What do you think about the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book

[Vancian Magic]

For a 288 page count book there really doesn't seem to be much in it. Though I guess that's my general annoyance for them blowing up the Realms in order to make it more generic, then spending a good chunk of dead tree telling us all about how it got blowed up and has changed the setting (because... that is useful for new DM's to know?).

End of the day, I think ever FR book I see gets compared to the old grey box. And there was something I really loved about that pair of cyclopedia books that made the Realms feel so alive to me. Every edition since then has simply felt like the same stuff, but stretched thinner and thinner through more and more support books... Especially since it has had to bow to corporate decision making and the novel 'canon' which so easily supercedes the role-playing game it seems.

I think it's very interesting to see Ed still putting word count into the FR, especially since it isn't even close to his own one anymore. But I guess once you disconnect from what is being published it isn't so bad... Kind of like an "elseworlds" or "infinities" product, heh.

 

[rounser]

End of the day, I think ever FR book I see gets compared to the old grey box.

I think it's been superceded, personally. IMO, the 3E FRCS is a lot better than the Grey Box. The artwork's better, the content's better, there's more of it, it's more relevant, the book as a whole is beautiful...

It was just a class act, and a high water mark for WOTC D&D, IMO.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think it's been superceded, personally. IMO, the 3E FRCS is a lot better than the Grey Box. The artwork's better, the content's better, there's more of it, it's more relevant, the book as a whole is beautiful...

It was just a class act, and a high water mark for WOTC D&D, IMO.

100% agreed. QFT, even.

I own both (the original FR box and the 3e FRCS book) and I've even used both, if in very different ways. Not that I'm a huge Realms fan - hardly - but I've always maintained that the 3.0 FRCS is a work of beauty and overall, of quality.

 

[Jadeite]

But we definitely ignored the direct cultural analogs when possible, especially the worst of the 2e bunch (the Horde and Maztica).

I always thought the Moonshaes were considered the worst (which seem to be still there).

 

[rounser]

I always thought the Moonshaes were considered the worst (which seem to be still there).

Depends who you ask, I guess. They're probably my favourite part of the realms. I agree that the Horde and Maztica seem to get very little love. They're rarely even mentioned.

Keep in mind that the Moonshaes were airlifted into FR - they were originally intended as a "British Dragonlance" unto themselves. They also harbour another minisetting which wasn't originally FR - the Korinn Archipelago of the module N1 Treasure Hunt.

That said, I think Douglas Niles did a rather good job of integrating the Moonshaes into the realms. There's a lot of references to mainland FR in the novels. The flavour and thematic imagery is different, though...Ed Greenwood's Moonshae module (Halls of the High King?) puts more of a typical "FR vibe" stamp on the Moonshaes...harping around the fireside, Zhents under the beds etc...so more of a "classic Ed FR" flavour can be done with them too.

From what I've heard of the original Moonshaes, I'm sort of glad they got changed. Their original incarnation (a sort of Earthsea-like place) sounds less interesting than the celtic mythology/northmen vs ffolk/King Arthur/Bhaal avatar vs Earthmother's children/Robin Hood mishmash that the Moonshaes offers, and it does interesting things with the role of druids, bards and mages in society.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Racism because the "what i thought ancient egypt/south america/etc. looked like" cultures are gone? And those parts were the most logical parts of the setting? Logical? And you´re all aware that the Shou play an important role now in the eastern realms?Is this some kind of bizarro alternate universe we´re talking about?
Those cultures were removed because they took the "shared setting" concept that the FR is built upon too far, because there was no longer a common theme to the campaign world. They were included simply because TSR knew that creating them as stand-alone books would diminish sales. And i´m so happy they´re gone. Nothing more embarassing as explaining the campaign world to new players, talking about all the interesting locations and weird cultures, and then having to say: "and here´s, um, egypt. More or less."

Um, yeah FR 10 "The Old Empires" did exactly that. No it wasn't a book that detailed a trio of rich vibrant cultures and made them come alive with wonderful detail and integrated them seamlessly with the rest of the Realms. All it said was, oh this is Egypt, this is Babylonia, and this is Greece. Seriously it was only a single page long and didn't even fill that page.

If you don't believe me check it out: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=16817&it=1

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I absolutely agree with this. The 3E FRCS was quite simply the best campaign setting book ever published, in much the same way Ptolus was the best City supplement ever published.

Based on what I've read here, it sounds like I won't be picking up the 4E FRCS. It sounds like a big step backward to me.

Ken

I think it's been superceded, personally. IMO, the 3E FRCS is a lot better than the Grey Box. The artwork's better, the content's better, there's more of it, it's more relevant, the book as a whole is beautiful...

It was just a class act, and a high water mark for WOTC D&D, IMO.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I think what is happening here is that its a fight between people with a history of playing in the odd places in the realms and people who didn't and stuck to the Sword Coast or the Dalelands. I ran an entire campaign in Thay and the Old Empires because I had read FR 10 and loved it (it had started in the Dalelands, but didn't last long there and eventually we went into the underdark and then the outer planes), I didn't just have a blurb from the 3e FRCS book, I had both Dreams of the Red Wizards and Old Empires from 1st/2nd Edition. I had the 1st Edition Oriental Adventures and the Kara-Tur boxed set when I wanted to that part of the realms. I had the Al-Qadim book and boxed set. I had read Douglas Niles Maztican Trilogy before I had the Maztica boxed set (which is still available for free on the Wizard's website http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads) and loved the novels and the boxed set, and I honestly don't understand them throwing away Maztica for Abeir when there is an entire unknown continent to the west of Maztica they could have put it on (and for that matter put Tythmanther and Akundul where the Dragon sea is for all I care).

As for culture that should be another thread and I made one:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=239294

Just explain what you think makes a good fantasy culture.

 

[PeterWeller]

I like the book. No, it's not the encyclopedia that the 3E book was, but as a framework to build a campaign on, it's better in many regards. It gives me a lot of room to breathe as a DM. I feel a greater freedom to change things to my own liking, and that applies to keeping things that were lost in the edition change. The lack of a timeline for the last 100 years lets me play with history a lot more, but at the same time, there are enough historical details scattered throughout the text to give me a good framework for that playing.

Aesthetically the book is very well laid out. I like the 4E book style. And I like the map. Honestly, I'm tired of Faerun looking like it's mostly a light shade of tan. This new map reminds me of the original 1E maps, only done with Photoshop instead of hand-drawn.

I find it funny that the people complaining about the amount of detail seem to be the same people who already have an encyclopedic collection of FR details. Just port over the stuff you want to keep.

Also, the racism thing? Get real, people. First of all, there's a damn nation of Shou right in the middle of Faerun now, not to mention they're apparently an even bigger part of the East's population. Calimshan is as Arabian in flavor as it ever was. And there's many mentions of people worshipping the Adama in the South, implying a strong and direct cultural connection with Zakhara. Oh, and Amn- Amn has always been Northern Italian merchant jerks.

What makes that argument even sillier is that all those nations that they "racistly" removed might have been analogues of non-European cultures, but they were also corrupt and evil analogues. What is more racist: removing non-European analogues or having a world where everyone who isn't pseudo-European be corrupt and evil? Frankly, I'd rather have no pseudo-Egyptians or pseudo-Muslims at all than have them be a bunch of racist, Howardian stereotypes.

 

[Fenes]

I like the book. No, it's not the encyclopedia that the 3E book was, but as a framework to build a campaign on, it's better in many regards. It gives me a lot of room to breathe as a DM. I feel a greater freedom to change things to my own liking, and that applies to keeping things that were lost in the edition change. The lack of a timeline for the last 100 years lets me play with history a lot more, but at the same time, there are enough historical details scattered throughout the text to give me a good framework for that playing.

What I find funny is that people claim they have room to fill now, yet we all know novel writers will fill it too, even if WotC wouldn't bring out more sourcebooks in the next years.

So, I do not see any advantage in having less information - anyone who already feels secure enough to pick and choose from official material does not need a sourcebook with less info, and anyone who is a slave to canon (or has nitpicky canon fanatic players) will be in trouble once the next novel redefines what happened in his campaign.