Forgotten Realms 4e reviews?

[JoeGKushner]

Pretty crunch free.

It's turned the Realms into a generic POL setting.

If you're looking for that, it's good to go.

If you're looking for the 'old' Realms, skip it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Have you read Gnome Stew's? I found theirs to be pretty neutral. I agree though concerning Candlekeep.

I just read it — and it's pretty much exactly what I was looking for! Thanks! It looks like the book has minimal crunch and, all things considered, I don't think that the map is bad looking at all (IMO, it looks much better than the FR 1e maps that I have).

 

[jensun]

If you're looking for the 'old' Realms, skip it.

I disagree.

From what I have seen the 4e realms seems to have much more in common with the feel of the old 1e boxed set than the rather over stuffed 3e version.

That to me is a good thing.

 

[jdrakeh]

I disagree.

From what I have seen the 4e realms seems to have much more in common with the feel of the old 1e boxed set than the rather over stuffed 3e version.

That to me is a good thing.

Yeah, FR in the old grey box and the first few FRX locale supplements was arguably a POL setting (i.e., wide open country existed between the few major population centers that were detailed). Later additions to the Realms and the subsequent closing of the map convinced me that I needed to stick to the grey box or find a new setting. That level of minute detail is/was perfect for some folks but, for me, it was a giant ball and chain.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

As said in other threads, it lacks a coherent "feel", nothing grabs me, so i don't like it.
And while I don't mind large fonts in the core books, for ease of play, I object, bitterly, to it elsewhere.
I want content, not white space
WHile I don't want everything over detialed, I DO want more info on trade costers, on the large settlements and such like on each major area .
I liked the small maps of the major towns of which only a few are now in 4th ed.

Note: I do like 4th ed, that's not my beef.

 

[TheWinslow]

I am a newcomer to the Realms and, relative your experience, a newcomer to D&D in general.

First, specific to your request, there are few game rules compared to the 3.0 setting. This is much as another poster said earlier.

I like this treatment of the setting a lot. While I had access to the 3.0 setting, I could never get into it because I felt the setting had too much baggage for me to run comfortably. This version, however, feels like a fresh start. I'd like to run it as soon as I can talk my group into playing.

Also, the PoL gives a sense of dynamic feel to areas that previously felt staid, like Cormyr, Sembia, The Dalelands, and Luskan. Complementing these are areas like Waterdeep, the Silver Marches, and Baldur's Gate, which serve as stable and relatively unchanged homes for the Player Characters.

Finally, I'd be wary of the immense volume of negative reviews. They don't accurately reflect the book.

First, you don't know how many actually read the book vs. the .pdf. I downloaded the .pdf and found the book tiresome and hackneyed, but when I sat down with a physical copy at my FLGS I was very impressed. Give the book (not a .pdf) a chance.

Second, as the OP correctly surmised, large numbers of older fans don't like the book for various reasons. These constitute the largest part of the book's detractors, yet statistically most people who write reviews have strong feelings, and most disapprove of the thing in question.

Personally, I think these people are entitled to think what they what, but the cacophony of their objection robs a potential buyer of the balanced view and might give and unjustified bad opinion of what I think is an excellent book.

 

[Obryn]

It's almost completely system-free for the lion's share of the book.

It has stat blocks for some adversarial NPCs in the Organization section, stat blocks for monsters, and a short selection of magic items.

I feel overall good about the setting, but I want to see the crunch that goes along with it, to be found in the Player's Guide.

Sof far, it's my second-favorite iteration of the realms, after the 1e box + FR-series.

-O

 

[jdrakeh]

I am a newcomer to the Realms and, relative your experience, a newcomer to D&D in general.

Thank you for the detailed overview of the book's high point and low points, TheWinslow! And welcome to ENWorld!

 

[jdrakeh]

So far, it's my second-favorite iteration of the realms, after the 1e box + FR-series.

Sweeeeeeeeet. As I mention elsewhere, when it comes to FR, I play/run the old grey box + FRX stuff exclusively, so it's nice to see somebody else who likes the same material that is interested in FR 4e. Frankly, as great as the olf AD&D 1e FR stuff is (well, the early stuff, anyhow), after roughly 18 years of exploring the setting, I could use some shaking up

 

[Obryn]

Sweeeeeeeeet. As I mention elsewhere, when it comes to FR, I play/run the old grey box + FRX stuff exclusively, so it's nice to see somebody else who likes the same material that is interested in FR 4e. Frankly, as great as the olf AD&D 1e FR stuff is (well, the early stuff, anyhow), after roughly 18 years of exploring the setting, I could use some shaking up

Yeah, that was my basic feeling, too. I have nothing but respect for the treatment FR got under 3e. Quite honestly, it was one of the best products for the entire game line.

Sadly, though, it just wasn't a setting I wanted to play in, after all the collective lore built up over a decade and a half and somewhere around 100 novels of various kinds. Lots of stuff was different from the 1e realms, and I felt kind of like I was drowning in information overload.

4e is definitely a shake-up. I think that a lot of people who love FR and who have been following it closely are just kind of aghast that it's almost a completely different setting now, and that the old material is of limited use. I wouldn't consider myself a 2e or 3e FR fan, so that's likely a huge reason why I like the 4e version.

I like this treatment enough that I will buy a second book for it, which is more than I bought for 2e or 3e.

-O