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

[Parmandur]

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

Precisely.

 

[Parmandur]

I have, which is why I'm genuinely curious. I mean, even compared the original folio I wouldn't consider GoS to be full of substantive setting material for Greyhawk.

I mean, substantive to me = more than just one town and its immediate environs.

30 pages detailing a 100 square mile area is all the campaign many tables will need in a year. It's also transportable to other world's easily enough, while providing details that ground it in Greyhawk for those in the know.

 

[Fenris-77]

IYes 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.

That quote of mine was supposed to apply to my whole post, i.e. that the design goal was to facilitate both entry level and veteran players, albeit perhaps differently, and that it succeeded. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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

Was this an experience gained through only playing? Was this an experience gained through being DM?

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

It is fine to say you personally do not consider the Death Curse effects substantial in your home games. Because you can simply decide that is true for anything.

It is quite an entirely different thing altogether to claim without context changing them in any way means "literally nothing much changes". Or the change is simply trivial. The mechanics and narrative are substantially alterated. And there are ripple on effects.

Simply dismissing the change does not mean the change is not substantial. I can say my orcs use green elf stats. I can say I ignore the orc mechanics. But I do not pretend the mechanics change is not substantial.

Sure, in addition to Setting material.

But not with emphasis on setting material. The setting material serves the adventure.

 

[Xenonnonex]

That quote of mine was supposed to apply to my whole post, i.e. that the design goal was to facilitate both entry level and veteran players, albeit perhaps differently, and that it succeeded. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Perhaps it would have been clearer if "a design goal" was stated. Then there would be no undue emphasis.

 

[Parmandur]

It is fine to say in your own games the Death Curse effects are not considered substantial. Because you can simply decide that is true for anything.

It is quite an entirely different thing altogether to claim without context changing them in any way means "literally nothing much changes". Or the change is simply trivial. The mechanics and narrative are substantially alterated.


But not with emphasis on setting material. The setting material serves the adventure.

Providing a reusable setting is obviously one of the goals of these books.

The Death Curse offers a different play experience, but it is not as built-in to the material in the book as all that.

 

[Fenris-77]

Perhaps it would have been clearer if "a design goal" was stated. Then there would be no undue emphasis.

That it's a functional adventure that doubles a decent primer on the region that is also a useful source of parts for adaptation. In other words, what I said. Since you're obviously dead set on your definition, and it doesn't match mine, I'm not sure we have much left to talk about.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Providing a reusable setting is obviously one of the goals of these books.

The Death Curse offers a different play experience, but it is not as built-in to the material in the book as all that.

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".

 

[Xenonnonex]

That it's a functional adventure that doubles a decent primer on the region that is also a useful source of parts for adaptation. In other words, what I said. Since you're obviously dead set on your definition, and it doesn't match mine, I'm not sure we have much left to talk about.

The adventure is great. It is a decent primer. But it is not a true mini setting.
Agree to disagree.