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

Keep FR or use something else?

  • Keep FR

    Votes: 39 49.4%
  • Give something else a shot

    Votes: 40 50.6%


log in or register to remove this ad


R_J_K75

Legend
At the time, people were arguing with him that there were no non-FR books for the game after 9 months, so clearly FR was the default Setting, but after 8 years it really seems lole they meant it and had a longterm goal that they eventually got to.
At the time of that tweet there was the starter set, 3 cores, Rise of Tiamat and Horde of the Dragon Queen. So not a whole lot to argue about as far as fans go as there wasnt much of a sample size.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
At the time of that tweet there was the starter set, 3 cores, Rise of Tiamat and Horde of the Dragon Queen. So not a whole lot to argue about as far as fans go as there wasnt much of a sample size.
Which was Crawford's point, but it took a fair while to work out in the product line. And FR is definitely popular.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Right now FR is the default setting for 5e.

But if artificer joins the One D&D PHB and Ardling and Orc are PHB 5.5e races, FR being the default setting doesn't make sense. The big one is Orc as Orc is 100% not accepted as normally playable in FR. Almos none of the main FR settlements would let a full-orc walk around the city. They barely let half-orcs.
 

All of the sample names in the PHB for humans are drawn from the Forgotten Realms.

Most of the longform adventures are set in the Realms.

The Realms is the only setting with placement notes for all of the Journeys through the Radiant Citadel adventures.

The Spelljammer pre-adventure is set in the Realms.

The notion that the Forgotten Realms isn't the default setting is a little bit of gaslighting.
But you would never know that if you don’t buy/ use any of the adventure or setting books. We only use the core books, so to me their is no default setting.
 

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.
I don't actually agree at all with the first claim.

I've got 30+ years of RPG experience and have introduced new players the whole time.

I've seen absolutely no positive evidence that generic settings (or D&D-like systems, for that matter, but that's a separate discussion) are easier for people new to TTRPGs. I've seen significant negative evidence in fact, that they are not. That settings which are in some way distinctive, which have some real conceptual landmarks and "big ideas" are actually easier for truly new-to-TTRPGs players to get to grips with. Now, for experienced players you can make a case that they are, but not for genuinely new players, and it's still a fairly weak case.

The success of stuff like WoD, which was highly distinctive, and brought in huge numbers of new-to-RPGs players, as well outshining the then ultra-generic AD&D (the wilder settings like PS and DS were completely eclipsed by the FR in marketing and sales terms, and swamped in number of products) in the 1990s tends to support that, I'd argue. D&D's current success isn't because its default setting is ultra-generic to the point of being boring and forgettable, its in spite of it. Again the success of settings like Exandria (which whilst a kitchen sink, is massively less generic than the Sword Coast) tends to support the idea that being bland and lacking distinctiveness isn't a win.

As for genre tropes - that doesn't mean you require or even necessarily benefit from a bland, featureless and undistinctive setting. On the contrary, genre tropes work best when there's stuff to attach them to. The Sword Coast doesn't have many of the most classic and basic fantasy genre tropes in any recognisable form because it's so extremely bland. It was never designed to be bland, of course, it's just that it's the edge component of a larger and more distinctive setting, and was designed to function as part of a whole. By isolating it, WotC created something extremely un-compelling.
 


Don't forget to triple knot your peace strings too.
Brb throwing my Cormyr boxed set out the window. Goddamn I had forgotten about bloody triple-knotted peace strings.
Well there is the Stonelands and its roving bands of humanoids and random areas of wild and dead magic.
Sure, but other parts of the FR are awesome danger zones, and have enough towns/cities to make that stuff work too.
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.
Wait, they called the Australia-equivalent continent Aussie? Good jesus that's some next-level laziness. An Australia-inspired D&D setting could be interesting (just for god's sake don't make the Aborigine-equivalent peoples non-human or "backwards" - it seems like the FR already dodged that bullet at least), but I'm pretty sure any one that lazily concepted is doomed from the outset.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I don't actually agree at all with the first claim.

I've got 30+ years of RPG experience and have introduced new players the whole time.

I've seen absolutely no positive evidence that generic settings (or D&D-like systems, for that matter, but that's a separate discussion) are easier for people new to TTRPGs. I've seen significant negative evidence in fact, that they are not. That settings which are in some way distinctive, which have some real conceptual landmarks and "big ideas" are actually easier for truly new-to-TTRPGs players to get to grips with. Now, for experienced players you can make a case that they are, but not for genuinely new players, and it's still a fairly weak case.

The success of stuff like WoD, which was highly distinctive, and brought in huge numbers of new-to-RPGs players, as well outshining the then ultra-generic AD&D (the wilder settings like PS and DS were completely eclipsed by the FR in marketing and sales terms, and swamped in number of products) in the 1990s tends to support that, I'd argue. D&D's current success isn't because its default setting is ultra-generic to the point of being boring and forgettable, its in spite of it. Again the success of settings like Exandria (which whilst a kitchen sink, is massively less generic than the Sword Coast) tends to support the idea that being bland and lacking distinctiveness isn't a win.

As for genre tropes - that doesn't mean you require or even necessarily benefit from a bland, featureless and undistinctive setting. On the contrary, genre tropes work best when there's stuff to attach them to. The Sword Coast doesn't have many of the most classic and basic fantasy genre tropes in any recognisable form because it's so extremely bland. It was never designed to be bland, of course, it's just that it's the edge component of a larger and more distinctive setting, and was designed to function as part of a whole. By isolating it, WotC created something extremely un-compelling.
I'd say that Exandria makes my point, as does the sales data we've seen recently from back I'm the day about Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Drsgonlance against other Settings. Generic is what people tend to like, in my experience, and the sales data seems to indicate that.

The Sword Coast (as defined by the SCAG book) is actually the heart of the Forgotten Realms, aside from the Dalelands. Waterdeep is where the first short story Greenwood wrote as a child was set, and where his non-Shadowdale campaign ran for decades.
 

Remove ads

Top