What would you like to see happen with FR?

[DMKastmaria]

I really don't understand the people who say they want the Realms to go back to the Gray Box - that is, to be a loosely-developed setting with little history, few characters, and a largely undefined map.

I've never ran a published setting, but if I ever do run the Realms, I'll pull my Gray Box, FR1 and City System set off the shelf and use nothing else! I want room to develop '"my" Realms, my campaign. The ton of material and all the "canon" is exactly what turns a lot of people off of the setting.

The Gray Box has more than enough material for a DM to work with. More than I need.

 

[the Jester]

Personally, my preference is for "throw it in the trash," but I wouldn't want to deprive Realms-lovers of their campaign of choice; so I voted for "Don't care, don't play FR."

 

[tlantl]

I'd like to see the realms filled with all kinds of interesting things i can steal to use in my own game setting.

The 3e version was chock full of ideas, adventure hooks, interesting races and monsters, and cultural settings that I freely partook of.

 

[Mercutio01]

I would wipe the last 4 years of FR and the attempted destruction of it via Spellplague and 4e off the books.
<snip>
Never understood why people hate on it so much, if you don't like it, don't play in it. I don't like robots in my D&D, but I rarely long for the destruction of Eberron.

How do you reconcile these two statements? If you don't like the Spellplague, don't play in it. And don't long for the destruction of the setting either.

It just seems fairly strange phrased the way you have it.

Me - I said I don't care because I develop it differently anyway. I'd like to see a new book with new support, but solely from a mechanical standpoint. Frankly, I can make my own fluff to set a game in any version of FR that I want, from original box set to Spellplague to Zombies Apocalypse to whatever my imagination conjures up. I never really understood the Spellplague hate, because while the mechanics of each edition can and do change (and cater to different audiences), the fluff of said settings is not something that is completely unchangeable. For that matter, neither are the mechanics.

 

[KarinsDad]

The 3e version was chock full of ideas, adventure hooks, interesting races and monsters, and cultural settings that I freely partook of.

Personally, I think the 3E version went too far with new rules and such (like new PC races and regional benefits and such) and started WotC part way down the Spellplague road of "let's throw rules into the setting".

Although I liked many aspects of the 3E version, it was too busy and too busybody for me. It seemed to intrude its ideas into a campaign more than earlier versions.

I would like it if they put out Star Wars Era-like FR settings that are compatible with the new rules, but also compatible with the given timeline. I definitely prefer the timeline before the Spellplague and before the Time of Troubles. Both of those felt shoehorned into the setting.

 

[tlantl]

I never ran a forgotten realms campaign, but one of the guys I played 1e with loved it. I just stole stuff from the 3e setting so I wouldn't really know what changes there were or how it affected ongoing campaigns.

One thing I can say for certain is that 3e butchered many aspects of AD&D forcing me to do some extensive altering of my game setting. I can sympathize with people complaining about spell casters becoming god like and at the same time I was frustrated by the nerfing so many spells suffered in durations and scope.

Although multiclasing is my greatest peeve followed by the incredibly annoying wealth by level garbage.

 

[Janaxstrus]

How do you reconcile these two statements? If you don't like the Spellplague, don't play in it. And don't long for the destruction of the setting either.

It just seems fairly strange phrased the way you have it.

Me - I said I don't care because I develop it differently anyway. I'd like to see a new book with new support, but solely from a mechanical standpoint. Frankly, I can make my own fluff to set a game in any version of FR that I want, from original box set to Spellplague to Zombies Apocalypse to whatever my imagination conjures up. I never really understood the Spellplague hate, because while the mechanics of each edition can and do change (and cater to different audiences), the fluff of said settings is not something that is completely unchangeable. For that matter, neither are the mechanics.

I want to play FR according to what is really happening in it. I liked what it had, not what it has now.

FR is well known, it allows the players (who read the novels) to really feel like they know things their characters in game would (important people, events, places) completely unlike Eberron, Greyhawk etc.

So, I want my Realms unbroken to feel that character familiarity again.

 

[Elodan]

I'd like to see them divorce the novels from being "canon" for setting books.

 

[Kingreaper]

I want to play FR according to what is really happening in it. I liked what it had, not what it has now.

FR is well known, it allows the players (who read the novels) to really feel like they know things their characters in game would (important people, events, places) completely unlike Eberron, Greyhawk etc.

So, I want my Realms unbroken to feel that character familiarity again.

Your "unbroken" realms still exists. And it has 100 years before the spellplague in which to finish everything up. So, YAY FOR YOU!

I mean, sure, your unbroken realms are after the time of troubles, so they're obviously completely terrible...

But heh, you like them then, some people like them after the spellplague, some people only like them BEFORE the time of troubles.

It's just that the people who like the realms before the time of troubles tend not to be silly enough to go "RAR! THE TIME OF TROUBLES HATH DESTROYED MY GAME!"

 

[Hassassin]

Your "unbroken" realms still exists.

Sure, but the point of this thread is what they should do in 5e. They can continue with just the spellplague. That doesn't mean you can't play how you like, but in that case they won't sell it to me or, I suspect, a lot of other people who disliked SP.

Personally, I don't mind setting changing events unless they throw a lot of fluff out of the setting. Time of Troubles pushed the timeline forward ten years. That's a long time, but it still allows you to use most fluff as is. The over 100 years of 3e->4e meant most NPCs are dead, and much of other fluff no longer applies to campaigns.