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

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Technically, yes.

Technically, they're also cross platform promotions.

Neither of which fills me with the sweet warm fuzzies, of say, Spelljammer, Planescape etc.

Maybe not you, but a great number of people do feel that way, and are paying WotC money for the privilagge. The books are legit, and there is no reason for WotC not tondo them... particularly since they don't prevent older D&D Settings from coming down the pipeline. Ideally, we'll eventually see D&D Settings in Magic, if WotC really likes money.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
Maybe not you, but a great number of people do feel that way, and are paying WotC money for the privilagge. The books are legit, and there is no reason for WotC not tondo them... particularly since they don't prevent older D&D Settings from coming down the pipeline. Ideally, we'll eventually see D&D Settings in Magic, if WotC really likes money.

Sure, okay.

But this thread isn't about what WOTC has, in their infinite wisdom, decided we want instead.

It's about making case for/against an actual FR setting book being made.

Pointing out the relative lack of full settings books for classic, legacy campaign worlds in comparison to material that is decidedly not that, is perfectly valid.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Please God, no! I love Greyhawk, and I'm tired of it being further destroyed. I've already had to create my own compendium so my players don't get confused with "official canon."

Ha Oh that I sympathize with. No, what I want is merely a return to the original boxed set lore and era, with some further fleshing out of details, along with some Greyhawk-specific monsters, legendary lairs, NPCs and deities, magic items, feats, spells, and sub-classes. And also tell me where various APs can be located in Greyhawk. I don't need "updating" to be different canon.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Personally, I think the big issue of doing a full Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is that Faerun is really just too big.

To try and encapsulate every single area of Faerun in a single book while also adding in all the stuff that players who don't care about the gazeteer stuff would maybe want (PC stuff, monsters, magic items etc.)... it means that each of the areas for the gazeteer can only get like a half-page to a page at most. And we're talking entire nations that have to try and be condensed down to that size. And does that really help anyone run their games, when they have to try and figure out what is so great about running a campaign set in the Dalelands when each of the 14(?) individual Dalelands would get only a like a couple paragraphs each?

Yes... the players who are more interested purely in the grand history of the Realms I'm sure would cherish even a few paragraphs of "up to date" information as to what happening in those 14 dales... but if those paragraphs don't really help most players run and play their game... WotC seems disinclined to do it. Especially considering there are already several products that have been written specifically about the Dalelands (Volo's Guide to the Dalelands; FRS1 The Dalelands) that can and do give more useful information about what makes the Dalelands special than anything that could be put in a full FRCS. Yes... the information within isn't "up to date" as of 1491, but if you don't care about Realms history then it doesn't matter that the info in those products is "old". You can use it to create a current campaign for whenever you set it, because you wouldn't know any difference in comparison anyway. And if you ARE a historian and know what Faerun has gone through and experienced in the century+ between 2E and 5E Realms... you probably can take the 2E Dalelands info and "update" it yourself. Any mention of the Netherese? Remove it. Elminster can be found by PCs sitting peacefully in his tower? Remove it. A bit of evidence of the Abeil-Toril merge and separation? Add it.

But of course... as I've pointed out in previous posts about this subject... there's a small segment of the populace here that needs things to be "real". And the only way they can be "real" is if the half-dozen writers at Wizards of the Coast (and the several dozen freelancers they bring in to assist) make up, type down, and print up the couple paragraphs of things that have "happened" in the Dalelands. That's what's important and necessary to them, even if it is almost completely useless as an actual gaming product. And they need WotC to do this for them, even if it makes no real publishing sense.

I've said it before... but at this point, I sincerely believe that the folks at WotC think that an entire Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book is not helpful as a gaming product. History book? Sure, kinda. But helpful for most people to run a game? Not in the least. So they aren't going to write one. Not on that scale. They aren't historians, they are game designers. So instead, they are going to let people like Ed Greenwood take a section like the Border Kingdoms and flesh that part out... they'll let Adventurer's League tackle the Moonshae Isles and the Moonsea... and if they find a gaming product or adventure they want to write that involves a location that could be updated (Cormyr, Thay, Mulhorand) then and only then will they do it themselves.

This is what I said back in 2014 when 5E started... and this is what I will continue to say and believe until WotC proves me wrong.
 

Well, they have just done three big ones in a row, and are putting out FR mini-Settings constantly.

I don't think the stuff they're doing with the adventures counts as either "mini-settings" or "constant". Further, it's almost all Sword Coast stuff. The complaint is that the coverage of everything but the Sword Coast is poor, and doing Chult one time doesn't really go against that.

I mean, to be honest I'd take PS, DS, or SJ long before another FR book, but SCAG is really sad, and more Sword Coast stuff (which is most of this, which is also, like 70%+ adventure which is zero use to me) is not going to make up for that. I can use older material, but I have to say, I'd really love a proper, updated, official well-put-together thing, especially as the map and certain other assumptions have changed. If they can do such a thorough job for just one region of Wildemount, I'm not sure why they can't do it for the FR.
 

So instead, they are going to let people like Ed Greenwood take a section like the Border Kingdoms and flesh that part out...

This would be great, if the budget wasn't quite so clearly creating a problem. Reading Border Kingdoms, you can really feel the whole "Well, we can afford Ed to write this, and the other guy to edit/organise it, but we can't afford the kind of layout, maps, and detail an official product would have". It's a real pity that stuff that you could do in the 1980s appears to be unaffordable now.

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.
 

jgsugden

Legend
I'd pay some cash for an updated version of the original grey box. Maps, the timeline reset to the beginning, and updated 5E stats.

However, the things I most want to see:

Psionics Handbook
Spelljammer/Planescape
Epic Level Handbook (to support adventures beyond 20 - some of us would love official rules to give us a chance to return to PCs that reached the top and continue to advance them).
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I don't think the stuff they're doing with the adventures counts as either "mini-settings" or "constant". Further, it's almost all Sword Coast stuff. The complaint is that the coverage of everything but the Sword Coast is poor, and doing Chult one time doesn't really go against that.

I mean, to be honest I'd take PS, DS, or SJ long before another FR book, but SCAG is really sad, and more Sword Coast stuff (which is most of this, which is also, like 70%+ adventure which is zero use to me) is not going to make up for that. I can use older material, but I have to say, I'd really love a proper, updated, official well-put-together thing, especially as the map and certain other assumptions have changed. If they can do such a thorough job for just one region of Wildemount, I'm not sure why they can't do it for the FR.

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...
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Sure, okay.

But this thread isn't about what WOTC has, in their infinite wisdom, decided we want instead.

It's about making case for/against an actual FR setting book being made.

Pointing out the relative lack of full settings books for classic, legacy campaign worlds in comparison to material that is decidedly not that, is perfectly valid.

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.
 


Remove ads

Top