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

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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]

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.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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]

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.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

 

[Xenonnonex]

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.