D&D 5E Do you want a Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide?

[Mercule]

Even though he's making a joke, Mirtek's point is important as to why a 5e FRCG is essential. Having bits of lore parced through various APs & SCAG still leaves too much up in the air for people that want to run their Realms game anywhere beyond the Sword Coast... or attempt to tie previous campaigns to the current timeline. If the time-jump to 5e was merely a decade instead of a century, I can see the 3e FRCG as being a viable resource for current games.

I strongly dislike the Realms. I'll never run a "true" Realms campaign because I have no interest in reading and mastering all the info available, nor do I really want even have a player attempt to "out-canon" me (yes, I can say "no" but I don't even want the conversation).

Ironically, the SCAG actually softened my stance on the Realms. I'd still rather see Realms material limited to Realms-specific source books and adventure paths and have support for settings I actually want to use. But... I've actually considered picking up SCAG and running a campaign where that's the only official canon allowed. Everything else, including maps beyond the Sword Coast, additional deities, organizations, etc. are all subject to be defined by me without any attempt to reconcile with previously published material. If they published SCAG-like books for other areas, it would kill whatever little interest I have in SCAG.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Because you want to is a fine reason. Just don't mistake want and need as some people in this thread are doing. You want a FRCS book. Cool. I want CS books for Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Eberron, Planescape, and at least one totally new setting. But you won't see me claiming that I don't have what I need to play Ravenloft or Planescape (I have what I need for those). For Spelljammer we could definitely use good naval combat rules and ship layouts (I looked for the Spelljammer boxed set on the DMs guild and couldn't find it, otherwise we'd already have the ship layouts). For Eberron, we need the artificer.

I want CS books for all of those, FR, and a modern setting. Not the Ultramodern book put out by a third party and not d20 Modern, but a modern setting where elves and dwarves and such were there and known from the start.

I mean, I liked d20 Modern, but... these days, if I want that style of gameplay, I just play Savage Worlds.

 

[MechaPilot]

I want CS books for all of those, FR, and a modern setting. Not the Ultramodern book put out by a third party and not d20 Modern, but a modern setting where elves and dwarves and such were there and known from the start.

I mean, I liked d20 Modern, but... these days, if I want that style of gameplay, I just play Savage Worlds.

I really liked D20 Modern as well, particularly the Urban Arcana Shoadowchasers setting (which reminded me of a darker version of the TV show Special Unit 2). These days though, the BtVS RPG is what I typically use for modern games. It has a nice cinematic action feel and is relatively rules-light. I also use it for the out-of-mech parts of Battletech.

 

[orderofthings]

You know, i voted yes before just for the big map. Now, reading this thread, i have to change my mind.
I'm still voting yes, but because it's really because of all the hours i spent pouring over the 2e box when i was a kid. I didn't get to use a scrap of it in-game (i didn't even end up DMing the shadowdale quest), and i don't care. It was an amazing product. It got me into the concept of world building.
I think the new generation should get to feel that without having to buy yours off e-bay, then convert it to 5e, then reconstruct a geographical timeline post sundering... i say this because i basically tried. Maybe go in a more digital direction, like that crazy layered .pdf of Waterdeep someone put together [Somebody please tell me it's still floating around].

Some people go for the immersion. A campaign setting has value beyond the literal game, and the money i spent on that box set was worth it even though i "never used it". I lived in the realms during the late 90s real-world-time, 2e era realms-time. This was only through owning the campaign setting and reading novels.
I never got to actually play in the realms for the first time until early this year, when a friend randomly brought up the idea after over a decade away from the game. Yes, maybe i out-lored my DM when we bumped in to the cult of the dragon in Thundertree. We had a conversation about just how much my character might know about the world at large and it was really no issue.
I'm now DMing the same group through POTA and have not had to call upon my knowledge of the greater lore once. Regardless, i still want to know what's going on right now in Thay, Chult, and Airspur.
The campaign setting would be absolutely unnecessary, but it could turn some of the current beginners into lifelong addicts.

Sent from my SM-N920T using EN World mobile app

 

[hawkeyefan]

Which is like saying 'want to learn about current Germany? Here's a guide to the german empire in 1881 for only half price. Come on, how much could have changed? Maybe you'll be lucky enough to glimpse the Kaiser when you get there'

It's exactly like that.

Well...except that Germany's real and the Realms are all made up.

What if you want to campaign outside the Sword Coast and the North, you simply don't have the intel to do so.

In addition to the Phandalin region, the major locations in Faerun for my 5E campaign are Chult, Anauroch, and the Heartlands. And I have plenty of intel for all of it.

I don't even think that I object that strongly to the idea of a new FRCS...I mean, it would feel mostly rehashed at this point. The Sundering changes could likely be summed up in a handful of pages, and then the rest would be things we've mostly seen before. But other than that, I wouldn't even mind the book because clearly there are people who want that kind of product.

But the days of numerous releases are over. These days, if they did a FRCS then that would mean something else didn't get made. And I'd prefer to see something else than another FRCS. I have my 3E version as my go to, and plenty of stuff from before that available to me if I need it.

So yeah, I have to say that I'd prefer to see them produce something else.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

But the days of numerous releases are over. These days, if they did a FRCS then that would mean something else didn't get made. And I'd prefer to see something else than another FRCS. I have my 3E version as my go to, and plenty of stuff from before that available to me if I need it.

So yeah, I have to say that I'd prefer to see them produce something else.

They could farm it out.

Basically, set up a community lore place where a selected group of volunteers can write up the FR 5E lore. It would save them a lot of headaches because people in this community would do all of the work tracking down the lore, including pieces WotC has probably forgotten even exist, and reconciling it with the changes between 4E and 5E. It would also allow for pages that are just quick, succinct summaries and pages that go so far in-depth you know the name of every tree branch.

 

[hawkeyefan]

They could farm it out.

Basically, set up a community lore place where a selected group of volunteers can write up the FR 5E lore. It would save them a lot of headaches because people in this community would do all of the work tracking down the lore, including pieces WotC has probably forgotten even exist, and reconciling it with the changes between 4E and 5E. It would also allow for pages that are just quick, succinct summaries and pages that go so far in-depth you know the name of every tree branch.

There are a couple of wiki type sites that kind of do that already. I think WotC is being intentionally stingy with post-Sundering changes because I don't think they want to commit to anything until they have a story or adventure that requires such info.

No need to say "the leader of Tasseldale is so and so" until you actually have a product that takes place in the Dales.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I'm probably going to get burned at the stake for this, but...

I have mixed feelings about the Realms. Original gray box was interesting, definitely had a lot of ideas that 15 year old me had never even imagined. I am apparently in the minority in that I do not like the 3E campaign setting at all. Every nation is essentially ruled by humans and in conflict with other human nations. Demihumans and monsters are simply not movers and shakers in the world. Every forest has a ruin, orcs, trolls, ettins, and maybe a dragon with a weird magical ability. It all felt very samey-samey to me. In contrast, I really liked 4E Realms, which felt like there was a unique, distinctive adventure around every corner.

As for 5E, the adventure paths clearly seem to be a combination adventure and setting book. Maybe not the first few, but starting with Out of the Abyss. OotA is the Underdark sourcebook. CoS is the Barovia sourcebook. STK is the North sourcebook. In fact, I think STK is perhaps my favorite setting guide for Forgotten Realms. The North really feels alive and interesting. And there are callbacks to RoT and PotA. It sort of reminds me of Marvel's Manhattan, with Spider-Man swinging past a ticker tape parade for the Fantastic Four and rooftop where Daredevil is fighting Bullseye. STK has actually made me much, much fonder for the Realms than ever before.

In summary, I like current format, and I have no particular interest in a campaign setting.

 

[Cyrinishad]

So I agree with most of this. What I disagree with at this stage is whether that requires a FRCS, particularly with the amount of material that has already been released.

The jump was really a matter of a couple of years, from 4e to 5e. It has already been stated (in SCAG) that the effects of the Spellplague (mostly the "returned Abeir lands were gone, the large rifts that had formed in various places fixed, the Sea of Fallen Stars was back to its normal banks, and many of the Gods had returned) are largely reversed. Shade is gone (which was actually a 3e thing), and Anauroch is a desert again.

What this means to the world depends a lot on your campaign. In my FR all traces of returned Abeir (including the dragonborn) are gone, but the shadovar will remain in a very small scale since the fall of Shade.

What they haven't detailed is much in terms of the rulers, but presumably most of that remains as detailed in the 4e FRCS and NCS unless new material says otherwise, such as Lord Neverember being removed from being a Lord of Waterdeep.

I suspect there is a gap between people who acknowledge the 4e material and the 3e and earlier material.

I do agree that we need a book like the SCAG for Cormyr/Heartlands/Sembia/Moonsea, and probably one for the lands south of Baldur's Gate. An overview of the political state and such would be fine with me, but a FRCS that repeats the material released in the APs and SCAG would be a mistake, as would releasing a "FRCS" without it. So a series of regional books makes the most sense (and appears to be what they're doing, at least to me). And if you're interested in running your Realms outside of the Sword Coast, you probably don't need the APs set in the Sword Coast. You'll probably still want the SCAG though. I see the material in the APs as extremely helpful for DMs running the Sword Coast and the North, but probably unnecessary for those running a campaign elsewhere.

Eventually one that covers the east (Thay Mulhorand, etc.). Beyond that, everything south of the Sea of Fallen Stars, east of Calimshan, and west of the Old Empires. Those seem to be the major sections that have received regular coverage over the years.

In many ways, I think that an AP set in a specific region will probably highlight the differences of actually being in those regions better than a campaign guide that just covers the region in much the same way CoS (or even the old I3-5 adventures, particularly the expanded super adventure release).

More than anything, though, I think that the material you are looking for will be released, eventually. But I doubt it will be in the form of a FRCS. It may not be what you'd like to see, but I think it's pretty clear that's the direction they're taking. And it's unlikely to change if sales continue as well as they have been.

I acknowledge all of the 4e material, however I don't think the 3e FRCG is a functional substitute in lieu of a 5e FRCG because of the time difference between 3e & 5e, not because of a time difference between 4e & 5e. The notable NPCs from 4e can certainly be presumed to carry-over unless otherwise specified. I will concede that if WotC released a series of SCAG-esque books to cover regions instead of a single comprehensive tome they would be able to acquire my gaming $$$. But shelling out for APs just isn't in the cards for me.

 

[Cyrinishad]

I strongly dislike the Realms. I'll never run a "true" Realms campaign because I have no interest in reading and mastering all the info available, nor do I really want even have a player attempt to "out-canon" me (yes, I can say "no" but I don't even want the conversation).

Ironically, the SCAG actually softened my stance on the Realms. I'd still rather see Realms material limited to Realms-specific source books and adventure paths and have support for settings I actually want to use. But... I've actually considered picking up SCAG and running a campaign where that's the only official canon allowed. Everything else, including maps beyond the Sword Coast, additional deities, organizations, etc. are all subject to be defined by me without any attempt to reconcile with previously published material. If they published SCAG-like books for other areas, it would kill whatever little interest I have in SCAG.

I haven't read or mastered all of the info either... Quite frankly I don't think anyone has even if they presume to believe that they have done so. An important part of the Realms "canon" is that it is merely the prevailing assumptions made by imperfect narrators. Players that equate "canon" to hard "facts" or "truth" are welcome to operate under that assumption, but must be prepared to have their a-priori assumptions disproved at any time. I like the Realms because it gives players the resources to explore ideas without requiring the DM input to fill in all the blanks or contradict their creativity. I don't like saying "no" to players either, but I will always reserve the right to tell them that they only knew part of the truth.
... and I very much hope that we all get support for the settings we want to use.