Oops. I totally forgot them. I have to revise my statement: I have, in fact, bought a FR branded product. I didn't think about the video games!
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Let's Forget the Forgotten Realms
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
Oops. I totally forgot them. I have to revise my statement: I have, in fact, bought a FR branded product. I didn't think about the video games!
I think we all have a soft spot for our intro products; DL happened to be mine. But, like I said, I don't think it would make a good default setting.
Honestly, I've never been able to get into FR myself. The Baldur's Gate games were fantastic, but I don't think the setting was the strength of those games - it was the writing and the gameplay. The setting was a decent backbone, but I'm reasonably sure they could have transplanted that story elsewhere and it would have been just as fantastic.
A few books caught my attention, but I think I only have ones till, the rest were handed off to friends. I dunno, nothing about FR ever really spoke to me. The sometimes rotating door of gods, the largely cookie cutter regions and factions, and overblown "Hero" characters like Drizzt and Elminster took away some of the mystery and majesticness of the setting - why is my band of heroes doing any of this when one of them could probably stumble across it and solve it without much issue? I mean, I know realistically that's not always possible, but as a player (and a GM) having those sorts of intensely, heavily touted heroic characters can really take away from things sometimes. You can say "Oh, well, they're off doing blah blah, they're not a factor", but in my experiance, people still think and worry about it - it ruins part of the illusion of being a hero, of being special.
If I had to pick a new "default"/flagship campaign setting? Greyhawk is probably the best one for the design goals of 5E - it's a loosely defined base that most every edition of players (except maybe people who started with 4E) are familiar with, with the ability to add or take away whatever you want while still having an interesting, solid base.
But that wouldn't be my personal choice.
Eberron would be my choice. It may not be the most unifying location, but it is the most overtly dynamic setting, with plenty of various options that can be dropped in and out of a campaign as desired. And the fact that it's not strictly swords and sorcery, while still having more than it's share of just that, makes it something than can theoretically appeal to a large number of people, not to mention that it fits well with the idea of "familiar change" that seems to be prevalent in talk of 5E. It's also insanely easy to run any number of campaign styles in Eberron, and I think that would fit with the theme really well too.
Plus, damnit, Eberron was the most dynamic, interesting, flavourful setting since Dark Sun. I never liked the things 4E did with it, and I want it to live again in all it's glory.
EDIT: I will say that, unlike most of the rest of this thread and FR supporters in general, I actually liked what 4E did with FR. It was a radical shift, but it finally gave the setting something I felt was very unique and flavourful and fun to tinker with - it reminded me, in that sense, of Eberron's dragonmarks, or anything about Dark Sun. Granted, Dark Sun is a much, much more niche setting and could never be a true flagship product, but I think it has more going for it than most of the ones that could be.
So, why still support Greyhawk as a flagship setting? Because it's literally the opposite. It still has flavour and interesting bits and fleshed out, cool lore to it, but at the same time so much is so loosely defined and open that the possibilities are endless, more so than any other of D&D's "traditional" settings - and that's pretty damn cool, if you ask me.
That said, I also want a proper Planescape in 5E. Not this "Sigil is stuffed away in a book about the Planes" crap. Sigil deserves it's own freaking book. If Sharn could get one in 3E, I think Sigil could easily get one at some point in 5E.
A few books caught my attention, but I think I only have ones till, the rest were handed off to friends. I dunno, nothing about FR ever really spoke to me. The sometimes rotating door of gods, the largely cookie cutter regions and factions, and overblown "Hero" characters like Drizzt and Elminster took away some of the mystery and majesticness of the setting - why is my band of heroes doing any of this when one of them could probably stumble across it and solve it without much issue? I mean, I know realistically that's not always possible, but as a player (and a GM) having those sorts of intensely, heavily touted heroic characters can really take away from things sometimes. You can say "Oh, well, they're off doing blah blah, they're not a factor", but in my experiance, people still think and worry about it - it ruins part of the illusion of being a hero, of being special.
If I had to pick a new "default"/flagship campaign setting? Greyhawk is probably the best one for the design goals of 5E - it's a loosely defined base that most every edition of players (except maybe people who started with 4E) are familiar with, with the ability to add or take away whatever you want while still having an interesting, solid base.
But that wouldn't be my personal choice.
Eberron would be my choice. It may not be the most unifying location, but it is the most overtly dynamic setting, with plenty of various options that can be dropped in and out of a campaign as desired. And the fact that it's not strictly swords and sorcery, while still having more than it's share of just that, makes it something than can theoretically appeal to a large number of people, not to mention that it fits well with the idea of "familiar change" that seems to be prevalent in talk of 5E. It's also insanely easy to run any number of campaign styles in Eberron, and I think that would fit with the theme really well too.
Plus, damnit, Eberron was the most dynamic, interesting, flavourful setting since Dark Sun. I never liked the things 4E did with it, and I want it to live again in all it's glory.
EDIT: I will say that, unlike most of the rest of this thread and FR supporters in general, I actually liked what 4E did with FR. It was a radical shift, but it finally gave the setting something I felt was very unique and flavourful and fun to tinker with - it reminded me, in that sense, of Eberron's dragonmarks, or anything about Dark Sun. Granted, Dark Sun is a much, much more niche setting and could never be a true flagship product, but I think it has more going for it than most of the ones that could be.
So, why still support Greyhawk as a flagship setting? Because it's literally the opposite. It still has flavour and interesting bits and fleshed out, cool lore to it, but at the same time so much is so loosely defined and open that the possibilities are endless, more so than any other of D&D's "traditional" settings - and that's pretty damn cool, if you ask me.
That said, I also want a proper Planescape in 5E. Not this "Sigil is stuffed away in a book about the Planes" crap. Sigil deserves it's own freaking book. If Sharn could get one in 3E, I think Sigil could easily get one at some point in 5E.
Last edited:
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Battlespace preparation. For an edition that intends to unify gamers, the Forgotten Realms are poison.
Morrus, I think your tack is prudent. But I don't have to like it.
Warunsun
First Post
There is no doubt in my mind that Forgotten Realms will remain the default setting for fifth edition. I think it has more to do with the many contracts for the new Neverwinter Nights MMO video game than any other reason. All campaign promotions in the last year have been leading up to this video game that was delayed due to the production company being bought out by foreign interests.
However, there is also no doubt in my mind that if WotC really wanted to cash in on nostalgia feel they are trying to generate that releasing a Greyhawk setting book or boxed set would be a very smart move for them. Just like releasing the limited edition AD&D book set also brings this nostalgia feel up in a major way. This April is going to be only the second time that WotC directly published AD&D materials; the other being when they did the TSR Silver Anniversary Collector's Edition Boxed Set in 1999. Nothing says old school and nostalgia better than the World of Greyhawk or perhaps Blackmoor. I don't think Greyhawk would need to be the core world as it was in First and Third editions but just having some support would go a long way.
All of the settings have their strong points and weak points. I like Forgotten Realms but honestly I own it all several times over. I don't even own everything for the realms but I have entirely too much AD&D 1E, 2E, and D&D 3E, v3.5, and 4E material already for the Forgotten Realms on my shelf. Undermountain is the defacto super dungeon of Forgotten Realms. I personally have two Undermountain boxed sets and three adventure modules (from Second Edition), a v3.5 super adventure hardcover (covering the same), and there is a 4E 96-page hardcover book on the way this year. However, I don't understand the description because the Elder Elemental Eye cult is from the World of Greyhawk and not the Forgotten Realms at all. Regardless, let us say that the Forgotten Realms is well covered. If one of the goals of 5E is to be able to use materials from all the editions then we should be able to use these old source-books without needing to repurchase them or re-purpose them with Greyhawk cultists. Very strange descriptions of that 96 page product.
They would be smarter to come up with something new I think. The Nentir Vale for 4E was a good idea that was never fully realized. Something fresh and new would be great as long as it didn't suck. They generally keep all of these settings pretty generic feeling so it would be pretty hard for them to screw it up. Eberron, for example, was a really nice change for D&D v3.5.
However, there is also no doubt in my mind that if WotC really wanted to cash in on nostalgia feel they are trying to generate that releasing a Greyhawk setting book or boxed set would be a very smart move for them. Just like releasing the limited edition AD&D book set also brings this nostalgia feel up in a major way. This April is going to be only the second time that WotC directly published AD&D materials; the other being when they did the TSR Silver Anniversary Collector's Edition Boxed Set in 1999. Nothing says old school and nostalgia better than the World of Greyhawk or perhaps Blackmoor. I don't think Greyhawk would need to be the core world as it was in First and Third editions but just having some support would go a long way.
All of the settings have their strong points and weak points. I like Forgotten Realms but honestly I own it all several times over. I don't even own everything for the realms but I have entirely too much AD&D 1E, 2E, and D&D 3E, v3.5, and 4E material already for the Forgotten Realms on my shelf. Undermountain is the defacto super dungeon of Forgotten Realms. I personally have two Undermountain boxed sets and three adventure modules (from Second Edition), a v3.5 super adventure hardcover (covering the same), and there is a 4E 96-page hardcover book on the way this year. However, I don't understand the description because the Elder Elemental Eye cult is from the World of Greyhawk and not the Forgotten Realms at all. Regardless, let us say that the Forgotten Realms is well covered. If one of the goals of 5E is to be able to use materials from all the editions then we should be able to use these old source-books without needing to repurchase them or re-purpose them with Greyhawk cultists. Very strange descriptions of that 96 page product.
They would be smarter to come up with something new I think. The Nentir Vale for 4E was a good idea that was never fully realized. Something fresh and new would be great as long as it didn't suck. They generally keep all of these settings pretty generic feeling so it would be pretty hard for them to screw it up. Eberron, for example, was a really nice change for D&D v3.5.
Matt James
Game Developer
I'm a Forgotten Realms fanboi, though I like many things about the varied settings. I'll support whatever is supported. It's D&D.
Walking Dad
First Post
I started with Dark Sun and Ravenloft. FR came only much later after reading some Salvatore novels and hearing about Karatur. Never was much interested in GH...
The FR fan site no.1, candlekeep, that hasn't been very active since the advent of 4E-FR bursts with activity now. The same is true for the FR mailing list. I'm not sure if the old-school-FR-fans would by another complete ruleset. But they will buy the FR-fluff-books. So the FR-fans add to the new edition.
Osgood
Hero
I couldn't agree more about the Forgettable Realms. I'm an Eberron man myself, but for 5E to live up to the lofty goal of supporting all play styles, I think there should be NO default setting. Don't build in the preconceived notions of a setting, that then need to get altered if someone wants to run something a little different.
I say the next DMG should have a chapter on campaign settings, and each of the major settings (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, the Realms, and maybe Plansecape or Spelljammer) with a 4 page summary of the setting. Just enough to get someone going with the unique flavor (even if it is FR vanilla) of the setting.
Rule elements tied to settings, such as deities may seem problematic, but until 3E we never god a list of gods in the core game. They could have god archetypes (with a list of setting specific examples), or use a pantheon everyone knows like the Greek gods as an example.
Just a thought.
I say the next DMG should have a chapter on campaign settings, and each of the major settings (Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, the Realms, and maybe Plansecape or Spelljammer) with a 4 page summary of the setting. Just enough to get someone going with the unique flavor (even if it is FR vanilla) of the setting.
Rule elements tied to settings, such as deities may seem problematic, but until 3E we never god a list of gods in the core game. They could have god archetypes (with a list of setting specific examples), or use a pantheon everyone knows like the Greek gods as an example.
Just a thought.
Similar Threads
