Will 4E Eberron be as bad as FR?

[Shemeska]

I like the new FR, and I have not seen some preponderance of critics panning it more than praising it, at least not any more or less than 3e FR.

Then you haven't been looking very hard at the reception it received.

Let's look at the Amazon reviews (by this point they've taken out the initial blind praise and on the opposite end of the spectrum the kneejerk rejection for the 4e one by now so a comparison would seem to be an honest one at this time).

4e FRCG - 65 reviews. 2.5 star avg.

3e FRCS - 70 reviews. 4.5 star avg.

That's a pretty stark comparison there to how the public reception of the book was.

Let's look at the reviews on RPG.net next - the 4e FRCG scored a 3 / 3 (3 on style and a 3 on substance - average) By comparison the 3e FRCS scored a 4 / 5, 4 / 3, and a 5 / 5 on the various reviews it received. Again, the worst review of the 3e book was better than the 4e book.

The disappointment over on the Candlekeep FR forum is palpable. There's a serious drop off in activity on the WotC FR forums, with much of the more active posting often taking the form of criticism of the 4e Realms.

So yes, I agree with the original poster. The 4e handling of the Forgotten Realms was a dismal failure. For the sake of Eberron fans (and Keith Baker too) I hope that some lessons have been learned by WotC in how not to handle an established campaign setting during the transition into a new edition of D&D. It's going to be remembered for years as an object lesson in how to mess up the value of your intellectual property.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Honestly, I would prefer that they leave it alone...the 3.5 format for Eberron can stand on its own.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Eberron doesnt need the FR treatment because it has been designed from the beginning not to be the bloated, NPC-swamped mess that FR became over time. Make a Grey Box - 3e FRCS Setting comparison: once Eberron becomes as unwieldy as that, it´ll need a major overhaul.
But as i said, in this regard Eb was designed to be the anti-FR. I think we´ll see some changes in the planes and how dragonmarks work (adding the rare possibility that everyone can have a mark) and thats it.

 

[Burrito Al Pastor]

I never liked Forgotten Realms enough to be able to say just how bad the 4e FR is, but I have some serious reservations about 4e Eberron. So much of the campaign setting was based on making a world that worked in the way that the 3e rules dictated it should work, and I have a hard time believing that WOTC can really keep Eberron intact without those mechanical foundations.

Having said that, they've still got Keith Baker working on it; he made Eberron, and he can remake it. If WOTC doesn't get in Baker's way, everything will be fine.

 

[Vayden]

Then you haven't been looking very hard at the reception it received.

Let's look at the Amazon reviews (by this point they've taken out the initial blind praise and on the opposite end of the spectrum the kneejerk rejection for the 4e one by now so a comparison would seem to be an honest one at this time).

4e FRCG - 65 reviews. 2.5 star avg.

3e FRCS - 70 reviews. 4.5 star avg.

That's a pretty stark comparison there to how the public reception of the book was.

Let's look at the reviews on RPG.net next - the 4e FRCG scored a 3 / 3 (3 on style and a 3 on substance - average) By comparison the 3e FRCS scored a 4 / 5, 4 / 3, and a 5 / 5 on the various reviews it received. Again, the worst review of the 3e book was better than the 4e book.

The disappointment over on the Candlekeep FR forum is palpable. There's a serious drop off in activity on the WotC FR forums, with much of the more active posting often taking the form of criticism of the 4e Realms.

So yes, I agree with the original poster. The 4e handling of the Forgotten Realms was a dismal failure. For the sake of Eberron fans (and Keith Baker too) I hope that some lessons have been learned by WotC in how not to handle an established campaign setting during the transition into a new edition of D&D. It's going to be remembered for years as an object lesson in how to mess up the value of your intellectual property.

I'm not going to argue with you that previous fans of FR, in general, hate it. I think most of the people who are going to post Amazon reviews are probably FR fans, which explains that for you. However, there's one other segment - those of us like me who would never touch FR with a ten foot pole before, never picked up a single FR product, and never planned to (in 3e with the presentation at that time). Now I'm running a FR game and own all 3 published FR products. I even bought a FR novel out of curiosity (the Swordmage one, I forget the exact title, it didn't exactly blow me away).

*edit* What I meant to say is, I find this to be an awfully confrontational thread, and I don't consider 4e FR to be a failure at all. I hope 4e Eberron is *exactly* as much of a "failure" as 4e FR, as I will probably start buying Eberron products for the first time ever if that's the case.

 

[catsclaw227]

I'm not going to argue with you that previous fans of FR, in general, hate it. I think most of the people who are going to post Amazon reviews are probably FR fans, which explains that for you. However, there's one other segment - those of us like me who would never touch FR with a ten foot pole before, never picked up a single FR product, and never planned to (in 3e with the presentation at that time). Now I'm running a FR game and own all 3 published FR products. I even bought a FR novel out of curiosity (the Swordmage one, I forget the exact title, it didn't exactly blow me away).

Wow.... that almost EXACTLY summed me up too. Very weird.... But my FR game won't start until next month. I am thinking of running it as a Fantasy Grounds online game and then migrate to GameTable if WOTC can get it done in the next 18 months.

 

[darjr]

I'm a big fan of the original boxed set. Didn't have much more than that. Definitely not 3e stuff. I really do like the 4e realms.

Count me as a fan. Though I'm kinda wishing they would detail more. It's nice to get more detail in the LFR RPGA stuff, but I was looking forward to something detailing the bigger parts of the realms.

I'm also hoping that Eberron is done well. I don't have any thing Eberron so I'm not sure I count as a 3e fan of the setting.

 

[Plissken]

I'm not going to argue with you that previous fans of FR, in general, hate it. I think most of the people who are going to post Amazon reviews are probably FR fans, which explains that for you. However, there's one other segment - those of us like me who would never touch FR with a ten foot pole before, never picked up a single FR product, and never planned to (in 3e with the presentation at that time). Now I'm running a FR game and own all 3 published FR products. I even bought a FR novel out of curiosity (the Swordmage one, I forget the exact title, it didn't exactly blow me away).

*edit* What I meant to say is, I find this to be an awfully confrontational thread, and I don't consider 4e FR to be a failure at all. I hope 4e Eberron is *exactly* as much of a "failure" as 4e FR, as I will probably start buying Eberron products for the first time ever if that's the case.

Weird...opposite for me. Huge FR fan, hate 4e version.

I think it really depends on DM style. If you like doing your own thing but just need a little boost you'll really like 4e FR.

I always thought the fun of Forgotten Realms was the cool, high-level NPCs and the deep history that has been created through novels, sourcebooks, etc and the accumulation of all those over FR's long history.

I don't understand the criticism of having high-level NPC's save the day. Well, I mean, I understand it but its not a setting problem. It's a DM problem. Just because an individual DM decides to have Drizzt or Elminster save the PCs DOESN'T MEAN that the problem lies within FR. The problem lies within the DM not focusing on the characters.

A great example of how FR games need to handle famous high-level NPCs is the CRPG Baldur's Gate. Along the course of the game, the PCs meet the high-level NPCs (Elminster, Volo, Drizzt) and have short conversations with them or short encounters with them. That made the characters mysterious, interesting.

I hate playing in a world that I know nothing about...I want it to have rich history, deep lore, etc. 4e FR just decided to burn it all in a blue flame just so WoTC could justify how At-Will spells worked.

Well, at least Ed Greenwood worked on some of it and gave this new post-apocalyptic setting some flavor. Btw, I play and enjoy 4e. Just dislike 4e FR.

Any word on a new Greyhawk? I never had a chance to play or run a Greyhawk game.

 

[GAAAHHH]

Hmmm.. I am one of the ones that things the "new" Forgotten Realms is more to my liking as a DM.

I have all the 3.5 books for FR and Eberron, and DMing FR felt like I required a history lesson and doctorate to be able to run as well as I would like. The 3.5 Eberron was a bit easier, without all the canon and years of publications and novels.

I like the 4e FR, and I agree that the 4e Eberron should fit well, considering what Eberron was designed to be like in 3.5.

I agree completely. 3E Forgotten Realms is especially painful to run for people who keep up with all the sourcebooks and novels. I enjoy reading the books, but I wouldn't dare run a game there. 4E Forgotten Realms reminds me a lot of the grey box, and it leaves me room to run my own games there.

 

[Mercutio01]

I loved FR as a setting for novels. Hated it as a place to actually play. Avoided it at all costs. Indeed, I only picked up the 3.X books because they were cheap after the 4E announcement. Eberron, however, made for an awesome place to play. So much so that it was the only setting I've ever bought every book for. The new FR books were excellent, and I like having a lot of the "history" stripped away. I'm sure I'll like the new Eberron books even more though.