What do you think about the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book

[Jack Colby]

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.

My thoughts, exactly. The grey box had a feel to it that no other version has managed to match. They all feel watered down or too vastly different to actually be the Realms.

And what I feared about the new 4E version is that they would change it then waste time explaining how it changed instead of just getting on with it as if it were a new setting. I haven't followed it in years and the information of how it used to be means nothing to me, since the "old" Realms wasn't the one I knew either.

I think if I want to use the Realms with 4E I'll go back to that grey box. No extra rules crunch needed, it is just a setting, after all, meant to work with the rules from the rulebooks.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

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.

Have you read the background material? If you at least look at FR 10, both Unther and Mulhorandi had battles between good and evil. The Untherics were in a civil war against their God-king Gilgeam to the point that Tiamat was getting good worshippers because they had nowhere else to turn to. And Mulhorand was in a struggle between Set and Horus for possession of the throne. One of the major characters in FR 10 was a paladin, geez. Don't accuse me of generalizing if you do it.

 

[jensun]

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.

It is much easier to ignore novels than specific setting game material.

 

[PeterWeller]

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.

You're right, the setting will bloat again, and one is always free to ignore or change whatever he or she wants. The thing is, you have a lot more room to fill on your own with this book than you did with the previous one. Less detail means less worrying about what the repercussions of making your own detail. Even when you're secure enough (and I like how you cast not wanting to meddle with a complete product as a type of insecurity) to take and leave what you want as a DM, you're still left with weighing what the ripple effects of your changes will bring. As cool as trade and economy details can be, for instance, their existence can make it more difficult to change a city, and they're not something I would consider necessary or essential for a FRPG campaign setting.

And that's the kind of detail most people are lamenting: the ancillary and nitty-gritty. The stuff that's incredibly easy to make up on your own or port over from a different product.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

I don't know that 3e superceded it, but it was a great book. It just had a different feel.

Original FR boxed set had a sort of low end feel to it, a lot of focus on the dalelands which I didn't care for, but it felt like a place where some first level adventurer could leave the farm and become a king.

2nd edition felt sort of bland to me, having the avatar crisis smash the realms into a new shape to fit 2nd edition mechanics. I do think the unicorn rider was one of the best covers ever made, but leira was gone and things just seemed to be getting odd in the realms.

3rd edition felt huge. Sure, the realms had been growing and growing, but it wasn't all expanded on in the core book. Expansions expand things, but in 3e it was one big huge pantheon covering a huge world.

4th edition wasn't content to just leave out stuff and focus on the part they wanted. They had to nuke everything else in the name of "condensing the realms for new players". Mulhorand doesn't have to be destroyed to focus on the swordcoast...


(As for me, I found Al Qadim, Karatur and Mulhorand to be neat realms based on real world analogies but D*D'd up a bit. They fit in their places, but at the same time they were far removed so they weren't a required part in everyday FR unless you wanted them to be.)

 

[PeterWeller]

Have you read the background material? If you at least look at FR 10, both Unther and Mulhorandi had battles between good and evil. The Untherics were in a civil war against their God-king Gilgeam to the point that Tiamat was getting good worshippers because they had nowhere else to turn to. And Mulhorand was in a struggle between Set and Horus for possession of the throne. One of the major characters in FR 10 was a paladin, geez. Don't accuse me of generalizing if you do it.

That's right, there is good struggling against evil in those realms, but whose job is it to set things right? The players, who are probably playing White adventurers, who by the powers of their White gods, the arcane magics gained via their White wits, and the enchanted arms crafted by their White Elf and Dwarf forebears will free the common folk from their sinister overlords. Heck, even if you play as native characters, your characters, the ones played (most likely) by White males are the only ones who have a chance of setting things right. What set's them apart but the fact that they're played by the White male players?

Sounds like the ultimate exercise in playing out White Mans' Burden to me. Or, more seriously, it sounds like making an argument about whether or not a fantasy setting is racist based on the existence of non-European analogues is incredibly retarded.

I can understand being upset that Unther and Mulhorand are gone. I like all the "it's like [real world place] but with magic" regions. I even like Maztica (with all its ridiculous White Mans' Burden ). However, they're not necessary for it to be FR to me. I'm one of those guys who has always run my campaigns in the Heartlands and the North, with various trips and expeditions to the more exotic locales. Unther and Mulhorand may be gone, but they've been replaced with equally exotic and cool (IMO) regions that will serve me just fine.

 

[Imaro]

I was really going to stay out of this at first, but...

That's right, there is good struggling against evil in those realms, but whose job is it to set things right? The players, who are probably playing White adventurers, who by the powers of their White gods, the arcane magics gained via their White wits, and the enchanted arms crafted by their White Elf and Dwarf forebears will free the common folk from their sinister overlords. Heck, even if you play as native characters, your characters, the ones played (most likely) by White males are the only ones who have a chance of setting things right. What set's them apart but the fact that they're played by the White male players?

This argument makes no sense. First off, what about Dragonborn, Tieflings, Genasi, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc. are these races "white"? I don't think so, so how is it a correct assumption that most players " are probably playing White adventurers..."? The 4e PHB doesn't describe any of these races as white.

Second, this argument is akin to saying player = character... and it doesn't, it also disregards those of us who are not white and play D&D (like me... ) who may want the freedom to base our character off non-european archetypes. I mean my group is mostly black so I wouldn't say what sets our PC's apart is the fact that they're played by "White male players", I would say that it's the fact that they are the protagonists of the game.

Sounds like the ultimate exercise in playing out White Mans' Burden to me. Or, more seriously, it sounds like making an argument about whether or not a fantasy setting is racist based on the existence of non-European analogues is incredibly retarded.

First...see above. I'm not going to go so far as to say the 4e FR are "racist" or that the designers are either. However there was a thread not so long ago where it came out that WotC made a conscious effort to minimize diversity in artwork to appeal to their fanbase... this could be the same thing... of course if the artwork issue is anything to go on, we won't find out until years later...if at all.

I can understand being upset that Unther and Mulhorand are gone. I like all the "it's like [real world place] but with magic" regions. I even like Maztica (with all its ridiculous White Mans' Burden ). However, they're not necessary for it to be FR to me. I'm one of those guys who has always run my campaigns in the Heartlands and the North, with various trips and expeditions to the more exotic locales. Unther and Mulhorand may be gone, but they've been replaced with equally exotic and cool (IMO) regions that will serve me just fine.

That's great for you, and your preference for the areas of FR that you enjoyed. However I don't see how you can rationally argue that for others this may not be the case. They may have enjoyed those fringe regions more than the euro-centric, cookie-cutter regions that are found in 99.9% of all fantasy rpg settings.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That's right, there is good struggling against evil in those realms, but whose job is it to set things right? The players, who are probably playing White adventurers, who by the powers of their White gods, the arcane magics gained via their White wits, and the enchanted arms crafted by their White Elf and Dwarf forebears will free the common folk from their sinister overlords. Heck, even if you play as native characters, your characters, the ones played (most likely) by White males are the only ones who have a chance of setting things right. What set's them apart but the fact that they're played by the White male players?

Sounds like the ultimate exercise in playing out White Mans' Burden to me. Or, more seriously, it sounds like making an argument about whether or not a fantasy setting is racist based on the existence of non-European analogues is incredibly retarded.

I can understand being upset that Unther and Mulhorand are gone. I like all the "it's like [real world place] but with magic" regions. I even like Maztica (with all its ridiculous White Mans' Burden ). However, they're not necessary for it to be FR to me. I'm one of those guys who has always run my campaigns in the Heartlands and the North, with various trips and expeditions to the more exotic locales. Unther and Mulhorand may be gone, but they've been replaced with equally exotic and cool (IMO) regions that will serve me just fine.

You...wow. Just...wow. I'm really glad Imaro already hit this one, because...I don't think I have words for this.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

I hope WotC puts more control over the novel writers. (It would be silly to change the Realms due to all the damage the novels did to it ... then let it happen all over again.)

 

[El Mahdi]

I hope WotC puts more control over the novel writers. (It would be silly to change the Realms due to all the damage the novels did to it ... then let it happen all over again.)

I don't understand this. WoTC isn't going to let any novel writer do whatever they want to the Realms in their novels. I would feel pretty safe in saying even Ed Greenwood doesn't have unlimited carte blanche to do whatever he wants with the Realms. Whatever happens to the Realms in a novel, I think you can be pretty sure WoTC either proposed it or at least approves of it. Otherwise, they wouldn't print it.