Presentation of the 4E Forgotten Realms (and other settings)

[The Little Raven]

I prefer to two-book split, as I feel that players don't need the same information that the DM needs. I like the Player Guide writeup on regions, as they give a concise look into what a native of the area knows, as well as the motivations for someone to heed the call to adventure.

I like the Campaign Guide region writeups okay, but much prefer the style of the Backdrop: Cormyr article in Dragon 365.

Good points. How to present the history of a setting best is also something that I've been wondering about lately...

I've taken to writing a good deal of my setting's history as in-setting documents. The first few ages of the world are detailed in a holy book, similar to how the Bible gives a history, with a lot of vague descriptions of momentous events, parables, and the like. My primary inspiration was the Bible for tone and structure. The latest age is detailed in a collection of writings by different historians, with commentary on particular passages from multiple scholars. My primary inspiration was Antiquities of the Jews and the Erciyes Fragments (a White Wolf book).

 

[delericho]

I've taken to writing a good deal of my setting's history as in-setting documents...

That's an interesting approach, and certainly something worth considering for a "Player's Guide" in a two-book split. (Be sure to mark it clearly as in-character and unreliable, though, so DM's don't get hounded by setting-lawyers.)

However, as a potential DM evaluating a setting, I would be quite annoyed if the only approach to history was one of "here's some options; make up your own mind." If I'm paying you for a setting, I don't want to have to make it up for myself - I could have done that anyway.

 

[The Little Raven]

That's an interesting approach, and certainly something worth considering for a "Player's Guide" in a two-book split. (Be sure to mark it clearly as in-character and unreliable, though, so DM's don't get hounded by setting-lawyers.)

That's exactly how I did it. The "in-setting" history is the first half of the Player's Guide, presenting an "everyone basically knows this" history of the world.

However, as a potential DM evaluating a setting, I would be quite annoyed if the only approach to history was one of "here's some options; make up your own mind." If I'm paying you for a setting, I don't want to have to make it up for myself - I could have done that anyway.

I have a DM history written up, which takes some of the ambiguity out of the history by putting facts behind the events. However, even the "in-setting" history is not "here's some options, do the work," it's a full-on history that has events that can be disputed or viewed as parables rather than actual events. Myths and legends are paramount in the early part, but as it gets closer to the setting's "present day," you get more and more events that have had an actual, measurable impact on the world.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Easily the worst things to come from 4e, in my opinion.

1) The split was done very poorly. I think both books could've easily been one book, for reasons I'll be getting to in other points. As it stands, putting it into seperate books feels like a money grab.

2) First off - the adventure? Absolutely horrible. It's entirely generic and has absolutely nothing to do with the setting. Bam, 10% of the book gone. Remember how I mentioned the two books could've easily been combined? Secondly, the artwork has been very miss for me. Thirdly, the actual content itself is, just like the adventure, mind numbingly generic. Everything that made FR stand out was destroyed, and what's left has near nothing in relation to the previous setting. I cannot understand who it's for - people who like FR aren't going to like seeing their setting mangled so badly, and people who dislike FR simply wouldn't play it. Speaking of mangled, the writing? Absolutely atrocious. Thankfully, there's not a lot of writing, because there's not a lot of content. The setting book is one of the worst I've seen. There's no actual setting given - I got more out of the setting-less PHB then I did from here. There's a few vague mentions of various plot points, but anyone that was in the slightest bit sinister has been reduced to "VAGUE EVIL PEOPLE!" and anyone who wasn't sinister simply goes unmentioned.

3) Way, way, way too much open white space. Once again, this could have been one book, easily. It feels like there's a push to TAKE UP space rather then to fill it in. When you consider the atrocious writing and complete lack of actual content, that's understandable.

End result is, I feel it WAS somewhat of a money grab (that hasn't yet ended). The setting was very purposefully kept drab, generic, and completely without details. I have absolutely no doubt that we're going to have another huge round of pulp books written and put into stores, only while the pulp 3e FR books were optional because you already knew the fluff, these aren't, because it's HOW the fluff is going to be explained. it comes down to a previous signiture I have - some people, like myself, perfer very detailed and expressed settings and worlds. Others want a page that says "JUST BS IT." I think the FR books are that one page, only printed a lot of times and sold for a stupid amount of money.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I will keep this short. My hate of the alternate realms setting knows no bounds.

The 4e books should not have been split. The setting was ripped of anything that made it useful and not a set of use generic area A in your game. I found the art lacking and the over all feel of the book had no soul.


The 3e FRCS to me was the rule by which all setting books should be judged. The layout was great it was packed with all the info you ever need to run a game.

The new book is incomplete and lacking of any feel that made the setting it's own and not a generic flavorless setting The type is to big , there is to much white space , the layout was a fine example of disorganization .

The only saying grace of this book is you may be able to use if to level out furniture

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Pathfinder: Three things leap out at me, all from the chapter on the nations of the setting (which is as far as I've gotten). The first is that it sometimes feels a bit like a "tick-box" world design - there's the Egypt-analogue, the Viking-land, the Barrier Peaks equivalent, the devil-ruled nation, the demon-ruined land, the Pirate-city, and so on and so forth. It's well written, and probably does all this by design, but that was the sense I got from it.

Secondly, I think the book maybe tries to cover too much in too little space. There is a distinct feeling that a great deal has been glossed over. Although, oddly, I suspect it covers a lot less than the FRCS, and may well spend a greater word-count on each nation (on average). Perhaps its an artifact of this being a new world while FR is twenty+ years old - the FRCS thus gives the impression of distilling all that accumulated lore, while PF just presents most of what exists.

Thirdly, the nations are presented in strict alphabetical order, which means they tend to jump around the map. I think I would have preferred that they divide the map into regions, and discussed the nations in regional areas of about six or so. They would also have benefitted from diagrams showing (in brief) the relationships between the various nations. (Of course, this would mean cutting something else. My vote is for the Prestige Classes, because, frankly, we have enough by now.)

As I'm not familiar with the Pathfinder setting, could others give me their impressions of it as well?

 

[Nebulous]

I would also look at the Midnight 2nd edition campaign setting for an excellent example of how a setting book should look. I have a hard time deciding if that one is better or the 3e FRCS.

The history of the Midnight world is frontloaded in a beautiful 16 page color spread. A map of the world details the front and back inside cover. Everything afterwards is logically laid out, from classes to the magic system to the kingdoms. And the writing is actually evocative and interesting, unlike the 4e crap.

And i'll second the notion that the 4e FR should have been one book. A smaller font, less white space, and no stupid 30 page adventure and it would have easily fit. Still wouldn't be great writing regardless.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

And i'll second the notion that the 4e FR should have been one book. A smaller font, less white space, and no stupid 30 page adventure and it would have easily fit. Still wouldn't be great writing regardless.

I'm still of two minds about the font issue. I prefer small fonts myself, but I have good eyes - and a quite large number of people have said that they prefer larger font sizes. So I will probably go with a 10 pt font in the end.

 

[vagabundo]

I've only gotten a few hours to flip through the books and read a few of the entries, but I will be getting these books as soon as my current H and P series is finished.

These books look like they were custom designed for my group - they are a more casual sort of DND player, that enjoy middle-of-the-road fantasy. We usually play once a week and have been playing for around fifteen years now.

Split: Perfect, wonderful, wish they had done it in 3rd edition. The FRCS (3e) was too dense to be useful to my players, they just would not read it and I didn't want them looking through the background sections. That is where I got a lot of my ideas from. It was hard to get them to use the stuff in the book that was actually meant for them.

With the split I can just plop this on the gaming table during character creation, not really worry about it and get them to roll up some Genasi and Drow characters - I'll probably get a full party of Genasi and Drow, knowing my group. I'll even get some use of the Players Handbook outside of FR, as a poster above said, it is like a PHB 1.5.

Layout: Continues the excellent layout style of 4e, although I did like the layout of the 3e FR book, but not the 3e RAW. Whitespace is your friend. The players book has a nice amount of goodies for them - although I did notice there was not equipment section seems a shame - and it is presented in a way that most people can glance over and pick up most of what they need to know about the setting.

All in all I'll be looking to put together a FR campaign in the new year and buying up the FR books - possibly with the FR adventure if it is any good.

I can see long time FR fans disappointed with the presentation, but I feel that this is much more manageable for groups like mine who do not have a deep interesting in FR, it is just a different place to play in for a while and the old style presentation was too intimidating.