Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7131860" data-attributes="member: 5100">Which book is that? SCAG, I assume. I don't have that book but, based on online maps from 3E, Chult probably isn't on that map. So, is the new module going to expand the map? Am I supposed to go look up old stuff (like I just did)? Honestly, if it wasn't for having this conversation, I'd probably just tack it to the immediate south of wherever the SCAG map ended. That might really cheese that FR fan I've got in my group.So, now my options are 1) tell one of my players to suck it up and watch me bastardize a setting he likes or 2) do sufficient research to not make him twitch or 3) don't use the Realms.It's hard to get players invested in a setting. I've done it with home brews, on occasion. I've also done it with Eberron, to an extent. While I may not like the Realms, it'd be really backward for me to work to get a player to disinvest in a setting, so #1 is a problem.What I know about the Realms leaves me neutral, on a good day. I'm wholly disinterested in digging into the setting. Also, I'm not sure what level of study it would take for me to make that Realms fan "happy", but I do suspect that research on my part would prompt additional excitement and research on his part, which means I'd have to do a lot of reading. Yuck. I can create a setting from scratch with less effort -- and there's no bitter aftertaste of drow princesses. So, #2 sucks, too. From a purely personal perspective, it's worse than #1.Which leaves #3. If the metric tonnage of the Realms lore is a liability, and knowing (as I do) that there are other settings that provide at least as good of a baseline, without that liability, how stupid would I have to be to use the Realms? Greyhawk is pretty edition neutral, other than some stats for notable folks, most of which are just class/level/alignment notations, anyway. Eberron is a bit more interesting/less vanilla, and would take a proportionately higher amount of work to use, but that's still just a launching point of a setting.I'd actually really like to know what WotC is planning with the Realms, going forward. They've as much as said that they aren't worrying about the old lore, too much. Are they maybe doing what so many folks, here, have advised: Take the maps, names, gods, and such and just use what you want to build your own? That makes the 5E Realms a bit more palatable, to me, but it aggravates the issue in dealing with older Realms fans. Why not just start a new setting, slowly rolling out details as they're needed? Did Nentir Vale really do that poorly? It actually seemed like it was pretty cool, I just didn't care for the 4E system as much.</blockquote>

Verification