D&D 5E The case for (and against) a new Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book

[eyeheartawk]

Off-topic, actually: expanding the scope of D&D Settings doesn't take away from Classic Settings. It isn't a zero-sum game, as shown by a classic Setting, a fan favorite licensed Setting, and a Magic Setting all being released in a 9 month period.

Except it kinda is?

With the exception of mostly externally developed stuff (Wildemount) there are a finite number of projects that WOTC can/are willing to publish a year. For every Ravnica, you're delaying Planescape by 3-6 months, for example. And that's a best case scenario. Worst case, the legacy stuff gets pushed back so far they never get to it this edition because we need a Transformers book or whatever instead.

That's valid grumbling, imho.

 

[Xenonnonex]

They are putting out FR mini-Settings constantly.

Now this is not that true is it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They've only been in the Sword Coast so far, bit that's an area the size of Europe. Perkins has also spoken about moving out of the Sword Coast in the Adventures to other areas eventually (he namechecked Cormyr). In time, in time...

But the size of the area isn't really relevant, especially when the specific areas they've showcased have been much smaller than that. And they were already areas with more detail, because they're on the Sword Coast.

I mean, I'll be honest, I think it weakens the FR as an IP, this approach, and I don't know if that's an accident, or actually part of corporate strategy here. I mean, I don't know of WotC own the fully rights to the FR and just are happy with Greenwood and others writing in it, or if Greenwood still owns it somehow and they have to give him a percentage, or even there's no cost, he could mess with the IP in some way, or even if he didn't, his inheritors or whoever could.

This isn't some grand conspiracy theory, to be clear. It's perfectly sensible behaviour from a company. If WotC doesn't wholly-own a setting and all associated rights, it makes little sense to go "all in" on it, for example. I just don't know and can't seem to easily find out what the situation is here. Perhaps someone else does know?

If WotC doesn't have totally unencumbered ownership of the FR, it would make sense to be looking at using it because its popular, but not investing in it too heavily as a really key thing. Keep it at the same sort of safe distance as Wildemount etc. If they do have unencumbered ownership, then I think maybe they're just messing up the strategy a bit with this. Given we're six years in and there's no real "FR book", just piecemeal stuff, I think it's fair to presume it'll never happen, and the lack of resources means a 3PP one will never be of the same quality, even if its allowed (which I'm not sure an FRCS-type book would be). This would also explain why they were so keen on the Planescape settings which seem like they're largely a mediocre match for D&D (not hopeless, but with very different concerns/interests, though perhaps Theros will change that), because they do wholly and unencumbered-ly own those.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think your "not useful as a gaming product" argument really holds up (to be fair, you do seem to admit it is unsupported opinion, rather than some kind of fact). I've used a lot of campaign settings over the years as "gaming products", and yes, some were indeed nigh-useless, but 2E's FRA and 3E's FRCS are good examples of ones that definitely were not. Indeed, SCAG is worse "as a gaming product" than either of those, I'd suggest.

Yep, a lot of this is just my opinion based upon what I've heard and seen done thus far. I have no special insight into anything, I'm just extrapolating from available evidence.

But here's a point I think that makes the idea of a full-on FRCS complicated. You said that you thought the 3E book was very useful as a "gaming product". Now I happen to think the 3E FRCS is one of the best campaign setting books I've ever read. But I also know that reading the book itself never inspired me personally to run a game in any specific location there. And this is because no one area gave enough information to me to want to run a game there. The column or page of background info was nice to read as historical info... but for things that I feel I'd want and need to run a game there-- detailed towns, NPCs, hooks for the locations-- no one area had enough to compel me. What eventually DID compel me to run a game in the Realms? The Silver Marches mini-campaign setting book. THAT guide gave me huge amounts of detailed info about a much smaller area, went into great specifics about how the main cities in the Marches were run and how they were different from each other, what all the small villages had for unique qualities, what the specific encounter locations had that made them special, and so forth. As a "gaming product" the Silver Marches book beat the FRCS book hands down in my opinion.

Now if I had to venture a guess? I suspect that if you asked the general gaming populace to read both products-- the FRCS and the Silver Marches mini-setting-- and then were to ask them which one would be better and more inspiring to use to establish a new game for your table.... I'm willing to bet that the answer would be Silver Marches. And the reason I say this is because everything they've released in D&D Next and 5E has gone in that direction. D&D Next went all-in on Daggerford and its environs... the Starter Set went in on a smaller scale to the Triboar Trail valley... Princes of the Apocalypse went all-in on Red Larch and its environs... ToA went in on Port Nyanzaru and its environs etc. etc. I just think my experience in a lot of ways probably matches what most of the gamers who aren't Realms fanatics experience too. We want details for specific areas to run a game in, we just don't care about the entirety of the world. And thus WotC has gone in our direction when deciding on what to make products about.

 

[Parmandur]

Except it kinda is?

With the exception of mostly externally developed stuff (Wildemount) there are a finite number of projects that WOTC can/are willing to publish a year. For every Ravnica, you're delaying Planescape by 3-6 months, for example. And that's a best case scenario. Worst case, the legacy stuff gets pushed back so far they never get to it this edition because we need a Transformers book or whatever instead.

That's valid grumbling, imho.

Well, it's certainly grumbling.

The success of Ravnica actually makes Classic Setting books more likely to happen, honestly.

 

[Parmandur]

Now this is not that true is it.

Well, in six years we have 5 or six detailed zoom-in Gazeeter-heavy books set in the Sword Coast. That's an awfully large number, frankly, since each can spin off long-running campaigns easily.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Except it kinda is?

With the exception of mostly externally developed stuff (Wildemount) there are a finite number of projects that WOTC can/are willing to publish a year. For every Ravnica, you're delaying Planescape by 3-6 months, for example. And that's a best case scenario. Worst case, the legacy stuff gets pushed back so far they never get to it this edition because we need a Transformers book or whatever instead.

That's valid grumbling, imho.

Quite. It might not be a "zero sum game", but it's clearly they believe there are limits before they're competing with themselves. As you say, Wildemount appears to have been developed externally, so it's hard to really count it as WotC beyond that decided to publish it, and presumably make more money for both them and CR, than if it was external.

Yep, a lot of this is just my opinion based upon what I've heard and seen done thus far. I have no special insight into anything, I'm just extrapolating from available evidence.

But here's a point I think that makes the idea of a full-on FRCS complicated. You said that you thought the 3E book was very useful as a "gaming product". Now I happen to think the 3E FRCS is one of the best campaign setting books I've ever read. But I also know that reading the book itself never inspired me personally to run a game in any specific location there. And this is because no one area gave enough information to me to want to run a game there. The column or page of background info was nice to read as historical info... but for things that I feel I'd want and need to run a game there-- detailed towns, NPCs, hooks for the locations-- no one area had enough to compel me. What eventually DID compel me to run a game in the Realms? The Silver Marches mini-campaign setting book. THAT guide gave me huge amounts of detailed info about a much smaller area, went into great specifics about how the main cities in the Marches were run and how they were different from each other, what all the small villages had for unique qualities, what the specific encounter locations had that made them special, and so forth. As a "gaming product" the Silver Marches book beat the FRCS book hands down in my opinion.

If I had to venture a guess? I suspect that if you asked the general populace to read both products-- the FRCS and the Silver Marches mini-setting-- and then ask them which one would be better and more inspiring to use to establish a new game for your table.... I'm willing to bet that the answer would be Silver Marches. And the reason I say this is because everything they've released in D&D Next and 5E has gone in that direction. D&D Next went all-in on Daggerford and its environs... the Starter Set when in on a smaller scale to the Triboar Trail valley... Princes of the Apocalypse went in on Red Larch and its environs... ToA went in on Port Nyanzaru and its environs etc. etc. I just think my experience in a lot of ways matches what most of the gamers who aren't Realms fanatics experience too. We want details for specific areas to run a game in, we just don't care about the entirety of the world. And WotC has gone in our direction when deciding on what to make products about.

I'm sympathetic to this position, but when you came to the FRCS, was the FR new to you? That's a non-trick question.

I ask because, had I come to it like that, I think it directly would have, as Taladas did. I can't honestly say if it did, because I came to the FR in 1989. What did directly inspire me to run the FR was FRA. And that kind of supports your contention here, because that was more detailed than the FRCS. But it was also a lot more detailed than SCAG, which, even in the Sword Coast areas, doesn't really feel much more in-depth than the FRCS (it may be less, in some ways). The weird thing about FRA was, too, that it was almost SCAG, in the sense of what it focused on, but it such a better job of providing engaging detail that it's hard to compare.

So yeah, really, ideal world, a bunch of stuff like Silver Marches would be great. I think you could make it sell really well just by putting in good mechanical stuff (subclasses, races/subraces, backgrounds, feats, etc. etc.). Maybe we don't need another FRCS. But I'd love some more stuff like you describe, or like a lot of 2E and even 1E products, which do provide more detail. Or just someone giving poor Ed a bloody budget. I genuinely love what's going on with Border Kingdoms but the lack of maps, illustrations and proper layout just make me feel really "FR on a budget", which is sad when I look behind me and see tons and tons of 2E and 3E FR stuff that wasn't on a budget. And yes "go use that!" one can say, it's fair. But I don't really want to be hauling old-fashioned books and paging through them trying to find salvageable stuff and so on, trying to work out what changed, what didn't, wishing I had 5E stats for stuff, taking photographs of maps and all that.

 

[Parmandur]

But the size of the area isn't really relevant, especially when the specific areas they've showcased have been much smaller than that. And they were already areas with more detail, because they're on the Sword Coast.

I mean, I'll be honest, I think it weakens the FR as an IP, this approach, and I don't know if that's an accident, or actually part of corporate strategy here. I mean, I don't know of WotC own the fully rights to the FR and just are happy with Greenwood and others writing in it, or if Greenwood still owns it somehow and they have to give him a percentage, or even there's no cost, he could mess with the IP in some way, or even if he didn't, his inheritors or whoever could.

This isn't some grand conspiracy theory, to be clear. It's perfectly sensible behaviour from a company. If WotC doesn't wholly-own a setting and all associated rights, it makes little sense to go "all in" on it, for example. I just don't know and can't seem to easily find out what the situation is here. Perhaps someone else does know?

If WotC doesn't have totally unencumbered ownership of the FR, it would make sense to be looking at using it because its popular, but not investing in it too heavily as a really key thing. Keep it at the same sort of safe distance as Wildemount etc. If they do have unencumbered ownership, then I think maybe they're just messing up the strategy a bit with this. Given we're six years in and there's no real "FR book", just piecemeal stuff, I think it's fair to presume it'll never happen, and the lack of resources means a 3PP one will never be of the same quality, even if its allowed (which I'm not sure an FRCS-type book would be). This would also explain why they were so keen on the Planescape settings which seem like they're largely a mediocre match for D&D (not hopeless, but with very different concerns/interests, though perhaps Theros will change that), because they do wholly and unencumbered-ly own those.

WotC owns the Forgotten Realms, straight up: they wouldn't be putting out so many video games there is they didn't. Greenwood has to publish with the DMsGuild provisions, himself.

The size of the Sword Coast is relevant, and ties in to how zoomed in the Adventures are, because it will take them a while to fill it out.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

WotC owns the Forgotten Realms, straight up: they wouldn't be putting out so many video games there is they didn't. Greenwood has to publish with the DMsGuild provisions, himself.

The size of the Sword Coast is relevant, and ties in to how zoomed in the Adventures are, because it will take them a while to fill it out.

Good to hear on the first! Re: the second, no point arguing, but I don't agree - there's absolutely no requirement to or benefit from "filling out" the Sword Coast more with adventures. You'd be much better off setting adventures further afield, and doing a good job setting the scene with the local culture and so on.

 

[Parmandur]

Quite. It might not be a "zero sum game", but it's clearly they believe there are limits before they're competing with themselves. As you say, Wildemount appears to have been developed externally, so it's hard to really count it as WotC beyond that decided to publish it, and presumably make more money for both them and CR, than if it was external.



I'm sympathetic to this position, but when you came to the FRCS, was the FR new to you? That's a non-trick question.

I ask because, had I come to it like that, I think it directly would have, as Taladas did. I can't honestly say if it did, because I came to the FR in 1989. What did directly inspire me to run the FR was FRA. And that kind of supports your contention here, because that was more detailed than the FRCS. But it was also a lot more detailed than SCAG, which, even in the Sword Coast areas, doesn't really feel much more in-depth than the FRCS (it may be less, in some ways). The weird thing about FRA was, too, that it was almost SCAG, in the sense of what it focused on, but it such a better job of providing engaging detail that it's hard to compare.

So yeah, really, ideal world, a bunch of stuff like Silver Marches would be great. I think you could make it sell really well just by putting in good mechanical stuff (subclasses, races/subraces, backgrounds, feats, etc. etc.). Maybe we don't need another FRCS. But I'd love some more stuff like you describe, or like a lot of 2E and even 1E products, which do provide more detail. Or just someone giving poor Ed a bloody budget. I genuinely love what's going on with Border Kingdoms but the lack of maps, illustrations and proper layout just make me feel really "FR on a budget", which is sad when I look behind me and see tons and tons of 2E and 3E FR stuff that wasn't on a budget. And yes "go use that!" one can say, it's fair. But I don't really want to be hauling old-fashioned books and paging through them trying to find salvageable stuff and so on, trying to work out what changed, what didn't, wishing I had 5E stats for stuff, taking photographs of maps and all that.

The Forgotten Realms was new to me with Hoard of the Dragon Queen (video games excepted). I them moved on to SCAG, then to the FRCS and FRA, humorously enough.

My youthful 3.x was all Greyhawk.