D&D 5E Escapist article on SCAG is Brutal.

[Hussar]

If they have run out of ideas for the FR then they could always tap Ed for some more.

Heh. They tried going with new ideas. 4e Realms was exactly that - taking the Realms in a new direction with new ideas. It flopped badly, shot in the head and lay bleeding on the floorboards.

I really, really don't think FR fans want terribly new ideas.

 

[Shasarak]

Heh. They tried going with new ideas. 4e Realms was exactly that - taking the Realms in a new direction with new ideas. It flopped badly, shot in the head and lay bleeding on the floorboards.

I really, really don't think FR fans want terribly new ideas.

Ok, that is true - Realms fans do want good ideas that respect the history of the FR and the work that has already been put into it.

Which is why I suggested going back to Ed rather then who ever put together the 4e FR.

 

[Celtavian]

Heh. They tried going with new ideas. 4e Realms was exactly that - taking the Realms in a new direction with new ideas. It flopped badly, shot in the head and lay bleeding on the floorboards.

I really, really don't think FR fans want terribly new ideas.

4E FR wasn't new ideas. It was trying to kill the old FR to fit the new magic system. No one would like someone to take one of their favorite fantasy worlds and force feed you changes to fit a complete weakening and watering down of a traditionally high magic world that the fans liked as a high magic world.

FR fans enjoy new ideas and material. Force feeding changes due to game rule changes that completely rip the old world apart FR fans do not like.

 

[Zardnaar]

Heh. They tried going with new ideas. 4e Realms was exactly that - taking the Realms in a new direction with new ideas. It flopped badly, shot in the head and lay bleeding on the floorboards.

I really, really don't think FR fans want terribly new ideas.

The timejump was kind of bad along with the whole spellplague thing. Beats me why they thought it was a good idea the results should have been predictable.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is a sad state of affairs when a 1e Campaign Guide can be used for a 5e game because it is essentially the same.

Its more or less a soft reboot back to the original area of the Realms. Sword Coast was 1E, the Dales was 2E, 3E had a wider focus, 4E blew it up.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Heh, it's funny. Paizo did EXACTLY the same thing that WOTC is doing now. Start with a honking big world map and then fill it in, slowly, with each AP - 2 per year, IIRC. If you want to run a campaign outside of the coloured in areas that have been covered by an AP, you're SOL.

Yet, the irony that I see is that Paizo gets praised for doing this - nicely filling in all the details with modules, but, WOTC get's dumped on for doing the same thing. The Sword Coast is being extensively detailed, now we've got the Underdark under the Sword Coast detailed. Presumably, the next AP will detail more in one direction or another. But, WOTC will still be getting "brutal" reviews.

Maybe that's because Golarion wasn't fleshed out first like FR is. You aren't comparing like for like here. FR is an already established world that has gone through some changes while Golarion was not. You can't establish a world chock full of lore, make some radical changes, and then release piecemeal adventures that don't really describe the overall world.

Also don't forget all the Campaign guides such as the Inner Sea guide that Paizo has put out which WoTc most likely will not.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Not to mention those of us that have been playing for ages have tons of FR maps with tons of detail. You can find tons of FR maps online if you need more detail. As far as FR goes, no one is SoL. There is so much FR material out there that you can find sufficient info and maps to run a very detailed campaign in any area in the FR.

You are assuming everyone is familiar with the Realms. What happens when that new person gets a hold of the over map and starts looking at other places on the map that isn't covered?

Look, their strategy is just not a good and will come back to bite them in the bum.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe that's because Golarion wasn't fleshed out first like FR is. You aren't comparing like for like here. FR is an already established world that has gone through some changes while Golarion was not. You can't establish a world chock full of lore, make some radical changes, and then release piecemeal adventures that don't really describe the overall world.

Also don't forget all the Campaign guides such as the Inner Sea guide that Paizo has put out which WoTc most likely will not.

Apples and oranges.

Not really. The 5e Realms is NOT the Forgotten Realms. It's building on what came before piecemeal instead of trying to do everything at once. Previously, we generally got pretty high altitude views of a bunch of different places and it was left to the DM's to flesh things out. Now, we're getting a bunch of material for a specific part of the world (that's still pretty damn big) and then they'll spread out from there. Pretty much exactly the way Golarian has gone.

And, FR fans are extremely adverse to any setting changes, just like fans of pretty much anything with the D&D name on it. Tradition is very, very important. You mention the Inner Sea Guide - 2011 release there. So, what, three years into a setting that had zero background information? We're one year into 5e. Give it time. They'll get there eventually.

 

[Jester David]

It is a sad state of affairs when a 1e Campaign Guide can be used for a 5e game because it is essentially the same.

Maybe. But you can also use campaign settings written for other game systems in 5e just as easily. Because 95% of a good campaign setting is largely system agnostic. It doesn't matter to Cormyr or Waterdeep, to Greyhawk City or Geoff, to Solamnia or Neraka if the fighter has lots of bonus feats or powers or action surge.

 

[Jester David]

You are assuming everyone is familiar with the Realms. What happens when that new person gets a hold of the over map and starts looking at other places on the map that isn't covered?

First Edition. Option one.
Second Edition. Option one. Option two.
Third Edition. Option one. Option two.
Fourth Edition. Option one. Option two.

Plus the trump of: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Also: http://www.dndclassics.com/product/51644/Grand-History-of-the-Realms-35?filters=0_44710_0

A big hardcover book will likely run $60. For that same price you could buy two older edition books that are still completely usable to get the feel for the game. Three if you're less picky for quality.
There is no shortage of available FR material and content, and all of it just as useful as new material.
Yes, the names of a few kings might be different and the history is a little off, but things are going to play mostly the same.