Which version of the FR do you prefer, and why?

[Dark Jezter]

Which version of the Forgotten Realms do you prefer, and why?

Definately 3e. The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting is the best campaign setting book I've ever seen in my life (although I will note that I haven't had a chance to examine the Eberron book closely yet), and the sheer quality of the book is what prompted me to DM a Realms campaign. Although I'd been exposed to the setting years before 3e, it wasn't until the FRCS that I became a big fan of the setting.

I also like it that the Realms now has its own cosmology, rather than just sharing the Great Wheel with other official settings. Don't get me wrong; I love Planescape, but Toril having a unique cosmology makes the setting feel more unique and special to me.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Isomeone dropped a link to some old interview with Ed Greenwood, and there he was asked how his own FR (i.e., his campaign at home) looked like, and I found the answers quite interesting:

but my own personal tastes run to 'no recognizable real-world equivalents' in my own Realms... "

I find that quote kinda funny considering what he did with the "Anauroch" supplement. I wonder if that was his choosing, or because he had to tie it in with the Harpers novel that came out.

 

[Turjan]

I find that quote kinda funny considering what he did with the "Anauroch" supplement. I wonder if that was his choosing, or because he had to tie it in with the Harpers novel that came out.

I don't know. If I understood the interview correctly, large parts of the novels are already sketched out by the official designers before he starts with writing. Maybe, that's true for the supplements, too. On the other hand, constantly writing new stuff for a well developped setting will inevitably lead to bloat and major changes (see the Nimbral comment above).

 

[Turjan]

For tidbits here and there of the history and background, but with wide-open areas for the DM to fully flesh out? The Grey Box edition.

For really intricate and detailed background, history, and flavor? The 2nd edition supplements.

I don't like the changes that 3.x have brought to the realms:

The Shadovar reappearing.
The "Tree Cosmology."
The disappearance of many areas from the map or from any mention (Erlkazar, Maztica, Kara-Tur, Zakhara, The Bandit Wastes, Swagdar, The Blade Kingdoms, etc.)
The dungeon-punk-ization of demi-humans.
The emphasis on crunch vs. fluff in the various publications (we'll never see another "Volo's Guide to..." or "Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog" get published.)

Let me summarize as follows: When I am working on a campaign scenario, I look at 3.x for the rules and 1st/2nd to find out who lives there, the political atmosphere, etc.

I understand your crunch vs. fluff point very well, although I see the dilemma the writers must be in. If they write more fluff, they add even more stuff to the Realms canon than is already there. This actually worsens one of the major critical points made with regard of the FR. In addition, many people seem not to like fluff supplements, and the "Volo" style seems not to be en vogue at all. Anyway, I also like those supplements .

One nice thing about many 2E supplements is that they are actually still usable, because the emphasis is on "fluff". This is quite a pleasing thought for me .

 

[Nisarg]

My answer would be that MY forgotten realms are my favourite version.

These days I only use the 3e FR main book, which brought me back to FR after almost a decade of disgust with that setting.
I do not recognize ANY material in any of the other FR books (regardless of edition), though I do use some of the stuff from Underdark (very good book, that one); and furthermore I have altered large swaths of the material from the FR main book to suit my preferences.

In other words, players who visit the realms in my campaigns are warned that these are not the realms that have anything to do with any of the main published material, and that they shouldn't try to infer any knowledge they have from years of playing in the FR. Those who try to do so will tend to be badly disappointed and misinformed in actual play, sometimes with serious consequences for them...

I really do love some of the stuff WotC has done with FR, I think its finally being done right after years of being nothing but a vehicle for terrible story-based metaplot-laden gaming, but the sheer weight of information, and the sheer number of obsessive FR-fanatics who know more than you do about the "canonical" realms means that IMO the only way to run it well (short of being one of those fanatics yourself) is to personalize the hell out of it.

Nisarg

 

[rounser]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/rl

Ah. There.

 

[Falling Icicle]

One of the criticisms that are regurlarly brought up is that the Realms are too detailed and do not let any creative space whatsoever for the DM.

No offense, but this is kind of ludacris. A DM can and should feel free to custom tailor whatever aspect of a setting he or she wishes. Just because something is spelled out in the book doesn't mean a DM can't change or add to it.

While the FR gives alot of good detail and info on the various regions of Faerun, there is still a whole lot that can be filled in. Obviously, the book can't and doesn't contain info on every town, village, provence, and city. If you really think about it, there is plenty of room for the DM to fill in his own stuff. I usually use the FR setting when I DM, and even though I do stick to the book pretty well, I fill in alot of my own material too. I haven't felt overwhelmed by the amount of setting detail at all.

And as to your question, I am only familiar with the 2nd and 3rd edition versions of FR, and I have seen very little, if any, difference between the two. I can say I prefer the 3rd edition, simply because the core setting book was so well put together. But I still reference the 2nd edition books for more specific regional information. The two versions go hand in hand, and the only thing that really changed in the conversion to 3rd edition was the addition of feats, new stats for the signature characters and such - basically just mechanics. They have updated the storyline a little bit, but you don't have to follow along with what they do unless you really want to.

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

I loved the Grey Box, but would have to vote for the 3e FRCS which brought me back to the Realms after several years of absence. Like a few others, I feel that the setting lost its way during 2e.

Cheers


Richard

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

For me it would be the Grey Box. The reasom is that the Grey Box was simple and unassuming and gave me just enough information to work with, leaving me with my own imagination, rather than the endless products that came out. Since I am one of the people who feels that it DID become too detailed (and as such, less useful) I have to go with the Grey Box. Though I also will admit that I am much more of a Greyhawk man, anyway.

 

[Mystery Man]

With 3.x there is more freedom in regards to multiclassing and class leveling monsters to create new, or adapt old villians or characters.