I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Fanboys and haters aside...
I think you're pretty right here. I do think 4e FR does have some potential without blowing it up, and the answer would be to give a very FOCUSED campaign. Highlight a few cities (Silverymoon, the Dalelands, whatever), and give hooks related to those cities, with perhaps some hooks that threaten multiple cities -- the FRCG as a "book of hooks" isn't a bad plan. You don't need the sweeping encyclopedic overview that 3e gave (and that also lets you release a "Realms Cyclopdia" at a later date with a bunch of collected fluff for those interested, if you'd like -- I mean, you DO have one of the biggest fantasy brand names in existence, guys).
I think 4e FR had the right idea about making the setting less intimidating for newbies and less about the good, powerful, magical forces in the world. They could've even introduced the Spellplague as a building force, something the PC's could fight against rather than something that was already omnipresent, giving the DM's a way to make magic less happy-shiny-Mystara if they wanted, without depriving DM's who liked that of their fun times.
I like the idea of blowing up the realms for my home game, but it's not something I'd want to force down the throats of the true fans, and, in my mind, the previous players of D&D are the best recruiting tool D&D can have, since you always need players.
Also, there's this...
I heard what Glyfair heard about Eberron 4e's cosmology, and, as I mentioned upthread, I'm sure a lot of the 4e changes will be of these "philosophical, not functional" changes for Eberron. That doesn't make them smart moves, but it does limit their damage, at least.
But the philosophy kind of makes me angry when I think about it being applied to something like Dark Sun. Eberron is only as different as the kitchen sink philosophy will let it be (and it does a nice job). But there are some amazing settings that 4e might yet drag around the corpse of that would be kind of ruined, IMO, by forcing a lot of 4e's philosophies on them. On that note...
FR is still a pretty strong name...all it takes is one half-decent Drizzit movie to make it hot again (yes, I know, not necessarily an optimistic projection, but bear with my theory here ).
I would expect 5e FR to either go back to a middle ground between 3e and 4e or to be completely ignored as a game setting and just pushed as a novel/game/toy brand.
I believe that the first setting that WotC published -had- to conform to as much of a 'general base line' as possible in order to accomodate as many people. You can't make your first published setting be a 'niche' setting, it's just not usually a feasible way to do things.
I think you're pretty right here. I do think 4e FR does have some potential without blowing it up, and the answer would be to give a very FOCUSED campaign. Highlight a few cities (Silverymoon, the Dalelands, whatever), and give hooks related to those cities, with perhaps some hooks that threaten multiple cities -- the FRCG as a "book of hooks" isn't a bad plan. You don't need the sweeping encyclopedic overview that 3e gave (and that also lets you release a "Realms Cyclopdia" at a later date with a bunch of collected fluff for those interested, if you'd like -- I mean, you DO have one of the biggest fantasy brand names in existence, guys).
I think 4e FR had the right idea about making the setting less intimidating for newbies and less about the good, powerful, magical forces in the world. They could've even introduced the Spellplague as a building force, something the PC's could fight against rather than something that was already omnipresent, giving the DM's a way to make magic less happy-shiny-Mystara if they wanted, without depriving DM's who liked that of their fun times.
I like the idea of blowing up the realms for my home game, but it's not something I'd want to force down the throats of the true fans, and, in my mind, the previous players of D&D are the best recruiting tool D&D can have, since you always need players.
Also, there's this...
Mercule said:Since, as I said, I believe unique cosmologies to be one of the best things about different settings, I don't see this as boding well for WotC settings.
Plane Sailing said:It would be a stupid move on their part, sacrificing huge amounts of Eberronic flavour, backstory and epic plot points to meet the hubris of designers pet new cosmologies
I heard what Glyfair heard about Eberron 4e's cosmology, and, as I mentioned upthread, I'm sure a lot of the 4e changes will be of these "philosophical, not functional" changes for Eberron. That doesn't make them smart moves, but it does limit their damage, at least.
But the philosophy kind of makes me angry when I think about it being applied to something like Dark Sun. Eberron is only as different as the kitchen sink philosophy will let it be (and it does a nice job). But there are some amazing settings that 4e might yet drag around the corpse of that would be kind of ruined, IMO, by forcing a lot of 4e's philosophies on them. On that note...
Scars Unseen said:My guess is that by the time 5th edition comes around, the Forgotten Realms setting will suffer the fate that Greyhawk did in 3rd. The setting didn't fit with the developers' ideas of what a D&D setting should be, and now they have lost many of the fans that kept it popular so long.
FR is still a pretty strong name...all it takes is one half-decent Drizzit movie to make it hot again (yes, I know, not necessarily an optimistic projection, but bear with my theory here ).
I would expect 5e FR to either go back to a middle ground between 3e and 4e or to be completely ignored as a game setting and just pushed as a novel/game/toy brand.