Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 4690319" data-attributes="member: 11697">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.</blockquote>