What do you think about the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book

[Achan hiArusa]

Double Post

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Oh, let's see, okay In my 3.0/3.5 e FR game I had over the period of time I ran it, five white males (playing a Githezerai, a Half-orc, a Half-elf, a female Drow, and a Gold Dwarf), three white females (playing two half-elves and a halfling), one Chinese female (playing a tiefling), and one Pakistani (playing a human), but not more than five of them at a time. I didn't have more than five at once and we played two adventures in the Dalelands to about 3rd level, about 17 levels worth in Thay and the Old Empires, then about, 6 levels in the Underdark, and 2 in the Astral Plane. Not a perfectly diverse group, but diverse enough. And they thoroughly enjoyed the Old Empires the best of all. And let's not forget that the DM (me) is half-Korean, a quarter Cherokee, and a quarter Irish.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Can we just let the racism thing drop in this thread? If you want to discuss racism, then fork a new thread.

 

[rounser]

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.

See, this is why I have little common ground with the average FR fan. Who cares about the gods? They're the least important part of the setting, but people treat them as personal pets! You'd think they were the only thing that mattered about FR, by the way people focus on them. 4E FR comes out and first thing people talk about...the gods. Looking back, only thing talked about...the gods. Stuff the gods, IMO. They're irrelevant, most of the time.

I thought that the 2E boxed set was really good, as well, by the way. That Shadowdale book was much more helpful than reprinting Pages of the Mages and the School of Wizardry. And I remember a lot more content in the bigger boxed set, too. It may not have had parchment pages, but it was definitely not walked all over by the Grey Box either, IMO. Maybe we're just into silver lining on the memories territory here.

But one thing had changed by 2E FR, and that was that many other authors had tried their hand at the world, and some of the original "Greenwood vibe" was getting overwritten, or downplayed. I think a lot of people, players and writers alike, never really got it in the first place. That could be what you're talking about when you big up the Grey Box, but that's very different to whether some deity or other got in or not.

 

[Vocenoctum]

See, this is why I have little common ground with the average FR fan. Who cares about the gods? They're the least important part of the setting, but people treat them as personal pets! You'd think they were the only thing that mattered about FR, by the way people focus on them. 4E FR comes out and first thing people talk about...the gods. Looking back, only thing talked about...the gods. Stuff the gods, IMO. They're irrelevant, most of the time.

See, that's how I felt about Elminster & such, totally irrelevant to my game. The gods though, were at least a common influence. Churchs are in each city, players have clerics. Mostly though, Cyric bugged me. Not even the Avatar Crisis itself, but the stuff that followed. Suddenly gods were behind all kinds of plots on a level that dwarfed the Moonshae stuff. Leira wasn't anything special, but the clergy was fun with the silvered masks. 2e nixed her for no real reason and it was a symptom of the times.

I thought that the 2E boxed set was really good, as well, by the way. That Shadowdale book was much more helpful than reprinting Pages of the Mages and the School of Wizardry. And I remember a lot more content in the bigger boxed set, too. It may not have had parchment pages, but it was definitely not walked all over by the Grey Box either, IMO. Maybe we're just into silver lining on the memories territory here.

That was a bit later, IIRC, than the players guide I remember leading off the setting. The boxed set read too much like "now you can play the game like Greenwood intended!" and I wasn't a big fan of Shadowdale to start with.

But one thing had changed by 2E FR, and that was that many other authors had tried their hand at the world, and some of the original "Greenwood vibe" was getting overwritten, or downplayed. I think a lot of people, players and writers alike, never really got it in the first place. That could be what you're talking about when you big up the Grey Box, but that's very different to whether some deity or other got in or not.

I think all of the settings were good for having a solid core of people to build, that had diverse opinions but worked togethor well. Dragonlance, FR, Eberron.

Then later on, you had more folks coming into it and there seemed to be little oversight. Dragonlance certainly lost it's way, and FR was changing in ways that just became tedious to work with in a campaign. (Like a comic book run where they change editor and suddenly the entire setup changes.)

You could see it happening with Eberron, the line isn't tightly controlled, and with 4e it's changing even more.

 

[PeterWeller]

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



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.

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.

That argument wasn't intended to make sense. More to illustrate how stupid that kind of discussion can get.

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.

I was saying that I can understand why people are upset about losing those territories. I was saying I liked those territories as well, but I'm also pretty amped about what replaced them. I was never saying that other people should feel how I do. The loss of the Old Empires is one of those complaints about 4E FR that I see and say, "this is a perfectly rational and justified complaint."

The thing is, though, while I liked those parts of the setting, they did feel tacked on. The new regions, on the other hand (and in my opinion, of course), feel more integrated. They feel made specifically to fill those parts of the map, whereas the Old Empires always felt like they were made off on their own, and later inserted into that section of the map.

The other thing is, if you don't agree with me on that, I understand why.

 

[Shroomy]

The thing is, though, while I liked those parts of the setting, they did feel tacked on. The new regions, on the other hand (and in my opinion, of course), feel more integrated. They feel made specifically to fill those parts of the map, whereas the Old Empires always felt like they were made off on their own, and later inserted into that section of the map.

The other thing is, if you don't agree with me on that, I understand why.

I thought that official incarnations of Mulhorand and Unther were "tacked on" by TSR, like the Bloodstone Lands, Kara-Tur, and the Moonshae Islands.

 

[AllisterH]

I think the blame for the focus on the gods lies with 2E's Time of Troubles and also 2E's Faith and Avatars....

 

[Irda Ranger]

my initial impressions are not good ... I finding the 4e FRCG a disappointment ... the 4e Realms (so far) doesn’t feel like a living world ... we’re left with is a setting without a thematic core or a sense of connectedness. Each element tends to stand on its own without much reference to those around it. And none, I have to say, is that compelling on its own ... What’s hard is to come up with an entire world, to create a complex mythology and history, to layer in the elements that turn cities and nations into a living, breathing world. That’s what I want in a campaign guide – not what we’ve got here, which is more like a kit of readymade city and dungeon ideas with few details attached.

The ... much lower word count in the 4e Forgotten Realms book leaves a lot to be desired. Even when you’re devoting several pages to a region, it feels like you’re just skimming the surface. Major settlements are being skipped over or given the most cursory treatment because you’ve left no space to detail them.

And Loudwater. Why? Really, this seems like a total waste of space.

I’d have to recommend giving this one a pass.

I concur with the above. I thought it was lousy. The biggest problems for me are:

1. Too little information on each area. If I wanted to play in a Cormyr-like Kingdom I could brainstorm the amount of content provided by the 4E FRCS in ten minutes or so.

2. Uninspiring. Perhaps related to the above point, but everything was "Grrr! I'm a monster!" and "Spellplague!! Dark and brooding geography!!" and not very thematic at all. It has no flavor. I think parts of it were worked over by the Committees for Selling Dungeon Tiles & Minis.

Just as one example - Eladrin?? Does FR have no life whatsoever apart from the Core Rules? Apparently not. Apparently it was just too confusing to stick to calling them Gold or Grey Elves and making a note to use the Eladrin stat blocks from the PHB. So, one more bit of flavor that makes FR feel like FR gets flushed down the toilet.

Maybe my expectations were falsely misled by the words "Campaign Setting" on the cover. I expect a Campaign Setting to provide details that take a lot of time and creativity to brainstorm all by myself, and to provide a "theme" or "feel" that communicates itself to the players. By example, there's no mistaking whether or not you're in Planescape or Ravenloft. This book should have been called "34 Unrelated Kingdom Sketches, Plus A Free Bundled Adventure."

I could name many other problems I have with the book (like what happened to Wheloon and Calimshan - WTF!?), but that would be too nitty. My overall opinion: crap. Good use of whitespace doesn't save the fact that the key reasons for buying a CS are missing. Better luck next year, WotC.

 

[Obryn]

I'm warming to this more and more as I read through it. I think it looks like a good successor to the Realms. As a DM who couldn't stand the thought of running a Realms game in 2e or 3e, it's got a lot of good stuff going for it. It seems a lot more like a place where PCs have adventures, rather than a place where NPCs and novel characters go and change the world.

Now I just wish I had the Player's Guide to match...

I have another 7 hours of airplane time later this week... Maybe I'll get a chance to dig more into it. Then again, I also picked up the Knights of the Old Republic campaign setting for SWSE, and that looks to be a stellar, 5-star product... We'll see what I read when the time comes around!

-O