D&D (2024) Should Forgotten Realms remain the default setting?

[tetrasodium]

No 5e style default setting, more 3.5 style. Although first world seems to draw from too many settings to not be a generic baseline that can be used when useful to avoid importing too much lore & such

 

[demonsquidgod]

Forgotten Realms is generic enough that it can be easily adapted to a homebrew campaign world but has an absurdly large critical mass of setting details lurking beneath that generic looking surface. It more closely matches the Fantasy Superhero Team style of current d&d than the more gritty and pulpy Greyhawk but has room for both grim darkness and goody hijinks.

I would personally love the idea of Eberron being the core setting but things like it, Dragonlance, and Dark Sun aren't as easy to adapt to a homebrew campaign world.

IME most groups either run their games in an original homebrew campaign world or have had past campaigns create enough significant changes in the FR or GH backgrounds that things still need adapting. Thus the birth of the postmodern Multiverse as the core setting makes a lot of sense, but with Forgotten Realms continuing to function as the default world.

Also, the d&d movie will be set in Forgotten Realms.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't like the Forgotten Realms as a setting and certainly don't want it to be the Core Setting. I also don't think that there should be a core setting. However, if there is going to be one, it should be a new setting designed under the assumptions of the game (like how Eberron and Nentir Vale were designed under the assumptions of their respective editions).

 

[James Gasik]

I don't like the Forgotten Realms as a setting and certainly don't want it to be the Core Setting. I also don't think that there should be a core setting. However, if there is going to be one, it should be a new setting designed under the assumptions of the game (like how Eberron and Nentir Vale were designed under the assumptions of their respective editions).

I not only second this, I don't want another "cataclysm" to completely alter a setting just because of some rules changes.

 

[Parmandur]

I think it limits the game. As far as I remember Greyhawk was where alot of the classic 1E AD&D adventures were set but there were others that were standalone and not set in any particular setting. Most people picked up a 32 pg module, ran it for a few sessions and moved on to the next and just strung them together with little regard to world at large. I'd like to see a return to that type of game to some extent.

Especially considering how much they're trying to detach lore from the base game, I think homebrew should become the default once again.

That's really how WotC has treated the FR in 5E: a prefab example set for homebrew and module based play.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd like to stick with it - but move focus AWAY from the Sword Coast. Give me content set in Cormyr, Sembia, the Dalelands, and the Dragon Coast with rich art and fantastic maps. Cormyr's already a great starting place for adventurers with their royal recognition of adventuring charters and everything. What Azoun are we up to in the Forest Kingdom? What new threats have emerged?

ROFL I guess that's ONE take on Cormyr.

The other take it's a horrible mean-spirited place that tromps down hard on adventurers by forcing them to register a charter (which in 2E cost like, 1000g or something, I dunno about later editions) and literally beating up and throwing in jail anyone who seems like they might be an adventurer but doesn't have such a charter.

It's not so much "royal recognition" (that's a helluva spin lol) as "pay up and do what we say so we can track your movements and actions or rot in jail".

So I'd say Cormyr was a pretty goddamn terrible starting location for adventurers. Not least because they're going to need an NPC to spot them the cash for the "please don't jail us" charter. I am kind of out-of-date though, maybe a more recent Azoun has reduced the "what a dick!" factor of Cormyr.

On the other hand I definitely agree with moving beyond the Sword Coast. It's played out and was never a particularly interesting or atmospheric area for adventuring. It just has a couple of big cities that make okay bases if you want a city-based adventuring group - but they're almost too big - it's unlikely any adventurers below like 10th level are going to have much influence there. But there's so much more to the FR, even if we just move inland a bit from the Sword Coast we're looking at tons of wildly atmospheric and interesting places, a lot of them quite wild and dangerous (Cormyr is not wild or dangerous, note).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's really how WotC has treated the FR in 5E: a prefab example set for homebrew and module based play.

I can see that argument.

However that debases the FR, frankly. It's an interesting and complex setting, and they're ignoring all of that in favour of the dullest and most straightforward part of the FR (the Sword Coast and environs), I guess because it's most "generic" and most potentially homebrew-like. Honestly that's lame. They could do better. The FR could do better.

I'd prefer to see a new setting designed for 5E/1D&D, which can then be generic and bland without just messing with an existing setting. The FR will still be popular, and might even better justify its own setting book if it's not the "generic" setting.

I mean, I am biased. I've always found the Sword Coast boring as hell, since 2E. But nothing that's happened in 5E has made it less the most boring and generic part of the FR.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

They could do better. The FR could do better.

I agree, as someone that is generally not a fan of the Forgotten Realms. I'd actually be fine with exploring other parts of the setting. I liked Tomb of Annihilation (mostly). It would be cool if they could do something similar for Osse (if they could avoid the colonialist racism that could come with tackling that setting, that is). I just want a fantasy Australia setting book, I guess.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Forgotten Realms will have been the default setting for a full decade when 1DD releases. Sould WotC stick with it or give a different setting a turn?

I voted for with something else, but I don’t think FR is the default setting now. There is no setting in the core books, so there is no default IMO and that is how I prefer it

 

[Parmandur]

I can see that argument.

However that debases the FR, frankly. It's an interesting and complex setting, and they're ignoring all of that in favour of the dullest and most straightforward part of the FR (the Sword Coast and environs), I guess because it's most "generic" and most potentially homebrew-like. Honestly that's lame. They could do better. The FR could do better.

I'd prefer to see a new setting designed for 5E/1D&D, which can then be generic and bland without just messing with an existing setting. The FR will still be popular, and might even better justify its own setting book if it's not the "generic" setting.

I mean, I am biased. I've always found the Sword Coast boring as hell, since 2E. But nothing that's happened in 5E has made it less the most boring and generic part of the FR.

For what it's worth in regards to OneD&D, they seem pretty serious about "The Multiverse" as the frame Setting (based on Monsters of the Multiverse and the packet flavor text), which is even more obviously homebrew support.

The Sword Coast being so generic and blank slate is a bit more of a feature than a bug: makes it easy for new people to slide into the game, in my experience. Genre tropes are a tremendous acting aide.