Will 4E Eberron be as bad as FR?

[Imaro]

I'm relatively sure that's not what Jack's saying. I believe he's saying that if the new FR book was released by WotC similar to, say, the way Eberron was touted with none of your emotional ties and campaign investments, a brand-new setting with no prior history, you might like it better.

(Based on most of the reactions around here, probably not.)

Actually, I think what Jack is doing, is making alot of assumptions that aren't based on any types of facts...

I think the Forgotten Realms issue is a little overplayed. It really comes down to a few very basic things:

Okay, fair enough statement but why...

1. Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide for 4th Edition is, by itself, a great product. It is a wonderful setting book that both inspires as GM, and allows him the freedom to build a campaign.
2. If there was no Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting previous to this edition, it would be widely loved, and wouldn't be judged as a poor product because of it's immense differences with a completely different product (yes, I understand that they are for the same setting).
3. Your opinion of the product is going to be almost entirely colored by your previous experience with Forgotten Realms. If you have no previous experience, you're likely to enjoy the product and make good use of it. If you were attached to the lore of the setting for a long period of time before this edition, you are likely to not agree with the changes, which some feel (with legitimacy) throw away everything good about the old setting.
4. It is ok to be upset about the changes. I can empathize with this frustration, and felt much the same way myself. Some people know enough about Forgotten Realms to have a doctorate in Realms lore, and for these people, the Spellplague might as well have actually happened to them. Just because others like the new setting doesn't mean that there's something wrong with your dislike of it.

1. You think it's a great product, but IMHO for $40 ... it seems well sparse and not really a good value for the expense. YMMV of course

2. If there was no Forgotten Realms previous to this edition, it also wouldn't have the ability to draw on the popularity of the Realms. That's the whole point of having established a campaign setting... as an example when Exalted went from 1st edition to 2nd edition they didn't blow up creation and create a wildly divergent world. If you want to market it as the "Realms" it only makes sense... well that it will be compared to past incarnations. This is why the new Mage game is called Mage the Awakening and the old one is called Mage the Ascension... what WotC did was akin to creating a "Mage" game and marketing first Ascension then Awakening under it as the same world.

3. Uhm, see 1. and 2... nuff said.

4. I don't think anyone feels like there's something wrong with them, because they don't like the new Realms (Your statement comes off just a wee bit pretentious). In fact I feel as if you are the one struggling to "show people the light" so to speak, but with the fallacious argument of "if the FR hadn't existed until now, everyone would love it"... but that's not the reality of the situation at all and there's no proof backing your statements up..

I just hate thread titles talking about how "bad" new Forgotten Realms is. New Forgotten Realms is friggin' awesome! But it's the worse thing in the world if you go in looking for old Forgotten Realms.

Wait a minute... so you can't stand that someone might want to post a thread stating that the FR is bad in their opinion... why? Really if you feel it's great that's wonderful, and no one stops you from posting a thread about why you feel it's great, but your reasoning above makes no sense to me. IMHO what you posted above is like saying... if you go into an ice cream shop where they have a bin labeled chocolate ice-cream, and order ice-cream from that bin, you will be disappointed if you expect it to taste like chocolate ice cream... but the flavor it does taste like is "AWESOME!!". Guess what, it's only awesome if I didn't really want chocolate ice cream... but if that's the case why did I order it?

[EDIT]: Also, 4th Edition Eberron will be awesome. 4th Edition and Eberron are like Peanut Butter and Jelly. And they're not making any major changes, so it'll appease both new and old fans. I've literally planned by FR campaign to end in June.

How do you know 4E Eberron will be "awesome". It's not even out yet... we don't even have previews and your touting it's praises...with nothing to back it up. See to me this smacks of fanboism, I could see you expressing why you think it will work with 4e, but you don't... it will be awesome because "4th Edition and Eberron are like Peanut Butter and Jelly". Even though it was created specifically to cater to the 3.5 game assumptions... and as far as no major changes... again how do you know for sure?

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Actually, Keith Baker himself says that Eberron fits 4th better than it did 3.5, and that 4th is Eberron's ideal.


So I have a feeling that when that particular world has the rules to make it what it was supposed to be in the first place it'll be awesome. But then again, I'm just a fanboi.

 

[renau1g]

I have been running an FR game for about 7 years now, ever since 3e came into effect. I still think the FRCS for 3e is the best sourcebook out there for a DM, the 4e book seemed to light on content for me. Sure, it allows for more mysteries, etc. but I'm on a relatively compressed timeline for adventure prep, so the help I go from the 3eFRCS was immense, and yes there were high-level NPC's, but I would never allow them to overshadow the PC's (they are the stars of the adventure). Once, they saw Alustriel when walking in Silverymoon from afar, but that's pretty much it...

Note: I enjoy 4e, but find that the 4eFRCS missed the mark for me, just my opinion.

 

[Imaro]

Actually, Keith Baker himself says that Eberron fits 4th better than it did 3.5, and that 4th is Eberron's ideal.


So I have a feeling that when that particular world has the rules to make it what it was supposed to be in the first place it'll be awesome. But then again, I'm just a fanboi.

Is that what Keith Baker said... really? Because I would be shocked if he said something along the lines of... "Eberron and 4e just won't mesh, it was designed to be a totally different setting than what the rules of 4e support." Especially since (for this project at least) he's a co-author of the Campaign Guide. Honestly, I'm not saying he's lying or that it will definitely be a bad fit... but it's called marketing and PR... and I'll just wait to actually read the book before raving over how "AWESOME!!" it is.

 

[JackSmithIV]

How do you know 4E Eberron will be "awesome". It's not even out yet... we don't even have previews and your touting it's praises...with nothing to back it up. See to me this smacks of fanboism, I could see you expressing why you think it will work with 4e, but you don't... it will be awesome because "4th Edition and Eberron are like Peanut Butter and Jelly". Even though it was created specifically to cater to the 3.5 game assumptions... and as far as no major changes... again how do you know for sure?

And I will quote this for response:

Actually, Keith Baker himself says that Eberron fits 4th better than it did 3.5, and that 4th is Eberron's ideal.


So I have a feeling that when that particular world has the rules to make it what it was supposed to be in the first place it'll be awesome. But then again, I'm just a fanboi.

And besides, you're being absurdly combative. Ie:

See to me this smacks of fanboism, I could see you expressing why you think it will work with 4e, but you don't...

See, that's just kind of offensive. I'm excited. I didn't think I'd really need to justify my excitement to you. Just like I don't really need to justify the individual points of a post that are completely opinion. For some reason, you always seem to be looking for proof. Chill out. You are perfectly allowed to, and obviously do, disagree with most of it. And that's fine. I'm perfectly willing to be wrong. I'll respond, however...

1. You think it's a great product, but IMHO for $40 ... it seems well sparse and not really a good value for the expense. YMMV of course

It's a damn thick book. You can of course just disagree about the content, but every time I plan my campaign, which is entering it's 5th month, and will continue on until June? That's a hell of a lot of usage. And I'm always learning new things.

2. If there was no Forgotten Realms previous to this edition, it also wouldn't have the ability to draw on the popularity of the Realms. That's the whole point of having established a campaign setting... as an example when Exalted went from 1st edition to 2nd edition they didn't blow up creation and create a wildly divergent world. If you want to market it as the "Realms" it only makes sense... well that it will be compared to past incarnations. This is why the new Mage game is called Mage the Awakening and the old one is called Mage the Ascension... what WotC did was akin to creating a "Mage" game and marketing first Ascension then Awakening under it as the same world.

You're right. It wouldn't have had the draw. But that's not what I'm arguing. And of course it would make sense that it'd be compared to past incarnations. My hypothetical was mostly geared toward those who were discovering it for the first time, and therefor for them they literally had no past incarnations of the Realms that were coloring their opinion.

4. I don't think anyone feels like there's something wrong with them, because they don't like the new Realms (Your statement comes off just a wee bit pretentious). In fact I feel as if you are the one struggling to "show people the light" so to speak, but with the fallacious argument of "if the FR hadn't existed until now, everyone would love it"... but that's not the reality of the situation at all and there's no proof backing your statements up..

No, you're misunderstanding my argument completely. I'm not trying to pretend the old one didn't exist. I'm trying to say that it's pretentious to deem it a "bad" product because largely, it's "bad" to people for reasons that don't exist for a large amount of players. And I don't have to provide proof, because there is none, because I'm stating something from my personal experience which may or may not be correct.

Oh no, there I go with that opinion stuff again. I should just stick to the facts.

Wait a minute... so you can't stand that someone might want to post a thread stating that the FR is bad in their opinion... why? Really if you feel it's great that's wonderful, and no one stops you from posting a thread about why you feel it's great, but your reasoning above makes no sense to me. IMHO what you posted above is like saying... if you go into an ice cream shop where they have a bin labeled chocolate ice-cream, and order ice-cream from that bin, you will be disappointed if you expect it to taste like chocolate ice cream... but the flavor it does taste like is "AWESOME!!". Guess what, it's only awesome if I didn't really want chocolate ice cream... but if that's the case why did I order it?

Aha! You've hit on it. See, here's the thing. Using your analogy, I'm arguing this: If you go looking for ice cream, and the flavor you get is "AWESOME!!", then you'll have a blast. If you go looking for chocolate ice cream in the "AWESOME!!" bin, you won't. I understand that it was labeled chocolate. My whole "Point number 4" was all about how it's unfortunate that chocolate had to go to make room for the AWESOME!!. But let's not call the AWESOME!! "bad" just because it's not chocolate.

How do you know 4E Eberron will be "awesome". It's not even out yet...

Oh right, and I responded to this one already. I don't know it will be awesome. But I guess that I should preface my excitement with explicit statements of "IMHO" or "I only believe this for myself", or the like, so as not to be confused with someone trying to tell you what you think. I have a bad habit of thinking that people will live and let live, and that's it's alright to like something that others don't. That is after all, the point of my post.

But then again, I'm just a fanboy. I just like the products cause I'll buy up anything Wizards dishes out, and defend it against those darned neckbeards who come after me for it.

You got me.

 

[Vayden]

Is that what Keith Baker said... really? Because I would be shocked if he said something along the lines of... "Eberron and 4e just won't mesh, it was designed to be a totally different setting than what the rules of 4e support." Especially since (for this project at least) he's a co-author of the Campaign Guide. Honestly, I'm not saying he's lying or that it will definitely be a bad fit... but it's called marketing and PR... and I'll just wait to actually read the book before raving over how "AWESOME!!" it is.

I don't have the links handy, but both here and on his blog Keith has talked about how in many ways he was trying to push 3e in a certain direction w/ Eberron (more cinematic, etc) and 4e has realized all of those ideas. He's a pretty big fan from everything he's said. If you think he's lying to you, nothing we can do about that, but the man is on the record as saying 4e is a better fit for Eberron than 3e.

 

[Imaro]

I don't have the links handy, but both here and on his blog Keith has talked about how in many ways he was trying to push 3e in a certain direction w/ Eberron (more cinematic, etc) and 4e has realized all of those ideas. He's a pretty big fan from everything he's said. If you think he's lying to you, nothing we can do about that, but the man is on the record as saying 4e is a better fit for Eberron than 3e.

Again I didn't say he was lying, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to form an informed opinion when I actually have the book rather than praising it and promoting it to others unseen. Call it cautiously optimistic if you want, especially after the FR 4e books.

Another thing, and I'd love if you could perhaps inform me on this, but has Keith talked about if the 4e version will be sticking more closely to the noir and dark fantasy aspects that were cited as parts of Eberron in the 3e corebokk? I feel alot of the 3e sourcebooks drifted away from this and towards the cinematic/action-pulp almost exclusively. IMHO, 4e is already cinematic/action-pulp and it is the other aspects that will make or break Eberron as far as being above just your average setting.

 

[Shazman]

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.

That sums up my opinion of the 4gotten realms as well. I can't speak for everybody, but their implementation of 4E changes to the Realms makes even the novels distasteful to me. The last one I read had some bits about the spellplague at the end that it could have done without. I don't see myself reading many Realms novels in the future, and I won't touch any 4E related Realms products with a ten foot pole.

 

[Mercule]

The thing that concerns me most about 4e campaign settings -- Eberron, FR, Dark Sun, or something else -- is that the 4e mentality seems to be to shoehorn things into fitting all core elements of D&D. I get adding dragonborn and tieflings to FR. FR is the "vanilla", flagship setting for D&D, so it should at least match up with the PHB. I could even see that argument with Eberron.

What I don't want to see is the Eberron cosmology changed to match the core 4e cosmology. I'm not talking so much about the elemental stuff, but there's no reason to tack a Feywild or Shadowfell onto Eberron. Sure, there are rough analogies to those in the Eberron cosmology, but they don't join to the prime in the same way. The Astral Sea could work great for Eberron, if it was actually used. I just suspect that it won't be. The "4e flavor" will override the Eberron flavor wherever possible.

Speaking of the Astral Sea, I think that's one of the great potential tragedies of 4e. I don't mean that in any way as a requiem for the Great Wheel, either. The Astral Sea had the promise of allowing universal mechanics and shared assumptions with minimal requirements for shared cosmology. Greyhawk could have the Great Wheel, the Realms could have their Tree (IIRC, I'm not a Realms player), Eberron could have it's planes, as could Krynn, and Dark Sun could be isolated. Unfortunately, that potential seems to be being pissed away. FR, by my understanding, had its cosmology brought back inside the box and what I've heard about Eberron sounds like it'll be boxed, also. I also recall some comment (maybe from the rumor mill) that Dark Sun, if it gets made, will probably have a relatively standard cosmology. If this is true, it really makes me believe that one group within WotC (those who created the open cosmology) are inspired geniuses, while another group are... um... not as genius (those who closed the cosmology).

Actually, from reading various bits from the design/development people at WotC, I'm starting to think there's a bit of both genius and really-not-genius in most of the individuals. If I have a consistent issue with 4e, it's the cycle of Great Idea --> Good Implementation --> Lousy Application. They're designing Ferrari's, building them as Pontiacs, and using them to haul horse feed.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Did people put up this much fuss when Elder Scrolls choses to advance it's timeline from Morrowind's period to Oblivion's? Or any other widely-known setting that leaps forward in it's timeline?

Thank you for this example that so handily disproves your point ;p

Oblivion took a very unique and well known world that stood out amongst other games like it and turned it into a sickeningly generic EPIC FANTASYYYYYYYYY setting that nobody cared about. The game sold well when it came out, but is now completely ignored and ultimately forgotten, no more then a year after it's release, it's modders and fans abandoning the game like rats on a sinking ship to jump on the newest, most modern game to come out since then. Morrowind on the other hand still has a large fanbase and is STILL being heavily modded, several years after it came out; and yes, there are still copies of Morrowind being sold, and it is still spoken of very, very highly on how to make an awesome and unique setting, while the only thing being said about Oblivion is "Wow, that game was actually really boring and stale. NOT LIKE THE NEWEST BEHTESDA GAME! I TOTALLY BET WE WON'T BE MAKING THESE EXACT SAME COMMENTS ONCE THEY MAKE ANOTHER NEW ONE!"