D&D 5E So, Forgotten Realms...

Alarian

First Post
I'm probably in the minority, but I have to say I was really disappointed to 5th was going to be set in the Forgotten Realms. That setting has been around forever and I would have loved to see something fresh come out. To some extent I can understand why they did it, as it will allow them to recycle tons of stuff and reprint it for minimal work and cost, but I personally would have loved to see a new setting to go along with the new system. The Forgotten Realms are, to me at least, old and worn out. I really have no interest in tromping around again somewhere that I've been for the past 20+ years and in all honesty, I will most likely just not use the base setting which is a shame because I love purchasing new campaign settings if for no other than to just read them and mine them for awesome ideas.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

aarduini

Explorer
I don't think you're in the minority

I have played Forgotten Realms since 1st edition. It WAS as great world. It is too mucked up now with way too many universe shattering events that have happened in the last 150 years. Also, it has too many conflicting lore out there.

With this new approach to the industry and their desire for a fresh start, I really think they should have went with a new setting. Nentir Vale would have been good, but a brand new world would have been better. They could then build on it and create the lore based on the results from Adventure League results. One goal for players in the Adventure league could be to get their character added as a NPC for the world.

I'm an big fan of the 5e push, but this decision was probably my least favorite.
 

DM Howard

Explorer
I tend to agree. It would have been a great opportunity. Then again, the Forgotten Realms has a massive amount of brand power, so I'm sure that's why the decision was made.
 

lkj

Hero
While they are setting all their current adventures in Forgotten Realms, the core books (and probably the basic game?) will be setting agnostic. Apparently there will be references to various different campaign worlds in the Players Handbook and DMG. That, at least, is my understanding.

But yes, for adventures, as of right now, they are FR based (though I suspect quite easy to port with a little work).

AD
 

gweinel

Explorer
I'm probably in the minority, but I have to say I was really disappointed to 5th was going to be set in the Forgotten Realms. That setting has been around forever and I would have loved to see something fresh come out. To some extent I can understand why they did it, as it will allow them to recycle tons of stuff and reprint it for minimal work and cost, but I personally would have loved to see a new setting to go along with the new system. The Forgotten Realms are, to me at least, old and worn out. I really have no interest in tromping around again somewhere that I've been for the past 20+ years and in all honesty, I will most likely just not use the base setting which is a shame because I love purchasing new campaign settings if for no other than to just read them and mine them for awesome ideas.

I don't know if you are a minority but surely you are not alone. It is probably the most un-interesting setting for my taste. They had so many ways to exploit it (pc games, mobile games, board games, etc) and choosing it additionaly as a core campaign is really meh for me.

Right now dnd brand equals forgotten realms brand and although probably other settings will come out this FR monopolizing is really annoying.
 

gweinel

Explorer
While they are setting all their current adventures in Forgotten Realms, the core books (and probably the basic game?) will be setting agnostic. Apparently there will be references to various different campaign worlds in the Players Handbook and DMG. That, at least, is my understanding.

But yes, for adventures, as of right now, they are FR based (though I suspect quite easy to port with a little work).

AD

The last I heard is FR is core and that means PH is not agnostic. Agnostic was 4th e.
 


lkj

Hero
The last I heard is FR is core and that means PH is not agnostic. Agnostic was 4th e.

I do understand where the confusion was. A little while back someone asked-- I believe Mearls-- about using FR as the default setting. He answered in a way that suggested he might be talking about the edition as a whole-- though that wasn't clear. Later on, he was asked about other settings-- gosh, was it one of those live Q&A's? At work, can't get to the material right now-- and he clearly stated that the books referenced various settings to give examples. It was just the adventures which were FR based.

If you need a citation (and I understand), I'm pretty sure it was discussed somewhere here at EnWorld. Hopefully someone will pop in. I'm terrible about keeping track of the various info sources. But I'm pretty good at retaining the info.

AD
 
Last edited:


aarduini

Explorer
Will the gods be defined in the PHB

If the gods are defined in the Player's Handbook (like they have been in all previous editions), then they will use Forgotten Realms gods. Hopefully, they will use a new approach and list them generically like they did in the playtest (i.e. lifebringer, wargod).

Of course we can make our own world and port over the adventures easily enough; However, I like to read the novels. Forgotten Realms was easily made most popular by the novels. I get board with the novels now because everything has been done. There are no more new lands left to be made visual through literature, and I just want Elminster to Die!. They had a real opportunity to have the authors start new and bring a new world to life. I'll bet those novels would sell like hotcakes.
 

Remove ads

Top