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

[Xenonnonex]

DMs who aren't comfortable with using ToA as a Setting book won't want a normal Setting book.

But DMs are comfortable with using adventure books as adventure books.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I'm going to rephrase my actual opinion here because I'm starting to come off as if I hate the Realms, which I actually don't I think they're great, I just really don't like the idea of a new setting book for FR.

Point 1 is fairly easy why; FR already has a setting book while I number of settings do not, so I don't really want to see FR get a second when other like the Planes, Greyhawk or Dark Sun don't have one.

Point 2 is more nuanced. I quite like the Realms, but it also happens to be way more expansive than any other D&D setting, including MtG ones. There is an INSANE amount of material all over the place. The only way to cover it all is through a book like the 3E FRCS, and even that really only cover Faerun, with the eastern regions getting a single page.

And I'll be frank, the FRCS is not a good book for 5E. It is in effect an encyclopedia, that covers the geography in broad strokes. If you're a good DM you'll be able to find material useful, but overall it is a tome that only FR fans really love.

I VASTLY prefer the SCAG, as it gives a lot more detail and material useful for building adventures. Even more than the SCAG, I love books like Tomb of Annihilation which include a great adventure, but also serve as a far better guide to the region Chult than the 4 pages it would get in a FRCS.

I fully expect that FR remains the default setting for 5E, and that the annual adventures will continue to publish material that fleshes out more and more material for the Forgotten Realms. I find this material far more superior to a remake of the FRCS, which I can get right now (and don't like much anyway). Yes it's a slow drip-drip of new material, but it's GOOD material, useful material, that is digestible for new DMs and old alike. It is also, IMO, the reason why FR remains the most popular setting for 5E.

This year, hints point to Lantan being the subject of the 2020 adventure.
What if 2021 covers Cormyr? And 2022 covers Amn? And 2023 Calimshan? 2024 Kara-tur?

That is, in the long-run, far more material, and far BETTER material than a complete FRCS. And FR is the only setting with enough material to feed quality annual adventures in this way.

 

[Fenris-77]

Which is fine. Your emphasis is more on the experienced DMs. Your coverage is skewed there. To claim the adventure books are mini-settings is still reaching. Especially as some of us do not feel it meets our definition.

No, it's only reaching according to the definition you picked to determine what a mini-setting entails. The phrase isn't one with a set definition though, and your thoughts on the matter don't get preference over anyone else's. I was just pointing out that different definitions were at the heart of the disagreement here. There's no judgement of those differing definitions mind you, I'm just pointing them out.

If you want to call my coverage skewed you may want to reread some of my posts above. My emphasis on bricolage certainly indexes veterans over new DMs, as I was at pains to point out, but that's not the same as saying whether or not ToA serves as a mini-setting for Chult generally, which I think it does.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I'm going to rephrase my actual opinion here because I'm starting to come off as if I hate the Realms, which I actually don't I think they're great, I just really don't like the idea of a new setting book for FR.

Point 1 is fairly easy why; FR already has a setting book while I number of settings do not, so I don't really want to see FR get a second when other like the Planes, Greyhawk or Dark Sun don't have one.

Point 2 is more nuanced. I quite like the Realms, but it also happens to be way more expansive than any other D&D setting, including MtG ones. There is an INSANE amount of material all over the place. The only way to cover it all is through a book like the 3E FRCS, and even that really only cover Faerun, with the eastern regions getting a single page.

And I'll be frank, the FRCS is not a good book for 5E. It is in effect an encyclopedia, that covers the geography in broad strokes. If you're a good DM you'll be able to find material useful, but overall it is a tome that only FR fans really love.

I VASTLY prefer the SCAG, as it gives a lot more detail and material useful for building adventures. Even more than the SCAG, I love books like Tomb of Annihilation which include a great adventure, but also serve as a far better guide to the region Chult than the 4 pages it would get in a FRCS.

I fully expect that FR remains the default setting for 5E, and that the annual adventures will continue to publish material that fleshes out more and more material for the Forgotten Realms. I find this material far more superior to a remake of the FRCS, which I can get right now (and don't like much anyway). Yes it's a slow drip-drip of new material, but it's GOOD material, useful material, that is digestible for new DMs and old alike. It is also, IMO, the reason why FR remains the most popular setting for 5E.

This year, hints point to Lantan being the subject of the 2020 adventure.
What if 2021 covers Cormyr? And 2022 covers Amn? And 2023 Calimshan? 2024 Kara-tur?

That is, in the long-run, far more material, and far BETTER material than a complete FRCS. And FR is the only setting with enough material to feed quality annual adventures in this way.

We need a 5e Lands of Intrigue. And subclasses that play to intrigue and subterfuge.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

We need a 5e Lands of Intrigue. And subclasses that play to intrigue and subterfuge.

Need =/= Want

Also you're describing the rogue.

 

[Xenonnonex]

No, it's only reaching according to the definition you picked to determine what a mini-setting entails. The phrase isn't one with a set definition though, and your thoughts on the matter don't get preference over anyone else's. I was just pointing out that different definitions were at the heart of the disagreement here. There's no judgement of those differing definitions mind you, I'm just pointing them out.

If you want to call my coverage skewed you may want to reread some of my posts above. My emphasis on bricolage certainly indexes veterans over new DMs, as I was at pains to point out, but that's not the same as saying whether or not ToA serves as a mini-setting for Chult generally, which I think it does.

I am not saying my thoughts on the matter get preference. To claim so is being bizarrely disingenuous. I am disagreeing with the premise of the concept. Along with a few others.

Yes your emphasis in point was "to get a veteran DM off the ground which was the design goal". Not a design goal. The design goal. Your words.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Need =/= Want

Also you're describing the rogue.

Okay. Great.
Subclasses that are not just the rogue.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

You are ignoring the question of what will happen if they die.
Some undead are directly tied to Acecerak and the atropal.
His eventual master Acecerak?

1. No Death Curse in my game.....when a PC dies they die using the normal rules.
2. The undead are caused by an evil artifact owned by a lich hiding in a hidden temple.
3. A power broker in the port offers the PCs money for creating a map Chult.

How does this change any of the following plots (trying to keep them nonspoilery).
1. Mainland groups fighting for power in the Port.
2. Army bases in the jungle having a hard time.
3. Mines taken over by monsters.
4. Evil living on plateaus.
5. Flying bad guys
6. Flying buildings
7. Flying ships
8. Guide NPC motivations and goals
9. Random hidden temples with monsters and treasure
10. A city full of snakes

 

[Guest 6801328]

It’s a super tiny font!

After seeing people rave about it here (I took a long break from D&D and missed 3rd and 4th editions) I went and tracked it down. Felt like the unwanted holiday fruitcake of RPGs. Dense and indigestible.

I like fluff, but I don’t need all that prose wrapped around every useful tidbit.

 

[Parmandur]

So you agree changing the Death Curse death effects to core rule book death effects is a substantial change.
So you agree that removing the Death Curse in that way is not "literally nothing much changes".


The ties to the Death Curse are still there.

I don't consider the Death Curse effects as substantial, since I can ignore them and nothing much changes. I can add the Death Curse to other Adventures, if I felt like it.

Which is what adventure books provide.

Sure, in addition to Setting material.