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

[Mercule]

There are a couple of us pointing out the inaccuracy of the claim that ToA "has everything we need to run adventures in Chult". To say the ability to make adventures suddenly breaks down with the simplest of requests is your own assumed projection. It also demonstrates you do not understand the disagreement to the claim. But you do like to assert your opinion over others so I guess that is normal.

Eh, I think the difference is more along the lines of "how do you define 'need'?"

I, personally, don't really care about the greater canon of the Realms (or most other settings). Yes, if it's presented, I'll use it. But, I really prefer to have things that are more seeds than fully bloomed, setting-wise. So, for me, "need" means give me enough to set a base structure to hang things on. "Need" also includes enough gray that I can actually run the game and fill in gaps without worrying about tripping over some other random bit of canon. I want the adventure defined and the world gray.

I mentioned, earlier, my extreme disdain for the Realms. A very small amount of that is actually not caring for some parts of what was in the 1E gray box. But, I played, quite happily, in a Realms game with that structure. Really, what fries me about the Realms is that there is so much freaking information that I genuinely don't see how anyone can actually work with the thing and have a life. It seems that you could put together a four year undergraduate program on the Realms and still leave room for a masters. That's great, if your actual hobby is studying the setting (like, say, some do with Tolkien). My hobby is playing the game. In that regard, Forgotten Realms fails to give me what I need to play -- flexibility and manageability.

So, in that regard, I wouldn't turn down having Ubtoa's domains, but I'm totally happy with just having the name. Heck, if I stumble over the name too many times, I'm probably going to demote him to demigod and replace him in stature with someone else. I'm not really concerned with matching up with some other book and would prefer that I retain that freedom.

Which is why I was very negative about the Realms becoming the 5E default setting. The only way to really make it appropriate as the anchor for all these adventures is to strip away all the depth it's built up. If you want the depth, go get the prior books. What you get from 5E is just enough to let someone run an adventure without having to also build a setting. That makes it usable for people like me who are quite comfortable telling players at the table, "That's nice, but I don't really care what the book says." Settings are a tool for GMs, not players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Eh, I think the difference is more along the lines of "how do you define 'need'?"

I, personally, don't really care about the greater canon of the Realms (or most other settings). Yes, if it's presented, I'll use it. But, I really prefer to have things that are more seeds than fully bloomed, setting-wise. So, for me, "need" means give me enough to set a base structure to hang things on. "Need" also includes enough gray that I can actually run the game and fill in gaps without worrying about tripping over some other random bit of canon. I want the adventure defined and the world gray.

I mentioned, earlier, my extreme disdain for the Realms. A very small amount of that is actually not caring for some parts of what was in the 1E gray box. But, I played, quite happily, in a Realms game with that structure. Really, what fries me about the Realms is that there is so much freaking information that I genuinely don't see how anyone can actually work with the thing and have a life. It seems that you could put together a four year undergraduate program on the Realms and still leave room for a masters. That's great, if your actual hobby is studying the setting (like, say, some do with Tolkien). My hobby is playing the game. In that regard, Forgotten Realms fails to give me what I need to play -- flexibility and manageability.

So, in that regard, I wouldn't turn down having Ubtoa's domains, but I'm totally happy with just having the name. Heck, if I stumble over the name too many times, I'm probably going to demote him to demigod and replace him in stature with someone else. I'm not really concerned with matching up with some other book and would prefer that I retain that freedom.

Which is why I was very negative about the Realms becoming the 5E default setting. The only way to really make it appropriate as the anchor for all these adventures is to strip away all the depth it's built up. If you want the depth, go get the prior books. What you get from 5E is just enough to let someone run an adventure without having to also build a setting. That makes it usable for people like me who are quite comfortable telling players at the table, "That's nice, but I don't really care what the book says." Settings are a tool for GMs, not players.

I agree with most of this.

I don't care about canon, and the pantheon.

There's too much information to sift through (and, as I've noted several times now, written in long, prosey form, making it difficult to scan and distill quickly.)

Also, as another posted noted, it's the "kitchen sink" setting. Any and all races, planes, gods, types of magic, etc. etc. etc. has a place in it. There's no flavor to it, because it's all flavors at once.

 

[Mecheon]

Settings are a tool for GMs, not players.

I cannot like this hard enough, because it is completely accurate

 

[Xenonnonex]

I mean, you're the one saying you "need" Ubtao's domain listed for it to be officially something you can use for adventures... now I'm guessing you probably don't need it at all, as I assume you were able to start ToA after you made your google search (which I pointed out you can do with your PH if you don't have internet).

Just trying to point out that need =/= want.

No. You still continue to misunderstand the disagreement. The claim was that ToA has "everything you need to run" is demonstrably false. And this is where the disagreement lies. Multiple holes have already been torn into this claim. But still the echo chamber continues.

Just trying to point out your asserted opinions over others is not helpful in any way.

 

[Xenonnonex]

My take:

@Xenonnonex is being a little hyperbolic when he says he "needs" this information in the book.

@Urriak Uruk is being a little dismissive by reiterating that you don't "need" it. The way he is presenting his argument suggests that all content is unnecessary, because the DM can Google away, and/or improvise. And yet I'm betting he still uses published content.

It's somewhere in the middle, and the perfect balance is a matter of preference that varies by DM.

So can we drop it?

Earlier I had said people's opinions will be different. And that is fine.

What is worrying is the continued insistence by some of asserting their personal opinions on others. And claiming it is fact.
What is worrying is the continued insistence by some of asserting their personal way of running games onto others. And claiming this is only way to run games for others.
What is worrying is the censure of playing character concepts.

If Wizards had used the tag line "ToA has everything you need to run adventures in Chult" they would be excoriated for false advertising. They have been excoriated for less fanciful advertising.

 

[Xenonnonex]

How would the DM know that Ubtao looks about right when SCAG has no mention of Ubtao, and in ToA, which details the 5e Chult, makes it clear that Ubtao has receded and is not actively worshiped? A PC native to Chult would be from Port Nyanzaru, and ToA describes the city and its temples. The DM would recommend one of the deities who have places of worship in Port Nyanzaru.

Any number of ways. Overhearing it. Learned it from watching DCA. Known the name from elsewhere. Read about it. Take your pick.
How would you know what the DM would recommend for their home game? Do you control their DM?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Earlier I had said people's opinions will be different. And that is fine.

What is worrying is the continued insistence by some of asserting their personal opinions on others. And claiming it is fact.
What is worrying is the continued insistence by some of asserting their personal way of running games onto others. And claiming this is only way to run games for others.
What is worrying is the censure of playing character concepts.

If Wizards had used the tag line "ToA has everything you need to run adventures in Chult" they would be excoriated for false advertising. They have been excoriated for less fanciful advertising.

Then maybe you should just say “Perhaps you don’t need more but I do.” and leave it at that. Unlike the implication that others might “need” more, if you restrict it to your own preference it can’t be contradicted.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Then maybe you should just say “Perhaps you don’t need more but I do.” and leave it at that. Unlike the implication that others might “need” more, if you restrict it to your own preference it can’t be contradicted.

Personal preferences have been argued in place of subjective claims. Subjective claims that are asserted objectively. The same with personal opinions.

 

[Teemu]

Any number of ways. Overhearing it. Learned it from watching DCA. Known the name from elsewhere. Read about it. Take your pick.
How would you know what the DM would recommend for their home game? Do you control their DM?

Ok, but then they go check the 5e source on Chult, ToA, and they realize that Ubtao isn’t suitable and instead they mention one of the other deities?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

How about we look at the discussion from a different perspective....

Which of the following books would, by itself, allow a GM to run a Chult based adventure not featuring the Death Curse with the least amount of effort?

1. The 3e FRCS
2. The 5e SCAG
3. Tomb of Annihilation