log in or register to remove this ad

 

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


log in or register to remove this ad



Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
That really does not mean anything.

Hence being stuck in their ways.
So on the one hand, broad experience and contact with a group is meaningless, but at the same time you want to take a broad brush and negatively characterize a group you yourself have even less contact with? I don't get how you can say both those things without blushing. What am I missing about your authority to make sweeping generalizations while denying the same tool to others?
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
So on the one hand, broad experience and contact with a group is meaningless, but at the same time you want to take a broad brush and negatively characterize a group you yourself have even less contact with? I don't get how you can say both those things without blushing. What am I missing about your authority to make sweeping generalizations while denying the same tool to others?
Broad experience and contact with a group is not the same as speaking on behalf of the group. You should know this.

I am not asserting my opinion over others. I am not presuming to speak for everyone. Or anyone else.

Do you actually understand the difference?
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Broad experience and contact with a group is not the same as speaking on behalf of the group. You should know this.
But broad generalizations are often mistaken for that, and accusations like yours are often designed to avoid actually addressing a valid point. We're posting on a forum here, sometimes you need to give people the benefit of the doubt about their intentions when they post.
I am not asserting my opinion over others. I am not presuming to speak for everyone. Or anyone else.

Do you actually understand the difference?
Oh I do. I'm just not sure why you feel comfortable saying that a great swath of the posters here are "stuck in their ways". Other than not agreeing with you of course, which seems, from your posting tendencies, to be the main reason you'd say that, but since I'm advocating a charitable approach to interpretation I won't assume that's your motivation. You've come across as confrontational, dismissive, and insulting to anyone who's disagreed with you, and have constantly accused people who disagree with you of not understanding, with the implication being that no one could possibly disagree with you if they 'understood' the matter at hand. Again though, this is a forum, and it's often tricky to manage the nuances of conversation, and it's entirely possible that this appearance wasn't your intent.

So, rather than insulting my intelligence, why don't we actually discuss the differentiated needs of new players relative to veteran players? Personally, I tend to agree that the Realms doesn't matter nearly as much to newer players, for a whole variety of good and valid reasons. As a result, I think WotC is well served to approach Realms content differently than it used to.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
But broad generalizations are often mistaken for that, and accusations like yours are often designed to avoid actually addressing a valid point. We're posting on a forum here, sometimes you need to give people the benefit of the doubt about their intentions when they post.
Broad generalisations are not the same as stating a thing as objective fact. The former reworded as an opinion is fine. There is issue in co opting the opinion of other people.

Oh I do. I'm just not sure why you feel comfortable saying that a great swath of the posters here are "stuck in their ways". Other than not agreeing with you of course, which seems, from your posting tendencies, to be the main reason you'd say that, but since I'm advocating a charitable approach to interpretation I won't assume that's your motivation. You've come across as confrontational, dismissive, and insulting to anyone who's disagreed with you, and have constantly accused people who disagree with you of not understanding, with the implication being that no one could possibly disagree with you if they 'understood' the matter at hand. Again though, this is a forum, and it's often tricky to manage the nuances of conversation, and it's entirely possible that this appearance wasn't your intent.
People on the forums have different opinions to others. That is fine. If you think my issues are with not understanding that is wrong. Asserting your opinions as objective fact is frankly insulting. Asserting your opinions on others and then presume your opinions are true for everyone else is insulting. I guess you find no issue with that. It is where I disagree.

So, rather than insulting my intelligence, why don't we actually discuss the differentiated needs of new players relative to veteran players? Personally, I tend to agree that the Realms doesn't matter nearly as much to newer players, for a whole variety of good and valid reasons. As a result, I think WotC is well served to approach Realms content differently than it used to.
I like the way Wizards is working the material.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Broad generalisations are not the same as stating a thing as objective fact. The former reworded as an opinion is fine. There is issue in co opting the opinion of other people.
I get that, in some cases I agree completely. In others, it's like I said above. This is a shallow information environment, so I try not to assume people don't understand the difference. If they actually don't then yeah, that's an issue.
People on the forums have different opinions to others. That is fine. If you think my issues are with not understanding that is wrong. Asserting your opinions as objective fact is frankly insulting. Asserting your opinions on others and then presume your opinions are true for everyone else is insulting. I guess you find no issue with that. It is where I disagree.
See, I never said that, did I? I said it's useful to not always assume the worst with this kind of statement. Previously in this thread, for example, you said something to the effect that I didn't understand the needs of newer players because I said I thought ToA had a useful amount of information in it to run a campaign. I'm not trying to reopen that can of worms, and it's 100% fine that we might disagree about it, but if we want to talk about insulting, it's pretty insulting to be told that you don't understand something when the truth is that we just disagree.
I like the way Wizards is working the material.
See? We agree. Neat. I think Wizards has charted a very canny course with the Realms material. The tricky part, IMO, is to figure out how to release more information to suit the needs of people who want to get more in depth into a particular region, which I gather is your main issue with ToA. My suspicion is that WotC has decided to let the 3PP community fill this particular gap. I took a browse thru DirveThru yesterday, and there is a ton on material available on Chult, for example. I think WotC sees that and it forms part of their strategy.

Anyway, we might disagree about specifics sometimes, but I do appreciate how much you love the Realms.
 

There is a lot more Chult in ToA than in any potential general FR setting book though, even one three times the size of SCAG. The only way you would get more would be in a dedicated Chult book. That's always been the problem with setting books in general, they always have too little information to make them "pick up and play", and much of what they do have is irrelevant to adventurers. Adventures are always a better format to present setting information which is not crunch.

It wouldn't hurt if D&D Beyond made ToA's setting information and adventure content available separately though. It wouldn't hurt if ToA had an index too.
An index for the campaign books would be wonderful.
 




Coroc

Hero
This is only true to an extent. The Realms, as much as I love them, are about as generic a fantasy setting as I can imagine. In a lot of ways that's by design, and it's also useful in that it's very easy to add your own flavor (kind of like cooking with tofu). However, the Realms doesn't have a lot of 'sexy' to sell to new players. The adventure paths help there because of the content type, but I think a setting book is, in some ways. swimming against the stream.
FR wasn't so generic back then when it first was published. Ok Greyhawk had some underdark, but it pales compared to FR.

Dead magic and wild magic zones and mythals first appeared in FR
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
FR wasn't so generic back then when it first was published. Ok Greyhawk had some underdark, but it pales compared to FR.

Dead magic and wild magic zones and mythals first appeared in FR
It wasn't a critique of the Realms at all, I love the Realms dearly. What the Realms lacks is a core idea or two that you can point to and say that's what the Realms is all about. Eberron has the magitech thing and a neat noir feel, Wildemount has CR, Dark Sun has, well, everything, you see what I mean. The lack of a core saleable idea for FR makes a straight setting book difficult. The big adventure books neatly sidestep this because the massive adventure path is the core saleable feature. The Realms is, in some ways, just the glue that holds the APs togther. That said, viewed from a different standpoint, the Realms could also be said to be getting an enormously in-depth treatment, one area at a time.

Greyhawk suffers from some of the same problems IMO.
 
Last edited:

the Jester

Legend
FR wasn't so generic back then when it first was published. Ok Greyhawk had some underdark, but it pales compared to FR.

Dead magic and wild magic zones and mythals first appeared in FR
It was (and is) a kitchen sink setting, with literally everything thrown into a blender together and then poured out. You want some Egypt? I got your Egypt. You want some techno-gnomes? We got that. You want traditional Western European fantasy? No problem. Some Asian style? Hey, we'll just excise Kara-Tur from Greyhawk and stick it in the Realms. How about some Mongol stuff? Sure, we'll add that! Oh, you want a New World discovery scenario?....

It's a matter of opinion, but to me, cramming every possible identity together leaves the Realms with very little identity of its own. The Mythals and dead magic and all that being some of the exceptions.

Greyhawk, on the other hand, has a distinct Dark Ages feel. Good is battered and under siege. Evil is on the rise. The big empire (the Great Kingdom) has fallen under the influence of demons. I have always felt that Greyhawk has a far more distinct identity, and one that is far more likely to inspire adventures for me. I get that a lot of people disagree, and that's okay, but that's my take.
 

Coroc

Hero
It wasn't a critique of the Realms at all, I love the Realms dearly. What the Realms lacks is a core idea or two that you can point to and say that's what the Realms is all about. Eberron has the magitech thing and a neat noir feel, Wildemount has CR, Dark Sun has, well, everything, you see what I mean. The lack of a core saleable idea for FR makes a straight setting book difficult. The big adventure books neatly sidestep this because the massive adventure path is the core saleable feature. The Realms is, in some ways, just the glue that holds the APs togther. That said, viewed from a different standpoint, the Realms could also be said to be getting an enormously in-depth treatment, one area at a time.

Greyhawk suffers from some of the same problems IMO.
i agree partially but from another pov.
the core ideas for FR i did point out in my previous post. The core theme in greyhawk is harder to recognize but it is there : Iuz Rary Vecna and other villains vs the neutral/good folks.
whith 5e though, they do not follow this core idea for FR anymore except in OOTA.
instead they put in some adventure modules originating in greyhawk into FR. So there is no baseline anymore. The classic FR villains e.g. Zhent Thay Drow Halruaa do not get their place anymore but are replaced by Greyhawk villains and others.
 

Coroc

Hero
It was (and is) a kitchen sink setting, with literally everything thrown into a blender together and then poured out. You want some Egypt? I got your Egypt. You want some techno-gnomes? We got that. You want traditional Western European fantasy? No problem. Some Asian style? Hey, we'll just excise Kara-Tur from Greyhawk and stick it in the Realms. How about some Mongol stuff? Sure, we'll add that! Oh, you want a New World discovery scenario?....

It's a matter of opinion, but to me, cramming every possible identity together leaves the Realms with very little identity of its own. The Mythals and dead magic and all that being some of the exceptions.

Greyhawk, on the other hand, has a distinct Dark Ages feel. Good is battered and under siege. Evil is on the rise. The big empire (the Great Kingdom) has fallen under the influence of demons. I have always felt that Greyhawk has a far more distinct identity, and one that is far more likely to inspire adventures for me. I get that a lot of people disagree, and that's okay, but that's my take.
yes agree, but it was not always that way for FR
 


It wasn't a critique of the Realms at all, I love the Realms dearly. What the Realms lacks is a core idea or two that you can point to and say that's what the Realms is all about. Eberron has the magitech thing and a neat noir feel, Wildemount has CR, Dark Sun has, well, everything, you see what I mean.
And Greyhawk has nostalgia.

Give it 20 years, and the current crop of players will be crying out for more Forgotten Realms, the setting they grew up with. But currently, familiarity breads contempt.
 

Aldarc

Legend
It wasn't a critique of the Realms at all, I love the Realms dearly. What the Realms lacks is a core idea or two that you can point to and say that's what the Realms is all about. Eberron has the magitech thing and a neat noir feel, Wildemount has CR, Dark Sun has, well, everything, you see what I mean. The lack of a core saleable idea for FR makes a straight setting book difficult. The big adventure books neatly sidestep this because the massive adventure path is the core saleable feature. The Realms is, in some ways, just the glue that holds the APs togther. That said, viewed from a different standpoint, the Realms could also be said to be getting an enormously in-depth treatment, one area at a time.

Greyhawk suffers from some of the same problems IMO.
What FR has is how a lot play at contemporary D&D tables gravitates: it has heroic high fantasy. (But then again, so does Dragonlance, which arguably has it more so.) FR has a series of metaplots that are closely related to book tie-ins. (But then again, so does Dragonlance.)
 

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top