log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
Was this an experience gained through only playing? Was this an experience gained through being DM?
I played through it (twice through a small part of it, as it was ripped out and inserted into another campaign) and then read through the book afterwards.

In play of the adventure path we completed about half of the "optional side missions". When we finished the campaign we continued a second campaign from the endpoint of ToA by focusing on pirate hunting in the ocean around Chult, building up a ruined keep in the Port, and our party becoming a regional power group....presumably with the GM using the ToA adventure path to fill in the details on places we visited outside of the ToA campaign.

Of my 10 examples....name one that cannot be run as it is presented in the book without there being a Death Curse mechanic in play.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
The Death Curse is the built-in experience of the adventure. It is the lived in narrative and structure of the adventure. Your claim of removing the Death Curse means a core conceit of the adventure is substantially changed. And roughly two thirds of the book is removed. Or substantially changed.
Is that still "not as built in to the material".

You seem to fundamentally be confusing these two statements.....
1. ToA can be used as an adventure path even if you ignore the Death Curse.
2. ToA can be used to create Chult based adventures, AND you can ignore the Death Curse.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Is it obviously one of the goals though?
It could be to obvious to some experienced DMs. Some other experienced DMs may be simply use the adventure with their own little changes.
It might not be obvious to new DMs.

The Death Curse is the built-in experience of the adventure. It is the lived in narrative and structure of the adventure. Your claim of removing the Death Curse means a core conceit of the adventure is substantially changed. And roughly two thirds of the book is removed. Or substantially changed.
Is that still "not as built in to the material".

If it is removed, very little is directly changed other than resurrection rules. The Setting material, and pretty much all of the Adventure itself, is still useable. It really isn't that big a change.
You seem to fundamentally be confusing these two statements.....
1. ToA can be used as an adventure path even if you ignore the Death Curse.
2. ToA can be used to create Chult based adventures, AND you can ignore the Death Curse.

All true statements.
 

I played through it (twice through a small part of it, as it was ripped out and inserted into another campaign) and then read through the book afterwards.

In play of the adventure path we completed about half of the "optional side missions". When we finished the campaign we continued a second campaign from the endpoint of ToA by focusing on pirate hunting in the ocean around Chult, building up a ruined keep in the Port, and our party becoming a regional power group....presumably with the GM using the ToA adventure path to fill in the details on places we visited outside of the ToA campaign.

Of my 10 examples....name one that cannot be run as it is presented in the book without there being a Death Curse mechanic in play.
So you would not have known what your DM changed.

You seem to be fundamentally confusing my argument. I have not being saying you cannot run without the Death Curse. Show me where I claimed that.
I have been saying running without the Death Curse means substantial changes.
 

You seem to fundamentally be confusing these two statements.....
1. ToA can be used as an adventure path even if you ignore the Death Curse.
2. ToA can be used to create Chult based adventures, AND you can ignore the Death Curse.
You seem to be fundamentally confusing my argument. I have not being saying you cannot run without the Death Curse. Show me where I claimed that.
I have been saying running without the Death Curse means substantial changes.

Because you only played through the adventure there were more happening behind the scenes.
 

If it is removed, very little is directly changed other than resurrection rules. The Setting material, and pretty much all of the Adventure itself, is still useable. It really isn't that big a change.
It is explicitly the narrative driver.
There are references all over the place to the Death Curse. There are ripple on effects. You are substantially alterating the premise of the adventure. Just off the cuff.

You have pivoted from "literally nothing much changes" to "really is not that big a change". That is a change in stance.


All true statements.
But misrepresenting my argument.
 

Parmandur

Legend
It is explicitly the narrative driver.
There are references all over the place to the Death Curse. There are ripple on effects. You are substantially alterating the premise of the adventure. Just off the cuff.

You have pivoted from "literally nothing much changes" to "really is not that big a change". That is a change in stance.



But misrepresenting my argument.

It is I there as the hook, but it can be ignored and the Adventure played as is. There are alternate hooks provided throughout the text. It is not that deeply baked in.
 

It is I there as the hook, but it can be ignored and the Adventure played as is. There are alternate hooks provided throughout the text. It is not that deeply baked in.
You can certainly ignore the hook. As the narrative driver ignoring this hook means you are already substantially alterating the premise of the adventure. It means the ripple on effects from this are fundamentally different. Which means you are not playing the adventure as is.
If you are playing the adventure as is means you are using the Death Curse. Which you can find out about in Chult.
The Death Curse is still used. You find out about it some other way.
 

I don't think I have ever run an adventure "as is", and the hook is usually the first thing I change to suit the situation.

Anyway, ToA has everything you need to run any adventure in Chult. It has maps, politics, key locations, random encounters, sidequests, stats for important NPCs, climate, natural hazards etc. Far far more than the 3rd edition FR sourcebook.
 
Last edited:

I don't think I have ever run an adventure "as is", and the hook is usually the first thing I change to suit the situation.
A claim was that you can change a fundamental narrative of the adventure and still run the adventure as is. That "literally nothing much changes" as a result of this.
That these adventures can be run without much homebrew.

Anyway, ToA has everything you need to run any adventure in Chult. It has maps, politics, key locations, random encounters, sidequests, stats for important NPCs, climate, natural hazards etc. Far far more than the 3rd edition FR sourcebook.
Exaggeration simply does not make it true. You can run adventures from the content that you can extrapolate from the adventure. Anything else you are introducing substantial homebrew. And means the mini setting claim is not quite accurate.
 


Exaggeration simply does not make it true. You can run adventures from the content that you can extrapolate from the adventure. Anything else you are introducing substantial homebrew. And means the mini setting claim is not quite accurate.
If you want locate an adventure in Chult ToA gives you all you need. Forget about the Death Curse and all the related dungeons, just drop in whatever adventure you want to play.

That's something you can't do with the 3rd edition setting book. It isn't detailed enough. You have to put in the work to flesh out the location before you can use it. It's no good out of the box.
 

If you want locate an adventure in Chult ToA gives you all you need. Forget about the Death Curse and all the related dungeons, just drop in whatever adventure you want to play.
Then you are still making substantial changes to the adventure. To the narrative structure and to the implicit mechanics. To the flow on events. This is not a bad thing. I advocate groups to run however they want to run it. It is their own group after all. But the changes are unavoidable.

That's something you can't do with the 3rd edition setting book. It isn't detailed enough. You have to put in the work to flesh out the location before you can use it. It's no good out of the box.
The 2e Chult mini setting book is great. It is an actual mini setting. It gives you a lot to work with.
 



That is the clearly the opposite of "literally nothing much changes".
Wasn't me saying that. Clearly if you want to use ToA as a setting book, there is a lot of stuff you won't need. Just as if you want to use the 3rd edition FR setting book to set an adventure in Chult there is a lot of stuff you won't need.
 

Wasn't me saying that. Clearly if you want to use ToA as a setting book, there is a lot of stuff you won't need. Just as if you want to use the 3rd edition FR setting book to set an adventure in Chult there is a lot of stuff you won't need.
One of your points was to forget about the Death Curse and related dungeons. The reverberations from removing all of this is actually quite substantial. Since some npc and journey motivations are tied in to it.
Even if you drag and drop material substantial changes need to be made with use to the material.

With ToA there is a lot of information that should be there. This information simply is not there. If I try to drag and drop this into games there is nothing really to work with. Which makes the claim that ToA gives you all you need to simply be false.
 

Mercule

Adventurer
Considered by which many? The 3e FRCS certainly is a great book. It is however utterly laughable and ridiculous to claim it is considered by many to be the best campaign book ever published. Especially since many consider the 2e FRCS to be better than it and the 3e FRCS merely reproduces whole portions of previous text.
Dunno. I’ve heard lots of claims that it is. i can’t judge it on utility for running FR. What I can say, though, is that I’ve absolutely despised the Realms since 2E (it was only a mild disdain in 1E) and have had a “no money towards Realms material” policy since that time. I was sorely tempted to pick up the FRCS just as a template to structure my home brew material.
 

With ToA there is a lot of information that should be there. This information simply is not there.
This is the false claim. You could quite simply drag and drop an adventure into Chult using ToA (and I have done - Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan). There is nothing that "should be there" that is not.

Which is more than I can say for the 3rd edition FR sourcebook. There is a huge amount of information that "should be there but simply is not" if you actually want to set an adventure there.

I don't believe people clamouring for an FR sourcebook are actually interested using it to play D&D adventures. I think they are just interested in reading fictional history and metaplot.

Because the nice thing about fictional history is you don't need to evaluate the veracity of sources, if it says it in the book it must be true.
 

This is the false claim. You could quite simply drag and drop an adventure into Chult using ToA (and I have done - Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan). There is nothing that "should be there" that is not.

Which is more than I can say for the 3rd edition FR sourcebook. There is a huge amount of information that "should be there but simply is not" if you actually want to set an adventure there.

I don't believe people clamouring for an FR sourcebook are actually interested using it to play D&D adventures. I think they are just interested in reading fictional history and metaplot.

Because the nice thing about fictional history is you don't need to evaluate the veracity of sources, if it says it in the book it must be true.
Your claim that ToA has everything you need to run any adventure in Chult is demonstrably false.
One of my players wants to play a native Chultan who worships Ubtao. They are deadset on worshipping Ubtao. Where is the information on Ubtao?

I want to run adventures set in the Valley of Dread. Or in the Sky Lizard Mountains. Or in the Sanrach Mountains. Or in Samarach. Because these look cool. Where is this information?
I have a memory of the Rundeen in Chult. Where is that information?
 
Last edited:

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top