Where the Forgotten Realms lost me...

[Henry]

My problem with the book is it feels grossly incomplete. If you compare this to the 3.0 FRCS book, it's like this one was the children's version of something.

To play Devil's Advocate a sec, I don't know if it's a fair comparison, since the 3e Campaign setting was for players and DMs all in one, and they split this in two. It would be similar to saying the 4th edition DMG feels like an incomplete set of rules compared to the 3rd edition PHB & DMG. (Cue random poster saying, "well, isn't it?" )

I have skimmed the 4e Campaign Guide, and I hope to get a better look at it from a friend if I can borrow it for the week - but it does look pretty useful all by its lonesome. The regional stuff promised in the next book, as well as the player mechanical stuff looks like it will be together a pretty sizeable amount.

I do remember a LOT of griping from the fans back in 2001, over "why isn't this split into a player and DM book to preserve some mystery???"

They tried it this way, and one of the expected complaints is GOING to be that it's "too incomplete" or "too expensive because you have to buy two books." I also remember the amount of fan outrage that the price of the guide was the obscene amount of $40, instead of $20 or $30. Now, the FRCS is touted as being better than its successor.

I do know that while others have had influence on Greenwood's FR material in the past, like Keith Baker when you hear him talk about his baby, you can pretty easily tell what's springing out of his head, versus what's been told to him by someone else. He's a masterful storyteller, in addition to a lot of other qualities.

 

[Ranger REG]

I do remember a LOT of griping from the fans back in 2001, over "why isn't this split into a player and DM book to preserve some mystery???"

They tried it this way, and one of the expected complaints is GOING to be that it's "too incomplete" or "too expensive because you have to buy two books." I also remember the amount of fan outrage that the price of the guide was the obscene amount of $40, instead of $20 or $30. Now, the FRCS is touted as being better than its successor.

Yeah, I remembered the Player's Guide to the Forgotten Realms in the 2e Era. All fluff, but not exciting for players to have (or DM to recommend them).

I'd rather have the campaign guide and let the DM provide the information. After all, as DM, we can't be THAT lazy, despite the loads of work and responsibility we have.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Your statement confuses me. If poeple have less time to read, then I'd imagine they'd have less time to create. The FR 4e version is so light that outisde of the initial adventure, everything is a fill in the wide open blanks. Hell, the FR 2nd ed book Forgotten Realms Adventurers, with all of it's cities and maps, blows this thing out of the water.

And there are people like me who want a CS to be slim, concise, well, like the Grey box: Couple of gods, couple of NPCs, some hooks: Thats it. Creating settings is not a race to create fluff like hell. Lots of blanks is what the FR once was, and i´m happy to see that there is a place in the timeline now with an accompanying book where that is true again.

 

[JoeGKushner]

To play Devil's Advocate a sec, I don't know if it's a fair comparison, since the 3e Campaign setting was for players and DMs all in one, and they split this in two.

No.

Hold up the 3e book.

Hold up this one.

There is simply more text per page. Unless my eyes are REALLY playing tricks on me.

In addition, look at the design. The 3e one, like all the FR books, boasts some fantastic yellowing scroll work for background.

The 4e one is plain white background.

Look at the map. First off, how do you get the map out of the 3e one? Two glue points. 4e? Bust out the knife.

Look at the 3e index. It's over 4 pages long.

Look at the 4e index. No mention of Dragonborn.

3e no advertising.

4e an ad for R.A. Salvatore's kids book.

3e has TWO adventurers.

4e has one.

One last example or look at why I think the 4e book is a shadow. Let's take the various elf subraces. 4e "simplifed" the rich plethora of racial heritage that every other edition boasted by having them become eladrian. Not only do we have the "original" ones back, but they all call themselves that now. That's dumbing down to me, plain and simple. It's dumbed down for the sake of the D&D brand and spiting on the rich history of the FR brand.

 

[Adlon]

Good point Henry, but on geogrphical/demographic information alone, and removing PrC's and the like, the 3e book still comes out on top, by far.

 

[Jack Colby]

I'm in total agreement with Merric. I still like the grey box, didn't care for the 2E "update" to the setting. I never did buy the 3E Realms, though. I had stopped caring by the end of 2E. 4E Realms seems like it would fit the game well, but it has almost no resemblance to the Realms I enjoy.

The nice thing is, the grey box version is compatible with any edition, just ignore the (few) stats in the books and use the world information.

 

[Vocenoctum]

To play Devil's Advocate a sec, I don't know if it's a fair comparison, since the 3e Campaign setting was for players and DMs all in one, and they split this in two. It would be similar to saying the 4th edition DMG feels like an incomplete set of rules compared to the 3rd edition PHB & DMG. (Cue random poster saying, "well, isn't it?" )

I do wonder why the players guide didn't come out first. Seems that would have made more sense.

Even then, as mentioned, if they have the same page count combined, it will STILL be a lot less information than the 3e book. 4e's Scholastic Print & Format is a huge space leech.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I was extremely enthusiastic about the Forgotten Realms when it was first published - the 1st edition "Grey" box set. I remained enthusiastic for a couple of years, but slowly the enthusiasm faded. When the 2nd edition set came out, I was nonplussed. I bought the 3rd edition book, but I couldn't see what the fuss was all about, and with 4e... urgh. This is not the Realms I remember.

(Despite my initial reaction to the 4e FRCS, it may actually be a very playable campaign setting with a lot of good material.)

I think I've identified one of my primary reasons for this dissatisfaction:

The Forgotten Realms as presented in the Grey Box is the personal campaign setting of Ed Greenwood. The areas that are best described (Waterdeep and Shadowdale/Cormyr) are the areas that have had play in them. It's an actual world that exists because of roleplaying, rather than one that has been designed later to sell books.

With the areas that were expanded on later, you're not seeing the same touch. And I've never felt it has been the same. With 4e, you've lost practically all of the old "I created this and my players experienced it" feeling, and I think it's a sad loss.

Cheers!

It doesn't feel much like the Realms I like either. I wouldn't be surprised if Ed Greenwood looks at the D&D realms and gets a look of utter disappointment on his face. I've always wondered what his FR looks like compared to what WotC put out.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

...they killed Khelben, those WOTC!!

sniff, anyone recall the Eye of the Beholder2 intro where you met Khelben?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHCIAWO98sA&feature=related[/ame]

"you were settling in for an evening by the fire, when, suddenly...Halaster and Khelben got scragged!
Well, that's half the bloody fiun in the Sword Coast buggered, then!
How about Athas or maybe Ravenloft, eh chaps?"

Where's Onyxy the Invincible when ye need him, eh?

 

[questing gm]

Yes I do! In fact, this was the first time I knew about Khelben.