# The New Forgotten Realms - (About) A Year Later



## Mercurius (Aug 23, 2009)

How does it fare? Are people liking it now? It almost seems like FR has dropped off the face of the gaming discussion planet...

Have diehards forgiven WotC or merely moved on while perhaps nursing still-smoldering resentment? Has anyone been converted?

And the bottom line: Is anyone even using it as their primary setting?

I am wondering how this new sparse approach to settings is going to turn out. I'm guessing that many DMs relied upon supplement after supplement for their campaigns but now every setting is only getting two books, the Campaign Guide and the Player's Guide. I suppose this is easy enough for Eberron users who can pillage the used book shelves for 3.5e books. The same doesn't work quite as well for post-Spellplague Faerun, though.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 23, 2009)

Its the world of the RPGA, which is allegedly bigger than ever before. So yeah, lots of people play in FR.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 23, 2009)

Ah, I did not know that. Fair enough. So what do they use for material? Do they flesh out the world themselves? Cobble together stuff from prior editions? Or just use what is in the two 4E books?


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 23, 2009)

It used to be my 2nd favorite setting (outside of Planescape), but I no longer play in the Realms, and I don't know of any groups in my area that are playing in the 4e version (even those using 4e rules seriously don't care for the 4e treatment of the setting). The setting seems to cater to people who weren't FR fans, to the extent that it destroyed much of what FR fans enjoyed about the setting in the first place. I would happily join a pre-Spellplague FR game (regardless of ruleset), but the 4e post-Spellplague Realms seems like an entirely different setting to me, and one that I'm not interested in. Ruleset isn't important to me, but the fluff content is. I would happily buy a Greenwood/Boyd/Schend/etc 4e book that pertained to the Realms timeline prior to the large-scale 4e setting changes.

Ongoing support has been pretty slim, and DDI only, and if you're not part of the RPGA, the setting would seem to be a shadow of its former self in terms of being used outside of the RPGA. Additionally, I suspect that many RPGA players aren't firm fans of FR, it's just that FR happens to be the chosen primary RPGA setting so that's what they'll play in order to play within the RPGA.

The Origins and Ennies showing for the 4e version of the Realms I would think revealing about its reception.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm liking it a lot. I've been playing quite a bit of the RPGA events, and I've noticed they've managed to really bring forth some of the classic plot elements while keeping it fresh for the new edition. A lot of the modules refer back to elements from the previous edition, and deal with factions who were upset at what happened trying to turn back the clock.

In previous editions I didn't have any time for the realms, because there really wasn't anything for heroes to do in it that couldn't be better solved by an NPC. That's not the case anymore.

There are still some folks who hate it, but by and large I think that the RPGA crowd is bigger than I've ever seen it before, and people are enjoying the heck out of it.

Obviously, just my $.02...

--Steve


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 23, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> It used to be my 2nd favorite setting (outside of Planescape), but I no longer play in the Realms, and I don't know of any groups in my area that are playing in the 4e version (even those using 4e rules seriously don't care for the 4e treatment of the setting). The setting seems to cater to people who weren't FR fans, to the extent that it destroyed much of what FR fans enjoyed about the setting in the first place. I would happily join a pre-Spellplague FR game (regardless of ruleset), but the 4e post-Spellplague Realms seems like an entirely different setting to me, and one that I'm not interested in. Ruleset isn't important to me, but the fluff content is. I would happily buy a Greenwood/Boyd/Schend/etc 4e book that pertained to the Realms timeline prior to the large-scale 4e setting changes.
> 
> Ongoing support has been pretty slim, and DDI only, and if you're not part of the RPGA, the setting would seem to be a shadow of its former self in terms of being used outside of the RPGA. Additionally, I suspect that many RPGA players aren't firm fans of FR, it's just that FR happens to be the chosen primary RPGA setting so that's what they'll play in order to play within the RPGA.
> 
> The Origins and Ennies showing for the 4e version of the Realms I would think revealing about its reception.




Ongoing support for the Realms is exactly what was promised for all campaign settings at 4th Edition's launch.  The player's guide, the campaign guide, and adventure, and articles on DDI.  That's what Eberron got, and probably what Dark Sun will get too.  To make it sound like support is drying up is disingenuous.  And, RPGA support is no small potatoes.

I disagree that the updated setting somehow caters to the non-FR fan and leaves "true" FR fans out in the cold.  While FR hasn't been my primary campaign, I've enjoyed it for over a decade for tabletop gaming, computer gaming, and novel reading.  This has not changed with the 100-year jump and the Spellplague.  In fact, I think that the changes have invigorated a tired setting and made things more interesting and exciting for me.

Obviously, YMMV, but I'm tired of folks who didn't care for the setting changes posting with the implicit assumption that their opinion is shared by everyone else, or even a significant majority of fans.  Or even a significant _minority_ of fans!


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 23, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> The Origins and Ennies showing for the 4e version of the Realms I would think revealing about its reception.



So because the 4th version of FR was not nominated for setting of the year, the reception has been poor? Interesting argument. I wouldn't use it in a public debate though. Besides, awards = nepotism at its worst, so really, I wouldn't put too much stock into those. 

I will give you this though - 4e FR pissed off a lot of 3.x fans (or at least a lot of vocal ones) but I also think (based on anecdotal evidence, just like your own) that it brought a lot of old school fans back into the fold, after driving them away during the last 10 years of fluff-bloat.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Aug 23, 2009)

I play the realms still, just not the new setting they made for 4e is all. I wish em well but they lost all the realms fans around here.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 23, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Obviously, YMMV, but I'm tired of folks who didn't care for the setting changes posting with the implicit assumption that their opinion is shared by everyone else, or even a significant majority of fans.  Or even a significant _minority_ of fans!




It's only three or four posters here, really. If you read any 4e FR thread you can pick 'em out and put them on your Ignore List pretty quick. I'd like to say that I hate recommending the use of the Ignore List function but, really, I don't. Being petty pays off.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 23, 2009)

I still like it, but i think the opinion of many hardcore FRers have not changed. Candlekeep is still a hotbed of anger regarding the new FRCS, and the Wotc boards are only now slowly recovering. And as this thread shows: who hated it on first sight is mostly hating it now. Who liked it (like me) still likes it.

EDIT: I will note that, forex, Candlekeep has just broken in new measures (see here) to fight the ridiculous attacking of anything 4e FR. Commendable, but a little late.


----------



## Forgember (Aug 23, 2009)

A close friend of mine was a huge fan of FR before the new 4e treatment. Now all he does is grumble about it, we are currently playing in the 4e realms so he has it seems decided to roll with the punches so to speak. I was never a HUGE realms fan like my friend so I have had little problems with the changes myself, actually overjoyed that Mystra was killed off. On the other hand I find the lack of content annoying, the 3.x FRCS book was probably the best CS book ever produced. The 4e version just seems like the footnotes.


----------



## Belorin (Aug 23, 2009)

I've been running a Realms campaign since the gray box, thru four editions now and though the 4E changes were a shock it didn't really affect my game. We finished up our 3.5 game just last November with characters at 15th - 18th level and rolled up new characters for 4E, I moved the base of the campaign from the Gray Vale to the Moonshae Isles and we've been fighting the good fight against the Amnian invaders on Snowden.
When it came time to roll up new characters the loss of certain deities, the geographical changes and the effects of the spellplague itself were taken in stride by most of my players, some others eventually switched to Pathfinder, but they were unhappy with 4E to begin with.
The big arguments about loss of history or 'Iconic' NPCs don't really affect my game. The loss or reassignment of certain deities did kind of mess with some character concepts, but nothing that couldn't be fixed.
We play on.

Bel


----------



## Tilenas (Aug 23, 2009)

I play in a 4E Realms group, and I think I they don't feel like the Realms anymore. That's not only because of the setting changes, but because 4E encourages a different playing style than was I was used to from 3.x Realms. Having said that, the whole Spellplague plot comes across as rather artificial and haphazard. It's almost as if the writers thought "Well, as we have to account for dragonborn, a new magic system, and the Points of Light philosophy somehow, we might as well break continuity."
In doing so, they fixed the non-issue of having too much fluff floating around limiting characters in their heroic exploits (IMO it doesn't). I can see how it was bothering people, but I always put it to good use to make the setting come to life.
Bottom line: I was very happy that Dark Sun is coming back, and I hope to migrate there the day it's released, because 4E + FR doesn't cut it for me, just like 3.x + what was left of Planescape didn't cut it.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 23, 2009)

I had a thread awhile back asking about all the changes. Seems people were kinda split. After getting a chance to sit down with the 4E FRCG and dig in, I became a fan of the setting again (previously basically a lapsed OGB fan). I think FR was in dire need of this re-boot.

I can't say I love all the changes, but I did not during 1e to 2e either and especially disliked many of the changes in 3E, so no biggie- keep the changes I like, toss the ones I don't, just like I have with every other product I've ever bought in my life


----------



## FunkBGR (Aug 23, 2009)

I don't use it, but i know of people who use it. They seem to like it.

The main thing I've heard people like about it is that you don't have NPC-Heroes around every corner like before.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 23, 2009)

Shemeska said:


> It used to be my 2nd favorite setting (outside of Planescape), but I no longer play in the Realms, and I don't know of any groups in my area that are playing in the 4e version (even those using 4e rules seriously don't care for the 4e treatment of the setting). *The setting seems to cater to people who weren't FR fans, to the extent that it destroyed much of what FR fans enjoyed about the setting in the first place.* I would happily join a pre-Spellplague FR game (regardless of ruleset), but the 4e post-Spellplague Realms seems like an entirely different setting to me, and one that I'm not interested in. Ruleset isn't important to me, but the fluff content is. I would happily buy a Greenwood/Boyd/Schend/etc 4e book that pertained to the Realms timeline prior to the large-scale 4e setting changes.
> 
> Ongoing support has been pretty slim, and DDI only, and if you're not part of the RPGA, the setting would seem to be a shadow of its former self in terms of being used outside of the RPGA. *Additionally, I suspect that many RPGA players aren't firm fans of FR, it's just that FR happens to be the chosen primary RPGA setting so that's what they'll play in order to play within the RPGA.*
> 
> The Origins and Ennies showing for the 4e version of the Realms I would think revealing about its reception.




Parts in bold where Shemeska makes broad general assumptions on behalf of other gamers - and ones that I've found to not be true based on _actually _playing in the RPGA and as a part of the LFR community. 

I was a fan of FR prior to the Forgotten Realms... though more for reading about than gaming in. These days, I'm a fan of gaming in it - the setting is more accessible than ever. There are elements I miss, certainly. (Finder and the Saurials is a quick one that comes to mind.) There are other elements that pretty much remain constant (Waterdeep, Cormyr, etc), and there are plenty of new elements that are very, very cool (Returned Abeir). I'm sure there are many former FR plans who aren't a fan of the new setting, and Shemeska is free to feel that way - but there are also plenty of FR fans who are just fine with the new setting, and I have to object to Shemeska trying to speak (incorrectly) on behalf of them.

Of the RPGA players in my local area, a _lot_ are FR fans. From those who simply played in the setting previously, to those who collected all the books, to those who simply pattern every character after Drizzt. There are certainly others who didn't experience FR before, and are just playing it because it is the core living setting - but they are enjoying the new FR as well, and I'm not sure how that would be a mark against it. Implying that only 'purists' should be able to enjoy the setting is an elitist attitude that I'm not a fan of.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 23, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I will give you this though - 4e FR pissed off a lot of 3.x fans (or at least a lot of vocal ones) but I also think (based on anecdotal evidence, just like your own) that it brought a lot of old school fans back into the fold, after driving them away during the last 10 years of fluff-bloat.




The second point there I suppose is quite possible, and it falls outside of my immediate sphere of experience. I got into the setting in 3.x, and so did several of my players, and now we barely recognize the 4e version - but none of us had 1e/2e experience with it (though I and one player/DM have heavily used 2e fluff).

As for longer term / earlier edition fans and their reaction, I'm largely going off of what I've gathered from fans on Candlekeep and elsewhere online, and some seriously hardcore Realms fans I know locally. A lot of them seem to have gotten into the Realms because of the massive amount of fluff (be it catagorized as bloat or not), and now they've either not touched the 4e material and continued playing in earlier periods (one of my players ran a Netheril era campaign using 3.x rules, using 2e fluff which was quite fun) or moving on to other settings entirely.

My experiences may not mirror others of course, especially 1e fans of the setting that I don't have any experience with given my circle of gamers.


----------



## Pamela (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm another Gray Box player who enjoys the 4e FR; enough so that I've finally started another online PbP in it. I find this edition brings me back nostalgically to the first. I can appreciate that there are those who enjoy the FR solely for its lore and novels but I've never been one of them.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 23, 2009)

After hearing about Dark Sun, one thing I wish WoTC would do is a 'rerelease' of the Forgotten Realms as it was initially with some of the better stuff picked for paragon paths, etc...

Me? I'm playing 4e set in 137X (3rd ed timeline.)


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Aug 23, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> After hearing about Dark Sun, one thing I wish WoTC would do is a 'rerelease' of the Forgotten Realms as it was initially with some of the better stuff picked for paragon paths, etc...
> 
> Me? I'm playing 4e set in 137X (3rd ed timeline.)




Agreed!  I loved the very 1st Realms boxed set, to me _that _is the Realms, not the..."Elminsterized" version we ended up with.
I don't like the 4th ed version, not because it's bad per se, but because of the incredible artificialness of what was done to the setting.

The "Time of Troubles" just to fit the 2nd ed rules in....*barf!* no need of that. and Cyric especially = complete loser as a deity (and that's a word I normally hate to use, but he is a complete drivleling non-entity gets to be a god and makes a mess of it and goes nuts...ah huh! You really think Ao would let that twerp keep that position AND cause all the trouble he has?)

It's like, any time there's a major change, they take it out on the spellcasters in the Realms....which I feel is grossly unfair and a nasty Deus Ex Machina.

High level NPCs weren't the problem, it was having everything mapped and over populated to heck...there was nothing "Forgotten" about it, nothing wild and mysterious...where as the 1st boxed set, was.
Also as I've repeatedly said, the 1st boxed set is beautiful, look at the artwork, it evokes a feel of a far more rustic, wild world.

Richard Baker's "Swordmage" books paint a really good, interesting picture of the new Realms, by the way 
So I just think it (change to 4th ed Realms) could have been done better.


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 23, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> It's only three or four posters here, really. If you read any 4e FR thread you can pick 'em out and put them on your Ignore List pretty quick. I'd like to say that I hate recommending the use of the Ignore List function but, really, I don't. Being petty pays off.



So, because I've posted here that I really don't like 4th edition Forgotten Realms and believe that at least a a "significant minority" (your words) of Realms fans didn't like it that I'm going to go on a bunch of Ignore lists?  Somehow I doubt there are only four of us on ENWorld that don't like what was done to the setting and believe we aren't alone and can be outspoken about it at times.  

Out in the real world, away from internet message boards, I know of more groups playing 3.x than 4e, and I don't know of anybody who is playing 4e Realms.

Why has it dropped off the face of discussion?  Well, I don't bring it up because it seems like there is no point to it.  It's not like WotC is going to say "Oops, we screwed up and ruined our most famous setting, let's set everything back to the way it was", and it seems that the D&D community is irreparably suffered a significant schism over 4e and things tied to it like the Spellplague in FR, so just going back and forth about it seems to be counterproductive.  

Personally, when I have the time I still play 3.5 FR with my friends and assume that the Spellplague never happened (we did have fun once with an adventure where a Chronomancer came back saying he came from after a horrible apocalypse where Mystra was slain by Shar and the world was ravaged and sundered and the Weave was fading fast, but we prevented that timeline  ).


----------



## Dire Bare (Aug 23, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> So, because I've posted here that I really don't like 4th edition Forgotten Realms and believe that at least a a "significant minority" (your words) of Realms fans didn't like it that I'm going to go on a bunch of Ignore lists?  Somehow I doubt there are only four of us on ENWorld that don't like what was done to the setting and believe we aren't alone and can be outspoken about it at times.
> 
> Out in the real world, away from internet message boards, I know of more groups playing 3.x than 4e, and I don't know of anybody who is playing 4e Realms.
> 
> ...




Actually, "significant minority" were my words, not his.  And I don't know if 4e Realms haters are a significant minority or not, but I strongly suspect they are actually an insignificant but loud minority.

If you personally don't care for the new treatment of the Realms, that doesn't say anything bad about you nor make you a "hater" nor earn you a spot on anybody's ignore lists (at least not fairly).

But if you whine everytime the 4e Realms is mentioned and bemoan endlessly the "destruction" of your beloved setting and make the assumption that "true" Realms fans all agree with you, because how could they not? . . . then you are a "hater" and deserve addition to an ignore list for those of us tired of the hyperbole.

Does wingsandsword fall into that category?  I don't know . . . nobody threw any mud your way personally, so try not to take direct offense.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2009)

I'm with Shemeska here; I utterly disliked it when it came out, and I still utterly dislike it. 

I'm still running a pre-Spellplague FR campaign (and I will keep running FR campaigns every now and then in the future, too)  but I'm more or less moving into Golarion. Why? Because it reminds me of the "Old Realms" in scope and quality of lore, and it's supported in three monthly publications (adventures and supplements). I guess you could say that FR still gets supported via DDi (and I'm excluding LFR material here), but we already had that when Dragon was still in the hands of Paizo. So comparing the support FR gets these days to the 3E era makes the former look like FR is on life support, and fading fast. Frankly, I think WoTC sees FR as a novel setting first and foremost; LFR may be doing good (or not; I can't say one way or the other) but I suspect the sales for FRCG were not nearly as good as they expected (hence the sudden "only-three-books-per-setting"-policy, which was announced, I think, after the sales data for FRCG started coming in).   

BTW, I find it funny that when the "h4ters" claimed the voting system was "abused" by 4E fans and this was the only reason why 4E won so many EnNies (a ridiculous claim, IMO), people rose in defence of WoTC by saying that the results actually showed how popular 4E really is among gamers (which I agree with). Now, when someone says that very same award (and/or the lack of existing FR threads on several boards) could be used to make some conclusions about the popularity, success and quality of 4E FR, suddenly this award seems to be some vague and obscure backyard trophy that's only given to the judges' best friends and therefore not indicative of anything (alright, that's hyperbole, but you get the point). 

To me, the EnNies represent the opinions of the majority of the active international online gamer community; whether it's indicative of the true opinions of the gamer community worldwide or not depends on the number of voters (I'd say that over a thousand voters is probably a pretty good sampling).


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 23, 2009)

Primal said:


> BTW, I find it funny that when the "h4ters" claimed the voting system was "abused" by 4E fans and this was the only reason why 4E won so many EnNies (a ridiculous claim, IMO), people rose in defence of WoTC by saying that the results actually showed how popular 4E really is among gamers (which I agree with). Now, when someone says that very same award (and/or the lack of existing FR threads on several boards) could be used to make some conclusions about the popularity, success and quality of 4E FR, suddenly this award seems to be some vague and obscure backyard trophy that's only given to the judges' best friends and therefore not indicative of anything (alright, that's hyperbole, but you get the point).
> 
> To me, the EnNies represent the opinions of the majority of the active international online gamer community; whether it's indicative of the true opinions of the gamer community worldwide or not depends on the number of voters (I'd say that over a thousand voters is probably a pretty good sampling).




I have never defended the Ennies - so there is no "funny". And while it is indeed a good picture of what at least the online D&D community thinks, it's still the judges that pick the products - so if a product is not nominated, it doesn't matter just how many people would have voted for it.

As for the friends' of judges, lets not go there. The Ennies are over, the judge won't be the next year, and the product didn't win anything.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 23, 2009)

The big thing with Forgotten Realms was that in the past, Forgotten Realms was far more something you read than something you played. This statement applies as much to the RPG books as it does to the Novels. I personally find the 3E Forgotten Realms books written more to be read than to be used as a gaming manual. While the setting was played by many, it was owned and read by many more, and fans of reading the Forgotten Realms were a large portion of its playerbase.

4E kind of blew up Forgotten Realms as something you read, and tried to recast it as something meant first and foremost to be played. The dust hasn't settled yet, and I don't think it will until we see the results of whether the Novels and RPGA can reestablish the Realms again.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 23, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> 4E kind of blew up Forgotten Realms as something you read, and tried to recast it as something meant first and foremost to be played..




Bingo. and exactly the same type of product (meant to be "used" instead of "read") The OGB and say FR1-FR6-ish were. Precisely why I think the 4E FRCG is the best version since that OGB.  2E/3E FR GAME products seemed mostly to be playgrounds for wannabe FR Novel Authors (with a few exceptions).


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 23, 2009)

Primal said:


> Frankly, I think WoTC sees FR as a novel setting first and foremost; LFR may be doing good (or not; I can't say one way or the other) but I suspect the sales for FRCG were not nearly as good as they expected (hence the sudden "only-three-books-per-setting"-policy, which was announced, I think, after the sales data for FRCG started coming in).




The three book release schedule for campaign settings was announced at the 2008 GAMA, which happened at the end of April, four months prior to the release of the 4e FRCS.  The sales of the FR books had nothing to do with it, and I doubt they were as small as you think they are.


----------



## fireinthedust (Aug 23, 2009)

I have watched FR since the grey box and 2e (well, I started in 2e and bought the grey box; my perspective is there, just not chronologically grey box).

Anywho, FR started as this really great little setting.  I sat alone in my room listening to the Chieftains, and thinking about that backwater area called the Dales, and how cool Myth Drannor and Undermountain must be as Iconic adventure sites.  I played in Undermountain; then we'd skip over to Ravenloft for our RPing, then escape and get to Undermountain; conceptually weird, but that was our group.
  I got the Bloodstone trilogy, and dreamed about (but never achieved) a game in them.  Stark contrast in terms of tone and quality, but I learned to be forgiving with FR.

3e had the gem of the FRCS.  It really holds up as a great, mostly non-crunch, little book.  Some other fun books have come out, but 3e had a lot of FR splatbooks designed to fill up space on my shelves without a real payoff.  

3e in general was designed to try to be a simulation for how this stuff worked rather than an engine for adventure games (like 4e is).  As such, the design principle for NPC heroes, the idea that people other than the PCs were available to save the world, was common practice.  Having a dozen splatbooks detailing every corner of this fantasy world came down to the idea that someone somewhere was going to use all these numbers and characters, punch them into a computer, and make them go.  

A little clockwork world.

I don't think many books really captured the essence of FR, including a number of the novels.  The Drizzt books, and most of what Ed Greenwood wrote, rarely hit the mark for what FR meant to me.  They were fun, for sure.  Heck, I read a Drizzt book in the span of a Tom Waits CD.  
[sblock=ooc]and I'm not even old!   Interesting fact, my friends are the producers of this show called "once a thief", and they'd just ended the series by exploding the protagonists.  The chief, whose actress was fantastic, was the only survivor and walked through the wreckage with Tom Waits' "it's Time, time, time" playing.   
     So my mother gets the CD, I steal it for the day, and I pop it in when I cracked open the book, the one where Wulfgar "dies".  I kid you not, I made it to the chapter where, obviously, he gets it and THE SECOND I DO Tom Waits starts singing "it's Time, Time, Time", and I'm like "nooooooooooo!"
     That is cool.
The book was predictable, and RA Salvatore thinks it's acceptable to name the king of the Dwarves "Melvin MuffinMasher" or something stupid (because, I suppose, all of us are also stupid), but that is a cool story.  
    And I complain about the names because Drizzt has the potential to be such a cool series, but the goofiness ruins the tone every time.[/sblock]

The only book I would say is worth reading is "City of Splendours" by Ed Greenwood and Elaine Cunningham.  The best EG book I've ever read, and Elaine is phenominal as always.  All the aspects of books I've read by either of them, but concentrated and matured stylistically, and I genuinely enjoyed the read.  Go buy it now.  Skip the parts with the famous NPCs, maybe, although even those are ok.  

Moving on:  For the above reasons, I don't have a big issue with FR4e.  I don't know that FR ever wasn't a conglomorate setting.  I think the timeline shift was important, and I agree that the thinning of the chaffe was very much needed.
    Genasi and Swordmages are pure win in 4e, full stop.

I don't know that I agree with what they did to Halister Blackcloak, as he was by no means a hero.  Killing off the uber-mages was a must.  Mystra was a PC, and didn't make sense in a world with so many evil mages.  Massive plot hole:  "the effectual gods are all against your foes and you can't possibly lose".

I always play in my own setting.  If I went back to high school, I would go back to the FR that I used to know (maybe).  I won't be re-buying any FR books, I don't need them updated to 4e.  I might buy modules.  I'm too old for the books (except maybe cunningham's; she is an all-star).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 23, 2009)

JeffB said:


> Bingo. and exactly the same type of product (meant to be "used" instead of "read") The OGB and say FR1-FR6-ish were. Precisely why I think the 4E FRCG is the best version since that OGB.  2E/3E FR GAME products seemed mostly to be playgrounds for wannabe FR Novel Authors (with a few exceptions).




The thing is, the wannabe FR Novel Author fans(which I would call a majority or at the least a sizeable minority of 3.5E era's FR fans) got abandoned by the 4E switch, and FR's bad reputation among non-FR fans as a playground for wannabe FR Novel Authors hasn't been broken enough to allow a full recovery.

We'll see what two more years of 4E novels and two more years of RPGA can do. It doesn't help that 4E Eberron were much better written game books.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I have never defended the Ennies - so there is no "funny". And while it is indeed a good picture of what at least the online D&D community thinks, it's still the judges that pick the products - so if a product is not nominated, it doesn't matter just how many people would have voted for it.
> 
> As for the friends' of judges, lets not go there. The Ennies are over, the judge won't be the next year, and the product didn't win anything.




Sorry, Jack... that was a bit of a hyperbole on my part to drive the point home (I didn't mean to single you out or insult you); I was referring to the fact that a lot of posters (at least on other boards) claimed that the result was "rigged" because you could vote multiple times, and this was countered by people defending the EnNies and saying that this vote is a proof of 4E's success (and I think it is). 

As for the judges picking the products... I don't always agree with their nominations, but usually they pick the "best" of the year's publications (and both from mainstream RPGs and indie RPGs). For example, I don't think many people would actually say that Mouse Guard or CthulhuTech didn't deserve to be nominated. Therefore, I think the list is pretty reliable on the "quality stuff published this year" (I've compared the lists from the previous years, and I have to say that from my perspective the EnNies nominations are 90% "dead on"). Now, I'm fairly sure (based on what I've seen and heard about the books) that Eberron will make the list next year, and maybe even win the gold. However, the fact that 4E FR didn't even the list, and maybe I just missed it, but I haven't even seen any threads about this being a surprise to 4E FR fans (in fact, apart from the Candlekeep and the WoTC boards, which have seen very little activity during the last year -- also according to the numbers posted by Lord Karsus, there have been only a few threads about FR). To me it tells a story that FR is less popular than ever before; nobody really seems to care one way or the other. YMMV, of course. 

FRPG may have sold well because of the Drow, Genasi and Swordmage, but if I had to take a wild guess I'd say that the *vast* majority of the guys who brought the book play either in an Eberron or homebrewed setting.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The thing is, the wannabe FR Novel Author fans(which I would call a majority or at the least a sizeable minority of 3.5E era's FR fans) got abandoned by the 4E switch, and FR's bad reputation among non-FR fans as a playground for wannabe FR Novel Authors hasn't been broken enough to allow a full recovery.
> 
> We'll see what two more years of 4E novels and two more years of RPGA can do. It doesn't help that 4E Eberron were much better written game books.




Agreed; in all respects 4E Eberron seems to be of better quality than 4E FR (art, maps, appeal to the existing fan base, minimal changes to the setting, etc.).


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 23, 2009)

I would argue that 4E FRCG missed the mark, and was a little too ambitious. It tried to do everything in one book and fell short. It was inevitable, as 4E is just too big to do in one book. Now that we have the 4E Eberron book(a FAR superior book), this is illustrated even more.

If the 4E FRCG detailed Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate(at this point you almost have to include BG), Cormyr and the Dales in an Eberron style fashion, and gave small teasers of the other regions it would have been a far superior book. 

When I compare 4E FR to 4E Eberron, I really feel that Forgotten Realms shouldn't have been crammed into one book. The Eberron writeups for Dragonmarked houses and the Five Nations of Khorvaire are almost the perfect way to do a setting, and 4E Forgotten Realms would have been better to have given that treatment to FR's regions and organizations, no matter how many books that would have taken.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2009)

Shroomy said:


> The three book release schedule for campaign settings was announced at the 2008 GAMA, which happened at the end of April, four months prior to the release of the 4e FRCS.  The sales of the FR books had nothing to do with it, and I doubt they were as small as you think they are.




Alright, I wasn't totally certain of it; I *do* however remember that this announcement was connected to (or, at least suspected to be connected to) the rage at the FR previews. Before the announcement Rich Baker openly discussed about FR supplements (I think he even asked what the fans would like to see?) that were supposed to come out after the Spellgard adventure. There definitely were FR game books in development, but these were pulled after the outraged reactions from the online fan community.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 23, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The thing is, the wannabe FR Novel Author fans(which I would call a majority or at the least a sizeable minority of 3.5E era's FR fans) got abandoned by the 4E switch...




I mean no offense - but to them I say "oh well"   I've read several of the FR novels, including some by authors louded here in this thread as marvellous and find them...err..." not to my tastes" is the polite thing to say. I am sorry a fanbase has been alienated, as thats never cool,  but they had 20 years of being catered to while game products suffered. I welcome the change (nor do I feel the initial 4E products -barring the module- are sub-par in the least. they are different approaches, and for all its small print and sheer word count, the 3E FRCS is much less useful to me as a DM. I prefer the 4E version)

I think that the bottom line for me is that I am *only* concerned with FR as a gaming product at my table. I don't care about the LFR, or novels at all, feel they have done far more harm than good and I am actually glad to see there is minimal gaming product produced to be driven/affected by them (LFR/Novels).


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I would argue that 4E FRCG missed the mark, and was a little too ambitious. It tried to do everything in one book and fell short. It was inevitable, as 4E is just too big to do in one book. Now that we have the 4E Eberron book(a FAR superior book), this is illustrated even more.
> 
> If the 4E FRCG detailed Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate(at this point you almost have to include BG), Cormyr and the Dales in an Eberron style fashion, and gave small teasers of the other regions it would have been a far superior book.
> 
> When I compare 4E FR to 4E Eberron, I really feel that Forgotten Realms shouldn't have been crammed into one book. The Eberron writeups for Dragonmarked houses and the Five Nations of Khorvaire are almost the perfect way to do a setting, and 4E Forgotten Realms would have been better to have given that treatment to FR's regions and organizations, no matter how many books that would have taken.




Agreed; and it didn't help that they decided to waste so many pages on the Loudwater section and adventures, which, by Mystra's Lost Spell, contain some of the worst stuff I've ever seen in a WoTC book (and the maps for the town and the adventures were so bad that I almost wept when I saw them). They also dropped the ball with the world map, too. *Sigh*.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 23, 2009)

JeffB said:


> I mean no offense - but to them I say "oh well"   I've read several of the FR novels, including some by authors louded here in this thread as marvellous and find them...err..." not to my tastes" is the polite thing to say. I am sorry a fanbase has been alienated, as thats never cool,  but they had 20 years of being catered to while game products suffered. I welcome the change (nor do I feel the initial 4E products -barring the module- are sub-par in the least. they are different approaches, and for all its small print and sheer word count, the 3E FRCS is much less useful to me as a DM. I prefer the 4E version)
> 
> I think that the bottom line for me is that I am *only* concerned with FR as a gaming product at my table. I don't care about the LFR, or novels at all, feel they have done far more harm than good and I am actually glad to see there is minimal gaming product produced to be driven/affected by them (LFR/Novels).




I agree with all of this. I find the 4E FR book much more useful as a DM than its 3E counterpart. Until I got my hands on 4E Eberron, I considered the FRCG to be an excellent and underrated book. After Eberron, I wish they would have done FR in the same manner they did 4E Eberron, even if it meant buying five or more books.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 23, 2009)

Primal said:


> Alright, I wasn't totally certain of it; I *do* however remember that this announcement was connected to (or, at least suspected to be connected to) the rage at the FR previews. Before the announcement Rich Baker openly discussed about FR supplements (I think he even asked what the fans would like to see?) that were supposed to come out after the Spellgard adventure. There definitely were FR game books in development, but these were pulled after the outraged reactions from the online fan community.




False.

The "three and out" model was the plan from _well before_ the publication of the FR books.

I don't know what Rich asked, or when. (Maybe he was asking about DDI stuff.) I don't know _exactly_ when the decision was made to do "three and out." But I _do_ know it was before the FR books were published, or even heavily previewed, because that decision was in place by the time the 4E PHB actually came out.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 23, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> The "three and out" model was the plan from _well before_ the publication of the FR books.
> 
> I don't know what Rich asked, or when. (Maybe he was asking about DDI stuff.) I don't know _exactly_ when the decision was made to do "three and out." But I _do_ know it was before the FR books were published, or even heavily previewed, because that decision was in place by the time the 4E PHB actually came out.




Wonder why this "three and out" model was implemented in the first place.

I imagine if some of the 3.5E Forgotten Realms and Eberron books were not selling that well, it could make them think twice about producing more FR or Eberron splatbooks for 4E.  More than a year ago, I remember seeing several FR and Eberron splatbooks in the "remaindered" bargain book section of several big box bookstores in stacks of 8 or 9 books per title.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 23, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Wonder why this "three and out" model was implemented in the first place.




Because where settings are concerned, it's a much stronger economic model than continued support. _Every_ setting book beyond the first is drawing on a smaller and smaller niche market of potential buyers, far more so than even relatively narrowly focused core books.

I talked about that particular topic in a lot more detail in another thread a few months ago, if you're interested: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-thread-where-does-idea-come.html#post4859396


----------



## Campbell (Aug 23, 2009)

I really think they should have done with the Realms what they're doing with Dark Sun - reboot it with the initial boxed set used as the base. They could have cleanly accomplished most of their design goals, and cleared the setting of its accumulated detritus instead of adding to it.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 23, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I agree with all of this. I find the 4E FR book much more useful as a DM than its 3E counterpart. Until I got my hands on 4E Eberron, I considered the FRCG to be an excellent and underrated book. After Eberron, I wish they would have done FR in the same manner they did 4E Eberron, even if it meant buying five or more books.





I've not seen the 4E Eberron books yet-though they are on my "to get" list. If they are better than the 4E FR books, thats high praise in my estimation. Makes me all the more eager to check them out!


----------



## filthgrinder (Aug 23, 2009)

ggroy said:


> Wonder why this "three and out" model was implemented in the first place.




The same reason they "blew up" the Realms, to create space. The idea is that, here is a book for players, here is a book for DM's, and an adventure. The rest is up to you. You are free to create whatever you want, drop whatever elements you want, and create your own stories. You are no longer hand-cuffed to the setting. You no longer have to worry about obtaining an encyclopedia worth of knowledge of a setting. As a DM, you don't have to experience a player mentioning something from some book you don't have that makes your current story seem silly. You don't have large detailed accounts of cities that you need to adhere to.

The settings are left as open sandboxes for you to create and play in. You don't have to worry about squeezing your story into the incredibly shrinking empty spaces of the setting.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 23, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Because where settings are concerned, it's a much stronger economic model than continued support. _Every_ setting book beyond the first is drawing on a smaller and smaller niche market of potential buyers, far more so than even relatively narrowly focused core books.
> 
> I talked about that particular topic in a lot more detail in another thread a few months ago, if you're interested: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...-thread-where-does-idea-come.html#post4859396




This sounds pretty spot on to me, and even so I don't that the three and out was the right model for Forgotten Realms. To me the right model would have been the FRPG and adventure as is, with the FRCG more in the manner of the original gray box. Put in the bestiary, pantheon, general world info and brief history, and then do Eberron style writeups on a few core locations and organizations and focus specifically on those. If the demand was felt, do additional setting books to flesh out the rest of FR in crunch free books.


----------



## Falstyr (Aug 23, 2009)

To me the various realms have always been interchangeable. It never felt as if the campaign was one realm specific. There were parts of Vanilla, Ebberon and the Forgotten Realms with some adjustments to make it one big universe. It was great to play in and left a lot of flexibility and things to do. With 4e there hasn't been a lot of change in that regard for my games. In fact now a days we stick more to the FR setting than any other.

Previous editions had a lot of supplements and in depth history which made each realm come to live. In 4e we get articles that flesh out certain areas such as Cormyr or the city of Genasi etc. It is still great, but just like previous editions it will take some time before there is enough supplemental material to work with. But I still feel the hardcore FR fans are just a bunch of people who moan without a just cause. Complaining how certain gods no longer exist, how history suddenly has a gap of a few decades. Well boohoo. I can see no reason why people can't use supplements of previous editions in their 4e FR setting. The changes aren't that huge making it impossible to implement. Spellscarred can easily be added and the geographical changes aren't that influential either.

The only people who might have a decent reason to moan about the realms are those new to D&D. Then again...what is there to bitch about when they don't even know the past and what there might be different hehe. For new comers the books are clear and easy to comprehend. Low learning curve to get into and start playing. 3.x was like gibberish the first few times I read through it and took quite some time to get used to.

Using underdark supplements and races of Faerun are still very usable in 4e luckily


----------



## JeffB (Aug 23, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Because where settings are concerned, it's a much stronger economic model than continued support. _Every_ setting book beyond the first is drawing on a smaller and smaller niche market of potential buyers, far more so than even relatively narrowly focused core books.




And business implications aside, as a DM I really prefer this new model. I'm the kind of guy who liked the original GH folio, over Gary's boxed set. The OGB over the FR 3E CS. the Scarred Lands Gaz over the hardcover. The scant few pages detailing The Known World in the Cook/Marsh Expert set and X1 over umpteen Gazetteers. The..well...you get the idea 

Of course at times I wish there WERE more setting specific books coming down the pike , but at the same time I know from past experience that I usually find the core setting book great, and subsequent books become significantly less useful to me and are not a good value for my $. The 4E model of "highly adaptable core" books (something like Open Grave or AV1, e.g.) fills in the gaps for giving me material I can plug and play whether it's FR, GH, my Nentir Vale "homebrew", or whatever setting I may want to use.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 23, 2009)

So far I've only used the 4E FR setting for a short campaign, which didn't have any hardcore FR "canon lawyers" as players.  Most of my friends who are hardcore FR "canon lawyers", absolutely refuse to play in the 4E FR setting.

These days I've been playing my 4E games in the Pathfinder Golarion setting.


----------



## Primal (Aug 23, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> False.
> 
> The "three and out" model was the plan from _well before_ the publication of the FR books.
> 
> I don't know what Rich asked, or when. (Maybe he was asking about DDI stuff.) I don't know _exactly_ when the decision was made to do "three and out." But I _do_ know it was before the FR books were published, or even heavily previewed, because that decision was in place by the time the 4E PHB actually came out.




And I admitted that I might have been wrong in saying it happened after the 4E FR books were out; I do however remember Rich commented last year on the 'Ask the FR designers'-thread that they are planning new supplements after the Spellgard-adventure; after the outrage on various message boards he said there will be only three books and out. And I think this happened after all the previews for 4E FR were out and the overwhelming negative reaction had been apparent for some time (on March or April?).  

The first 4E FR previews were published, I think, in January 2008 (or December 2007?), and the boards exploded with fan rage pretty much the same day. Was that before the business model was finalized? I don't know (maybe you do, or can ask an "insider"?), but I definitely think this model was cemented as they suspected that 4E FR wouldn't sell as much as expected (and hence it would be a waste of time and money to produce more than the books that were already in development). As I said above, it wasn't an instantaneous reaction; Rich did discuss the things over with the fans for some time, but eventually said there won't more than three books.

If he already knew that there wouldn't be more than three books -- and I know he's a guy who wouldn't talk of it unless they really planned to do something -- why make such claims?

Anyway, that's the way I see it. YMMV.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 23, 2009)

Primal said:


> Sorry, Jack... that was a bit of a hyperbole on my part to drive the point home (I didn't mean to single you out or insult you); I was referring to the fact that a lot of posters (at least on other boards) claimed that the result was "rigged" because you could vote multiple times, and this was countered by people defending the EnNies and saying that this vote is a proof of 4E's success (and I think it is).
> 
> As for the judges picking the products... I don't always agree with their nominations, but usually they pick the "best" of the year's publications (and both from mainstream RPGs and indie RPGs). For example, I don't think many people would actually say that Mouse Guard or CthulhuTech didn't deserve to be nominated. Therefore, I think the list is pretty reliable on the "quality stuff published this year" (I've compared the lists from the previous years, and I have to say that from my perspective the EnNies nominations are 90% "dead on"). Now, I'm fairly sure (based on what I've seen and heard about the books) that Eberron will make the list next year, and maybe even win the gold. However, the fact that 4E FR didn't even the list, and maybe I just missed it, but I haven't even seen any threads about this being a surprise to 4E FR fans (in fact, apart from the Candlekeep and the WoTC boards, which have seen very little activity during the last year -- also according to the numbers posted by Lord Karsus, there have been only a few threads about FR). To me it tells a story that FR is less popular than ever before; nobody really seems to care one way or the other. YMMV, of course.
> 
> FRPG may have sold well because of the Drow, Genasi and Swordmage, but if I had to take a wild guess I'd say that the *vast* majority of the guys who brought the book play either in an Eberron or homebrewed setting.




Fair enough mate. 

Btw, I am not saying that I think 4e FR would have won. Even though I like the newest version of the realms (grey box set ftw though), I would still have voted for Golarion. 

I also have no doubt that 4e FR lost a lot of it's old fans, especially those that became fans due to the 3.x version. 

So in many ways, we do agree 

Cheers


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Aug 23, 2009)

Finally Forgotten Realms looks like something I'd be happy to DM. Of course, none of the FR fans in my group want to have anything to do with the 4E setting.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Aug 23, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> Finally Forgotten Realms looks like something I'd be happy to DM. Of course, none of the FR fans in my group want to have anything to do with the 4E setting.




My gaming group split over this as well.

Only 2 of us were ever willing to DM.  Those 2 of us do not like 4e let alone 4e FR.  SO the other 4 get mad at us for not DMing the game they want to play, and then blame us for the groups disintegration.  I ran 4e for them for 5 months, that was more than enough for me.

Now of course the 2 of us who were DM's have moved on to pathfinder and Golarion (though I might just run the FR 3rd edition), and the others complain they only get to play 4e in eberron and genric and not in 4eFR, which is what they want.

So the two people that put work into the game and really knew FR lore left it when it got stunted.  the other 4 that just liked playing in it and didn't care all that much because they like the game I had set up, want to continue on with 4e realms.  

It seems to be a trend.  Those that REALLY knew the setting, that I know of, moved on to better things.  Those that really didn't know or didn't care still like 4eFR.

I guess DMing is like driving stick shift.  If you know how to drive stick you can drive just about any car anywhere in the world.  

For RPG's if you are not a DM you are stuck playing what people want to DM.


----------



## amethal (Aug 23, 2009)

Campbell said:


> I really think they should have done with the Realms what they're doing with Dark Sun - reboot it with the initial boxed set used as the base. They could have cleanly accomplished most of their design goals, and cleared the setting of its accumulated detritus instead of adding to it.



Now there's an idea.

The grey box gets a lot of praise around here. I don't want to offend anyone by bringing up the 'N word', but would folks actually be happy if an incredibly vast swathe of canon was wiped out and we went back to the beginning? (Allbeit with dragonborn, with boobies.)

Speaking for myself, I like that the Realms is a progression. Time moves on, and things change. 

The downside is that sometimes I don't like specific changes, and unfortunately 4th edition managed to nuke my favourite areas. However, I assume that whilst they were my favourite areas, they weren't particularly popular with other people, and I don't take it personally.


----------



## amethal (Aug 23, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> I guess DMing is like driving stick shift.  If you know how to drive stick you can drive just about any car anywhere in the world.



Almost everybody who can drive can drive stick shift. Its just that the rest tend to live in the same part of the world.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Aug 23, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> My gaming group split over this as well.
> 
> Only 2 of us were ever willing to DM. Those 2 of us do not like 4e let alone 4e FR. SO the other 4 get mad at us for not DMing the game they want to play, and then blame us for the groups disintegration. I ran 4e for them for 5 months, that was more than enough for me.
> 
> ...





Fortunately, the split is only in regards to Forgotten Realms, all six of us prefer 4E over 3E. I know of DMs that had to trade players so everybody got to play the edition they wanted to.

Thursday night I went into a FLGS and they had two groups scheduled for the night. The regular 4E group and the character building session for Pathfinder. The owner explained that next week they'd be on different Thursdays. He didn't want it go all "rapper feud" on him.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Aug 23, 2009)

amethal said:


> Almost everybody who can drive can drive stick shift. Its just that the rest tend to live in the same part of the world.




SO very very true.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 23, 2009)

You can "reboot" Dark Sun since there hasn't been a huge fiction line and the product has been dead since WoTC took over.  

FR wouldn't really stand a reboot well because of the vast fiction line.  Even if you decided to wall it off, so to speak, there needs to be some product unity--if the novels do one thing and the game supplements another thing it wouldn't gel well.  I think a reboot would have pissed more people off than a timeline advancement.  

I'm not a fan of all the changes, but I accept them--this is a few hundred years later, and many novels are now either bridging the gap or dealing with the aftermath.  I mean, since Realms magic is so tied to D&D rules, you change the way the game works, somethings gotta give!

I do think the one mistake WoTC is making is keeping the line "lean".  I think there's a big enough market for the supplements and people love all the Ed Greenwood inspired lore.  We need more of that, not less.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Aug 23, 2009)

amethal said:


> Almost everybody who can drive can drive stick shift. Its just that the rest tend to live in the same part of the world.




I can barely handle an automatic. 

I need a chauffeur.


----------



## amethal (Aug 23, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> The owner explained that next week they'd be on different Thursdays.



You have more than one Thursday a week? I suppose it must make it even sweeter when you eventually get to Friday.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Aug 23, 2009)

amethal said:


> You have more than one Thursday a week? I suppose it must make it even sweeter when you eventually get to Friday.




Both are bi weekly, hence different alternating Thursdays going forward.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 23, 2009)

wingsandsword said:


> So, because I've posted here that I really don't like 4th edition Forgotten Realms and believe that at least a a "significant minority" (your words) of Realms fans didn't like it that I'm going to go on a bunch of Ignore lists?  Somehow I doubt there are only four of us on ENWorld that don't like what was done to the setting and believe we aren't alone and can be outspoken about it at times.




Well, first off, I was not the poster who said something about a "significant minority." Second off, yes, if you repeatedly and endlessly whine about how WotC kicked your puppy, you're going on my Ignore List. Frankly, that kind of thing is worthless and I gain nothing by reading it. 

FWIW, I don't play 4e, nor do I care much for it — but seeing the same four or five people post the same vitriol-laden screed about how WotC ruined their lives time and time again is _really_ tiresome. I don't _think_ you're one of those people, but you would know better than I do.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 23, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> You can "reboot" Dark Sun since there hasn't been a huge fiction line and the product has been dead since WoTC took over.
> 
> .




The last *new* printed product that was released for Darksun was in September 1996 and was Psionic Artifacts of Athas.

That's a 13 year gap between product lines IMO. Way easier to do a reboot of such a setting as you allude to.

The novel line consists of only "Tribe of One" - a trilogy, "Prism Pentad" - a pentalogy, Chronicles of Athas - a 4 book series and the Hardcover, "Rise and Fall of a Dragon King". Total fiction line - (coincidentally) 13 books.


----------



## Mean Eyed Cat (Aug 23, 2009)

I have been running games with the FR setting in every edition right from the get go; 1st, 2nd, 3rd/3.5 and now 4th edition.  I also own every piece of FR related product that was ever produced and am a die-hard fan.  Truth be told, I love 4th edition and, IMHO, think it is probably one of the best editions produced.  Living in a small college town, I have not had a problem finding people who are willing to play and like 4th edition FR.  One year later, we are still going strong (and we don't even use the Living FR stuff).

Right after 4th edition FR came out, I couldn't even stand visiting the WotC or Candlekeep boards.  Way too much negativity.  Lately, they've become a little better.  

Now, that being said, there are certain things I didn't totally agree with when 4th ed. FR came out.  Swapping out and/or destroying huge tracts of land with the whole Abeir-Toril/Spellplague catastrophe seemed a little too extreme.  But, there were also prior historical aspects I didn't like either (the Time of Troubles, events with the Horde and Maztica mirroring real-world cultures, etc.)  

So, does all of these changes affect the games I run? No, they don't.  My games observe the current changes and I simply move on.  I still play the game I love in the setting I love.


----------



## Nai_Calus (Aug 24, 2009)

I don't run or play FR largely because there's too much damned history to keep straight(And large swaths of hugely popular elements I frankly don't give a damn about learning all about). I read novels and some of the setting books and that's about it.

I still don't like 4E FR. Nuked some of my favourite things, explicitly killed at least one character I liked, and most of the rest are likely dead due to the time jump. 

It's the time jump I think, that bothers me so much. The Spellplague would have been an interesting thing to deal with the process or aftermath of, but instead it's so far back in time now that only Elves, oh sorry, Eladrin, are going to remember it. (I don't remember, does 4e FR note anything on Elven/Eladrin lifespans being different in FR, or are they supposed to now only live about 300 years as well, in which case most of Elven history no longer makes sense and hell a lot of the elves alive during the Spellplague are now also going to be dead.) The interesting thing is a hundred years in the past, we have very little information on what *happened* in those years, NPCs people did like are long gone with no idea when or how... 4e FR seems like a place without a history to me right now, rather than one with too much history, and both I find problematic.

If I were ever going to run FR, though, yeah, back to the grey box. That's a good read and not so bloated, and you can add to it from later things what you like.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 24, 2009)

JeffB said:


> ..... the Scarred Lands Gaz over the hardcover. ....




Man, I really loved the Scarred Lands.  And Gazetteer was really good too.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 24, 2009)

Primal said:


> BTW, I find it funny that when the "h4ters" claimed the voting system was "abused" by 4E fans and this was the only reason why 4E won so many EnNies (a ridiculous claim, IMO), people rose in defence of WoTC by saying that the results actually showed how popular 4E really is among gamers (which I agree with). Now, when someone says that very same award (and/or the lack of existing FR threads on several boards) could be used to make some conclusions about the popularity, success and quality of 4E FR, suddenly this award seems to be some vague and obscure backyard trophy that's only given to the judges' best friends and therefore not indicative of anything (alright, that's hyperbole, but you get the point).




I'm, ah, not sure there is any disconnect between saying, "The EnNies is a legitimate reward that highlights quality products" and "Something not being selected for being *one of the best products of the year* does not stand as proof of it being a terrible product." If every product that didn't make the EnNies is thus a failure, than that encompasses pretty much the vast majority of the gaming industry!

I certainly wouldn't claim that 4E FR is such an outstanding product it should have deserved an EnNie. But there is a very large area between that, and being a failure. I think it is a solid, middle of the line product, and entirely functional as a setting and as an RPG resource. That's a very different thing from an actually terrible product.

I do expect 4E Eberron to make the list, because it is an absolutely brilliant work. But that should be a mark in _its _favor, not a criticism of another product for falling short of such a high bar...


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 24, 2009)

Primal said:


> If he already knew that there wouldn't be more than three books -- and I know he's a guy who wouldn't talk of it unless they really planned to do something -- why make such claims?




It's a good question, but maybe... you should provide some exact quotes? Given that everyone else seems to be remembering things differently - including those who had direct knowledge of when some of these design choices may have been made - it seems most likely you simply misread what was being asked. I suspect it may well have been asking what sort of support articles people might have wanted to see in DDI, or similar. 

Everything I've seen indicates the '3 settings' choices was made well before any previews of 4E FR were really hitting the community.


----------



## Henry (Aug 24, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> It's a good question, but maybe... you should provide some exact quotes? Given that everyone else seems to be remembering things differently - including those who had direct knowledge of when some of these design choices may have been made - it seems most likely you simply misread what was being asked. I suspect it may well have been asking what sort of support articles people might have wanted to see in DDI, or similar.
> 
> Everything I've seen indicates the '3 settings' choices was made well before any previews of 4E FR were really hitting the community.




Another possibility -- as I remember it, Rich Baker said that their plan was to do the "three books and done" idea, _but if there were enough public interest, _they might entertain the idea of doing more, and then asking what people would like to see, if not for full books, then maybe some expansion material in the DDI. If so, then very likely he was either answered by crickets, or just more venom, so the idea didn't go any further than maybe some DDI articles. I could be wrong, but I do seem to remember a caveat like that shortly before the 4E FR release.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 24, 2009)

Given the way the DDI is, I wouldn't be surprised if more print support showed up if it wasn't culled from the DDI itself via best of Dragon.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Aug 24, 2009)

The Forgotten Realms wont get rebooted, that would disrupt the "Sullen Warrior" *CoughDrizztCough* money making machine. 

I think that Wizards missed an opportunity with DDI and the Realms. As in started to publish DDI Articles to late. IMO Wizards should have started putting out FR DDI Articles in Jan, not June and July. 

Its all about the D&D Brand. Hence, Worls of D&D: The Forgotten Realms article from last week.

During the Realms Seminar at Gencon Bill S. said they "might" produce a Realms game supplement once a year in which he got a good reception. 

Ed is currently writing "Elminster Must Die"! I thought it was a joke but THO at Candlekeep confirmed it.

I plan on running a 4E Game set in 225DR. Very Interesting Realms then.


----------



## Primal (Aug 24, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> I'm, ah, not sure there is any disconnect between saying, "The EnNies is a legitimate reward that highlights quality products" and "Something not being selected for being *one of the best products of the year* does not stand as proof of it being a terrible product." If every product that didn't make the EnNies is thus a failure, than that encompasses pretty much the vast majority of the gaming industry!
> 
> I certainly wouldn't claim that 4E FR is such an outstanding product it should have deserved an EnNie. But there is a very large area between that, and being a failure. I think it is a solid, middle of the line product, and entirely functional as a setting and as an RPG resource. That's a very different thing from an actually terrible product.
> 
> I do expect 4E Eberron to make the list, because it is an absolutely brilliant work. But that should be a mark in _its _favor, not a criticism of another product for falling short of such a high bar...




Absolutely; I'm not saying it's the all-exclusive and all-comprehensive list of the best RPGs of the year, and not making the list is irrefutable proof of a product's low quality. There are only a few slots in most of the categories, so many good products are left out of the voting each year. However, although the list is based on subjective opinions, it's put together by several informed experts on RPGs; to me a product being nominated in one or more categories tells that "this is a product I probably should take a closer look at" (and I also pay attention to Origins and Indie RPG Awards; if the same product appears in two or even all three of them, it speaks volumes of its quality). When 4E FRCG didn't make the list, it's not exactly the same as some obscure Finnish Indie RPG half the judges hadn't heard about not making the list; it's a high-profile product with more visibility and brand recognition and production costs than any other setting this year, and it's pretty safe to assume all the judges were at least vaguely familiar with the contents. And they didn't pick it among the top five candidates. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Eberron took the gold next year -- it seems to be a truly great product.



MrMyth said:


> It's a good question, but maybe... you should provide some exact quotes? Given that everyone else seems to be remembering things differently - including those who had direct knowledge of when some of these design choices may have been made - it seems most likely you simply misread what was being asked. I suspect it may well have been asking what sort of support articles people might have wanted to see in DDI, or similar.
> 
> Everything I've seen indicates the '3 settings' choices was made well before any previews of 4E FR were really hitting the community.




I'll try to find the quote(s) from RB as soon as the WoTC boards are up again; I'm not deying the possibility that I might be misremembering the whole thing. I *am* quite certain that RB did mention other FR products, but as Henry said, it *might* have been more of a "If the FR books sell enough"-type of comment (well, this would also speak volumes to me about 4E FR's success).


----------



## ggroy (Aug 24, 2009)

Primal said:


> I'm not deying the possibility that I might be misremembering the whole thing. I *am* quite certain that RB did mention other FR products, but as Henry said, it *might* have been more of a "If the FR books sell enough"-type of comment (well, this would also speak volumes to me about 4E FR's success).




On a tangential issue, I wonder if Forgotten Realms was ever on the chopping block back in the 3E D&D days.  (ie. If the 3E FR campaign guide had flopped back in 2001, there possibly may have never been any further FR splatbooks after 2001 or 2002).


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 24, 2009)

Primal said:


> I'll try to find the quote(s) from RB as soon as the WoTC boards are up again; I'm not deying the possibility that I might be misremembering the whole thing. I *am* quite certain that RB did mention other FR products, but as Henry said, it *might* have been more of a "If the FR books sell enough"-type of comment (well, this would also speak volumes to me about 4E FR's success).



FWIW, this version matches my recollection too -- that additional FR products were indeed talked about as a possibility, but only as a vague possibility if the initial three books did really well.

However, I don't think the lack of any immediately planned FR books is any indication that the first three didn't sell well. They might have sold very well, but not quite as well as, say, _Adventurer's Vault_ and thus WotC is choosing to invest resources in products that they think will sell even better than more FR books. That seems like it would be a reasonably sound business decision to me.

Perhaps a better indication of whether the sales of the initial FR books met WotC's expectations might be to see if the three Eberron books get any follow up products. If we see additional Eberron books, but not additional Forgotten Realms books, that might tell us something about the relative successes of the two settings. If we don't get additional books for either line, I don't think we can really draw any conclusions.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Aug 24, 2009)

There's actually a ton of 4th Edition Forgotten Realms material out there, all of it individually vetted and signed off on by the WOTC writing team. 

I'm talking about 80+ Living Realms adventures. Current, available now.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 24, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> Perhaps a better indication of whether the sales of the initial FR books met WotC's expectations might be to see if the three Eberron books get any follow up products. If we see additional Eberron books, but not additional Forgotten Realms books, that might tell us something about the relative successes of the two settings.




We'll know in a year or so, if they decide to release some FR or Eberron splatbooks or modules in late 2010 or 2011.

The question at this point is how much "pent-up" demand is there for additional FR splatbooks or modules.  (It may be too early to tell at this point for Eberron).  I wonder how well "Scepter Tower of Spellgard" actually sold.  If it did not sell any better than "Keep on the Shadowfell" or "Thunderspire Labyrinth", I can see how they may be reluctant to release further FR modules.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 24, 2009)

Peter said:


> I'm talking about 80+ Living Realms adventures. Current, available now.



I realise that this is nearly unforgivably pedantic, but I count only 73 Living Realms adventures so far. Have I managed to miss a few somehow?

[sblock]1. Inheritance (CORE 1-1), released August 2008
2. Sense of Wonder (CORE 1-3), released August 2008
3. Shades of the Zhentarim (SPEC 1-1), released August 2008
4. The Radiant Vessel of Thesk (CORE 1-2), released August 2008
5. Flames of Initiation (BALD 1-1), released August 2008
6. Heirloom (WATE 1-1), released August 2008
7. Silvers of Eaerlann (LURU 1-1), released August 2008
8. These Hallowed Halls (EAST 1-1), released August 2008
9. The Black Knight of Arabel (CORM 1-1), released September 2008
10. The Prospect (DALE 1-1), released September 2008
11. Alone (IMPI 1-1), released September 2008
12. The Rotting Ruins of Galain (AKAN 1-1), released September 2008
13. Elder Wisdom (TYMA 1-1), released September 2008
14. Nature's Wrath (MOON 1-1), released September 2008
15. Lost Temple of the Fey Gods (AGLA 1-1), released September 2008
16. Many Hands Make Light Work (DRAG 1-1), released September 2008
17. Breaking Point (IMPI 1-2), released October 2008
18. Gangs of Wheloon (CORM 1-2), released October 2008
19. The Sea Drake (MOON 1-2), released October 2008
20. Crystal Clear (CORE 1-4), released October 2008
21. Dark Secrets of Downshadow (WATE 1-2), released October 2008
22. Beneath Haunted Halls, released October 2008
23. Blades for Daggerdale (DALE 1-2), released October 2008
24. The Gibbous Moon (LURU 1-2), released November 2008
25. Taking Stock of the Situation (TYMA 1-2), released November 2008
26. At the Foot of the Lighthouse (AGLA 1-2), released November 2008
27. Touched by Darkness (CORE 1-5), released November 2008
28. The Thin Gray Line (DRAG 1-2), released November 2008
29. The Night I Called the Undead Out (BALD 1-2), released December 2008
30. Marauder's Spear (EAST 1-2), released December 2008
31. The Depths of Airspur (AKAN 1-2), released December 2008
32. Unbidden (EAST 1-3), released January 2009
33. A Stab in the Dark (DRAG 1-3), released January 2009
34. Master and Servant (DALE 1-3), released January 2009
35. Incident at the Gorge of Gauros (CORE 1-6), released January 2009
36. The Worst of All Snares (AGLA 1-3), released January 2009
37. Black Gold (MOON 1-3), released February 2009
38. Lost Souls (IMPI 1-3), released February 2009
39. Sovereign of the Mines (CORE 1-7), released February 2009
40. The Woolmen's Restless Tomb (WATE 1-3), released February 2009
41. Property for Sale (AKAN 1-3), released February 2009
42. Head Above Water (CORM 1-3), released March 2009
43. Zhent's Ancient Shadows (SPEC 1-2), released March 2009
44. Shades of Blue Fire (LURU 1-3), released March 2009
45. Tools of the Trade (TYMA 1-3), released March 2009
46. Taken (CORE 1-8), released March 2009
47. Tome of the Traitor (BALD 1-3), released March 2009
48. Black Blood (MOON 1-4), released April 2009
49. Mystery of Deepwater Harbor (WATE 1-4), released April 2009
50. Darkness in Delzimmer (EAST 1-4), released April 2009
51. Prey for the Night (LURU 1-4), released April 2009
52. Ages Best Left Forgotten (CORE 1-9), released April 2009
53. Bandits on the Farm (IMPI 1-4), released May 2009
54. Death Before Dishonor (TYMA 1-4), released May 2009
55. Black Steel and Blue Fire (CORM 1-4), released May 2009
56. The Lady in Flames (DALE 1-4), released May 2009
57. Through Twilight Boughs (AGLA 1-4), released June 2009
58. Dancing Shadows (CORE 1-10), released June 2009
59. Falling Snow, White Petal (DRAG 1-4), released June 2009
60. Runes in Ruins (AKAN 1-4), released June 2009
61. Silent Streets and Vanished Souls (BALD 1-4), released June 2009
62. Black Cloaks and Bitter Rivalries (QUES 1-1), released July 2009
63. From One Dwarf to Another (TYMA 1-5), released July 2009
64. Hunters' Down (DALE 1-5), released July 2009
65. Lost in the Fog (WATE 1-5), released July 2009
66. Shell Game (AKAN 1-5), released July 2009
67. Silver Lining (AGLA 1-5), released July 2009
68. Mole Hunt (EAST 1-5), released August 2009
69. Songs of the Heart (CORE 1-12), released August 2009
70. Lost Refuge (BALD 1-5), released August 2009
71. The Fate of Camp 15 (CORE 1-13), released August 2009
72. Stirring the Embers (MINI 1-1), released August 2009
73. What Storms May Come (CORE 1-14), released August 2009[/sblock]


----------



## Imban (Aug 24, 2009)

ggroy said:


> We'll know in a year or so, if they decide to release some FR or Eberron splatbooks or modules in late 2010 or 2011.
> 
> The question at this point is how much "pent-up" demand is there for additional FR splatbooks or modules.  (It may be too early to tell at this point for Eberron).  I wonder how well "Scepter Tower of Spellgard" actually sold.  If it did not sell any better than "Keep on the Shadowfell" or "Thunderspire Labyrinth", I can see how they may be reluctant to release further FR modules.




When I saw WotC's (frankly pathetic) marketing for Seekers of the Ashen Crown, I was fairly sure that they were almost washing their hands of the idea of setting supplements.

Thankfully the actual copy is a little better on that front, since it no longer gives "This isn't *really* just an Eberron module it can be repurposed to anything else,,, buy me... please...? don't walk away..." top billing over the actual contents of the module.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 24, 2009)

Imban said:


> When I saw WotC's (frankly pathetic) marketing for Seekers of the Ashen Crown, I was fairly sure that they were almost washing their hands of the idea of setting supplements.




The marketing for 4E Eberron has been kind of on a lackluster side.

Arguably the same could said about the marketing for 4E Forgotten Realms.

Rather underwhelming.

Dark Sun was a bit more interesting, leading up to Gencon a few weeks ago.  Though how much the hype can be maintained for the next year until the campaign setting book is released, is another matter.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 24, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> The "Time of Troubles" just to fit the 2nd ed rules in....*barf!* no need of that. and Cyric especially = complete loser as a deity (and that's a word I normally hate to use, but he is a complete drivleling non-entity gets to be a god and makes a mess of it and goes nuts...ah huh! You really think Ao would let that twerp keep that position AND cause all the trouble he has?)




Well he became the God of Strife, Death, Secrets, and whatever else he got from otehr gods he killed or out-did in the case of Mask.  He really was doing what he was supposed to do for his portoflio, which was the entire point of the Trial of Cyric the Mad novel.  Mystra letting her personal feelings from when she was a mortal color her actions and causing her to upset the balance.  

Cyric trying to kill every other god by making the Cyrinishad is something else entirely and the gods should have just teamed up to smack him down and say no, b/c having only one god in that setting would have screwed balance completely.  He was not a nice guy tho when a mortal and unfortunately the novels seem to take him from unhappy with how his life is turning out to turning on his allies and trying to kill them extremely quickly.  They aren't considered great books for a reason, altho I do have a certain love for them heh.




Primal said:


> I guess you could say that FR still gets supported via DDi (and I'm excluding LFR material here), but we already had that when Dragon was still in the hands of Paizo. So comparing the support FR gets these days to the 3E era makes the former look like FR is on life support, and fading fast. Frankly, I think WoTC sees FR as a novel setting first and foremost; LFR may be doing good (or not; I can't say one way or the other) but I suspect the sales for FRCG were not nearly as good as they expected (hence the sudden "only-three-books-per-setting"-policy, which was announced, I think, after the sales data for FRCG started coming in).







Henry said:


> Another possibility -- as I remember it, Rich Baker said that their plan was to do the "three books and done" idea, _but if there were enough public interest, _they might entertain the idea of doing more, and then asking what people would like to see, if not for full books, then maybe some expansion material in the DDI. If so, then very likely he was either answered by crickets, or just more venom, so the idea didn't go any further than maybe some DDI articles. I could be wrong, but I do seem to remember a caveat like that shortly before the 4E FR release.





My memory jibes with Henry's on this.  3 and out was always the advertised plan.  They said that the Realms ahd the possibility for other products down the line if they felt they were needed, but it would be a wait and see kind of thing.

Part of the reason the Eberron book is as good as it is is most likely WotC learning from their mistakes w/the 4E FRCS.  I was personally excited to hear they were skipping things forward so much and making the changes they were.  Yeah it's another edition change so alter the game like Time of Troubles was, but we've already seen novels with people trying to survive in the period right after major upheavals.  Skip forward 100 years, let the super NPCs largely die off and leave the world fresh.  

In the 2E days the huge amount of source material was immersing, altho toward the end of 2E, with Volo's endless series of guides (I mean, how did we not have Outhouses of Waterdeep by the end?) and other books detailing the setting to such minute levels, we had so much material it was getting overwhelming and hard to find an area of the world you could set things in and not have some super-pedantic player hard endlessly about how "that whole area has had blah blah" and "Didn't you read X book last month?  The king is dead, how could he be giving us all orders!?".  Yes the easy answer w/those people is to say that what hapens in the novels doesn't happen in your games, but it's still irritating.

I also agree that rebooting FR back to the grey box would not happen.  The Dark Sun reboot doesn't even really invalidate the novels, as they are already saying that if you would still like to have the results of the Prism Pentad happen in your game you can, but re-doing the FR and turning time back 20 years or so would have invalidated literally HUNDREDS of novels.  Novels sell more than game books, simple fact of life.  There are times I've been pretty sure the novel lines were what kept D&D afloat, much like the GBA and DS did Nintendo for awhile.  A lot of those novels were built based on publications TSR/WotC was going to have coming out, so if you roll things back to say those haven't happened you have invalidated a lot of stuff.

I do have to say I'm a fan of 3 and out tho.  It means I can afford to pick up every setting produced by WotC and not strain my budget.  2 kids means less gaming books


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 24, 2009)

Well, you can see where WOTC is really pushing "core" material.

Take for example the Hammerfast product. A generic dwarven outpost/town (and I think I wouldn't be surprised if there's one for elves coming out as well).

Such a product would've fallen under a campaign setting moniker before most likely. It seems like WOTC is betting they'll get more sales with such a "generic" town than one with specific ties to a campaign setting.

They might actually be right...


----------



## Primal (Aug 24, 2009)

ggroy said:


> On a tangential issue, I wonder if Forgotten Realms was ever on the chopping block back in the 3E D&D days.  (ie. If the 3E FR campaign guide had flopped back in 2001, there possibly may have never been any further FR splatbooks after 2001 or 2002).




I thought it sold pretty well, and when I bought my second copy (the first one had taken some... er... damage over the years) it was of the third printing. And I remember seeing FRCS consistently pretty high on Amazon's top seller list last year (of course, this does not tell actually anything, as that list is updated on an hourly basis, I think). So I doubt it was ever seriously considered. No doubt the sales of FR products decreased over time, but that happened to 3E in general; I stopped buying the books after the first 30 supplements had come out, because I felt that I already had enough material to keep running 3E campaigns for twenty years or more. 

But if it had flopped badly, I think they might have done something more dramatic than the continual stream of RSEs; at worst this might have meant FR becoming a "novel-only" setting (I suspect this might yet happen before 5E comes out).


----------



## Klaus (Aug 24, 2009)

FR 4e is the first FR I'm actually liking, but that is mainly because of Abeir. In fact, i'd love to see more info on Returned Abeir and its realms.


----------



## Atras (Aug 24, 2009)

Nai_Calus said:


> I don't run or play FR largely because there's too much damned history to keep straight



I would never have been able to get into the Realms if not for the semi-reboot for the same reasons.  Honestly, my biggest problem with the Spellplague is that not enough time has gone by - Dwarves and Elves will likely have first hand knowledge of what happened, and the players have to make something up to fill in that gap.


----------



## Primal (Aug 24, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> In the 2E days the huge amount of source material was immersing, altho toward the end of 2E, with Volo's endless series of guides (I mean, how did we not have Outhouses of Waterdeep by the end?) and other books detailing the setting to such minute levels, we had so much material it was getting overwhelming and hard to find an area of the world you could set things in and not have some super-pedantic player hard endlessly about how "that whole area has had blah blah" and "Didn't you read X book last month?  The king is dead, how could he be giving us all orders!?".  Yes the easy answer w/those people is to say that what hapens in the novels doesn't happen in your games, but it's still irritating.




No, I think that was the *wellhouses* and wells of Waterdeep, and it was Ed Greenwood's reply to my question on Candlekeep (or maybe you thought about his "generic" reply to outhouses and what people in the Realms use for toilet paper?). If this wasn't what you referred to, I'm not kidding here; those are actual questions answered by Ed.

In all seriousness, my players love this sort of details, and sometimes they catch me by surprise when they ask about, say, local architecture or holidays or fashion or famous personalities and so on (sometimes it's out of curiosity, sometimes there's a mechanical or story reason such as the rogue's player wanting to know which sort of drainpipes are used in the city buildings and what material are they made of).

Anyway, regardless of the fact that I'm playing with pedantic and curious people, we all know that not everything needs to be "ultra-realistic" or 100% according to the canon. When I sit at another FR DM's game, I'm not upset if his campaign features, for example, Azoun IV's twin sons (as we know, he had no living sons). Or Bane never returned, and his son Iyachtu Xvim is still the God of Tyranny. Or Neverwinter's lord was killed by the Kraken Society, and now his step-daughter rules the city. And so on. As long as these changes to the canon are plausible and explained, I don't care; in many cases stuff like this has actually made the campaign more interesting and the world feel more "alive".


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 25, 2009)

Primal said:


> As long as these changes to the canon are plausible and explained, I don't care




And here we have the problem in a nutshell, which is repeated in gaming groups and on the internet: "If you change details of FR go on! As long as those changes make sense for me as a lore-lover, of course." THIS is the root of the "lore tyranny" discussion: "I don´t mind your changes as long as i like them." 

Plausible? A FR DM should be free to change what he likes how he likes it. But - no offense meant, Primal - i´ve encountered this opinion before, both on the internet and in real life. "You´re free to change stuff, but not THIS stuff, because me, the lore-guy, says this makes no sense. And i´m not going to tell you what THIS stuff is before you actually change it, because for a TRUE lover of the realms, it should be obvious!" 

No thanks. This was the real reason why i started my Grey Box Campaign: nobody in my group has a clue about that timeline, so nobody can tell me that my changes were "not plausible."


----------



## Derulbaskul (Aug 25, 2009)

I still believe that the new FR would have had a much more positive reception if the map hadn't been one of the worst maps ever published in the history of RPG publishing. The problem with my previous sentence is that I don't think I'm exaggerating!

One of the strengths of FR since the first, and now legendary, grey box was the quality of the maps. But the latest map? Crap with a capital K.

Look at the Eberron maps: they're arguably an improvement on the 3.5E ones and certainly no worse. 

For FR only one map was done so even the regional close ups in both the FRCG and FRPG include no additional features that a close-up would normally show, not even the features described in a region's write-up!

So, as much as I know that there is bad blood about the content and direction of the post-Spellplague Realms, a lot of that ill-feeling, IMO, could have been prevented if WotC had put together some really good maps.

As for the setting itself, I like it and use it. Why? Simply because I like WotC's electronic tools so much so I just can't be bothered recreating the 3.5E flavour of the races, in particular, because I can't custom-build them in the Character Generator yet. That said, as soon as I can, I wouldn't be surprised if I go back to the pre-Spellplague Realms but I also may not.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 25, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, I think that was the *wellhouses* and wells of Waterdeep, and it was Ed Greenwood's reply to my question on Candlekeep (or maybe you thought about his "generic" reply to outhouses and what people in the Realms use for toilet paper?). If this wasn't what you referred to, I'm not kidding here; those are actual questions answered by Ed.




Nope don't read Candlekeep and I'm not surprised in the least that people ask that sort of thing.  I just meant that it seemed there was a Volo's guide to freaking everything and other FR products got to the point where someone could say "Oh no, 3 streets over, 2 blocks up is a bookshop" while running around Waterdeep.  This is either great for the  immersiveness of it all or irritating when the DM wants to not get dragged in there.  "There's no bookshop over there" "Yes there is, page 47 of blah blah" "He's on vacation" is an argument you shouldn't have to have several times a night. 



Primal said:


> In all seriousness, my players love this sort of details, and sometimes they catch me by surprise when they ask about, say, local architecture or holidays or fashion or famous personalities and so on (sometimes it's out of curiosity, sometimes there's a mechanical or story reason such as the rogue's player wanting to know which sort of drainpipes are used in the city buildings and what material are they made of).




For me there is a difference in knowing local holidays, what style of architecture things are, who some of the famous locals are and having a storefront by storefront listing of half the city, which the old FR certainly felt like at times.  Ptolus was a product that had a distinct mix of this.  Monte had things like a sample menu for one of the restaurants, citizenship papers, gun permits, and he did detail many of the locations in the various areas.  There were also many left open and the point of the product was specifically a single city that was highly detailed.  It is a delicate balance.  Enough detail to make it feel lived in and enough blank space for the DM to play with.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 25, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Well, you can see where WOTC is really pushing "core" material.
> 
> Take for example the Hammerfast product. A generic dwarven outpost/town (and I think I wouldn't be surprised if there's one for elves coming out as well).
> 
> ...




I remember seeing more than a couple of editorial letters in Dragon and Dungeon talking about exactly this.  A generic module sells far and away better than a campaign specific one, simply because there are people who don't play that given setting who will not even open the cover, let alone buy the product to mine for information all on the idea that this is for a "specific" campaign world.


----------



## williamhm (Aug 25, 2009)

I dont see how people adventured in 3.5 FR.  There were way too many npcs to make it worth it.  Every last detail of the world was known.  There was literally nothing for the dm or group to do at all.  At least thats the way I felt about it. The 3.5 campaign guide spelled everything out there was no mystery in it.  No unknown villian.  There was really nothing interesting in old forgotten realms.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 25, 2009)

The generic area things they added into the 4E FR book are really the worst part of the entire book.  I like that for the core adventure series they would post free articles talking about how you would fit this area into X campaign world.  Helps you take the more generic adventure and find a very appropriate place for it within other settings.

You have to hand it to WotC, they do understand that the generic will sell better than the campaign specific.  That info on how to fit it into your existing campaign world could also be included in the adventure, but it is something that fits well as a web enhancement too.  It will be very interesting to see how they will suggest runnig some of those adventures in Dark Sun tho heh.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 25, 2009)

Anyone want to explain the Spell-Plague to a non-4e guy?
The way it reads from this thread it's akin to the Cataclysm within Dragonlance, only it's a present times calmity between 3.5E and 4E vice a past tense happening at the start of Dragonlance.


----------



## EATherrian (Aug 25, 2009)

I would play in the 4E Realms, but the CG just doesn't give me any real inspiration for the DM side.  As a player I'm open to any and all settings, but so much of the Realms seemed ham-fisted that I just don't enjoy reading the book.  I know I'm strange in that I like to actually read gaming books, but I'm always looking for details and little things I can use.  I can see how Abeir could be interesting but there wasn't enough information for me to figure out how to flesh it.  I love when I have historical guides to settings, since it lets me extrapolate where the setting will go and how.  Without that for Abeir it's like an open sore in the world to me.  Plus my favorite FR region (Mulhorand) is gone.  I was actually all excited to join the RPGA until I heard it was going to be LFR.  I still kick myself for not doing it while Living Greyhawk was running, but I didn't realize it was a limited time thing.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 25, 2009)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Anyone want to explain the Spell-Plague to a non-4e guy?
> The way it reads from this thread it's akin to the Cataclysm within Dragonlance, only it's a present times calmity between 3.5E and 4E vice a past tense happening at the start of Dragonlance.




It's mostly past tense, in tat the majority of it's cataclysmic effects happened well before the start of the campaign setting. 

There are still some lingering effects in the present campaign setting, however.


----------



## UniversalMonster (Aug 25, 2009)

EATherrian said:


> I would play in the 4E Realms, but the CG just doesn't give me any real inspiration for the DM side.  As a player I'm open to any and all settings, but so much of the Realms seemed ham-fisted that I just don't enjoy reading the book.  I know I'm strange in that I like to actually read gaming books, but I'm always looking for details and little things I can use.  I can see how Abeir could be interesting but there wasn't enough information for me to figure out how to flesh it.  I love when I have historical guides to settings, since it lets me extrapolate where the setting will go and how.  Without that for Abeir it's like an open sore in the world to me.  Plus my favorite FR region (Mulhorand) is gone.  I was actually all excited to join the RPGA until I heard it was going to be LFR.  I still kick myself for not doing it while Living Greyhawk was running, but I didn't realize it was a limited time thing.




This week the LFR adventure I am running takes place in some Mulhorandi ruins in a recently surfaced area of the Raurin desert. It's a MyRealms adventure, which means I wrote it myself. I loved Mulhorand too. Which is why I am featuring it in Living Realms!


----------



## Tilenas (Aug 25, 2009)

williamhm said:


> I dont see how people adventured in 3.5 FR.  There were way too many npcs to make it worth it.  Every last detail of the world was known.  There was literally nothing for the dm or group to do at all.  At least thats the way I felt about it. The 3.5 campaign guide spelled everything out there was no mystery in it.  No unknown villian.  There was really nothing interesting in old forgotten realms.




Well, all that depends on your playing style. If your heroes set out to save the world from the get-go, then there will always be some big-ass NPC who beats them to it.
But I, for one, like a more small-scale, more intimate campaign, where the PCs face issues and adversaries that simply aren't worth anyone else's while. Obviously, this style of play is mainly suited for low-level characters. 
For more experienced PCs I'd say that there's so much going on in the Realms, you could easily rule that every hero-NPC is caught up with thwarting a villain-NPC. The PCs are there to tip that balance.


----------



## darkranger65 (Aug 25, 2009)

I have just come back to D&D after 4 years. I have played 3 sessions (player once and DM twice), all based in the realms, and I think the new Realms fits the heroic aspect of the 4th edition rules. Granted the players are barely 2nd level but the game ran really smooth and the players (2 where familiar the old realms) enjoyed it and were not bothered by the changes.


----------



## Renshai (Aug 25, 2009)

I played in the Forgotten Realms since the early articles in Dragon Magazine and the release of the Gray Boxed set. For me, the Realms reached their height when Steven Schend wrote the Empires of the Shining Sea and Lands of Intrigue. To this date I judge all roleplaying supplements by comparing them to those two products. I got more enjoyment and ideas from them that I have from anything else. 

As a long time collector of Realmslore and products, the 4E setting was kind of a slap in the face.  My old maps were mostly useless, my old supplements made obsolete other than for historical reference.   

I tried to give it a chance, I read the Camapign Guide and the Player's Guide at least twice each after buying them, and I couldn't help but feel like I'd been cheated each time I read them.  They just don't seem to have the depth previous products had. 

So, I tried running the core 4E adventures in the implied setting, but ended up feeling like there wasn't enough depth. I don't like Eberron either.. so I left 4E behind and returned to WFRP.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 25, 2009)

Call me bizarro, but, while I didn't run the Realms often, I never ran into the problem of "WELL WHY DOESN'T <NPC> FIX IT."  Just pause and think about how many villains there are in FR.  If a player asks why a certain NPC isn't coming to help, what do you do as a DM?

You raise your eyebrows and say "Well, that IS a good question, isn't it?"

Bam.  Instant plot thread.  

Maybe they can investigate it after they're done with their quest.  Maybe a short side quest will show that <NPC> is holding back another group of villains to ensure that the PCs are able to defeat the Big Bad (And as a player, it feels _awesome_ knowing that the NPC isn't swooping in to save the day, but is working _for_ me, not _with_ me).  Or maybe they meet <NPC> only to find that the Big Bad has done something to remove them, either draining their power or holding them in check somehow.


----------



## Atras (Aug 25, 2009)

*Spellplague (longer than I intended)*



TheYeti1775 said:


> Anyone want to explain the Spell-Plague to a non-4e guy?
> The way it reads from this thread it's akin to the Cataclysm within Dragonlance, only it's a present times calamity between 3.5E and 4E vice a past tense happening at the start of Dragonlance.



You're basically right about it being a cataclysm event.  The story we have is that roughly 100 years before the 4th Edition setting, Cyric (evil god) murdered Mystra (good god who happened to own or control all magic - I'm fuzzy on that).  When  this happened, the magic Weave that was under Mystra's control went wild - think a fire hose, but with magic instead of water, and a populated world instead of a crowded sidewalk.  When this hose whipped around, a twin world (Aebir) crossed with Toril, with tracts of land getting exchanged in some places.  This brought over a continent of Genasi, a nation of Dragonborn and some places vanished.  In addition, some living things were changed by the Spellplague and some terrain features were warped - partially draining a sea, making a plain into a desert, and sinking a big area into the Underdark.

When you are introduced to the 4th Ed Realms, the Spellplague is old news.  Pretty much no humans who were around for it still live, and they seem to be the most populous race still.  Most Elves who were alive when it all happened should be expected to know what it was like (this is my biggest problem with the "only" 100 year jump), and a lot of Dwarves would also know what happened.  Some areas are still dangerous directly because of the lingering effects of the plague, but by now it is mostly a case of people congregated together a century ago, and now the intervening areas are overrun by dangerous things again. - giving more room for adventurers.

In theory, people who have been playing in the Forgotten Realms for a while can still enjoy the setting's history, but in a more detached way.  A lot of the nations are still there, but with subtle changes to keep them interesting for someone with 20 years of knowledge.  Like someone here did, they can visit the ruins of a favorite area that no longer exists, maybe find magic items that belonged to a cherished 3.5E character.  In reality, it seems like the biggest fans of the "old" realms are upset because they don't want a detached history, or they don't like the nations that were preserved.


----------



## ferratus (Aug 25, 2009)

I'm left wondering if it wouldn't have been better for the realms to not make it friendly towards DM's at home.  I used the Realms in 2e and 3e for what I use the 4e core setting for now, stealing bits and bpieces to use in my own homebrew, and I have a feeling that most people who bought FR materials were of that mold.  I didn't want to take FR in its entirety, but I did buy 3 FR books in 3e which were of interest to me: The Silver Marches, The Moonsea, and the FR Campaign Guide.  I didn't care about the rest, though I would have also bought a sourcebook on the Dales if one had been released.

 I didn't buy the 4e FRCG or the FRPG, but I did just buy the Scepter Tower of Spellguard.  I did this because it matches up very well with the Ruins of Fastormel on the shores of Lake Nen rather than because I care about the ancient wizards of Netheril.   The modular nature of 4e's core flavour makes my reliance on FR for high fantasy locations, history and storylines to poach much reduced.   I'd prefer if my D&D flavour text doesn't come with FR baggage.   Heck, I've come to the realization that I like Greyhawk flavour after 4e wrenched the classic Greyhawk villains and dungeons from their moorings in the campaign setting... though I am still bored stiff by the setting I read about in the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer.

 So if they were going to switch tacks and stop using FR as its vehicle for delivering adventures, locales, and other flavour text, and there were only planning to release 3 RPG books outside the core 3, then maybe they should have just left the setting as it was.   Sure, it might be better as a novel setting, or you wouldn't want to play it unless you were in the RPGA (where the modules are vetted for setting accuracy) because of the preponderance of notable names and backstory... but maybe D&D intellectual property is as much about reading and enjoying content as playing the game.  

 The thing about FR is that while most would never play it, it was always enjoying to read.  Volo's Guides were suffocating as canonical game material, but they were great for reading.   I always return to my 2e Forgotten Realms Adventures hardcover when designing a new city, and 3e FRCS was a textbook in campaign setting design (every paragraph should have an adventure hook). 

 Myth Drannor is representative of everything that is wonderful and awful about the Forgotten Realms.  It is the most wondrous, beautiful and enchanting deathtrap ever made* with a rich story filled with unexpected surprises around every corner.   It was however a horrible module with arbitrary death, overpowered magical items, and an overwhelming amount of trivia.  But in terms of enjoyable D&D game material to read and immerse yourself in, it is hard to beat it.


*And they made it into a living elven city again in the closing days of 3e. Blah!  What a waste of an excellent ruin.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 26, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Myth Drannor is representative of everything that is wonderful and awful about the Forgotten Realms.  It is the most wondrous, beautiful and enchanting deathtrap ever made* with a rich story filled with unexpected surprises around every corner.   It was however a horrible module with arbitrary death, overpowered magical items, and an overwhelming amount of trivia.  But in terms of enjoyable D&D game material to read and immerse yourself in, it is hard to beat it.




Wow! I think that's the first time I've ever seen somebody talk about the Myth Drannor boxed set being anything other than a horrible product. Goes to show, I guess, that one man's floor is another man's ceiling.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 26, 2009)

williamhm said:


> I dont see how people adventured in 3.5 FR.  There were way too many npcs to make it worth it.  Every last detail of the world was known.  There was literally nothing for the dm or group to do at all.  At least thats the way I felt about it. The 3.5 campaign guide spelled everything out there was no mystery in it.  No unknown villian.  There was really nothing interesting in old forgotten realms.




Why would any actor in LA ever spend time training to become a better actor?  Why show up at an audition?  I mean, who cares that Joe Johnson is some new actor, and could play Hamlet well when Brad Pitt is around, and way more experienced and well-known?

The whole argument about there being too many NPCs in the Forgotten Realms is just as silly.  I've seen tonnes of people make it, and use it as a reason why they don't like the setting.  But really....

Reading through the FRCS, there is a population of 69,702,416 people in Faerun, to say nothing of the populations of Kara-Tur, Maztica, or Al-Qadim.  Out of all the materials for the setting, I bet there are fewer than 500 named NPCs.  Having counted through the FRCS, I can say there are about 121 (I counted every one I could find in the geography chapter).  And those are many of the major/famous ones.

Assuming there are 379 more in the other books, that leaves 500....which is still only 0.0007% of the population.  These numbers are so unimaginably big that most people can't even really conceive of them.  Consequently, 500 people are a tiny, tiny proportion of those numbers.

I really think that people overstate the prevalence of these NPCs.  Faerun is a huge continent.  There are tens of millions of people on it.  What are the odds that your PCs are ever going to run into these NPCs?  They're probably not that high.

I think back to my life, and I've probably met 2 famous people...Ronald Reagan and Bryan Mulroney.  Both were by chance, and in both instances, they had better things to do than worry about what I was doing for my job.  Why would matters be any different for the PCs?

These famous NPCs would be far too busy with the affairs they already have as responsibilities......taking care of their own business, handling the hundreds of requests for help that they get from locals (you want your cat out of the tree?  It's kind of beneath me as I was killing great wyrm red dragons on the weekend, but you know my wife's brother's cousin's best friend, and well, I'm an all around nice guy, so I guess I will), giving autographs, and all that.

I just don't see that argument holding much weight.  If the players are instructing the DM that they want to meet a certain NPC because the book says he lives in X town or building, or if the DM keeps having X NPC save the day, then the game has got more significant problems, and they're not the result of the campaign setting.

Banshee


----------



## Falstyr (Aug 26, 2009)

Too much history, too many NPC's, too much lore...

That never has bothered me before. The authors of all those novels are DM's writing about their campaign. They make their own NPC's and give their interpretation of cities. This doesn't mean that you have to use that in your campaign. It is an interesting read and source of inspiration and nothing more. To me those novels are NOT valid sources of lore which people should get tight assed about. If your players get upset that your campaign doesn't match those novels...just smack them on the head for it.

So that leaves all the dragon and dungeon magazines as well as the hardcover releases. Even those don't have to be used into detail. I mean...why read about the lore and history about parts you're not going to visit? I couldn't care less what is happening in Winterhaven while the campaign is in the Dalelands.

This means that you only read up on a specific part of The Realms. Namely that which you are actually using. And that is only a few paragraphs of reading material. Jutting down the few key NPC's, note worthy locations, type of government and using the map and you're done. As a DM your job couldn't be any easier. You don't have to read or prepare a lot and thus can focus on adding the things to the city which you want to use. Add some cult members here and there which gather in the basement of one of the taverns planning to overthrow the government and you got yourself an adventure already.

Want to go to the Underdark while in the Dalelands than do it. You don't have to use any Underdark information per se. Those books are supplemental. They can be used if you wish to get more insight and inspiration, but they are not required material. Just like Race of Faerun and such. And even if you decide to use such supplements it'll be done in relatively small dosage. An amount which you can handle and digest. Just like reading only the geographical paragraphs of the locations you actually play in...is also the same as the amount of supplements you actually read at a time.

So you basically only take what you need one step at a time. Probably the outline of what you read will stick with you. This will allow you to get all you need about the entire realms. But what matters is that have all you need for the part you're actually visiting. Who gives a damn about nit picking details and all those bastard "lore masters" who need to get a life instead of worrying whether a detail of some fantasy world is used correctly or not.

The generic dwarf city Hammerfast is a great example. WoTC has placed it in their Nentir Vale in the back of the DMG. But what stops you from using it in your personal campaign? I've placed it south of Cormyr in some mountains. Is that correct by lore? Does it matter? No it does not matter. So just add such places in FR if you need it.

So to me...the vastness of FR lore and history can be a turn off at first glance because it can seem overwhelming. But when you think about what you'll actually be using and rationalize a bit then you realize that most reason people put forth is utter crap when used as a cop out.


----------



## Belorin (Aug 26, 2009)

Deleted

Bel


----------



## ferratus (Aug 26, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Wow! I think that's the first time I've ever seen somebody talk about the Myth Drannor boxed set being anything other than a horrible product. Goes to show, I guess, that one man's floor is another man's ceiling.




Oh, don't get me wrong, "The Ruins of Myth Drannor" is a horrible product.  If anyone's reading, for heaven's sake don't go out and buy it.   But there are lots of interesting and outright _magical_ places in Myth Drannor.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 26, 2009)

Thanks for the Spellplague info, can see where people got a bit miff'd at that one.


----------



## Primal (Aug 26, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> And here we have the problem in a nutshell, which is repeated in gaming groups and on the internet: "If you change details of FR go on! As long as those changes make sense for me as a lore-lover, of course." THIS is the root of the "lore tyranny" discussion: "I don´t mind your changes as long as i like them."
> 
> Plausible? A FR DM should be free to change what he likes how he likes it. But - no offense meant, Primal - i´ve encountered this opinion before, both on the internet and in real life. "You´re free to change stuff, but not THIS stuff, because me, the lore-guy, says this makes no sense. And i´m not going to tell you what THIS stuff is before you actually change it, because for a TRUE lover of the realms, it should be obvious!"
> 
> No thanks. This was the real reason why i started my Grey Box Campaign: nobody in my group has a clue about that timeline, so nobody can tell me that my changes were "not plausible."




No, you completely missed my point; what I meant is that if you're going to drop a major temple of Bane into Suzail or Silverymoon, I expect an in-game explanation for that. Likewise, if you replace Alustriel or Azoun with an NPC ruler of your own. If you want a setting in which you don't have to read a single book to get the basic facts about a kingdom right, I suggest running homebrewed setting.

We all have different kinds of expectations for internal consistency -- both in terms of setting-specific lore and what we think is "realistic" in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world (and let's not get into any "If it has dragons and flying fortresses, anything goes"-discussions ). Just as I find any inconsistencies in a fantasy novel breaking my Suspension of Disbelief (until an explanation is offered in the book), I do so in RPGs. So, I don't have a problem if the Temple of Elemental Evil is located near the City X in your own setting; however, if nobody knows about it for no other apparent reason (not even because of magical wards or anything) that "it's for the PCs", *then* I'd have a problem. Does all this clarify my point?


----------



## williamhm (Aug 26, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, you completely missed my point; what I meant is that if you're going to drop a major temple of Bane into Suzail or Silverymoon, I expect an in-game explanation for that. Likewise, if you replace Alustriel or Azoun with an NPC ruler of your own. If you want a setting in which you don't have to read a single book to get the basic facts about a kingdom right, I suggest running homebrewed setting.
> 
> We all have different kinds of expectations for internal consistency -- both in terms of setting-specific lore and what we think is "realistic" in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world (and let's not get into any "If it has dragons and flying fortresses, anything goes"-discussions ). Just as I find any inconsistencies in a fantasy novel breaking my Suspension of Disbelief (until an explanation is offered in the book), I do so in RPGs. So, I don't have a problem if the Temple of Elemental Evil is located near the City X in your own setting; however, if nobody knows about it for no other apparent reason (not even because of magical wards or anything) that "it's for the PCs", *then* I'd have a problem. Does all this clarify my point?




Not really dm should be free to change anything in a campaign book for any reason he wants.  Keeping all fluff in the campaign guide the same limits dm creativity.  I hate settings that have too much fluff because it limits what the dm and players can do with it.  Give me a few basics and some mysterious plot hooks and Im good to go.  Old FR was overly developed there was nothing mysterious or magical about it.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 26, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, you completely missed my point; what I meant is that if you're going to drop a major temple of Bane into Suzail or Silverymoon, I expect an in-game explanation for that. Likewise, if you replace Alustriel or Azoun with an NPC ruler of your own. If you want a setting in which you don't have to read a single book to get the basic facts about a kingdom right, I suggest running homebrewed setting.
> 
> We all have different kinds of expectations for internal consistency -- both in terms of setting-specific lore and what we think is "realistic" in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world (and let's not get into any "If it has dragons and flying fortresses, anything goes"-discussions ). Just as I find any inconsistencies in a fantasy novel breaking my Suspension of Disbelief (until an explanation is offered in the book), I do so in RPGs. So, I don't have a problem if the Temple of Elemental Evil is located near the City X in your own setting; however, if nobody knows about it for no other apparent reason (not even because of magical wards or anything) that "it's for the PCs", *then* I'd have a problem. Does all this clarify my point?





Absolutely. 

I still don´t like it, but more power to you in your campaign. In my campaign, however, if i say "Alustriel never existed, ever" or "the Dragonborn blood cult has a sprawling citadel in the Quivering Forest", that´s how it is.
These boots are made for walking. 
This setting is made for changing.

That the FR somehow emanates an  15´ radius aura of "only change if the control group would attest your changes an acceptable level of verisimilitude" is simply something that grates with me.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 26, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I still don´t like it, but more power to you in your campaign. In my campaign, however, if i say "Alustriel never existed, ever" or "the Dragonborn blood cult has a sprawling citadel in the Quivering Forest", that´s how it is.
> These boots are made for walking.
> ...




It's not really just FR though.

If I entered an Eberron game and, two sessions in, the DM tells us that all warforged have been replaced by bloodthirsty robot vampires, and that the Valenar elves are now all cowards, I'd go "Hey, that's kinda cool.  Also, you're a douche for telling us we were playing Eberron then suddenly switching things on us without forewarning."

I see no problems with a DM changing their setting, so long as they tell the player in advance, but being upset that the setting is _made_ seems about bizarro.  The whole point of playing a setting is to play...you know, a pre-made setting.

The only reason FR gets so much flak for it is because it's generic enough that a lot of DMs want to play it, but detailed enough to make them not want to play it _at the same time_.  So they change things needlessly, when they could just be making their own damn setting.


----------



## Primal (Aug 26, 2009)

williamhm said:


> Not really dm should be free to change anything in a campaign book for any reason he wants.  Keeping all fluff in the campaign guide the same limits dm creativity.  I hate settings that have too much fluff because it limits what the dm and players can do with it.  Give me a few basics and some mysterious plot hooks and Im good to go.  Old FR was overly developed there was nothing mysterious or magical about it.




William, I'm fine if you say that you don't personally like something, but you have the habit of always presenting your opinions as facts and I don't like it. I don't think lore limits a DM's creativity or that the "Old Realms" were not mysterious or magical, but I've already discussed these subjects with you to ad nauseaum on the WoTC boards and I don't want to repeat it here (note: I use a different alias here). Our gaming and DMing styles are at the other ends of the spectrum, so let's just agree to disagree and leave it there, okay?


----------



## Scribble (Aug 26, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I see no problems with a DM changing their setting, so long as they tell the player in advance, but being upset that the setting is _made_ seems about bizarro.  The whole point of playing a setting is to play...you know, a pre-made setting.
> 
> The only reason FR gets so much flak for it is because it's generic enough that a lot of DMs want to play it, but detailed enough to make them not want to play it _at the same time_.  So they change things needlessly, when they could just be making their own damn setting.




In my case when I play a pre made setting I do so because:

1. Some of the ideas in the flavor of that setting spark my creativity.  (For me this is more the case when those flavor ideas are snippets, and unfilled in ideas. Too much info actually does the opposite, and tends to sort of color my creativity too much.)  This is the reason I liked Scarred Lands in 3e. WW is REALLY good at the snippets of ideas thing in my opinion.

2. I want som of the larger stuff done for me because I don't have time.

I don't have time to draw a full world map, or do the larger this realm is here part or this realm is there part. I let the pre-made setting take care of that stuff, and I fill in the details as we go.


----------



## Primal (Aug 26, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I still don´t like it, but more power to you in your campaign. In my campaign, however, if i say "Alustriel never existed, ever" or "the Dragonborn blood cult has a sprawling citadel in the Quivering Forest", that´s how it is.
> These boots are made for walking.
> ...




Certainly, but that's the problem with any published setting; if I ran an Eberron campaign with such changes, I'd expect hard core Eberron fans to raise their eyebrows, too. I think it's best to discuss such things with the group when you pick up a setting for the first time. In my group, for example, we have a couple of FR "loremasters" who can spot any change from the canon... the thing is, as long as it makes sense (it's internally consistent with the setting) we don't care. For example, our AoW campaign set in the Western Heartlands has included NPCs and adventure sites from other regions, but they fit the plot seamlessly, so why would we have an issue with this? I might use those same NPCs and locations in another part of the Realms (for another group) or even Golarion, if I feel like it. 

Like you said, a DM's word is "how it is" in his/her campaigns. As a player, I might have an issue with major changes such as a homebrewed deity replacing Tempus or Cyric or Alustriel never having existed, but in the end it comes down to how and why; for example, if you said that Alustriel doesn't exist anymore, because she has vanished from the city some years back (and rumours speak of some high-and-mighty planar entity having her as a prisoner), I'd likely find that believable. But that's just me; your campaign is your campaign, and if your players are completely fine with everything, you're doing it the "right" way.

My advice to everyone is that use what you want, and change the rest; if someone in the group has an issue with it, try to talk with your players and tell them why and how it happened.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 26, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> These boots are made for walking.
> This setting is made for changing.
> 
> That the FR somehow emanates an  15´ radius aura of "only change if the control group would attest your changes an acceptable level of verisimilitude" is simply something that grates with me.




I think there's a difference however in DMs changing any aspect of a published setting that they want for the purposes of their own campaign, and a new design team doing the same to that setting for all subsequent published material.

Any DM anywhere can change anything they like, and that sort of creativity to spin off their own ideas from the setting should be encouraged and promoted. There's nothing sacrosanct about FR or any other setting ever that precludes a DM's flexibility in tailoring it to their campaign. I've been rather rightfully called a Planescape fanboy at times, and my God, my own campaigns have been in no way, shape, or form examples of a canonical Planescape campaign. I mangle the setting to suit metaplot and I rewrite its canon to suit the campaign.

But the actual authors/designers of a setting should do their professional best to keep a published world self-consistant with its own body of lore. By doing so they make sure that everyone coming into a setting is on the same page about what the setting is, what it's about, and its themes and atmosphere. A setting's authors should be setting the baseline, and it should be one that's knowledgeable and respectful to previously published work. Massive retcons and deviations from a setting's canon should be for DMs in their own campaigns, not the whimsy of a new hire being given creative control over a setting and remaking it to what they think it should have been like (random example for purposes of argument, not meant to reflect any real situation in specific).


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 26, 2009)

Eh, I tend to disagree with that Shemeska.

There comes a tipping point when I don't think any writer should be expected to know EVERYTHING about a setting. And having to constantly doublecheck that he isn't violating canon?

(See the thread from the poor guy here who now has to constantly juggle Traveller lore)
There's a reason why many "settings" eventually get a reboot


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 26, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong, "The Ruins of Myth Drannor" is a horrible product.  If anyone's reading, for heaven's sake don't go out and buy it.   But there are lots of interesting and outright _magical_ places in Myth Drannor.




Where was your warning 14 years ago when I was buying that box?

Banshee


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2009)

Primal said:
			
		

> No, you completely missed my point; what I meant is that if you're going to drop a major temple of Bane into Suzail or Silverymoon, I expect an in-game explanation for that. Likewise, if you replace Alustriel or Azoun with an NPC ruler of your own. If you want a setting in which you don't have to read a single book to get the basic facts about a kingdom right, I suggest running homebrewed setting.




Man, I do not grok this mouth-music...

I don't get why I have to justify these changes as a DM. If I say "OK, I'm running a homebrew then, and it's EXACTLY like the Forgotten Realms, except when I say it's not," does that make it better?

Because in my mind, that is the exact same thing as saying "I'm going to run a game in the Forgotten Realms."

DMs always have the authority to change their setting as much as they want. When a DM plays in FR, for his group, it's HIS setting. I ran a game in 3e FR where the Cthulu mythos invaded and basically did what the Spellplague did but with more darkness, insanity, violence, death, doom, and hopelessness. There were some FR fans in that group. I am not an FR scholar. I'm sure I got things wrong. No one ever said "you can't do that!" to me. I can't imagine a scenario where I would take someone saying that seriously. I believe my response would normally be along the lines of "I just did, so unless you want to DM a game, roll with it."

But I do have a strict "I want you to actually play the game" rule at my tables.  Applies for DM authority, inter-party disputes, alignment, and character motivation. Solves all those problems rather well, IMXP.

New temples? Replaced NPC's? Man, when you're the DM, feel free to have as  much fidelity as you want, but when I'm the DM, I'm going to do a little Shiva dance in the ashes of whatever I want. Don't like it? That's cool, too, I like to play as much as I like to DM, and I get the chance more rarely.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 27, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, you completely missed my point; what I meant is that if you're going to drop a major temple of Bane into Suzail or Silverymoon, I expect an in-game explanation for that. Likewise, if you replace Alustriel or Azoun with an NPC ruler of your own. If you want a setting in which you don't have to read a single book to get the basic facts about a kingdom right, I suggest running homebrewed setting.



I think this is the reason the Realms needed a reboot in a nutshell. If I'm running an FR game, I'm the GM, not WotC, not Ed Greenwood, me. Frankly I don't have the time or interest to study something with the level of detail that is necessary to satisfy the Realms purists out there. 

When I play in a 4E Realms game, which I do a lot in the living realms, I don't have to endure the purists, because it's a reboot. 

The best game I've ever played in the Realms had a lot of purists in it, and the GM handled continuity questions like this:

"Hold on how can there be a temple of Bane here? That simply can't be!"

GM: You're right. Make a Will save, DC 20.

Player: Uh, okay...fail?

GM: Take 1 wisdom drain as your mind simply can't come to terms with the awesome alterations to reality that some entity from the the Far Realms must have made.

Player: ...

Seriously: it was a good game, made with the core realms book and that was about it. The GM invented the rest, and had us make relevant knowledge checks to see what we actually knew about the world. It was HIS Forgotten Realms at the end of the day.

So that's why I'm enjoying playing in the new world. I'd even consider running a game in it, which I would never say about the previous editions after the first couple of years it was out.

So how well are the new Realms being received? I think it depends a lot on how much you have invested in the previous edition's lore and how willing you are to embrace change.

--Steve


----------



## Primal (Aug 27, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Man, I do not grok this mouth-music...
> 
> I don't get why I have to justify these changes as a DM. If I say "OK, I'm running a homebrew then, and it's EXACTLY like the Forgotten Realms, except when I say it's not," does that make it better?
> 
> ...




See, that's the trouble with settings and published lore and different gaming styles; I know people who don't ever read the "fluffy" parts from the books (not even in the campaign setting) and everyone is still fine with it. Doesn't work in every group, though. And although this "canon fanaticism" is often attributed to FR, every book/movie/setting has its own diehard fans; I'm sure there are people on this forum who would rise and walk out if I ran, say, a SW campaign and said "Darth Vader? Who's Darth Vader?" or "Oh, that annoying Skywalker never existed in my campaign". At the very least I would probably need to justify how my version without Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker is different from the "official" SW Universe.

I'm not sure why people pick up published settings if they're not willing to read the books (and I'm not saying you have to read *EVERY* book); running a homebrew setting would be much easier, if you have fanatic Eberron/Dragonlance/FR/Etcetera fans in the group.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2009)

> I think this is the reason the Realms needed a reboot in a nutshell.




I think that it could have been done with a lighter touch that would've kept purists happy, though.

A broad overview, and advice to "fill in the gaps yourself," and a note that "every FR game is unique" might go a long way toward accomplishing that goal, without needing to totally invalidate those who do enjoy the muckety-muck of detail.

In a lot of ways, this is how I see Planescape 4e: the core books have given a broad overview, none of which has specifically _invalidated_ anything that has come before, and leaves room for it to happen, without giving details about it, so that someone can still come in and do whatever they want with it. 

I happen to dig a lot of the old 2e Planescape material, so my Planescape 4e is going to look a lot like Planescape 2e. But someone who is new to the game using Sigil for the first time might not, say, bother with the Factions, and that should be totally OK for their own game, and if I'm playing in that game, I have no right to say "But the Doomguard only controls the Armory before the Faction War! And the Sensates don't _really_ believe that! And the Athar would probably be involved _here_."

Fluff-lawyering is the same monster as rules-lawyering and it's equally as useless in running a solid game.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 27, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think that it could have been done with a lighter touch that would've kept purists happy, though.
> 
> I happen to dig a lot of the old 2e Planescape material, so my Planescape 4e is going to look a lot like Planescape 2e. But someone who is new to the game using Sigil for the first time might not, say, bother with the Factions, and that should be totally OK for their own game, and if I'm playing in that game, I have no right to say "But the Doomguard only controls the Armory before the Faction War! And the Sensates don't _really_ believe that! And the Athar would probably be involved _here_."
> 
> Fluff-lawyering is the same monster as rules-lawyering and it's equally as useless in running a solid game.



I agree with you 100%: there was an extreme renovation done, and I can see how that might be alarming to the purists. But as to your second point, that's the kind of game I would really enjoy: you're really interested in a particular look and feel for your Planescape game, and if I'm playing it I'm going to want to explore that world and see what's interesting about it. In the end it's your game, and that makes it infinitely more interesting to me than just reading a Planescape supplement or novel.

--Steve


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 27, 2009)

> See, that's the trouble with settings and published lore and different gaming styles; I know people who don't ever read the "fluffy" parts from the books (not even in the campaign setting) and everyone is still fine with it. Doesn't work in every group, though. And although this "canon fanaticism" is often attributed to FR, every book/movie/setting has its own diehard fans; I'm sure there are people on this forum who would rise and walk out if I ran, say, a SW campaign and said "Darth Vader? Who's Darth Vader?" or "Oh, that annoying Skywalker never existed in my campaign". At the very least I would probably need to justify how my version without Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker is different from the "official" SW Universe.




You're right that it's not unique to FR, but almost no matter where it's done, it's annoying. It's like the cliche of having George Takei answer angry continuity questions at a Trek convention. You've taken all the _fun_ out of make-believe storytelling. 

Now, that's the view from the outside. I'm well aware that some people have a lot of fun plumbing the lore depths of their favorite X. That's fine and good and neat and shouldn't be invalidated haphazardly in the official documents.

But you should be able to take off the truefan hat and enjoy the game regardless. If you can't, that kind of is a problem because it functionally means that no one else can make that setting their own. It's _yours_, not theirs. In D&D, that's part and parcel of the fun of running a game: adapting it for your own group. 

As a less-dorky example, I have a roommate who is crazy into the Beatles. She gets really angry whenever someone claims to be really into the Beatles, and she kind of enters this one-upmanship of "who loves them more" with the person, an impromptu trivia quiz and rattling off of facts and things. This can be an issue, because she doesn't let people appreciate the Beatles on their own level: it has to be on HER terms, they can't have their OWN experiences with the band. I have to beat her about the neck and face on a regular basis for it, too.  He's allowed to have his own Beatles experience. Your DM is allowed to run his own FR experience.



> I'm not sure why people pick up published settings if they're not willing to read the books (and I'm not saying you have to read *EVERY* book); running a homebrew setting would be much easier, if you have fanatic Eberron/Dragonlance/FR/Etcetera fans in the group.




Sometimes you read the book and you choose to go a different route for your own purposes. For instance, perhaps the DM wants to put their own leader in charge so that said leader can be evil.

Sometimes you read it and you don't care for it. "Oh. It's boring to have the only public churches being non-Evil ones. Let's add some evil ones."

Sometimes you read it but don't remember it "What was the name of this king?"

Sometimes you don't read it because another part interests you more. "Nobody cares what the ruler's name is, because that's not what the game is about this time!"

The idea is, of course, that as a DM, you get to choose what exists and what doesn't.

The written material never trumps the DM's say-so, be it in a rule or in the fluff.


----------



## Primal (Aug 27, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You're right that it's not unique to FR, but almost no matter where it's done, it's annoying. It's like the cliche of having George Takei answer angry continuity questions at a Trek convention. You've taken all the _fun_ out of make-believe storytelling.
> 
> Now, that's the view from the outside. I'm well aware that some people have a lot of fun plumbing the lore depths of their favorite X. That's fine and good and neat and shouldn't be invalidated haphazardly in the official documents.
> 
> ...




(Just a quick reply until I get home...)

Certainly, but don't you think the group should discuss these matters beforehand? If my group had diehard Eberron fans, I'd likely discuss any major changes (such as, say, replacing Mournlands with Ravenloft or the ruler of Karrnath with a paladin king) with them beforehand. Of course, you *can* just say "By the way, guys, the Warforged are evil in my campaign and you can't play them... either suck it up or walk out the door!", but there's a middle road to this. I'm firmly of the mind that every DM decides what happens at his table, but you should also consider the wishes and opinion of your players, too. For example, if my players hate WFRP, I wouldn't try forcing it down their throats; likewise, if they prefer dungeoncrawling and slaying monsters, I wouldn't run intrigue-laden adventures with multi-layered plots and dozens of NPCs. That doesn't mean you always need to say "Yes", either; the wisest thing is to discuss this in your group and find out what everyone wants out of the game. Is everyone okay if your next Dark Sun campaign features some major changes? Does anyone have a problem if you only allow stuff from PHB 1? And so on.



> Sometimes you read the book and you choose to go a different route for your own purposes. For instance, perhaps the DM wants to put their own leader in charge so that said leader can be evil.
> 
> Sometimes you read it and you don't care for it. "Oh. It's boring to have the only public churches being non-Evil ones. Let's add some evil ones."
> 
> ...




And here I see it coming down to gaming style preferences; if everyone is on the same page in your group and having fun, it's all fine and well. We do it all the time with minor stuff in my group -- as a player, I might occasionally recognise a local shopkeeper or high priest as being half the world away from his canon location, but I don't mind if it fits. However, having played in FR campaigns (in other groups) in which the DM not only changed the ruler of Cormyr without any other explanations than "I didn't want to read the book", he also managed to continually misspell the name of the kingdom (as Cormyrea, I think). As a DM, I always try to make the setting feel "alive" and internally consistent, and as a player I expect the DM to put at least *some* effort into his campaigns. Just as I expect adventures to have at least some sort of coherent plots and NPCs to behave according to logical motivations (beyond the 'I-am-Evil-therefore-I-kidnap-children'-type of senseless justification for a hackfest).


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 27, 2009)

Primal said:


> As a DM, I always try to make the setting feel "alive" and internally consistent, and as a player I expect the DM to put at least *some* effort into his campaigns.




Note, though, that internal consistency does _not_ mean "adhering to canon." It's entirely possible to be _internally_ consistent within the boundaries of one's own FR game without catering to canon. 

Frex, if the aformentioned DM replaces the ruler of Cormyr with one of his own design in his game and doesn't change the ruler of Cormyr frequently and without cause _therein_, the campaign _is_ internally consistent. 

Internal consistency has to do with the game world as presented by the DM, not as presented in reference works that he's not employing. Hence the "internal" part.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 27, 2009)

Primal said:


> My advice to everyone is that use what you want, and change the rest; if someone in the group has an issue with it, try to talk with your players and tell them why and how it happened.



This doesn't work for me, at least.  If I'm running a minimal-canon game, I don't necessarily have the background to tell someone why or how something happened.  After all, I'm using minimal canon sources - if I change something, it will be based on that information, and not based on information in the Complete Book of Elven Hairstyles, Volume II.

I'd expect a group of reasonably casual players to roll with this.  As the DM, I'm never "wrong" about the setting.  Never, ever, ever - it's basically impossible.  I might be wrong about rules, but never about the world.  If a player isn't fine with this, I'd rather they play in someone else's game who has the time and energy to delve deep into the canon of whatever setting they're playing.



Primal said:


> And although this "canon fanaticism" is often attributed to FR, every book/movie/setting has its own diehard fans; I'm sure there are people on this forum who would rise and walk out if I ran, say, a SW campaign and said "Darth Vader? Who's Darth Vader?" or "Oh, that annoying Skywalker never existed in my campaign". At the very least I would probably need to justify how my version without Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker is different from the "official" SW Universe.



FR canon lawyers are on a different plane than other setting canon lawyers, and the canon is possibly among the largest in all of F/SF.  I think only Star Wars is in the same zone.

There has been more material - gaming and non-gaming, computer and paper - produced for the Forgotten Realms than just about any setting in existence.  There's more info on it than Middle Earth, much more than Dragonlance, mountains more than Greyhawk, and hugely more than Eberron.  There's more than _Star Trek_, even.  It's been collecting lore since the early eighties without really shedding any of it.  I'd argue there's less than Star Wars, but Star Wars has the advantage of being a huge universe with a long timeline, and you can just invent planets and systems as needed.

I know you can point to canon fanatics in pretty much everything, but there's no canon like FR canon anywhere else in gaming.  It's gargantuan, plain and simple, and nothing else in fantasy gaming comes even close.

-O


----------



## Hussar (Aug 27, 2009)

Primal said:


> /snip
> I'm not sure why people pick up published settings if they're not willing to read the books (and I'm not saying you have to read *EVERY* book); running a homebrew setting would be much easier, if you have fanatic Eberron/Dragonlance/FR/Etcetera fans in the group.




How many books would you personally consider required before I can run a "reasonable" FR canon game?  There's what, some twenty, thirty THOUSAND pages of canon for FR?  What would be a reasonable percentage?  10%?  1%?  Even at 1%, you're looking at several hundred pages of setting material.

I should not, ever, need to read several hundred pages of setting material before running a game.  And note, that's to be considered "barely qualified".  1% of the total background material isn't going to set any records after all.  If you can't get enough canon out of about ten, maybe twenty pages of background material, you're not trying hard enough.  

It should never require that much reading to be considered "qualified" to run a game.  If it does, then the background material needs to be pruned down with a flame thrower - or a Spell plague.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 27, 2009)

williamhm said:


> Not really dm should be free to change anything in a campaign book for any reason he wants.  Keeping all fluff in the campaign guide the same limits dm creativity.  I hate settings that have too much fluff because it limits what the dm and players can do with it.  Give me a few basics and some mysterious plot hooks and Im good to go.  Old FR was overly developed there was nothing mysterious or magical about it.






Primal said:


> William, I'm fine if you say that you don't personally like something, but you have the habit of always presenting your opinions as facts and I don't like it. I don't think lore limits a DM's creativity or that the "Old Realms" were not mysterious or magical, but I've already discussed these subjects with you to ad nauseaum on the WoTC boards and I don't want to repeat it here (note: I use a different alias here). Our gaming and DMing styles are at the other ends of the spectrum, so let's just agree to disagree and leave it there, okay?





The people who felt that FR, esp during 2E and 3E, had material released that detailed so many areas to such minute levels all seem to agree about the lack of mystery and magic to the setting.  I love watching "making of" special features.  I enjoy knowing how they pulled off some things you see in a movie.  I have a friend who can't stand them and seeing how they do things just ruins it for her.  If you release enough products about Waterdeep that someone can rattle off all the official names of businesses down a main thoroughfare (which I'm sure someone can), then for a lot of people it's about as interesting as reading a phone book.

I would say that william is correct that keeping all campaign fluff intact and changing nothing does limit the DM.  A lot of things can be changed without raising a stir, but if you suddenly tell people that they're off to visit Elminster where he lives in Pensecola (part of the Moonshaes) people familiar with the setting will be rightly surprised that he isn't in Shadowdale and will probably ask.  Everyone who is familiar with a setting has a different point at which the changes the DM has made will pull them out of the setting and make it less immersive for them.

Discussion of tweaks to a known setting is pretty common at our table when we play.  If I was running the aforementioned Star Wars game w/no Vader or Skywalker, I would explain how either Anakin had never been or he died at X point of things.  You can stave off a lot of anger from a bunch of sci fi geeks by simply saying it is an alternate timeline that you are playing in.  

If Azoun was replaced with King Ralph and Ralph had a couple of sons Azoun hadn't had, but had still done most of the same things Azoun did, it's just a different name and a bigger family.  Maybe he has sons so the sons can be secretly plotting to take over Cormyr and the players have to stop it.  Maybe the DM just thought Azoun would be lonely w/o sons.  Who knows.

Any DM is free to tell their players to take a hike if they don't like some changes they have made, but the less pulling a rug out from under them you do a few sessions in, the better IMO.


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> It should never require that much reading to be considered "qualified" to run a game.  If it does, then the background material needs to be pruned down with a flame thrower - or a Spell plague.




Viva la spell plague!!   Maybe I just enjoy change.  I'm happy w/the Cataclysm expansion for WoW too heh.


----------



## Entreri (Aug 27, 2009)

I think, and hope, that FR can stay alive indefinitely. The novels are what's keeping it alive and thriving. As long as novels from Salvatore and the like keep coming out, people will stay hooked on this incredible world.


----------



## Primal (Aug 28, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Note, though, that internal consistency does _not_ mean "adhering to canon." It's entirely possible to be _internally_ consistent within the boundaries of one's own FR game without catering to canon.
> 
> Frex, if the aformentioned DM replaces the ruler of Cormyr with one of his own design in his game and doesn't change the ruler of Cormyr frequently and without cause _therein_, the campaign _is_ internally consistent.
> 
> Internal consistency has to do with the game world as presented by the DM, not as presented in reference works that he's not employing. Hence the "internal" part.




Sure, I'm talking about internal consistency in the DM's campaign (NPCs have consistent names and looks throughout the campaign, and so on), but I'm also talking about internal consistency in regard to the setting, e.g. no Zhentarim castles inside a Harper-dominated city or LG paladins of Cyric. If you're running the setting for the first time, it may be that the internal consistency in regard to canon references is all the players have, and that may prove problematic (as discussed in many posts on this thread). Note that I'm not saying that you need to read every published word on the setting (not even on the region you place the campaign in), but those examples (and the actual ruler of Cormyr) are found in the campaign setting (which I expect every DM to read).

That is why I said that it's important to discuss these matters with the players, *if* you're not certain where they stand in regard to specific settings (i.e. how do they feel about canon lore). I know what everyone thinks in my group, but if I ran the game for total strangers, I might ask how much exposure they have had with FR. For example, if there's a Dalelands "expert" in the group (who, perhaps, has even DMed campaigns there), I might set the game somewhere else; it does not mean the area is "off-limits", but it might be easier, more fun and refreshing for everyone if I ran a game somewhere else. Likewise, if the guys have already had five Eberron campaigns in Sharn, why would I want to run another there?


----------



## Primal (Aug 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> How many books would you personally consider required before I can run a "reasonable" FR canon game? There's what, some twenty, thirty THOUSAND pages of canon for FR? What would be a reasonable percentage? 10%? 1%? Even at 1%, you're looking at several hundred pages of setting material.




Depends on what the players prefer... I know a couple of DMs who never actually *read* any of the books, and they get 90% of the facts "wrong" in regard to canon Realmslore  (I'm referring to one of them above with my comment about the 'Cormyrea'-campaign) but their players don't seem to mind. 

Frankly, I don't know about your DMing style or which sort of game your players prefer. Want a lot of social interaction with NPCs? Write complex background stories for their PCs? Take a lot of notes during the session? Often ask questions about minor details? Have much exposure have they had with FR canon? Do they in general care if your campaign contradicts official lore? 

For example, if you're good with improvising stuff (and writing it down at the same time) and your players do not read a lot of FR books... well, not much. What I *do* expect every DM to read is the campaign setting (which is, indeed, hundreds of pages), but that goes IMO without saying. You could also pick an area that is less-detailed than, for example, Waterdeep, Cormyr or the Dalelands; contrary to the popular belief, there are a lot of cities, towns and areas covered with maybe two to five pages in published canon lore.    



> I should not, ever, need to read several hundred pages of setting material before running a game. And note, that's to be considered "barely qualified". 1% of the total background material isn't going to set any records after all. If you can't get enough canon out of about ten, maybe twenty pages of background material, you're not trying hard enough.
> 
> It should never require that much reading to be considered "qualified" to run a game. If it does, then the background material needs to be pruned down with a flame thrower - or a Spell plague.




Well, do you ever read the campaign setting book before you run your first campaign in a published setting? Because usually that is at least 150+ pages. As I said above, I might get away with my ignorance of Karrnath's true nature or Sharn's layout if the players don't care about details or adherence/consistency with the "official" lore -- however, if they do care about such stuff, why not run PoL or a homebrewed setting or a setting nobody knows about instead? Why cling to the idea that "It's my DM's right not to read a single page more than I want to, and you need to suck it up or walk out!"? Why does it need to be FR? I wouldn't expect to get away with reading only 20 pages in ECS and running a decent Eberron campaign.

(BTW, even after the Spellplague and the reduced word count in 4E FRCG, it's still more than 20 pages, right?)


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 28, 2009)

Primal said:


> Sure, I'm talking about internal consistency in the DM's campaign (NPCs have consistent names and looks throughout the campaign, and so on), but I'm also talking about internal consistency in regard to the setting, e.g. no Zhentarim castles inside a Harper-dominated city or LG paladins of Cyric. If you're running the setting for the first time, it may be that the internal consistency in regard to canon references is all the players have, and that may prove problematic (as discussed in many posts on this thread). Note that I'm not saying that you need to read every published word on the setting (not even on the region you place the campaign in), but those examples (and the actual ruler of Cormyr) are found in the campaign setting (which I expect every DM to read).




But that's _not_ internal consistency. It's canon adherence. You're using the words "internally consistent" or "internal consistency" to describe canon adherance. These two things aren't even remotely the same. If the DM changes the ruler of Cormyr prior to play (for any reason) and sticks with that ruler for the duration of his campaign, then his campaign is 100% internally consistent. Only if If the DM changes the ruler of Cormyr three or four times during actual play without explanation, would his game be internally inconsistent.


----------



## Primal (Aug 28, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This doesn't work for me, at least. If I'm running a minimal-canon game, I don't necessarily have the background to tell someone why or how something happened. After all, I'm using minimal canon sources - if I change something, it will be based on that information, and not based on information in the Complete Book of Elven Hairstyles, Volume II.
> 
> I'd expect a group of reasonably casual players to roll with this. As the DM, I'm never "wrong" about the setting. Never, ever, ever - it's basically impossible. I might be wrong about rules, but never about the world. If a player isn't fine with this, I'd rather they play in someone else's game who has the time and energy to delve deep into the canon of whatever setting they're playing.




Well, I expect every DM to put at least so much effort into his campaigns that he buys and reads the campaign setting book; the rest depends on how well our styles and preferences sync with each other. If your group's players are all casual about it, go ahead;  as I said, whatever works for your group might not work in mine but neither way is the "only" or "right" way.

(I'm kind of tired of repeating my points in several posts; see my replies above! )



> FR canon lawyers are on a different plane than other setting canon lawyers, and the canon is possibly among the largest in all of F/SF. I think only Star Wars is in the same zone.
> 
> There has been more material - gaming and non-gaming, computer and paper - produced for the Forgotten Realms than just about any setting in existence. There's more info on it than Middle Earth, much more than Dragonlance, mountains more than Greyhawk, and hugely more than Eberron. There's more than _Star Trek_, even. It's been collecting lore since the early eighties without really shedding any of it. I'd argue there's less than Star Wars, but Star Wars has the advantage of being a huge universe with a long timeline, and you can just invent planets and systems as needed.
> 
> ...




And I know several Eberron diehard fans who would not probably be satisfied with my take -- based on minimal knowledge about the setting -- on their favorite world. Look, it's all anecdotal, unless you can cite a source that would prove this; it's not different than me saying, for example, that WFRP fans are even more fanatic than FR fans. All FR fans I personally know (about 30+ or so) are pretty reasonable with DMs changing things -- all most of them expect is that there are in-game, internally consistent and logical explanations for major shake-ups (such as a new king replacing Azoun, or a Temple of Bane being built in Suzail). Most of this stuff can be easily explained with the lore presented in the FRCS, if the DM is only willing to sit down and think for a while.


----------



## Primal (Aug 28, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> But that's _not_ internal consistency. It's canon adherence. You're using the words "internally consistent" or "internal consistency" to describe canon adherance. These two things aren't even remotely the same. If the DM changes the ruler of Cormyr prior to play (for any reason) and sticks with that ruler for the duration of his campaign, then his campaign is 100% internally consistent. Only if If the DM changes the ruler of Cormyr three or four times during actual play without explanation, would his game be internally inconsistent.




No, I think there's also internal consistency as per the setting, i.e. that whatever the DM changes does not "break" any of the world's known rules or convetions such as implementing flying saucers or RW languages into FR, or even dropping a huge temple to Cyric in Silverymoon. 

Sure, there's also internal consistency in regard to the campaign, but that's another matter; I see it meaning that things stay consistent throughout the campaign, regardless of whether they're consistent with the setting or not.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 28, 2009)

Primal said:


> And I know several Eberron diehard fans who would not probably be satisfied with my take -- based on minimal knowledge about the setting -- on their favorite world. Look, it's all anecdotal, unless you can cite a source that would prove this; it's not different than me saying, for example, that WFRP fans are even more fanatic than FR fans. All FR fans I personally know (about 30+ or so) are pretty reasonable with DMs changing things -- all most of them expect is that there are in-game, internally consistent and logical explanations for major shake-ups (such as a new king replacing Azoun, or a Temple of Bane being built in Suzail). Most of this stuff can be easily explained with the lore presented in the FRCS, if the DM is only willing to sit down and think for a while.



I don't know that you have to take my word for it.  For starters, just look at the amount material considered canon.  It's vastly more than any other game setting.

-O


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 28, 2009)

Not to intrude, but I don't think most people care about those minute annoying details.  Ok, the new book removes knowing every damned tavern in every damned city being named.  That's cool.

But they also destroyed the Zhents for...no reason.  And they Maztica was removed for...no reason.  And Thay was destroyed for...no reason.  Luskan?  Neverwinter?  I suppose those died to ensure Atari isn't allowed to make more games about them?  

Harpers are gone.  Red wizards are gone.  Zhents are gone.  Because...*Well, we aren't actually told why they all had to be massively reduced.*

What about the gods?  Oh, they're pretty much all gone.  So we can cram in the set 4e gods, you see.  *OH **** YOU.*

See, killing all the extrenious detail, that can be irksome for a few people, but it's spring cleaning.  But WotC went beyond spring cleaning - they nuked the setting from orbit and wiped it *completely* clean.  They didn't wipe the setting down, they wiped it *out*.  And the reasons for doing so are less "Well, we wanted to make it easier to DM" and veer straight into "OUR SETTING NOW.  4e GODS ONLY.  4e RACES ONLY.  4e LORE ONLY.  DON'T LIKE IT, SCREW YOU."


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 28, 2009)

Primal said:


> No, I think there's also internal consistency as per the setting, i.e. that whatever the DM changes does not "break" any of the world's known rules or convetions such as implementing flying saucers or RW languages into FR, or even dropping a huge temple to Cyric in Silverymoon.




I understand what you're saying but, again, what you're describing in the context of a D&D campaign (i.e., a game actually being played) is not _internal consitency_ — it's simple rote adherence to canon as prescribed by the publisher (an entirely different thing). 

If you're referring to the setting as it exists _apart_ from a given game of D&D then, yes, what you describe would be internal consistency (as it is confined to the setting itself). That kind of internal consistency has _nothing_ to do with the DM, though, and _everything_ to do with the publisher as only they control what goes into the books and, thus, what changes can be made to the setting as it stands apart from a given D&D campaign.  

As soon as a setting becomes part of an actual game being played, it's only one component of a larger whole known as the _campaign_ — which, as we both agree and already have discussed, is internally consistent or inconsistent in its own right. In _this_ context, an individual DM is free to make any changes to a setting as he or she sees fit and, so long as they are applied in manner that begets steady continuity, such changes _are_ consistent.

In the context of the setting as a component of the campaign, the _only_ time that changes are inconsistent is if they break continuity _as established in the campaign_. All of your numerous examples, as odd as they would be, would also all be internally consistent if applied in that manner. The only way they would be inconsistent is if: 

A. The DM changed them from one session to the next willy-nilly. 
B. You're talking about the FR setting apart from a campaign, in which case you need to direct your ire at the publisher, not DMs.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 28, 2009)

> Well, I expect every DM to put at least so much effort into his campaigns that he buys and reads the campaign setting book; the rest depends on how well our styles and preferences sync with each other. If your group's players are all casual about it, go ahead; as I said, whatever works for your group might not work in mine but neither way is the "only" or "right" way.




I'm not sure anyone is trying to say that you shouldn't have fun your way.

I think what most people in the thread are trying to say is that a player demanding strict adherence to canon is not fun for them. That a player telling a DM what they can and cannot do with their campaign is antithetical to the usual DMing process. That there's no inherent value or good in canon adherence, and that changes are good and allowable and that second-guessing them seems very much not the individual player's place.

There was dancing in the Dark Ages, but that doesn't make living like a medieval peasant a generally good idea. Not that you can't go do that if you really want to, just don't expect everyone to agree with you.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 28, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Not to intrude, but I don't think most people care about those minute annoying details.  Ok, the new book removes knowing every damned tavern in every damned city being named.  That's cool.
> 
> But they also destroyed the Zhents for...no reason.  And they Maztica was removed for...no reason.  And Thay was destroyed for...no reason.  Luskan?  Neverwinter?  I suppose those died to ensure Atari isn't allowed to make more games about them?
> 
> ...




I shouldn´t even answer to this level of hyperbole, but did you even read the FRCS?

- Maztica is gone because it should have never been a part of FR. That´s the best reason there is. It´s placement was contrived, unnecessary and had only one reason: TSR hoped it would sell better that way than a stand-alone addon. 

- Luskan and Neverwinter were hit but are NOT completely destroyed. 

- The Harpers are NOT gone.

- The Red Wizards still exist. 

- And the number of gods has now fallen under 100. 

The setting has not changed completely. It´s okay not to like these changes, but to call it a Tabula Rasa is just disingenious. 

But as i said, i perhaps shouldn´t even bother.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 28, 2009)

Primal said:


> Look, it's all anecdotal, unless you can cite a source that would prove this; it's not different than me saying, for example, that WFRP fans are even more fanatic than FR fans. All FR fans I personally know (about 30+ or so) are pretty reasonable with DMs changing things -- all most of them expect is that there are in-game, internally consistent and logical explanations for major shake-ups (such as a new king replacing Azoun, or a Temple of Bane being built in Suzail).




And people like me are saying that this is too much. If i want to change Comyr into a Bane-worshipping tyranny because that´s what i like in my Campaing, i´ll do it. I don´t have to explain anything to anyone. See also: Gygax talking about you being the "final arbiter of your campaign." I´m really not a viking-hat DM, but if i had to work in such constraints when refitting campaign worlds to my liking, i wouldn´t even use them.


----------



## Primal (Aug 29, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> And people like me are saying that this is too much. If i want to change Comyr into a Bane-worshipping tyranny because that´s what i like in my Campaing, i´ll do it. I don´t have to explain anything to anyone. See also: Gygax talking about you being the "final arbiter of your campaign." I´m really not a viking-hat DM, but if i had to work in such constraints when refitting campaign worlds to my liking, i wouldn´t even use them.




Well, as I said, if everyone is okay with that in your group, go for it! But I don't subsicribe to the idea that DM doesn't need to communicate with the group, if you suspect someone might have a problem with your changes or if they voice their concerns about them. Sure, I could say that I want to have Asgård motherships from Stargate zipping all above Eberron and show the door to anyone who's not okay with it, but I would probably feel like a jerk (and likely gain the reputation as one in the local RPG circles). 

I don't think Gary meant that a DM is a tyrant; that would be counterproductive anyway. Yes, I agree that the DM has the "final word" on things (although 4E has apparently consciously moved away from this - -at least that seems to be the general consensus on the WoTC boards) but just as I listen to my players' wishes, opinions and preferences about the nature of my adventures and campaigns (for example, whether they prefer social interaction and intrigue over combat, or vice versa) I try to listen what they settings they want to explore and how much they know about them. Even though I bought the CS, I wouldn't force them to play in Golarion if they felt it's not their "thing" -- likewise, if they said that they're huge Eberron fans and have read every book, I'd discuss my ideas with them before I ran any campaigns there, i.e. is it okay if it's not 100% faithful to canon? And if I knew someone likely has an issue with my new Paladin King Gladiator of Karrnath, I'd try to come up with a plausible reason how he's ascended to power (e.g. maybe there is a secretive vampire cabal that wanted to get rid of the real king, and this paladin is the perfect, unwitting puppet on the throne?). 

I may be wrong, but I gather you essentially pick up stuff from a number of game books, and then "drag'n'drop" it all into the setting you've chosen for that campaign; for that purpose I personally think homebrewed settings suit better, and nobody even gets to bitch about what is canon and what's not. Although we're not "canon nazis" in my group (we use what we like and ditch the rest), there are some "tolerance levels" that would prompt us to ask the DM why A has replaced B, or why C has never existed. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm not sure anyone is trying to say that you shouldn't have fun your way.
> 
> I think what most people in the thread are trying to say is that a player demanding strict adherence to canon is not fun for them. That a player telling a DM what they can and cannot do with their campaign is antithetical to the usual DMing process. That there's no inherent value or good in canon adherence, and that changes are good and allowable and that second-guessing them seems very much not the individual player's place.
> 
> There was dancing in the Dark Ages, but that doesn't make living like a medieval peasant a generally good idea. Not that you can't go do that if you really want to, just don't expect everyone to agree with you.




I never suggested that my own opinions reflect the "only" or "best" way to DM the Realms.

Yes, I get what people are saying, and I suggested that communication is key; if some players have issues with your DMing style (whether in general or in regard to a setting), you should discuss it in the group instead of instantly kicking them out. There's the middle road, here, but if you just can't reach any compromise, it might be best to consider if there are players in the wrong group or maybe you're not the right DM for that particular group/setting (if everyone has issues with your style). For example, I tried running intrigue-laden, roleplaying-heavy campaigns for a group of "powergamers" who only wanted to kick down doors and slay monsters; it just didn't work, and when I switched to playing in the group, I found their version of FR to be, well, a bit too different for my taste (see the 'Cormyrea' example above). We split ways, eventually.

Some people love the vast amount of details and want the DM's campaigns to be as faithful to the canon as possible -- nothing wrong in that, right? It's only problematic when tastes clash. I just think it's very  counterproductive and antithetical to tell the players that "It's my way or the highway!" -- if there's a conflict of interests, you either end up with disruptive players or lose some of them (and they'll likely be bitter at you). If you ignore a player's questions -- or the fact that there's something that disrupts his immersion -- you'll practically signaling that his concerns and opinions are of no relevance to you (and likely he'll walk out sooner or later).

I'm not saying you need to bend all the time, or that the DM shouldn't have fun -- on the contrary, but you're running the game to your players, not amusing yourself with a prescripted story. You need to compromise sometimes if a player has a problem. 

I think that with FR the problem lies in the very "hook" of the setting, which I think has always been the massive amount of details. While it may have prevented more "casual" DMs from running games there (at least if the group has included vocal FR fans),  it has attracted mainly people who *want* to adhere to canon and want to know as much as only possible about, well, everything. I don't think it's the fault of the setting per se, if people feel there's too much to absorb; rather, it's about when you feel insecure because other people (in your own group, but also outside of it) would protest against your non-canonical changes. To me it's the same kind of situation as belonging to a book circle in which a HP fan insists that everyone has to read the whole series before discussions, while others think Rowling should have cut 90% of the details and dialogue and published it as a single volume. 



jdrakeh said:


> I understand what you're saying but, again, what you're describing in the context of a D&D campaign (i.e., a game actually being played) is not _internal consitency_ — it's simple rote adherence to canon as prescribed by the publisher (an entirely different thing).
> 
> If you're referring to the setting as it exists _apart_ from a given game of D&D then, yes, what you describe would be internal consistency (as it is confined to the setting itself). That kind of internal consistency has _nothing_ to do with the DM, though, and _everything_ to do with the publisher as only they control what goes into the books and, thus, what changes can be made to the setting as it stands apart from a given D&D campaign.
> 
> ...




Exactly; that was what I intended. However, what you seem to disregard is that the consistency to the setting remains alongside consistency in the campaign; for example, at some point the DM might introduce a new element that conflicts what the players know of the setting (i.e. their image of Luskan might be very different from your take because they've read the Drizzt novels). 

It all depends on what they've played or read, i.e. their prior exposure to the setting. 



Obryn said:


> I don't know that you have to take my word for it.  For starters, just look at the amount material considered canon.  It's vastly more than any other game setting.
> 
> -O




Well, the amount of canon lore -- in itself -- does not automatically mean everyone is fanatical about it. I personally know more Eberron and Dune diehard fans than FR fanatics (i.e. guys who would throw a fit if you replaced, say, the lord of Hluthvar with your own NPC). 

Yet I can understand why FR fans are generally perceived to be more fanatical about canon (see above what I wrote about the "lure" of the setting).


----------



## MerrikCale (Aug 29, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> I disagree that the updated setting somehow caters to the non-FR fan and leaves "true" FR fans out in the cold.




but thats what it did and thats exactly what WoTC wanted really. They made the conscious decision to nerf the setting in order to attract new players to it without worrying about the old ones. They hoped the old gang would stay because it had the FR stamp on it


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 29, 2009)

MerrikCale said:


> but thats what it did and thats exactly what WoTC wanted really. They made the conscious decision to nerf the setting in order to attract new players to it without worrying about the old ones. They hoped the old gang would stay because it had the FR stamp on it




That's not really true.  I consider myself a....FR appreciator.  I wouldn't call myself a FAN per se.  I played my first D&D game in FR, and my first group that I was a member of for a couple of years played mostly in FR.  I read a good 15-20 FR novels.  I've read through most of the 3e FRCS and the 4e FRCS.  I tried to read through the History of the Realms.

However, I don't know that much about the gritty details of the Realms.  I don't know anything about a bunch of countries in the Realms because our games never took place there and the novels I read didn't either.

I don't know who rules almost any of the countries.  I'd have to look it up if asked.  I know where Waterdeep is, where Neverwinter is...but beyond that, I'm unlikely to recognize the name of any other city.

I like the new Realms.  Because to me, nothing really changed.  Waterdeep is still that big city where adventurers gather.  There is still an Undermountain beneath it.  Myth Drannor still exists.  There is still an Elminster, still a Drizzt.  All the things I think of when I think of the Realms are still there.

But, I suppose if I used to read everything on the Realms, I might be a little annoyed that Chessentia is mostly Akanul now.  Maybe a little.  But then again, when I look at a campaign setting my only thought is "How easily is this used in an adventure?".  I like Akanul and its flavor.  I'm probably biased in that I'm the Point of Contact for the Akanul region in LFR.  But after we were assigned this region, I thought "How can be make this region fun and interesting?  What makes this region special?  What adventuring possibilities are there?"  And there are lots.

What I'm saying is that I'd like to think I was an appreciator of the Realms before, and I was not alienated by the changes.  I can only expect that the people who were alienated took their Realms a little TOO seriously.


----------



## Primal (Aug 29, 2009)

MerrikCale said:


> but thats what it did and thats exactly what WoTC wanted really. They made the conscious decision to nerf the setting in order to attract new players to it without worrying about the old ones. They hoped the old gang would stay because it had the FR stamp on it




Exactly; they decided to get rid of the very aspects that appealed to the existing fan base, because they thought making FR an "entry-level" setting that is more strongly tied to the core rules *might* draw in more customers (including those had been very vocal about what they disliked in the setting). They even included FR-exclusive classes and races (swordmage, drow and genasi) to boost the sales. It was an experiment, and likely they saw that they had nothing to lose in the gamble... FR sales were probably decreasing and none of the staffers had strong emotional ties to FR.

I don't think that's the main reason, though; since the novels sell more than game books, getting rid of the "burden of lore" would help new authors. Also, apart from a few DDI articles, if the novels are the only continuous source of lore on the New Realms, it would probably boost the sales even more.  

Anyway, that's how I see it; not malice, just cold, hard business.


----------



## Primal (Aug 29, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That's not really true.  I consider myself a....FR appreciator.  I wouldn't call myself a FAN per se.  I played my first D&D game in FR, and my first group that I was a member of for a couple of years played mostly in FR.  I read a good 15-20 FR novels.  I've read through most of the 3e FRCS and the 4e FRCS.  I tried to read through the History of the Realms.
> 
> However, I don't know that much about the gritty details of the Realms.  I don't know anything about a bunch of countries in the Realms because our games never took place there and the novels I read didn't either.
> 
> ...




Well, as I already said, the depth and amount of lore was likely the main "lure" for the Realms; most of the FR fans I know prefer a detailed setting and consistency over generic guidelines and adventure ideas. For them, every detail omitted or removed means extra work, starting with the "patching" of some inconsistencies regarding the events of the Spellplague. None of the FR fans I personally know in RL are playing in the 4E Realms. However, I'm not denying that for casual DMs and players the Spellplague probably feels liberating.

I know some lore in my 2E/3E books is still viable, but almost every NPC mentioned in them is dead and a lot of the locations were probably altered or destroyed by the Spellplague  -- for example, how many towns and villages detailed in 'Volo's Guide to the North' and 'Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast' are still there? Can I use the city map from FR Adventures for Baldur's Gate "as is", or has there been changes? Which other towns and cities have altered layouts? And so on. I might be able to use some lore from my books, but in many cases I would have to completely rewrite local NPCs, locations and events and redraw the maps. We love details in my group, so unless I wanted to improvise a lot of stuff on the fly, I'd really need to spend a few evenings writing it all down. 

(BTW, the whole idea that there are no written sources detailing the events and history after the Spellplague is silly; we have written descriptions about every major catastrophe to hit mankind in the last two thousand years, including the Plague -- there have always been people who catalogue events, even at the risk of their own life).


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 29, 2009)

Primal said:


> Well, as I already said, the depth and amount of lore was likely the main "lure" for the Realms; most of the FR fans I know prefer a detailed setting and consistency over generic guidelines and adventure ideas. For them, every detail omitted or removed means extra work, starting with the "patching" of some inconsistencies regarding the events of the Spellplague. None of the FR fans I personally know in RL are playing in the 4E Realms. However, I'm not denying that for casual DMs and players the Spellplague probably feels liberating.




That's at least as much a result of natural selection. People who disliked vast amounts of, (let's be mean and call it trivia rather than detail), stopped playing the setting or at least stopped buying more sourcebooks. and if we're going to talk about consistency, RSE events have a very long tradition. Why expect them to stop?



> I know some lore in my 2E/3E books is still viable, but almost every NPC mentioned in them is dead and a lot of the locations were probably altered or destroyed by the Spellplague -- for example, how many towns and villages detailed in 'Volo's Guide to the North' and 'Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast' are still there? Can I use the city map from FR Adventures for Baldur's Gate "as is", or has there been changes? Which other towns and cities have altered layouts? And so on. I might be able to use some lore from my books, but in many cases I would have to completely rewrite local NPCs, locations and events and redraw the maps. We love details in my group, so unless I wanted to improvise a lot of stuff on the fly, I'd really need to spend a few evenings writing it all down.




With medieval technology levels it's highly unlikely that the major buildings in a city have changed much even in function. They're built for a purpose and adapting them is a problem even when there's plenty of wealth around. Street plans are also likely to be very similar, based on the way towns have developed in RL history. As for villages, they don't get dumped on the map at random, or at least they shouldn't have been. If there's a sensible reason for a village or town to exist in a particular position, there are almost certainly still people living there. Maybe more, maybe less, but that happens even on shorter time scales.



> (BTW, the whole idea that there are no written sources detailing the events and history after the Spellplague is silly; we have written descriptions about every major catastrophe to hit mankind in the last two thousand years, including the Plague -- there have always been people who catalogue events, even at the risk of their own life).




Really. [sarcasm]So you can explain the decline of the Classical Maya civilisation, the rise and fall of the Pallavas and Pandyas in India, the end of the Anasazi culture? Should be several prize-winning histories in it for you.[/sarcasm]


----------



## Imban (Aug 29, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But then again, when I look at a campaign setting my only thought is "How easily is this used in an adventure?"




This is actually my biggest problem with the 4e FR Campaign Guide. It seemed absolutely devoted to that idea, to the point where I think maybe two countries even acknowledged the idea that other countries existed.

In other words, they swung from describing a world to describing a bunch of nations which you could drop into any game, complete with crappy little maps cropped to not show anything but the country in question.

While "a bunch of nations you could drop into any game" is a fine product idea, it felt like an awful lame thing to replace a pre-existing campaign setting with.


----------



## Glyfair (Aug 29, 2009)

Primal said:


> Well, as I already said, the depth and amount of lore was likely the main "lure" for the Realms;...



I disagree.  I think the main lure was the ubiquity of the setting.  That an it's pretty standard fantasy setting.  While some are attracted to "different" setting, I think that more are put off by them.  "Odd" settings tend not to become super popular.


----------



## Primal (Aug 30, 2009)

Bluenose said:


> That's at least as much a result of natural selection. People who disliked vast amounts of, (let's be mean and call it trivia rather than detail), stopped playing the setting or at least stopped buying more sourcebooks. and if we're going to talk about consistency, RSE events have a very long tradition. Why expect them to stop?




I never cared much for RSEs, especially at the rate they were introduced to increase the novel sales. Most of them didn't happen in my campaigns, although some (such as the 'Rage of Dragons') may yet take place in the future. BTW, RSEs didn't happen often until 3E rolled out; ToT is the only one I can think of during the AD&D era.

What are you referring by "natural selection"? Decreased sales? I'm not even sure if they *had* decreased dramatically; that was just an assumption on my part (GHotR, at least, did very well).



> With medieval technology levels it's highly unlikely that the major buildings in a city have changed much even in function. They're built for a purpose and adapting them is a problem even when there's plenty of wealth around. Street plans are also likely to be very similar, based on the way towns have developed in RL history. As for villages, they don't get dumped on the map at random, or at least they shouldn't have been. If there's a sensible reason for a village or town to exist in a particular position, there are almost certainly still people living there. Maybe more, maybe less, but that happens even on shorter time scales.




Well, first of all, I don't think FR is a purely medieval setting; FR has gunpowder, magic and more advanced technology than anything in the middle ages, so I'd call it "pseudo-medieval" if anything. Ed Greenwood himself has said that one of his own possible futures for the Realms was that in a hundred years or so the setting would roll "fully" into Renaissance (resulting in a technologically, magically and culturally different FR). 

As for the changes... if I remember correctly, quite a many of the smaller settlements were wiped out by the rampaging Spellplague, and only areas with powerful magical protections remained (mostly) untouched. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that a great many new settlements were founded in the Western Heartlands and the North. Some cities, like Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate (both of which were mostly untouched, BTW), still saw radical changes in the architecture and layout.   



> Really. [sarcasm]So you can explain the decline of the Classical Maya civilisation, the rise and fall of the Pallavas and Pandyas in India, the end of the Anasazi culture? Should be several prize-winning histories in it for you.[/sarcasm]




Alright, all the events was hyperbole, but the fact remains that we have written descriptions of many major events from the last two thousand years, and much more was lost when civilizations fell (or libraries were burned/sacked). In FR, literacy is much, much more common than it was in medieval times and there are deities, priesthoods and organizations dedicated to keeping accurate records and histories, so I have to wonder why nobody would have bothered to write about events of the "hundred year gap".


----------



## Primal (Aug 30, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> I disagree. I think the main lure was the ubiquity of the setting. That an it's pretty standard fantasy setting. While some are attracted to "different" setting, I think that more are put off by them. "Odd" settings tend not to become super popular.




I'd personally define Dark Sun and Eberron both as "odd" fantasy worlds (the latter for its steampunk-ish elements), and I always thought Greyhawk was more "generic" than FR as a fantasy setting. What do you mean by "ubiquity"?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 1, 2009)

Primal said:


> Exactly; they decided to get rid of the very aspects that appealed to the existing fan base, because they thought making FR an "entry-level" setting that is more strongly tied to the core rules *might* draw in more customers (including those had been very vocal about what they disliked in the setting). They even included FR-exclusive classes and races (swordmage, drow and genasi) to boost the sales. It was an experiment, and likely they saw that they had nothing to lose in the gamble... FR sales were probably decreasing and none of the staffers had strong emotional ties to FR.
> 
> I don't think that's the main reason, though; since the novels sell more than game books, getting rid of the "burden of lore" would help new authors. Also, apart from a few DDI articles, if the novels are the only continuous source of lore on the New Realms, it would probably boost the sales even more.
> 
> Anyway, that's how I see it; not malice, just cold, hard business.




I don't know if you realize just how condescending this sounds.  You're effectively saying that the only real fans of the setting are people who deeply immerse themselves in the vast reams of setting material and everyone else doesn't matter.

That the changes they made weren't done for any "real" reasons, just another money grab.  That the idea of having massive fluff bloat wasn't off putting to the continually shrinking population of gamers that would even consider trying to get into the Realms.

See, you've said that it's enough to have read the campaign setting guide.  

So, you're saying that I could run a campaign in the Shining South (to pick an area) having only read the SS campaign guide and the FRPG?  That would be sufficient to qualify me to run a campaign in FR?

Or, if I wanted to run a Waterdeep campaign, the FRCS would be sufficient?

If that's true, then we are in complete agreement.  However, if I need to have any more books than one, maybe two, in order to be sufficiently qualified to run a game in FR, then FR needed to be pruned WAY WAY back.

Like I said, I should not need to read close to a thousand pages (which is what I meant by hundred*s* of pages) before I even begin to start crafting adventures in that setting.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 1, 2009)

Maybe I'm crazy but didn't a conversation very similiar to this one just take place and got pretty heated and everyone came away with the exact same opinions they had before?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Maybe I'm crazy but didn't a conversation very similiar to this one just take place and got pretty heated and everyone came away with the exact same opinions they had before?



I am not sure it got heated yet. But it might be a reimagination with different actors, improved CGI and better storytelling.


Spoiler



Or should that be with different players, improved mechanics and better roleplaying?


----------



## Bluenose (Sep 1, 2009)

Primal said:


> I never cared much for RSEs, especially at the rate they were introduced to increase the novel sales. Most of them didn't happen in my campaigns, although some (such as the 'Rage of Dragons') may yet take place in the future. BTW, RSEs didn't happen often until 3E rolled out; ToT is the only one I can think of during the AD&D era.
> 
> What are you referring by "natural selection"? Decreased sales? I'm not even sure if they *had* decreased dramatically; that was just an assumption on my part (GHotR, at least, did very well).




Natural selection refers to the way a significant number of FR fans were turned away from the setting by the increasing amount of material. Consider that there have been a number of threads where people have said they've returned to FR after liking the original grey box but have subsequently lost interest (whether because of RSEs, too much detail, emphasis on aspects they disliked). Many of them have said part of their reason for returning is their liking for that there's less information given and they feel freer to create their own campaigns knowing there's not going to be a sourcebook along to detail things in a different way to what they have done.

Anecdotally I can point out an example of the biggest FR fan in my gaming group. He adored the original grey box, began grumbling some time in 2nd edition about excessive amounts of irrelevant information, and in 3rd edition began running games set in areas where there was only a limited amount of information available. He is very happy to have a setting which won't be expanded further, since he's sure that anything he develops for a region won't be invalidated by a later sourcebook.

On the subject of RSEs, I don't think I agree that they're a product of 3rd edition. The Tuigan horde, the discovery of Maztica, the Eighth Seros War, the end of Tethyr's civil war, and the establishment of the Silver Marches are all significant events that could qualify as RSEs. Certainly the Elven Crusade and re-establishment of Myth Drannor isn't any more significant than most of these.



> Well, first of all, I don't think FR is a purely medieval setting; FR has gunpowder, magic and more advanced technology than anything in the middle ages, so I'd call it "pseudo-medieval" if anything. Ed Greenwood himself has said that one of his own possible futures for the Realms was that in a hundred years or so the setting would roll "fully" into Renaissance (resulting in a technologically, magically and culturally different FR).
> 
> As for the changes... if I remember correctly, quite a many of the smaller settlements were wiped out by the rampaging Spellplague, and only areas with powerful magical protections remained (mostly) untouched. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that a great many new settlements were founded in the Western Heartlands and the North. Some cities, like Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate (both of which were mostly untouched, BTW), still saw radical changes in the architecture and layout.




Pre-industrial might be a better term than medieval, but the point is still valid. There are solid geographical reasons why settlements exist in particular places which don't change much over time. Over 90% of settlements that appear in the Domesday Book still exist in present day England over 900 years later. Street plans of London don't suggest any major changes were caused by the Great Fire of London, with roads still following almost identical courses and buildings usually being replaced by similar sorts of buildings (although the actual building may have been destroyed, unless the owners were dead they still owned the land and built in the same place.



> Alright, all the events was hyperbole, but the fact remains that we have written descriptions of many major events from the last two thousand years, and much more was lost when civilizations fell (or libraries were burned/sacked). In FR, literacy is much, much more common than it was in medieval times and there are deities, priesthoods and organizations dedicated to keeping accurate records and histories, so I have to wonder why nobody would have bothered to write about events of the "hundred year gap".




I assume people did. Yet the most valuable information would be diaries and such, rather than things people wrote up thirty years later with the benefit of hindsight. These are just the sort of material that people won't consider vital enough to carry with them when fleeing badly affected areas, and outside these areas the information they contain will be affected by hearsay evidence. Add to that the dislocation of the catastrophe which would lead to reduced literacy levels in it's aftermath, and there are plausible reasons why information would be limited and inaccurate.

Which still doesn't mean that it's not a silly assumption that no-one has written a "History of the SpellPalgue" book with as much information as they have. Just that it's not necessarily something people need much.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 1, 2009)

Bluenose said:


> Natural selection refers to the way a significant number of FR fans were turned away from the setting by the increasing amount of material. Consider that there have been a number of threads where people have said they've returned to FR after liking the original grey box but have subsequently lost interest (whether because of RSEs, too much detail, emphasis on aspects they disliked). Many of them have said part of their reason for returning is their liking for that there's less information given and they feel freer to create their own campaigns knowing there's not going to be a sourcebook along to detail things in a different way to what they have done.
> 
> Anecdotally I can point out an example of the biggest FR fan in my gaming group. He adored the original grey box, began grumbling some time in 2nd edition about excessive amounts of irrelevant information, and in 3rd edition began running games set in areas where there was only a limited amount of information available. He is very happy to have a setting which won't be expanded further, since he's sure that anything he develops for a region won't be invalidated by a later sourcebook.
> 
> ...



Personally I think Forgotten Realms - as a game setting, might still have been served best with a "reimagination" and return to the beginning. I don't think it would have been possible, though. The novels are very important for the FR, and it seems the ongoing storyline is not hurting them in the slightest. 

But maybe I am wrong. I am not sure if FR fans that dislike the Spellplague and the return of Abeir could be pleased with a reboot. I think I personally would have enjoyed going back to the roots, because I wasn't there the first time, and I could enjoy the setting from a fresh position. 

I know, though, that without this RSE, I probably wouldn't have picked up the FR books - except maybe the players guide...


----------



## Primal (Sep 1, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I don't know if you realize just how condescending this sounds. You're effectively saying that the only real fans of the setting are people who deeply immerse themselves in the vast reams of setting material and everyone else doesn't matter.
> 
> That the changes they made weren't done for any "real" reasons, just another money grab. That the idea of having massive fluff bloat wasn't off putting to the continually shrinking population of gamers that would even consider trying to get into the Realms.




No, that's not what I'm saying; I'm saying that most of the "old guard" *I* know (online and in RL) *loved* the depth of lore, and for them this was the "lure" of the setting. Yeah, anecdotal and all that, but that's all we have, right? 

The way I see it, these changes they made were just about cold, hard business; they didn't think about their existing fans (if they also liked the setting, it would be a bonus, nothing more). It's not the same as 4E FR being a ruthless "money grab", though.

Why did the FR sales decline towards the end of the 3E era? Maybe they should have published more books the fans actually *wanted*, such as supplements for Western Heartlands, Cormyr, Sembia, Dalelands... *these* are the areas most DMs I know place their campaigns in -- not in Halruaa or Thay (or even Waterdeep). For example, Serpent Kingdoms, Silver Marches and City of Splendors are great books, but these are kind of limited in usability. Then there were some (failed) experiments (Mysteries of Moonsea) and not-so-stellar adventures (Sons of Gruumsh). And for these reasons, I think, is why many DMs stopped buying stuff. We *begged* Rich Baker (on the WoTC boards) for Cities of the Realms, Dungeons of the Realms and Cormyr/Dalelands/Sembia accessory, but no such luck. So, many DMs just gave up and didn't buy Dragons of Faerun or Unapproachable East or the last adventure trilogy, because they felt that WoTC didn't exactly cater to their wishes. 



> See, you've said that it's enough to have read the campaign setting guide.
> 
> So, you're saying that I could run a campaign in the Shining South (to pick an area) having only read the SS campaign guide and the FRPG? That would be sufficient to qualify me to run a campaign in FR?
> 
> ...




Why would you run a 4E campaign without the FRCG? As I've said above, you can run a campaign without any books or knowledge of the setting, if the players in your group are okay with it. Maybe I (as a player) wouldn't enjoy it as much as the campaigns in my group, but I would probably try discussing my issues with you.  

Note that your tone with "If I need to read more than hundreds of pages, FR needs to be pruned back" type of phrase is just as condescending as you claim mine was; it implies that your way is superior to 

Let me repeat: Regardless of whether you want to run an Eberron/FR/Dragonlance/Greyhawk/Etcetera campaign and think that the campaign setting book is more than enough, you're more than "qualified" if everyone is okay with it. If someone has an issue, it's in my eyes no more different than, say, trying to force "combat fans" to play in an intrigue and roleplaying heavy campaign with very few combat encounters. Or forcing someone to play a space opera game even though he hates the genre. I don't personally like the steampunk-ish elements of Eberron, so I'd want to drop out of the group if that became suddenly our setting of choice and the DM would be adamant about it.

It's about preferences, and DMs should be flexible, too; I've cut down the number (and length) of descriptions whenever I've run games for players new to DM or if they seemed like they didn't like being bombarded with details. I *could* have kicked such players out the minute they said they feel "burdened" by information, but why would I want to do that? Likewise, I would expect the DM to be patient with me if I, as a player, kept asking about "minutae". Of course, if I was the only person in the group interested in minor details, I wouldn't likely play with them for long.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 1, 2009)

Primal said:


> We *begged* Rich Baker (on the WoTC boards) for Cities of the Realms, Dungeons of the Realms and Cormyr/Dalelands/Sembia accessory, but no such luck. So, many DMs just gave up and didn't buy Dragons of Faerun or Unapproachable East or the last adventure trilogy, because they felt that WoTC didn't exactly cater to their wishes.




Was this out of a desire to put their own stamp on the setting (by fleshing out less popular places), because the Dales, Heartlands and Cormyr had been covered in previous editions, or both?

For me, the Realms is Cormyr, the Dales, the Moonsea and the Ruins of Myth Drannor, and I don't really give a damn about the rest.  So I know I kept waiting for books about those regions, and only got the Moonsea.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 1, 2009)

Those areas have been done to death.  Maybe they had enough people complain to them about the focus on a few areas and how they ignore the rest of a gigantic world.  Most of the 2E material is still perfectly usable with a 3E era FR game and they already had products detailing those areas very well.  It's all equally unneeded in a 4E game tho.


----------



## Primal (Sep 1, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Was this out of a desire to put their own stamp on the setting (by fleshing out less popular places), because the Dales, Heartlands and Cormyr had been covered in previous editions, or both?
> 
> For me, the Realms is Cormyr, the Dales, the Moonsea and the Ruins of Myth Drannor, and I don't really give a damn about the rest. So I know I kept waiting for books about those regions, and only got the Moonsea.




I can't really say; reading between the lines (and this is my own interpretation) it does seem like some of the designers wanted to leave their own fingerprints all over the place. It may also be that the design team was unsure what to do with the more popular areas, and that is why they released regional books for more "exotic" areas. As you said, Cormyr, Dalelands et al. were already covered in 2E accessories, but still many DMs wished a 3E update on things -- after all, it had been a few years since the Volo's Guides had been published. Maybe RB had some insider knowledge of 4E even before the development began, and thus saw any regional development being counterintuitive to 4E design goals? 

Anyway, I feel the design team really dropped the ball with the storyline, introducing a lot of weird RSEs (Return of the Archwizards, Rage of Dragons, the whole Shadowstorm events, etcetera) and clearly focusing on certain organizations and deities only (namely, the Shade and Shar). And they totally ignored the story potential in Xvim's ascension, the Manshoon Wars and other "seeds" the FR "Lorelords" had written. 

What I *do* know is that before 4E came out, the designers publicly admitted none of the staffers had been running FR campaigns in years, which says a lot; they didn't have any emotional attachment to FR, and it was just "work". If we take a look at Eberron (especially which sort of books they put out at the same time while replying to FR fans that "This sort of books wouldn't sell") it's a whole different story; it was pretty evident to me that the staffers liked Eberron a lot, and this is even more evident if we compare the FR and Eberron 4E books with each other.

For FR, it was just plain work and hard business; for Eberron, it was what they thought would be best for the setting and its fans (being fans themselves). At least that's how I see it.


----------



## Primal (Sep 1, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> Those areas have been done to death.  Maybe they had enough people complain to them about the focus on a few areas and how they ignore the rest of a gigantic world.  Most of the 2E material is still perfectly usable with a 3E era FR game and they already had products detailing those areas very well.  It's all equally unneeded in a 4E game tho.




I disagree; what I hoped was an update of things and how the storyline events (in novels) had impacted those areas -- maybe see a few new faces and locations covered, certain regional spells and items updated to 3E and regional/local PrCs similar to those in Shining South, City of Splendors, Unapproachable East and Silver Marches. 

They *had* covered Shining South, too, in its own 2E supplement.

BTW, if I ran a 4E FR campaign, I'd need to rewrite a *LOT* of stuff to appease my players; not everyone is curious about small details, but for DMs whose players *do*, in my opinion the 4E FR is just not worth it.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 1, 2009)

Primal said:


> What I *do* know is that before 4E came out, the designers publicly admitted none of the staffers had been running FR campaigns in years, which says a lot; they didn't have any emotional attachment to FR, and it was just "work". If we take a look at Eberron (especially which sort of books they put out at the same time while replying to FR fans that "This sort of books wouldn't sell") it's a whole different story; it was pretty evident to me that the staffers liked Eberron a lot, and this is even more evident if we compare the FR and Eberron 4E books with each other.
> 
> For FR, it was just plain work and hard business; for Eberron, it was what they thought would be best for the setting and its fans (being fans themselves). At least that's how I see it.




If this is true, then that's good news for Dark Sun, because the design team seems to have a real affection for that setting that was absent from FR.   It also explains why the parallels between the 5th Age of DL and 4e FR are so prevalent.  DL 5th Age generally had a lot of people that felt the basic flavour and story of the setting needed to be changed drastically too.


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 1, 2009)

ferratus said:


> It also explains why the parallels between the 5th Age of DL and 4e FR are so prevalent.  DL 5th Age generally had a lot of people that felt the basic flavour and story of the setting needed to be changed drastically too.




You mean the authors of the setting?  The 5th Age stuff all comes about as a direct result of the Dragons of Summer Flame book.  Still have no idea why they tried switching to the SAGA card system, but not all experiments work.  They probably were trying to accomplish something that did less to take the player out of the story, remember that Vampire and the rest of the Storyteller system from White Wolf was trouncing D&D at that point.

EDIT:Yes I know Weis and Hickman didn't write the game books, but they did supply all the initial changes to the setting in their novel.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 2, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> You mean the authors of the setting?  The 5th Age stuff all comes about as a direct result of the Dragons of Summer Flame book.  Still have no idea why they tried switching to the SAGA card system, but not all experiments work.  They probably were trying to accomplish something that did less to take the player out of the story, remember that Vampire and the rest of the Storyteller system from White Wolf was trouncing D&D at that point.




While "Dragons of Summer Flame" was a mistake too, the 5th Age designers went above and beyond it.  DoSF removed the gods and WoHS from the setting, because there was basically plans to wrap the setting up and discontinue it.  So without gods and magic, you basically had no more stories to tell.

Someone else then decided they wanted to turn around and use Dragonlance as the setting for the new SAGA game.  The 5th Age designers decided to keep DoSF as canon and then move the setting forward.   To move it forward they turned 3/4 of the map into desolate wastelands ruled by omnipotent dragon overlords of colossal size which were never to be directly challenged.  The design goal was that players of the setting were to live beneath their unstoppable tyranny and fight the small battles.  This is why the 4e FR reboot reminds Dragonlance fans of the 5th Age.

FR fans got an better deal out of their setting nuking though.  While Akanul replaced Chessenta and Returned Abeir replaced Maztica with viable adventuring locations for all levels, the desolated realms of the dragon overlords was... desolation.


----------



## jdrakeh (Sep 2, 2009)

ferratus said:


> So without gods and magic, you basically had no more stories to tell.




That's a dangerously narrow view of fiction.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 2, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> That's a dangerously narrow view of fiction.




I'm of course speaking of Dragonlance specifically, which had its struggle for balance between the gods and magic as the cornerstone of the setting.


----------



## Henry (Sep 2, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I'm of course speaking of Dragonlance specifically, which had its struggle for balance between the gods and magic as the cornerstone of the setting.




I disagree -- the struggle of Dragonlance was never between gods and magic, it was between good, evil, and neutrality -- remember the whole "elves, ogres, and men" thing? The gods and magic were inseparable in DL, but I'll agree that 5th age ripped the heart out of the setting for me.


----------



## ferratus (Sep 2, 2009)

Henry said:


> I disagree -- the struggle of Dragonlance was never between gods and magic, it was between good, evil, and neutrality -- remember the whole "elves, ogres, and men" thing? The gods and magic were inseparable in DL, but I'll agree that 5th age ripped the heart out of the setting for me.




I'm sorry I should have been clearer.  I meant the balance between the three pantheons of gods (good, evil and neutrality), and the balance between the three orders of magic (black, white and red).  I didn't mean the balance between the gods and magic as opposing forces.

Not a good day for expressing myself apparently.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 2, 2009)

Primal said:
			
		

> Note that your tone with "If I need to read more than hundreds of pages, FR needs to be pruned back" type of phrase is just as condescending as you claim mine was; it implies that your way is superior to




Oh, I'm not implying that.  I'm pretty boldly stating it.  There's no subtlety to be found here.  

I would point out that saying one way is better is not the same as being condescending.  You're claiming that the only way someone is qualified to run the Realms "properly" is if they follow canon and become deeply immersed in the setting.  That if so much as a single player asks for it, the DM should supply it.

I'm saying that if you want to go that much into the details, go for it.  Fill your boots.  But, no DM should be expected to go into that much detail before running a game.  If a setting has so much background that I am actually obligated to use hundreds and hundreds of pages of background material, before I even begin to start creating a campaign, then yes, that background material needs to go.

Now, as you say, so long as the group is groovy with it, I don't need that much material.  This is where we part company.  I think that there should never even be a question on the table of who gets to decide how much canon is enough.  It's the DM's choice.  A setting doesn't need that much material

Heck, take Star Wars as an example again.  If I wanted to run an Episode IV period SW game, I accept that I should probably watch A New Hope.  Fair enough.  However, I should not be *expected* to know Greedo's history in SW canon before I run the game.  Greedo does actually have a canonical history in the novels, but that is never explored in the movies.  

If I decide that Greedo is actually working for the Rebels, that should be my decision and no one should be able to say, "No, you're doing it wrong."

My problem is with the expectation.  If I choose to follow canon, that should be 100% my choice as the DM.  When it comes to your character, I'm all about player power.  But when it comes to creating my campaign?  Sorry, that's mine.  That's the one place I gotta sit in the daddy chair because there is absolutely no way I'm going to fact check with my players before I make an adventure.


----------



## Primal (Sep 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Oh, I'm not implying that.  I'm pretty boldly stating it.  There's no subtlety to be found here.
> 
> I would point out that saying one way is better is not the same as being condescending.  You're claiming that the only way someone is qualified to run the Realms "properly" is if they follow canon and become deeply immersed in the setting.  That if so much as a single player asks for it, the DM should supply it.
> 
> ...




Well, and I can claim that Golarion is superior to all the other settings and that we all know it for a fact (even if nobody else would admit it aloud)... but that would be just *my* opinion, right? Just as you claiming your way of DMing is superior to mine is just *your* opinion. 

BTW, if you're claiming I have said the only way to ,* I'd like to see you quoting me for that*. Because I really don't think that's what I've said or implied; I'm of the mind that whatever suits you and your group is fine. IMO it's about preferences; what do you want out of the game and what do your players want out of the game? 

What I *have* said is that whenever you decide to run a game in a new setting, discuss it with your players before you start writing. Maybe someone absolutely hates FR , or maybe someone is already running a Cormyr campaign in another group or maybe all the guys would want you to stick with Eberron; it doesn't mean you need a green light from everyone to run a FR campaign, but this sort of issues *may* result in disruptive behavior during play or even (sooner or later) someone might decide to sit out sessions (or even walk out). I don't think it can hurt, if you have a polite discussion about it with the players (the last time I did this was when I bought Pathfinder CS; I wasn't sure how the guys felt about Golarion, so I asked them directly whether they want to play in it or not). 

The thing is, despite the DM's authority it's kind of hard to run games if you don't listen to what sort of games, campaigns and adventures your players want to experience. If you always force your own vision and preferences down their throats, it's a miracle if they don't all eventually walk out. It may be your "daddy chair", but I would walk out if you, for example, continously ran combat-heavy sessions even though everyone had said that they don't want third "on-the-frontlines-in-a-worldwide-war" type of campaign (and this is just a quick example; I think you get my drift here). 

As far as canon goes, I'm not talking about checking facts or canon bits with players; as I said above, whatever suits the group is enough. But saying that a setting does not *need* that amount of lore is just voicing your *own* preferences; you, as DM, perhaps do not need that lore, but I do. And that should be fine, too, right?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Sep 3, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Someone else then decided they wanted to turn around and use Dragonlance as the setting for the new SAGA game.




   Not quite; the decision to revive Dragonlance was made first, the designers started with a streamlined AD&D, and management told them "non-AD&D, diceless, please."



> The 5th Age designers decided to keep DoSF as canon and then move the setting forward.




  Keeping DoSF canon was also a management decision, I believe; at least one member of the design team proposed ignoring it.



> To move it forward they turned 3/4 of the map into desolate wastelands ruled by omnipotent dragon overlords of colossal size which were never to be directly challenged.  The design goal was that players of the setting were to live beneath their unstoppable tyranny and fight the small battles.  This is why the 4e FR reboot reminds Dragonlance fans of the 5th Age.




   Actually, it was closer to 1/4th to 1/2th of the map (with another 1/4th to 1/3rd being ruled by draconic tyrants but not 'desolate wasteland')--and the game was conceived as a freedom-fighting game, although the "really big, mean dragons" were also a management decision (DRAGON #231).
  Part of the problem was that the line was overly metaplotted (something DL has long struggled with) and that only the first third or so made it out before WotC decided to hand the setting back to Weis & Hickman.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 3, 2009)

Primal said:
			
		

> As far as canon goes, I'm not talking about checking facts or canon bits with players; as I said above, whatever suits the group is enough. But saying that a setting does not *need* that amount of lore is just voicing your *own* preferences; you, as DM, perhaps do not need that lore, but I do. And that should be fine, too, right?




Hang on a second.  Weren't you the one who earlier talked about following cannon as a requirement for running a consistent campaign?  

But, you are absolutely right, it's a personal choice.  But, we're not really talking about my game or your game, we're talking about what works from a business standpoint.  At least, that's the POV I have been taking all along.

Having this mountain of canon scares away players.  Yes, there is a segment of fans that want this mountain, but, I'm sorry, just like any hardcore fan group, there's simply not enough of you to make money from.  At least, not enough money anyway.   

So, the company has two choices.  Keep chasing the hardcore fans with diminishing returns as products are considered "too niche" for a continuously shrinking audience; or, prune back the setting and bring in fresh blood.

As I said before, its all about the expectations and perceptions.  The perception is (rightly or wrongly) that playing the FR carries the expectation that you will have this metric butt load of canon to absorb before you can play there.  And, as a side issue, there is almost no module or adventure support in that canon meaning that even if I do absorb all that canon, I'm still at square one when it comes to creating a campaign.

You mention Golarion.  I think Paizo has done a fantastic thing here.  Half the campaign support is modules.  Fantastic.  I could play in Golarion for the next couple of years with a bare minimum of work.

THAT'S what sells books.  The hardcore guys that spend hours and hours poring over tomes are great and all, but, it's the lazy bastards like me that vastly outnumber the hardcore guy that sells books.


----------



## Primal (Sep 3, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a second. Weren't you the one who earlier talked about following cannon as a requirement for running a consistent campaign?
> 
> But, you are absolutely right, it's a personal choice. But, we're not really talking about my game or your game, we're talking about what works from a business standpoint. At least, that's the POV I have been taking all along.
> 
> ...




No, I don't think I ever said that reading all the canon sources is a requirement for running the Realms; I did say that I expect the DM to know the basic facts about the region (from the campaign setting book), and coming up with plausible reasons for any major changes (such as replacing King Azoun and Vangerdahast with his own NPCs). And that's just my own personal expectation; whatever goes for your group is just fine by me. I generally keep my campaigns 80-90% faithful to canon, but in my current campaign I rewrote a well-known noble family's history and replaced the local ruler simply because I thought the canon NPC was boring and uninteresting (and I'm about to hit the PCs with the 'Age of Worms', which has made me rewrite large parts of local history as well).

I don't think you're a "lazy bastard" by my standards; IMO a lazy DM is someone who doesn't read any books, doesn't pay any attention to character and NPC backgrounds or motivations, and doesn't bother to convert material at all but drops it "as is" into the setting (and often doesn't even bother to tell you why City of Greyhawk appears in the middle of the Dalelands or why clerics of Hextor co-exist peacefully with Banites). On top of it all, in my experience this type of DMs don't even  bother about campaign consistency or storyline, and think that randomly rolling for encounters in a series of caves/rooms constitutes to a real adventure (and I've played under such a DM, believe it or not).  

In general I agree with your post above, although I would argue that 4E FR failed miserably in its goals; I don't know exact sales numbers or how well LFR is doing in comparison to Pathfinder Society and its predecessor, LGR. The fact that WoTC has (apparently) deemed the sales were not good enough for follow-up books RB talked about as a possibility and the number of active posters on Candlekeep and WoTC FR forums (the number of posters have dropped dramatically on both boards). Maybe FR *has* gained boatloads of new fans who just don't participate in online discussions -- I don't know. But all this says to me that the existing fan base has moved on to other settings or using the 2E/3E Realms. 4E Eberron is another story; regardless of the fact that there are 15+ (flavour-heavy) canon accessories published during the 3E era, they still didn't prune it back. And I'm fairly sure the Eberron books will outsell FR by a mile. 

Golarion and Paizo APs absolutely rock, because not only is the art, writing and maps all top notch in my eyes; the world is also pretty well-designed, "sandbox-y" and represents the "shades of grey" morality rather than "black-and-white". The difference to FR canon is that Paizo products generally detail only a couple of locations within each area, concentrating on "what is the stuff most useful to most DMs" instead of minutiae (and since I've already got FR for this, I don't need it here -- and if I occasionally *do* need precise details, I can apply my FR lore to Golarion). What I also love is their online support for their stuff -- I can actually tell my players to download the Player's Guide and say that it's what their PCs know without having to "infodump" them myself (whether they read it or not is up to them). All in all it's a beautifully executed concept that appeals to hard core FR fans like myself (there's enough lore to fulfill my needs most of the time) and those do not care about minutiae (the canon lore does not seek to encompass everything).


----------



## SSquirrel (Sep 3, 2009)

Primal said:


> Golarion and Paizo APs absolutely rock, because not only is the art, writing and maps all top notch in my eyes; the world is also pretty well-designed, "sandbox-y" and represents the "shades of grey" morality rather than "black-and-white". The difference to FR canon is that Paizo products generally detail only a couple of locations within each area, concentrating on "what is the stuff most useful to most DMs" instead of minutiae (and since I've already got FR for this, I don't need it here -- and if I occasionally *do* need precise details, I can apply my FR lore to Golarion). What I also love is their online support for their stuff -- I can actually tell my players to download the Player's Guide and say that it's what their PCs know without having to "infodump" them myself (whether they read it or not is up to them). All in all it's a beautifully executed concept that appeals to hard core FR fans like myself (there's enough lore to fulfill my needs most of the time) and those do not care about minutiae (the canon lore does not seek to encompass everything).




Uhm...isn't this exactly what WotC did with 4E FR?  They now give a general overview of the area and add a small bit of specifics before moving onto the next.  So someone coming to 4E FR for the first time, w/o the expectation of all the canonical detail from prior editions can look at it pretty evenly compared with other settings.  I'm sure it irritates those who liked the huge amounts of details, but obviously WotC felt the others who said it was getting to be too much and people felt hemmed in were correct and they did what they felt was needed to open the setting up.

Now FR is sandboxy and there is no need to infodump.  You can let them read the Player's Guide and maybe give them a few more specifics about the area you end up playing in, since they would be more familiar w/that area.e FRPG doesn't detail the world at large, but it does cover all the gods and all the aspects needed for creating characters, which is what it should do


----------



## Primal (Sep 4, 2009)

SSquirrel said:


> Uhm...isn't this exactly what WotC did with 4E FR? They now give a general overview of the area and add a small bit of specifics before moving onto the next. So someone coming to 4E FR for the first time, w/o the expectation of all the canonical detail from prior editions can look at it pretty evenly compared with other settings. I'm sure it irritates those who liked the huge amounts of details, but obviously WotC felt the others who said it was getting to be too much and people felt hemmed in were correct and they did what they felt was needed to open the setting up.
> 
> Now FR is sandboxy and there is no need to infodump. You can let them read the Player's Guide and maybe give them a few more specifics about the area you end up playing in, since they would be more familiar w/that area.e FRPG doesn't detail the world at large, but it does cover all the gods and all the aspects needed for creating characters, which is what it should do




Well, I personally wouldn't compare the two in the same phrase; YMMV, of course. I *have* read the FRCG, and I found it to be... well, lacking in quality (plus the new FR seems a bit too "black and white" in morality for my taste). And the amount of information in Paizo's APs and Player's Guides would require several long DDI articles; I don't have a subscription, so I can't comment on how good those FR pieces really are, but I have a feeling (and this is, again, just my personal opinion) that Paizo is utilizing better writers, and I also feel that WoTC staffers don't have any emotional attachment to FR (which would also explain the "bland" tone in the books). Besides, didn't they remove most of the RW cultures from FR, i.e. Mulhorand, Maztica, Bedine etcetera? Where would you place an Al-Qadim or Egyptean-themed adventure? Or a Ravenloft module? Golarion has Qadira, Katapesh, Osirion and Ustalav for these purposes to mention a few examples. What about "less evil fighting evil"? You know, if I did sandboxing, I think I would prefer Golarion to 4E FR any day. YMMV, naturally.


----------



## The Little Raven (Sep 4, 2009)

Primal said:


> Where would you place... a Ravenloft module?




The Shadowfell.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 4, 2009)

I wish I could add more to this discussion, but as someone who had never played in the Realms before, and traded some books for the FRPG and FRCG (because people claimed it was so much better for people new to the realms), I have to say... The 4e FR have to be one of the most boring set of books I have tried to read through, if anything they made me decide to stick with Eberron for the foreseeable future.  Though I am curious to get my hands on a 3e FRCS book now.


----------



## Primal (Sep 5, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> The Shadowfell.




Wouldn't that be a bit too "Paragon-y" for low level PCs? I mean, isn't planehopping meant for Paragon Tier mainly?


----------



## Jack99 (Sep 5, 2009)

Primal said:


> Wouldn't that be a bit too "Paragon-y" for low level PCs? I mean, isn't planehopping meant for Paragon Tier mainly?




Feywild and Shadowfell are actually meant to support planehopping at the heroic tier already. An example is in Scales of War.


----------



## Arawn76 (Sep 5, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I wish I could add more to this discussion, but as someone who had never played in the Realms before, and traded some books for the FRPG and FRCG (because people claimed it was so much better for people new to the realms), I have to say... The 4e FR have to be one of the most boring set of books I have tried to read through, if anything they made me decide to stick with Eberron for the foreseeable future. Though I am curious to get my hands on a 3e FRCS book now.




If your playing 4e I'd suggest this







The 3e books offer nothing better than this unless your looking for 3e mechanics.  Although out of print it is obtainable.


----------



## The_Fan (Sep 5, 2009)

Primal said:


> Wouldn't that be a bit too "Paragon-y" for low level PCs? I mean, isn't planehopping meant for Paragon Tier mainly?



_At-will_ plane hopping doesn't really get started until the Paragon level, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist before then. It just mostly takes a quest to get there (or cosmicly bad luck, in the case of Ravenloft) instead of a ritual and some residuum. Note that one of the domains of dread published so far for 4e is Heroic tier.


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 5, 2009)

Primal said:


> and I also feel that WoTC staffers don't have any emotional attachment to FR (which would also explain the "bland" tone in the books).




Of the current WotC writing team, I believe that only Rich Baker has any real experience working on FR prior to 4e. And while it's not necessarily a universally shared opinion among online FR fans, I quite liked most of what Baker did during the 3e phase of the setting.


----------



## Imaro (Sep 5, 2009)

Arawn76 said:


> If your playing 4e I'd suggest this
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Grrrr. Bring back those old PDF's WotC.  Though I still might get the 3e book, since I play 3.x (Pathfinder) and 4e.


----------



## Obryn (Sep 5, 2009)

Inspired by this thread, I decided to break out my old FRCG and look through it again.  I haven't looked at it much for quite a while, since I wasn't running a game in the Realms.  I'm not that far into it, but so far I've noticed the following...

* It's aged well.  Now that I'm past the initial "WTF?" feeling, the huge disorientation, and most of the conflict... it's a much better-made setting than I remember.

* Sadly, yes, the map really _is_ that bad.  Seriously, it's a muddled, busy mess.

* It "respects" the Realms history more than I remember.  I think anyone who's steeped in FR canon could run a damn fine post-apocalyptic Realms campaign, no problem.  References to pre-Spellplague FR are everywhere.  Incorporating stuff from 1e/2e/3e doesn't seem too hard, honestly; I think the difficulty has been overstated.

* The Magic section is pretty neat, actually.  I get an FR vibe from it.

* I love the idea of Spellscars, Plaguechanged creatures, and so on.  Lots of good potential for mutations & bizarre encounters.

...so yeah, I'll post more as I get to it, but since I have a long weekend at my wife's parents' place, I should be able to check out a few more things. 

-O


----------

