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

[Paul Farquhar]

WotC hasn't published tie-in novels for quite some time.

 

[Fenris-77]

What FR has is how a lot play at contemporary D&D tables gravitates: it has heroic high fantasy. (But then again, so does Dragonlance, which arguably has it more so.) FR has a series of metaplots that are closely related to book tie-ins. (But then again, so does Dragonlance.)

Like I said, this isn't a critique of the Realms at all. I think it's a great setting and it has many great features. It's just not, I think, easily saleable the way some other settings are. So WotC makes it the default setting for their big adventure paths. It works. If the new AP is indeed Icewind Dale, that would fit a model where the whole Sword Coast gets coverage via first the SCAG and then APs set up and down the coast.

There's an interesting idea in Comics theory about impressionist images of the human face and reader identification with the character in question. The idea is that more abstract images require effort from the reader to decode, and this, in many cases results greater identification with that character. Essentially, the work required to fill in the empty spaces creates a sense of identification. This isn't a controversial idea particularly, but I do think it speaks to the place of the FR in the current 5E environment. Many people have been saying that FR is a kitchen sink setting, and that's quite true. That makes it a wonderful setting to brew you own campaign in, but it also makes the Realms harder to market. By providing focused APs, and leaving significant blank (abstract) spaces on the map around them, I think WotC is framing those blank spaces as a places to play and explore, as places for individual games to put their own stamp on the game world. That seems a great use of what might be the Realms' best feature without the need to try and market another setting book. Anyway, it's a theory.

 

[Xenonnonex]

See, I never said that, did I? I said it's useful to not always assume the worst with this kind of statement.

You say this. Then you assume the worst from my statement. And attack me. Good for you. Do not as you do. Only as you say. Yes.

Previously in this thread, for example, you said something to the effect that I didn't understand the needs of newer players because I said I thought ToA had a useful amount of information in it to run a campaign. I'm not trying to reopen that can of worms, and it's 100% fine that we might disagree about it, but if we want to talk about insulting, it's pretty insulting to be told that you don't understand something when the truth is that we just disagree.

The point is to not assume. The point is to not assert an opinion for others. People have their own voice. Presuming to assert opinions on behalf of others is not on.
Good to disagree. What are opinions otherwise.

See? We agree. Neat. I think Wizards has charted a very canny course with the Realms material. The tricky part, IMO, is to figure out how to release more information to suit the needs of people who want to get more in depth into a particular region, which I gather is your main issue with ToA. My suspicion is that WotC has decided to let the 3PP community fill this particular gap. I took a browse thru DirveThru yesterday, and there is a ton on material available on Chult, for example. I think WotC sees that and it forms part of their strategy.

Anyway, we might disagree about specifics sometimes, but I do appreciate how much you love the Realms.

Works for Wizards. Works for 3pp. Works for us it seems. Win. Win. Win.

 

[Fenris-77]

You say this. Then you assume the worst from my statement. And attack me. Good for you. Do not as you do. Only as you say. Yes.

There's no attack there.

The point is to not assume. The point is to not assert an opinion for others. People have their own voice. Presuming to assert opinions on behalf of others is not on.
Good to disagree. What are opinions otherwise.

Did you miss the bit where I specifically wasn't assuming, despite appearances? That was there on purpose. Your posts sometimes come across the way they do, I can't fix that. It happens to everyone. People can also make generalizations, it's the only way to talk about groups of people, and they aren't always trying to speak for everyone or put their personal opinion in anyone's mouth. The brevity of forum posts doesn't always lend itself to complete explication and a full disclosure of caveats and the like.

Works for Wizards. Works for 3pp. Works for us it seems. Win. Win. Win.

And we're still winning. Just curious, since we've been talking about Chult, have you checked out any of the 3PP stuff there? I haven't plumbed those depths yet.

 

[Xenonnonex]

There's no attack there.

You've come across as confrontational, dismissive, and insulting to anyone who's disagreed with you

This was not an attack? You urge to not assume the worst from statements. You had assumed the worst from my previous statement. Good. Just great.

Did you miss the bit where I specifically wasn't assuming, despite appearances? That was there on purpose. Your posts sometimes come across the way they do, I can't fix that. It happens to everyone. People can also make generalizations, it's the only way to talk about groups of people, and they aren't always trying to speak for everyone or put their personal opinion in anyone's mouth. The brevity of forum posts doesn't always lend itself to complete explication and a full disclosure of caveats and the like.

It needs to be repeated. People in this thread have constantly talked for others. It is not right.

And we're still winning. Just curious, since we've been talking about Chult, have you checked out any of the 3PP stuff there? I haven't plumbed those depths yet.

I urge you to have a look at the 2e Chult book.

 

[Fenris-77]

This was not an attack? You urge to not assume the worst from statements. You had assumed the worst from my previous statement. Good. Just great.

No, it was a statement of fact about how some of your posts have appeared. I very carefully didn't ascribe those motivations to you personally. Anyway, I'm just suggesting that the accusations of ignorance aren't going to get you a lot of interaction with what might otherwise be a valid point. I'm still not sure you're picking up what I'm putting down here, but I've given it the old college try.

I urge you to have a look at the 2e Chult book.

I think I have it kicking around somewhere. Hopefully its not in storage.

 

[the Jester]

yes agree, but it was not always that way for FR

I mean... literally the first ever FR product, the Grey Box from 1e, had most of that stuff, and made no bones about it. I don't have it any more, so I can't provide quotes, but I remember the section on gods being all, "Hey, here's the standard gods, but you know, you could be a cleric of literally anyone and it's fine". I remember the techno-gnomes, the Egypt pastiche, etc, etc. From its first release, FR has always been that way. Yeah, they added Maztica and the Horde later, but almost everything you could imagine was thrown against the wall at the very beginning.

 

[Coroc]

I mean... literally the first ever FR product, the Grey Box from 1e, had most of that stuff, and made no bones about it. I don't have it any more, so I can't provide quotes, but I remember the section on gods being all, "Hey, here's the standard gods, but you know, you could be a cleric of literally anyone and it's fine". I remember the techno-gnomes, the Egypt pastiche, etc, etc. From its first release, FR has always been that way. Yeah, they added Maztica and the Horde later, but almost everything you could imagine was thrown against the wall at the very beginning.

yes you are right, but the stuff was declared as being optional. Grey box would be the base i would use for a FR campaign, but of course not out of the book but redacted.
Like blue box of GHK. You just cannot play this old stuff like printed, no matter what system you convert it to or even in original 1e or 2e.
You would end up with TPK within the first hour of your session with high probability.

 

[the Jester]

yes you are right, but the stuff was declared as being optional.

...which does not mean it wasn't there. You said, referring to FR's kitchen sink approach:

it was not always that way for FR

I'm saying that yes, it was. Quite intentionally.

Like blue box of GHK. You just cannot play this old stuff like printed, no matter what system you convert it to or even in original 1e or 2e.
You would end up with TPK within the first hour of your session with high probability.

I am not familiar with a blue box Greyhawk product, unless you mean the City of Greyhawk set? So I can't speak to the specifics of a tpk or whatnot, but I have and do run old edition stuff as is, swapping only mechanical elements for current edition stuff, like swapping 1e kobold stats for 5e kobold stats, and converting material that doesn't exist in 5e yet, sometimes on the fly. I have run adventures from Basic (the Lost City), 1e (S3), 3e (adventures from Dungeon Magazine), and 4e (currently running Keep on the Shadowfell) without modifying them, and have not ended up with a single TPK from doing so. Nor do I fudge dice (hardly ever). I'm not quite sure why you make this assertion.

 

[Coroc]

...which does not mean it wasn't there. You said, referring to FR's kitchen sink approach:



I'm saying that yes, it was. Quite intentionally.



I am not familiar with a blue box Greyhawk product, unless you mean the City of Greyhawk set? So I can't speak to the specifics of a tpk or whatnot, but I have and do run old edition stuff as is, swapping only mechanical elements for current edition stuff, like swapping 1e kobold stats for 5e kobold stats, and converting material that doesn't exist in 5e yet, sometimes on the fly. I have run adventures from Basic (the Lost City), 1e (S3), 3e (adventures from Dungeon Magazine), and 4e (currently running Keep on the Shadowfell) without modifying them, and have not ended up with a single TPK from doing so. Nor do I fudge dice (hardly ever). I'm not quite sure why you make this assertion.

well e.g. 20000 orcs to be fought in groups of 100s if conflict breaks out e.g. (greyhawk howl from the north trilogy for level 8 to 10 PCs). Even with 1e 2e assumptions of fighters sweep hitting multiple enemies if the enemies are lvl 1 or below that is simply undoable.
That one is one of the obvious examples but there aremany more.