No stats for anything - it is sufficient to describe somebody as an "elite fighter", a "legendary thief", or a "peerless mage". The country descriptions, cultural notes, monsters, etc. can all be done without any reference to any specific rules set.

The problem is that each edition (such as the 4e Spellplague) brought major changes to those country descriptions, cultural notes, etc outside of the rules set. For example, is Luskan a major port city or barely inhabitable demon infested ruins? Even without refering to the rules set at all, this choice means favoring either the 4e or 3e description of Luskan. You can be modular about some things, like the inclusion of dragonborn (or not). But most of the problems of canon that people are complaining about cannot be resolved by simply avoiding referring to a specific rules set.

 

[Elf Witch]

I voted third because I really hate what 4E did to the world.They killed my favorite god Helm.

As a player I really like 2E. Though I think the 3E books were well done.

I think the best way would be to allow the ability to play in all timelines.