# What do you think about the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Book



## Najo (Aug 19, 2008)

The Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide is released and in our hands. I like to hear about what you like and dislike about it as a campaign setting book and a 4e campaign setting. 

This is not a thread to complain about the differences between this edition of Forgotten Realms and previous ones. I want to know how you feel the new book stands on its own as a campaign setting, as a showcase of how WOTC is doing campaign settings now and the pros and cons of the books format.


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 19, 2008)

I like it a lot. It makes me want to play, what more can I ask for?

The only thing I really dislike is the adventure they put in. Thats a couple of pages I will most likely never use, and it is in the front of the book.

The region spreads (1,2 or 4 pages per region) are an excellent way to organise such a book.

What I like most is, this is a DMs book. Thats awesome, because, maybe you do not want to use the 4e realms. No problem, just tell your playrs where their PG is "wrong" and you can do with the realms what ever you want.

If they had given me 30 pages more of monsters and evil organisations instead of Loudwater and a first level adventure I would be even more pleased. (btw. I would have prefered Shadowdale or Daggerford as Intro Town with appropriate adventure... but that is purely reasons of nostalgia...)


----------



## Falstaff (Aug 19, 2008)

I agree with the above poster, the book really makes me wanna play the game.

However, I too would have preferred that Loudwater was not included; that could have been a nice D&DI article.

The map is my biggest gripe. I wish the map was drawn in the style of the Nentir Vale map in the DMG or the Cormyr Dragon article map.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Aug 19, 2008)

I’m just going through the book now, but my initial impressions are not good. Compared to the tour-de-force that was the 3E FRCS (probably the best DM product of the 3E era, IMO), I finding the 4e FRCG a disappointment. While I appreciate the notion of giving DMs the room to insert their own stories into a setting, the 4e Realms (so far) doesn’t feel like a living world.

Clearly the designers have run with the idea that regions and enemies should be able to be lifted wholesale from the Realms for placement in other settings. I suppose that might make the book more appealing to DMs who don’t run the Realms, but for those of us that do, it kinda sucks. What we’re left with is a setting without a thematic core or a sense of connectedness. Each element tends to stand on its own without much reference to those around it. And none, I have to say, is that compelling on its own. It’s not hard for a DM to come up with a nation with three or four major cities and a couple of ideas for major dungeons. What’s hard is to come up with an entire world, to create a complex mythology and history, to layer in the elements that turn cities and nations into a living, breathing world. That’s what I want in a campaign guide – not what we’ve got here, which is more like a kit of readymade city and dungeon ideas with few details attached.

And I hate, hate the new granny-type + white space layout that has been borrowed from the core books. A note to WoTC: we’re not buying this as a coffee-table book, or for casual reading on a train. It's not a magazine and we're not casual readers. We want content, and the more content there is, the more value we’re going to perceive in a book. The brilliance of the 3E FRCS was that it was bursting at the seams with details, plot hooks and locations. I don’t think anybody complained that the type was too small or that there wasn’t enough leading between lines of text. There was so much more information in that book, simply because the designers made maximum use of the available space. The seemingly much lower word count in the 4e Forgotten Realms book leaves a lot to be desired. Even when you’re devoting several pages to a region, it feels like you’re just skimming the surface. Major settlements are being skipped over or given the most cursory treatment because you’ve left no space to detail them.

And Loudwater. Why? Really, this seems like a total waste of space. We already have a starter town (of about the same size, too) in the DMG. You could have just said, “if you want a starter town, you can use Fallcrest. A good place to put it would be here…” What would have been awesome is if the designers had devoted that space to describing a major region in depth. A 32-page section on Cormyr, for example, would have been great.

Sorry if I’m sounding negative, but the new setting is a major disappointment when compared to the 3E and previous FR products. It has some good things about it – for a start it brings back some mystery to the realms, and leaves spaces for DMs to fill in with their own ideas, but it seems incomplete overall. I’d probably have a higher opinion of it if I knew that at some stage there would be additional material to provide greater depth to the setting, but at this stage it doesn’t appear there will be (and I’m not that interested in collating snippets from Dragon), so I’d have to recommend giving this one a pass.


----------



## vazanar (Aug 19, 2008)

Read a bit the other day in a store. I'm not a huge fan of the spellplague. However, I hated all the rse in 3e realms (2e was last campaign in the realms). So I wasn't expecting to like this book. However, the overall guide is quite nice. The loudwater is a bit of a waste. I would have rather had those pages for the villians/organizations. The Abreil addition was odd, kind of like having Arcana Evolved and Realms crashing into each other. Which was more pronounced since it was in a seperate section. Yet this is a world the DM can run with, until more novels come out. They lay out is nice, just wish their were more on the villans. I also liked the treasure section. Adds some realms fluff.

It was good enough that Im getting a copy and doing a realms campaign. One or two of the older players will play their characters who survived the spellplague, but lost their powers/friends/ families (they were high level) and seek to restablish the harpers. Maybe some revenge on the Cult of Shar/Cyric. If Semmon survived where do you think he would be? With which faction?


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 19, 2008)

You mean Dark Hold Sememnon? I would make him a Zhentarim, follower of Cyric and either vampire or lich (depends on what you want of him... being a tool of Manshoon or rather independed)


----------



## Grimstaff (Aug 19, 2008)

TheSleepyKing said:


> I’d have to recommend giving this one a pass.




I'm kind of torn between being tired of this setting and the fact that my players will want to adventure in it nonetheless, so these recommendations for or against are definitely an interesting and useful read.

4E is a lot more do-it-yourself friendly than 3.5 was (IMO, at least; not trying to start edition wars), so I wonder if a less exhaustively-detailed FR setting book isn't a good thing, letting me breath a little more of my own interests into the setting.

How complete does this book feel? Do you think there has been alot of stuff left out for next months FR player's guide?


----------



## vazanar (Aug 19, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> How complete does this book feel? Do you think there has been alot of stuff left out for next months FR player's guide?




Well there is very little of player information in this book. So crunch and even background fluff for players is missing. This is clearly a dm only book. Which I think is a good thing.


----------



## vazanar (Aug 19, 2008)

Obergnom said:


> You mean Dark Hold Sememnon? I would make him a Zhentarim, follower of Cyric and either vampire or lich (depends on what you want of him... being a tool of Manshoon or rather independed)




I knew I spelt that wrong, been a while. He was a sorta ally in our old campaign, more he helped to annoy Fzoul. I remember him playing with the Shadow Weave. Be fun to have him be the main villian, especially using the Zhents. Be intresting since the new harpers dont seem to be focused on the Zhents but the party will be pushing them that way.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 19, 2008)

When I buy a setting, I do not want everything spelled out, every NPC, city etc detailed down to the various recipes for Dragon Steak, and how they differ from region to region. 

I want a good framework that helps me "set the tone" of the campaign, of the NPCs and the various countries. And this is what this book gives me. A great framework to build my own forgotten realms, should I ever choose to run a FR campaign again (haven't since 2e). 

I do think it will make the realms much more accessible. The sheer amount of info that you as a DM were to digest in 3e (and before) could "scare off" some people. This way, maybe more people will feel that they handle running a realms campaign.

Cheers


----------



## Tuerny (Aug 19, 2008)

I am pretty happy with the book. I mostly picked it up to have something to read at Gen Con, but now I am tempted to run the setting for the first time in many, many years. It seems that the changes they have made make it really playable for the type of campaigns I like to run. So I definitely feel positive about it. I am indifferent about the Loudwater section too, but don't hate it.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Aug 19, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> 4E is a lot more do-it-yourself friendly than 3.5 was (IMO, at least; not trying to start edition wars), so I wonder if a less exhaustively-detailed FR setting book isn't a good thing, letting me breath a little more of my own interests into the setting.




I suspect a fair number of people will agree with you. I actually like the details, since I figure as a DM I can choose whether or not to use them (so it's better to have them than not). In fact, it's the all the detail that attracted me to FR in the first place. On the other hand, I can definitely see how some DMs might find those details a straightjacket, especially if they have players that are deeply steeped in Realmslore and demand to play in the canonical realms. For those DMs, the 4e realms will probably be a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Echohawk (Aug 19, 2008)

TheSleepyKing said:


> A note to WoTC: we’re not buying this as a coffee-table book, or for casual reading on a train. It's not a magazine and we're not casual readers. We want content, and the more content there is, the more value we’re going to perceive in a book.




Ahem! I'll thank you not to speak on my behalf there. 

Since I don't DM in the Realms, I *am* buying this as a coffee-table book or for casual reading on a train. (Except for the train part.) I plan on mining it for ideas, and for that, this format suits me much better than the 3ed campaign setting book.

Sure, I realize that my needs don't represent the entire potential market for this product, but WotC has delivered something that works for me.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 19, 2008)

TheSleepyKing said:


> I’m just going through the book now, but my initial impressions are not good. Compared to the tour-de-force that was the 3E FRCS (probably the best DM product of the 3E era, IMO), I finding the 4e FRCG a disappointment. While I appreciate the notion of giving DMs the room to insert their own stories into a setting, the 4e Realms (so far) doesn’t feel like a living world.
> 
> Clearly the designers have run with the idea that regions and enemies should be able to be lifted wholesale from the Realms for placement in other settings. I suppose that might make the book more appealing to DMs who don’t run the Realms, but for those of us that do, it kinda sucks. What we’re left with is a setting without a thematic core or a sense of connectedness. Each element tends to stand on its own without much reference to those around it. And none, I have to say, is that compelling on its own. It’s not hard for a DM to come up with a nation with three or four major cities and a couple of ideas for major dungeons. What’s hard is to come up with an entire world, to create a complex mythology and history, to layer in the elements that turn cities and nations into a living, breathing world. That’s what I want in a campaign guide – not what we’ve got here, which is more like a kit of readymade city and dungeon ideas with few details attached.
> 
> ...






You have described perfectly how a FRCS should look in 2008:
- Easy to pilfer stuff because many (most?) buyers just rip some information out for instant use.
- Layout! that deserves the name: don´t be afraid to use whitespace, make it readable on the train (oh, how i wish the times in my life would return when the train is not the only place where i have time to read RPGs).
- Make it easy to understand and easy to use in actual play.

Seems about right.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 19, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> You have described perfectly how a FRCS should look in 2008:
> - Easy to pilfer stuff because many (most?) buyers just rip some information out for instant use.




I agree... I personally like a campaign to give me towns and settings, and leave the relationship to other countries, and history to me, and my players. 



> - Layout! that deserves the name: don´t be afraid to use whitespace, make it readable on the train (oh, how i wish the times in my life would return when the train is not the only place where i have time to read RPGs).
> - Make it easy to understand and easy to use in actual play.
> 
> Seems about right.




These two I think are related. Being easy to read/use in play is a MUST. I can't remember (more true the older I get ) every little detail about the setting. Give me something I can grab, and scan in play without taking a half hour to get the answer.


----------



## johnnype (Aug 19, 2008)

SleepyKings description upthread is what I needed to hear. Thank you for taking the time to write down your impressions. 

I'm certain to end up buying the book anyway but at least I know what to expect now.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 20, 2008)

So I just have one question for the people who have the 4E FR setting. I'm really on the fence about getting it. On one hand, I've done a fair amount of FR work, but on the other hand, I really have my doubts about the whole spellplague and skipping forward 100 years. Add to that the fact that I'm not interested in running 4E, and this purchase becomes a very quesitionable one for me.

So for those who have it, how much of this book is rules and how much is fluff? If there is a bunch of rules content, what does it consist of, and how many pages are tied up in it? If I get it and if I ever run it (two very large ifs right now) it will be run using the PRPG.


----------



## Furry_Thing (Aug 20, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> So I just have one question for the people who have the 4E FR setting. I'm really on the fence about getting it. On one hand, I've done a fair amount of FR work, but on the other hand, I really have my doubts about the whole spellplague and skipping forward 100 years. Add to that the fact that I'm not interested in running 4E, and this purchase becomes a very quesitionable one for me.
> 
> So for those who have it, how much of this book is rules and how much is fluff? If there is a bunch of rules content, what does it consist of, and how many pages are tied up in it? If I get it and if I ever run it (two very large ifs right now) it will be run using the PRPG.





I'd say it's at least 90% fluff. Besides a handful of new rituals and some magic items, the only real crunchy bits are the easily ignored stat blocks. You could easily use it as a worldbook for any system you wanted to.


----------



## Vael (Aug 20, 2008)

I only managed to skim through it lightly, but it does seem to be mostly fluff. There's a handful of new monsters and some stated foes, Ssaz Tamm (sp?) is introduced in his 4e glory (I was underwhelmed, he's 30th level Elite and he seemed kinda wimpy for such an awesome necromancer), and there's crunch involving some new elements to the Realms, like Earth Nodes, which are locations of concentrated magic. There's arcana DCs for detecting them and such.

I admit, I'm not interested in playing in FR. I've enjoyed a few FR novels (can't stand Salvatore though, his writing style bugs me) and played Neverwinter Nights, but I'm not all that interested in running an FR campaign, so I didn't buy it. 

I did really like the book though, it seemed well organized, concise and lays out everything in broad strokes, allowing DMs to put their own spin on it. If this is a sign of what the Eberron book will look like, then I'll quite pleased with it.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 20, 2008)

Furry_Thing said:


> I'd say it's at least 90% fluff. Besides a handful of new rituals and some magic items, the only real crunchy bits are the easily ignored stat blocks. You could easily use it as a worldbook for any system you wanted to.




Closer to 95% definitely. 2 rituals, 3 magic items (or so), and what, 20 stat blocks? Really, the crunch is almost non-existent.


----------



## johnsemlak (Aug 20, 2008)

Obergnom said:


> The only thing I really dislike is the adventure they put in. Thats a couple of pages I will most likely never use, and it is in the front of the book.




How many pages is the adventure actually--I'm guessing that it's more than a couple?  How many pages are in the whole book?

I for one support including short adventures in a book like this.  It gives new (or perhaps experienced) DMs an adventure they can use immediately.  As long as it's reasonably short it shouldn't be too much of a loss for those who don't ever used published adventures--there's always going to be parts of a book some people won't use.

I suppose one could argue that something like that would make a good web enhancement, but the people who will use it (and I suspect that a great many of people who buy this book will use it) will greatly appreciate it being in the print version.


----------



## delericho (Aug 20, 2008)

I don't have, and won't be getting the 4e Realms books (just not a big fan of the setting). However...



TheSleepyKing said:


> Compared to the tour-de-force that was the 3E FRCS (probably the best DM product of the 3E era, IMO)...




Yeah, the 3e FRCS was a really really great book. Exactly what I want in a campaign setting (and, actually, I would prefer that a book of that scope be _all_ there is to a setting - no need for additional region guides for me).



johnsemlak said:


> I for one support including short adventures in a book like this.  It gives new (or perhaps experienced) DMs an adventure they can use immediately.




Seconded. I used to be very much opposed to sample adventures, but my opinion has changed with time. Now I see them as an easy and quick way to introduce key elements of the setting/rules system, and get people actually playing.

IMO, the core rules, and every setting, should include at least one sample adventure.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 20, 2008)

Yum, I love 90% fluff. Mine is currently in transit (shipped the 18th) so I should get it within the next day or two.

What I'm wondering is if they explain the whole Abeir-Toril thing. I mean, are they now separate? What do they mean by "lost sibling Abeir"?

Also, do they give stat blocks for Elminster, Drizzt and company? I'm just wondering how many levels an uber-drow ranger passes in 100 years, or if they somehow rationalize just a few (maybe he was hiding out somewhere)...I mean, he should be a demi-god by this point, or at least give us an example of a high epic tier character.

While we're at it, has WotC given us any hints as to what happens _after _30th level? I haven't read the core books in depth, so it might be somewhere, but I'm wondering if one gets to "apply" for demigod status or something, like in the good old days of 1E.


----------



## Falstaff (Aug 20, 2008)

I think I've already said this, but I like this book except for the map.

THE MAP SUCKS! It is very useless.

I am hoping that Wizards releases a FR Map Pack with everything mapped like Cormyr and the Nentir Vale.

I really, really wish they'd do that.


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 20, 2008)

No stats for good NPCs, but... Fzoul Chembryl (Exarch of Bane) and Manshon are 28th Level... I guess Drizzt should be below that and Elminster is weakened.


----------



## delericho (Aug 20, 2008)

Mercurius said:


> While we're at it, has WotC given us any hints as to what happens _after _30th level? I haven't read the core books in depth, so it might be somewhere,




It's in the PHB, under Epic Destinies. The short version is that each of the Epic Destinies has an 'end game' condition that applies roughly when you reach 30th level.

So, there isn't really anything after 30th level at all.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 20, 2008)

Obergnom said:


> I guess Drizzt should be below that




Isn't he now working the streets of Calimport as rough trade?


----------



## vazanar (Aug 20, 2008)

johnsemlak said:


> How many pages is the adventure actually--I'm guessing that it's more than a couple? How many pages are in the whole book?
> 
> I for one support including short adventures in a book like this. It gives new (or perhaps experienced) DMs an adventure they can use immediately. As long as it's reasonably short it shouldn't be too much of a loss for those who don't ever used published adventures--there's always going to be parts of a book some people won't use.
> 
> I suppose one could argue that something like that would make a good web enhancement, but the people who will use it (and I suspect that a great many of people who buy this book will use it) will greatly appreciate it being in the print version.




The loudwater sections is about 30pages in a 300 page book. 30 pages that could have been used in giving a little more details on the threats. Instead we get more stat blocks of goblins. The problem isn't so much the adventure, but that the adventure doesn't really take advantage or show the Realms.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 20, 2008)

& that the adventure takes about 10% of the book.... that really irks me. It's not even an excellent use of the Realmslore either. I ordered it, but am pretty disappointed that they spent such a large amount of the material on that. Especially as (assuming they follow through with it) this is one half of the only material WOTC is going to release (besides the Player's Guide)...

Does it even detail the SPellplague or does it just gloss over it like they're doing with the novels?


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 20, 2008)

Steely Dan said:


> Isn't he now working the streets of Calimport as rough trade?




As far as I can tell, there is no mention of Drizzt Do'Urden, aside from a mention of him kicking Obould's ass (but Obould survived) back in the day. There's certainly no direct information on current activities or statistics.


----------



## Falstaff (Aug 20, 2008)

Everything about the Spellplague is described.


----------



## Vanuslux (Aug 20, 2008)

I'll end up getting this at some point.  I'm liking some of the things I'm hearing about it, not liking some of the other things, so it basically comes down to the fact that I have a bit of sentimental attachement to the Realms.  

As an aside, have they started releasing novels in the 4e era yet?  I'm thinking this may be a good time to jump back into reading FR books again.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 20, 2008)

Mine's arriving today, but from what i've read on this thread and others, i don't really expect to like it much.  Which makes one wonder why i would buy it?  Here's hoping that there are pieces i can use for my Shadowfell campaign, which i'm splicing with the Realms.  I really do want to like the book though, but if it's less than perfect (and the 3e FRCS was perfect), so be it.



Vanuslux said:


> As an aside, have they started releasing novels in the 4e era yet? I'm thinking this may be a good time to jump back into reading FR books again.




Last week i tried, i swear i TRIED to read Salvatore's The Orc King.  I hadn't picked up one of his books in many many years and thought i would give it a shot...

...but i don't know whether his style has changed since A Crystal Shard and A Halfling's Gem, or whether my tastes have changed (probably the latter) but i can't stand reading his stuff.  I'm reading some Harry Potter instead for the first time and digging it.


----------



## Elodan (Aug 20, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> As an aside, have they started releasing novels in the 4e era yet?  I'm thinking this may be a good time to jump back into reading FR books again.




Rich Baker's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Swordmage-Blade-Moonsea-Book-Blades/dp/0786947888/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219251555&sr=8-1"]Swordmage [/ame]is set in the 4E Realms.  [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Orc-King-Transitions-Book-I/dp/0786950463/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219251597&sr=1-1"]The Orc King[/ame] has a chapter in the future (now current) Realms while the rest of the story takes place in 1375DR (I may be off on the exact year).

I've ordered the FRCG from B&N and should get it by the end of the week.  Looking forward to checking it out.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 20, 2008)

I just got it as I went home at lunch....I flipped quickly through it so I can't give an accurate view of it, but the chapter on threats was pretty threadbare, and when I looked up the chapter on deities, I noticed that Hoar was moved from Neutral in 3e to Evil...  I wasn't impressed by that, but it appears they're focused on the revenge part of his portfolio rather than the ironic/poetic justice....


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 20, 2008)

I thumbed though it at Borders today.

For those that loved the info-packed 3E book, prepare to be disappointed.

For those that like the minimalist approach - this is the book for you!

By the way - 288 on page count for those who asked.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 20, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> I thumbed though it at Borders today.
> 
> For those that loved the info-packed 3E book, prepare to be disappointed.




Oh, I am!  Somebody on Amazon might be buying a used copy for cheap if it's terribly disappointing.  I hope it's not that bad


----------



## Vael (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm guessing we won't be getting Neverwinter Nights 3 ... they nuked the city in the spellplague.


----------



## SPECTRE666 (Aug 20, 2008)

-I picked it up yesterday. I like it. The Loudwater part should have been something else IMO. I liked how they tied the Gods vs Primordials angle into it. (Abeir vs. Toril, AO stepped in and divided the world. One part for the Gods Toril. One part for the Primordials Abeir) The lands that were shunted into Abeir like Unther still survive, just not detailed. 

-Gruumsh and Talos being the same God is a no-go at this station, so Gruumsh and Talos are at war in my games now.

-I will get to use alot from the supplement Serpent Kingdoms in the 4E FRCG. (Which is one of my favorite 3E Realms book PERIOD!) Najara is actually on the big map, and has a two page spread in the book. The Sarrukh kingdom is back down in the south. Which has a couple of pages. 


*SPECTRE*


----------



## dm4hire (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm liking what I see so far with the following exceptions:

The adventure should be in the back of the book as it is in the DMG.

They stuck the map into the binding of the book and you have to rip it out using the perferations.  I hate that.  They could have glued it to the inside of one of the covers.  I was able to get the map out without ripping it but I've had 50/50 luck in the past with maps stuck in the book like that.

I don't mind they excluded major NPCs and the ones mentioned aren't stat'd (i.e. Elminster) but I agree more villians should have been included.  I'd like to have seen one from every major area/country and less of the lackies as was done.  Lackies could be mentioned with info as to which MM they are in.  That would leave it up to me to figure out who's with Manshoon, but still give me Manshoon so I can see what tricks from the books look like (i.e. his powers, which I could change if I want or use as is).

The book is clearly written for the DM which is great.  Hopefully though there will be enough info in the player's book concerning regions that they won't need to consult this book, but I have a feeling that players will still need to read it for information.

Where are all the magic items???  With all the major items mentioned in past resources where are they?  They could have given more than they did.  Not even a mention of some of the items associated with various heroes from the books.  I'm not saying include the heroes to show the items but they could have included a few as flavor to show the uniqueness of items in the realms.

Overall though like I said, I like the book and will definitely use material from it for my home campaign.


----------



## dm4hire (Aug 20, 2008)

Duplicate post, though I didn't even click the button twice.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 20, 2008)

renau1g said:


> I noticed that Hoar was moved from Neutral in 3e to Evil...  I wasn't impressed by that, but it appears they're focused on the revenge part of his portfolio rather than the ironic/poetic justice....




That's why jumping to conclusions about things before you fully read them is a bad idea. Hoar was attacked and subjugated by Bane during the Spellplague years, and is now basically Bane's slave.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 20, 2008)

dm4hire said:


> Lackies could be mentioned with info as to which MM they are in.




But they aren't in any MM. You can't look up Kir-Lanan or Mordrin in any MM, because they're only in the FRCG.



> I have a feeling that players will still need to read it for information.




There is a reason this information isn't in the player's guide: it's not for players. The PG will have whatever information that a player from a particular region needs to know.



> Where are all the magic items???




Aside from the minor artifacts and story items (which are very DM-oriented), the magic items are in the same place as the core: the Player's Guide.


----------



## Vanuslux (Aug 20, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> That's why jumping to conclusions about things before you fully read them is a bad idea. Hoar was attacked and subjugated by Bane during the Spellplague years, and is now basically Bane's slave.




That really doesn't make it any better.


----------



## vazanar (Aug 20, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> But they aren't in any MM. You can't look up Kir-Lanan or Mordrin in any MM, because they're only in the FRCG.




Which is my bigger problem with this book. Why do we have so many goblins! Having some low level lackeys in the adventure would have been great. Make it more useful and in the vein of a FR campaign book. Instead more goblins instead of new creatures/villians like those in the threats part.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 20, 2008)

Vanuslux said:


> That really doesn't make it any better.




The God of Tyranny oppressing other gods in his lust for power makes perfect sense to me.



			
				vazanar said:
			
		

> Which is my bigger problem with this book. Why do we have so many goblins! Having some low level lackeys in the adventure would have been great. Make it more useful and in the vein of a FR campaign book. Instead more goblins instead of new creatures/villians like those in the threats part.




By goblins, I can only assume you're talking about the Loudwater adventure in the beginning, which is written to be a drop-in-and-play adventure, which means that monster stat blocks will be in encounter sections to prevent DMs from having to flip through multiple books/pages to find the monsters referenced.


----------



## vazanar (Aug 20, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> By goblins, I can only assume you're talking about the Loudwater adventure in the beginning, which is written to be a drop-in-and-play adventure, which means that monster stat blocks will be in encounter sections to prevent DMs from having to flip through multiple books/pages to find the monsters referenced.




That makes it okay to just be goblins not modified for the realms at all? The adventure doesn't bug me as much as using enemies we've seen in multiple other products. Have the stat blocks but at least have something more original.


----------



## Primal (Aug 20, 2008)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica](Crossposted from Candlekeep)

Here's my review of 4E FRCG, based on reading through a friend's copy (he was promptly kicked out of his group for his sacrilege! ).

Some comments based on what I remember:

- Loudwater... now, this chapter *really* sets new standards for low-quality in a published FR product. Frankly, I was stunned at how bad it was... the town map was the *worst* since, like, forever -- it was a square 50 x 50 squares (about) box filled with 20+ buildings. I mean, uh, where do those 9000 people live? Mighty high buildings, I would say! The NPCs... those two we saw in the excerpt were the *best* of the bunch -- 'Brother Griffon' and the rest were really that bad. I'm convinced that the map of Loudwater is to appear in 'Storm of Zehir', and that is probably why it is "primitive" and square-shaped, hey? It may work as a miniature map, but I haven't seen any DM worth his salt using such maps since the original CRPG 'Pool of Radiance' came out. If I had bought this book, I would have felt *insulted* by this map. All in all, I think the book would have been a *LOT* better as a whole without the first chapter. 

- The divine symbols of some deities have "evolved", and certainly not for the better. Corellon's symbol is now a "starburst", but can you guess how Lolth's symbol looks like? A slightly different starburst, naturally! Gruumsh's symbol is an odd-looking "triangle" of bones, and Bane's mighty fish has transformed into a three-pronged talon-like appendice! IIRC this was not even explained anywhere, so it's probably a retcon? And, the symbols for the other deities are not even mentioned *at all*, so good luck without your 2E/3E accessories! Or perhaps only the Greater Deities have symbols, now? I also found it odd that deities have only a single "sphere" of control now, because in some cases it results in odd choices for the sphere (as already mentioned here and the WoTC boards) -- was the idea of deities holding multiple portfolios *really* that complex for DMs and players to grasp? 

- The Zhentarim also have changed their symbol -- they now wear a brown-colored fanged skull on a burst of dark-brown rays (on yellow field) as their symbol. If it is meant to resemble Cyric's own symbol, the colors seem like an odd choice... 

- Primordials. Ubtao "the Deceiver"? Elder Gods, led by Ouroboros the World-Serpent? And how come the Elemental Lords (Grumbar, Istishia, Akadi, and Kossuth) have had established churches and commanded worship on Toril, if they have always been "just" Primordials confined to Abeir? Or how did Kezef escape from Abeir to hound Mask in the events of the Cyrinishad debacle?  A lot of this stuff just seems to be quick ideas they threw around in meetings, without researching the established Realmslore properly, in effect creation contradictions and inconsistencies you could fly a Halruaan Skyship through. Oh, I forgot about their "Secret Timeline"... maybe it holds answers to everything? Yeah...

- Eladrin. I don't think I saw a single mention of elven subraces, while the Eladrin were mentioned here and there -- I wonder if the elven subraces have been cut altogether from 4E FR? 

- The glossary (written by Ed) was nice, and there were words and terms you could steal to enrich any FR campaign.

- Most of the 'Overview'-chapter I really flipped through, and my overall feeling was that there was a lot of "meh!"-stuff and bad ideas. Very little info on Baldur's Gate. Oh, the *did* include the City of Sharn from Eberron (after a fashion) in the form of Skyclave, capital of High Imaskar! And if everyone didn't think 'Rose Keep' was enough, there is the 'Castle of the Rose' near Skyclave... 

- Returned Abeir. Along with Waterdeep, this was the best part in the book, although I may not agree with the whole concept of Abeir/Toril -divide and the nature of the changes. You can really tell that both Waterdeep and Abeir have been written by Ed, and there are a lot of stuff that could be imported into Golarion, for example. 

- One weird detail was that [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Wheloon is now officially a 'Royal Prison City' in Cormyr. They walled in everyone, as it turned out that most of the citizens were... *gasp* ... worshippers of Shar![/FONT][/FONT] 
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]
Summa summarum: My overall impression was that I'm not going to buy this book, because a lot of the changes were explained so vaguely that they contradict published Realmslore, which would require a lot of extra work for me to make it all internally consistent again (George, Eric and Steven -- your efforts will be needed again! . New players and DMs may find it more appealing, but the level of details and especially the *quality* of most of the content I found sorely lacking. 
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 20, 2008)

Primal said:


> - Loudwater...




I didn't think Loudwater was very good, either.



> Bane's mighty fish




This brought a chuckle.



> IIRC this was not even explained anywhere, so it's probably a retcon?




It's been a hundred years. Stuff changed in that time, especially because of all the cosmological and god changes. Gods change their symbols because of changes to them and all that.



> And, the symbols for the other deities are not even mentioned *at all*, so good luck without your 2E/3E accessories!




The Player's Guide would likely have info on the gods, too, since the players will need that information. We'll likely see more symbols there.



> I also found it odd that deities have only a single "sphere" of control now, because in some cases it results in odd choices for the sphere (as already mentioned here and the WoTC boards) -- was the idea of deities holding multiple portfolios *really* that complex for DMs and players to grasp?




The "sphere" seems to be a one word summary of their basic outlook and description. The entries have more complexity than the reference table.



> The Zhentarim also have changed their symbol -- they now wear a brown-colored fanged skull on a burst of dark-brown rays (on yellow field) as their symbol. If it is meant to resemble Cyric's own symbol, the colors seem like an odd choice...




It's slightly different than Cyric's, but since most Zhents are Cyricists now, it's not surprising.



> And how come the Elemental Lords (Grumbar, Istishia, Akadi, and Kossuth) have had established churches and commanded worship on Toril, if they have always been "just" Primordials confined to Abeir?




Because they didn't fight the gods, like the other primordials, and weren't sent to Abeir with the others. Primordials function like gods in terms of worshipers and power-granting, it seems.



> Or how did Kezef escape from Abeir to hound Mask in the events of the Cyrinishad debacle?




I saw some mention of Kezef which indicated that he wasn't sent to Abeir, either, but I can't bring it directly to mind. I'll take a look when I get home tonight.



> Eladrin. I don't think I saw a single mention of elven subraces, while the Eladrin were mentioned here and there -- I wonder if the elven subraces have been cut altogether from 4E FR?




Player's Guide.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 20, 2008)

Well thanks for the correction Raven, at least they explained it... I just wish one of our PCs hadn't made a LG Paladin of Hoar....Well, I guess in my realms that didn't happen.

So Loudwater is near-universally disliked, especially as it encompasses over 10% of the book...I wonder if the editors were sitting around and thought that this was the best use of space, especially when it could've been offered as a free supplement through Dungeon/Dragon...


----------



## Primal (Aug 20, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> I didn't think Loudwater was very good, either.




It was horrible, in my opinion. The saddest things was that Curuvar the Brazen with his "Quest Card"-comments was probably the best thing in the chapter... *SIGH* 



> This brought a chuckle.




What, you haven't heard the tale of Bane's Mighty Fish? Well, arm,  it started when Bhaal, Myrkul and Bane all had a day off, and headed to the Lake of Boiling Mud...  



> It's been a hundred years. Stuff changed in that time, especially because of all the cosmological and god changes. Gods change their symbols because of changes to them and all that.




I wish there had been a some kind of logical explanation for that -- Bane's Fist crushing the green rays of light was pretty self-explatory to me, but this one doesn't just make sense. I guess it's the "Core Bane's" symbol, right?



> The Player's Guide would likely have info on the gods, too, since the players will need that information. We'll likely see more symbols there.




Maybe -- I certainly hope so. I was just disappointed that they didn't bother to explain the events in some kind of timeline. What happened to Eldath? Mask? How did some Intermediate deities transformed into Exarchs? And so on. The fact that the WoTC staffers have some kind of "secret document" which reveals every god's fate during (and after) the Spellplague doesn't really help all the Joe DMs -- especially if you've got inquisitive players (especially if they are veterans of all the editions, and don't want to shrug it all away with just "this is how it is now -- deal with it!"). 



> The "sphere" seems to be a one word summary of their basic outlook and description. The entries have more complexity than the reference table.




Yet what's the point of this "sphere"-thing? AFAIK it doesn't have any mechanical impact on the cleric class, so why couldn't they include all their "areas of influence", i.e. portfolios, in the list? Besides, some deities can hardly be "summarized" by one word only, so the effect is just... odd. 



> It's slightly different than Cyric's, but since most Zhents are Cyricists now, it's not surprising.




But why that 'yellow-brown-dark brown'-color scheme? It looks far from intimidating... the effect is quite the opposite, IMO. 



> Because they didn't fight the gods, like the other primordials, and weren't sent to Abeir with the others. Primordials function like gods in terms of worshipers and power-granting, it seems.
> 
> I saw some mention of Kezef which indicated that he wasn't sent to Abeir, either, but I can't bring it directly to mind. I'll take a look when I get home tonight.




Was this info in FRCG? Maybe I missed it in the hurry...


----------



## knightofround (Aug 20, 2008)

Ok so the disappointment with fluff notwithstanding...hows the crunch? How did the swordmage/warlock pact come out? (power creepage?)


----------



## Phaezen (Aug 20, 2008)

knightofround said:


> Ok so the disappointment with fluff notwithstanding...hows the crunch? How did the swordmage/warlock pact come out? (power creepage?)




We still have a month to wait on that, as they will only be in the Forgotten Realms Players Guide, this seperation of fluff and crunch into two book may or may not have something to do with peoples dissapointment in the campaign setting.

Phaezen


----------



## SSquirrel (Aug 21, 2008)

Setting should be mostly fluff so I'm happy about that.  Loudwater is less than mentally stimulating and I hate the perforated, tear out map.  How much mroe does it really cost to just gummy it in?  No torn maps, much better.


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Aug 21, 2008)

Big, big disappointment if you were a fan of the 2e/3.5e Realms. This book is mostly fluff, but IMO there is nothing stand out about the fluff. Oooohh earthmotes, flying squid, Asmodeus kills Azuth, eladrin elf retcon, Imaskar and Netheril come back, etc. I have seen as good and better backstory in friends' homebrews. The 3e FRCS book was great, full of personality and information. The new book is a dim shadow of the 3e FR sourcebook. 

Its not unusable, but it also isn't IMO a book that grabs you and makes you say "_I must play/DM here!_" Not at all. It has a far more generic, undeveloped feel than I thought it would. The Spellplague and its aftermath might have been more interesting if the current book had a greater amount of detail. There is nothing about this book that would make me more likely to play/DM in FR that I would in Paizo's Golarion or Goodman's Aereth if I wanted to do good old fashioned D&D fantasy. 

4e FR is barebones FR. It feels like someone's high quality homebrew before an actual capaign was run on it. It has all the necessary details, but it doesn't seem alive. I see some basic history, some individuals, some groups, and some names on a map but I don't see a living setting YMMV.

Sure the production values are good but I expected that much. I would prefer a good, hardback black and white book overflowing with good content than a prettier book with less content. IMO content is king.


Wyrmshadows


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Aug 21, 2008)

Forgotten realms has completely and unmercifully replaced my DMG. The DMG has gone the only place it should have ever gone (IMO), into the trash can.
Just kidding. I can use the extra paper for somthing... some day...


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 21, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:


> 4e FR is barebones FR. It feels like someone's high quality homebrew before an actual capaign was run on it.




Yeah, i agree. In other words, it´s the successor of the Grey Box: a new realm, a framework for adventure, open for the changes your group is going to bring into it. If you want to see the old fluff continued unchanged, this is not the book for you. But if you want something smaller than the 3e book, describing a world that really needs heroes: Buy this.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 21, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Yeah, i agree. In other words, it´s the successor of the Grey Box: a new realm, a framework for adventure, open for the changes your group is going to bring into it. If you want to see the old fluff continued unchanged, this is not the book for you. But if you want something smaller than the 3e book, describing a world that really needs heroes: Buy this.




I think the question on everyone's mind is "So why do this to FR instead of making your own setting?  Why destroy a pre-existing one if you weren't going to USE any of it?"


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 21, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I think the question on everyone's mind is "So why do this to FR instead of making your own setting?  Why destroy a pre-existing one if you weren't going to USE any of it?"




First, thats not on everyones mind.

Second, for me, this does not differ a shred from the "Arcane Age" supplements for 2e. So, in Wotcs opinion, there is enough fluff out there for the current age FR. Well, then let´s detail FR 100 years from now. That´s it.
I admit it: I like setting changes. I liked the Zhentil Keep boxed set, because the city was significantly different from what had come before. I like change. It allows me to run a Grey Box campaign, and then have my players visit the Realms of the "future."


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 21, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> First, thats not on everyones mind.
> 
> Second, for me, this does not differ a shred from the "Arcane Age" supplements for 2e. So, in Wotcs opinion, there is enough fluff out there for the current age FR. Well, then let´s detail FR 100 years from now. That´s it.
> I admit it: I like setting changes. I liked the Zhentil Keep boxed set, because the city was significantly different from what had come before. I like change. It allows me to run a Grey Box campaign, and then have my players visit the Realms of the "future."




I agree. It's not like there is anything standing in your way using the old setting, which IMO was kind of finished at the end of 3e.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 21, 2008)

It makes it kind of pointless to buy the new book if you're using the old setting.


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 21, 2008)

If I would do so, I would only buy the PG and be happy


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 21, 2008)

I've DMed FR for a few years during 3e's reign, being mostly new to FR - aside from a few novels and CGs - I found the 3e FRCG too much, I got some supliments but it was a heavy setting and lightening it took time. Plus my players werent that enthused by the realms, I ran it mostly becuase WOTC supported it heavily.

I do have the 2e FR setting and found it quiet good; lots of campaign seeds, not too heavy, cool NPCs and the shadowdale adventure remains one of my favourites to run. Do you guys think I will like the 4e one?

I'm probably wait for the players book to come out and I may buy the whole bundle and convert the 2e shadowdale adventure.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 21, 2008)

SPECTRE666 said:


> The Sarrukh kingdom is back down in the south.




Really, so is Pun Pun still lurking about in 4th Ed?!


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 21, 2008)

vagabundo said:


> I do have the 2e FR setting and found it quiet good; lots of campaign seeds, not too heavy, cool NPCs and the shadowdale adventure remains one of my favourites to run. Do you guys think I will like the 4e one?
> 
> I'm probably wait for the players book to come out and I may buy the whole bundle and convert the 2e shadowdale adventure.




I think you will like it. More so than many others here. And there are stats for gibberlings in the new CG! So running "Below the Twisted Tower" should be easy.


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 21, 2008)

Obergnom said:


> I think you will like it. More so than many others here. And there are stats for gibberlings in the new CG! So running "Below the Twisted Tower" should be easy.




Yeah, that's what i'm thinking. From the sounds of it 4e FR is like 4e in general and will appeal to the same set of people. And I love 4e.

I'll get the whole shebang in september I think, looking forward to the players book, maybe that will galvanise my players into realms mode.


----------



## Nebulous (Aug 21, 2008)

renau1g said:


> So Loudwater is near-universally disliked, especially as it encompasses over 10% of the book...I wonder if the editors were sitting around and thought that this was the best use of space, especially when it could've been offered as a free supplement through Dungeon/Dragon...




That's what i've gathered from this thread, that a HUGE chunk of the book is devoted to something that is questionably useless, and maybe even low quality on top of that.  Yeah, it smells like "web-enhancement" to me.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 21, 2008)

Dang, and I was trying to be the first person referring to the original grey box, which is what keeps leaping to my mind as I read the 4e FRCG, high-level, easily digestible fluff (and there is actually a lot of it when you get down to it) that covers a lot of area (I'd rather have _Dragon_ articles such as the Cormyr backdrop get into the nitty-gritty setting details).  I do have to admit to a weird disconnect when I first started reading it, as I got used to the 3e style of tons and tons of information in tiny font packed into each page, but I'm getting over it.


----------



## Zaukrie (Aug 21, 2008)

I spent about 20 minutes paging through it at the store last night. I just couldn't quite get myself to buy it. Not because it isn't a quality product, I think it is quality. I couldn't buy it because I have so much FR material, and I've already changed the realms a lot from "canon" that I'm not sure I need it and I'm trying not to buy books (this time) I'm not sure I need.

That said, I was disappointed in the lack of detail in the magic in Faerun section (if that is the title). It mentioned (I forget the word, but the complicated word that starts with an F that is magical underground energy) and said it had all kinds of effects on magic, but then gave zero examples, no table, nothing. The same could be said of the faerie ring section, and all the sections in that part of the book. This is the section that could have had 10 more pages and some actual rules in it. I was super disappointed by this section, and it is probably the single biggest reason I would have bought the book had it been done well.


----------



## Tuerny (Aug 21, 2008)

My biggest complaint is they have this place called Gontal on the Returned Abeir map but don't bother to ever detail it in that chapter....or anywhere. Whats up with that?


----------



## renau1g (Aug 21, 2008)

I spent some more time going through in detail last night and it's been growing on me.... I still liked the 3e FRCS better, but this one has some value...I realized that there's areas I most likely won't use, but others might.

I was quite disappointed with the extremely light details on the Spellplague (really it was pretty glazed over) as well as the gods... it just said, yup Mystra was killed by Cyric on her own plane, with Shar's help (I think)... how/why/when, etc.... not in there! How could the Goddess of Magic, be defeated on her own plane where the gods are at their strongest by Cyric??? Even if Shar and Cyric worked together I'm sure Selune would get involved as well as some of the other gods...


----------



## renau1g (Aug 21, 2008)

Oh, I just realized too I was looking at Manshoon and there seems to be a power missing, it mentions that he waits until he's surrounded by enemies to use a certain power (I forget the name), but it's not in the stat block...


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 21, 2008)

Tuerny said:


> My biggest complaint is they have this place called Gontal on the Returned Abeir map but don't bother to ever detail it in that chapter....or anywhere. Whats up with that?




Hasn´t there been an article about Gontal in Dragon?


----------



## Tuerny (Aug 21, 2008)

Well what do you know, there is. I even read that article. That still does not excuse that not being in the book, however.


----------



## renau1g (Aug 21, 2008)

Agreed, I shouldn't need to be online or have my lappy with me to look something up in the book/the realms.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 21, 2008)

While i love the new organization of information to the death: Two concise books, and after that, countless little articles. Which i can mix, match, exploit, rip apart, insert and use as i wish.


----------



## johnnype (Aug 21, 2008)

I bought it yesterday and spend a couple hours with it. Overall I'm a bit dissapointed by how light it is when compared to the 3rd edition book. It is certainly a good introduction for those new to the setting but if you are at all familiar to the setting you will find the high level view lacking in detail. 

The intro adventure/town is a waste of space. There are surprisingly few PC writeups and not much is said about the famous (infamous) NPC's. We do find out that Bruenor is dead. Jarlaxel (sp?) is still around and still leads his band of mercinaries although all the actual work is doen by Kimmuriel, who I'm happy to see they mentioned by name. There is half a page wasted on Elminster only to say that he doesn't play that big a part in the setting any more (thank God). Who the hell cares about the old guy?The Shades are big in the North with Anauroch not really a desert any more. Again, not enough detail. 

I like the changes to the setting. The addition of the new continent/island certainly breathes new life and much needed change but not enough is said about it. 

Bottom line: if you like a lot of detail this edition will leave you wanting. If you like "big picture" and a frame to hang your own detail on then you might like this. You will like it even more if you are brand new to the setting. 

I also took a look at the Pathfinder setting book from Paizo while at the store. *I obviously haven't read it *and it's not 4th edition (for those who care) but it was much, MUCH more packed with information than the FR book. In fact, all you have to do is hold the book and look closely at the spine and you will see that they front and back cover bulge out a bit, almost as if Paizo screwed up selecting the size of the spine! The size of the spine is a stupid way to judge the book, I know. But as I said I didn't buy it and only spent a couple minutes glancing through it. The text was far more dense than the 4eFR book. Nice artwork (although the piece on cover is a little blurry). It does have a bit more rules material than the FR setting book (for use with the 3.5 rules) but still a very small part of the overall book.  Maybe 10% tops I'd say. I plan on picking it up and giving it a good read. Ultimately it's the text content that will decide which is the better setting for me. I'll start a thread when the time comes.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 21, 2008)

renau1g said:


> . . . I shouldn't need to be online or have my lappy with me to look something up in the book/the realms.




On this track I have one very large complaint.  There is no timeline in the book.  None. Nothing. Nada.  From 1385 DR (the last entry in The Grand History of the Realms) to 1479 DR (present day), there is absolutely no timeline of what happened when.  The advertisement here on ENWorld for the book even shows an abbreviated timeline, but there isn't one in the book, just a blurb on pg. 43: 

"Dungeon Masters who are interested in the definitive history of the _Forgotten Realms_ are encouraged to review The _Grand History of the Realms_ supplement.  In addition, updates to the _Grand History's_ extensive and comprehensive timeline will periodically be made available online at D&D Insider."

In other words, if you want the timeline for the last 94 years, *YOU HAVE TO PAY EXTRA FOR IT*.  You have to get a DDI subscription to have access to what should already be in the book you just paid $39.95 for!

Not Cool WoTC!  Not Cool At All.


----------



## Scribble (Aug 21, 2008)

The book sounds pretty cool to me... Definitely my style... An overview of a setting, with lots of wiggle room...

One thing that IS NOT my style though... A map bound into the book you have to tear out. LAME!  I HATE that. With a passion.

I'm one of those people who can't stand the thought of even doggy earing a page in a book. Tear something oput of it? YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK YUCK.

I don't even like it when they're glued in with those gummy glue strip things.


----------



## Draksila (Aug 22, 2008)

After finally receiving my book in the mail yesterday and giving it a cursory examination, I can say that I saw potential.  I'll have to read it in depth to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

And, sidebar, was I the only one that got the impression from the blurbs explaining the concept of the Chosen that they might be offered as an Epic Destiny in the PG?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 22, 2008)

Scribble said:


> The book sounds pretty cool to me... Definitely my style... An overview of a setting, with lots of wiggle room...
> 
> One thing that IS NOT my style though... A map bound into the book you have to tear out. LAME!  I HATE that. With a passion.
> 
> ...




Btw, now that the map is up for download, i don´t get all the take about how ugly it is. Sure, it cannot compete with the old Dragonlance maps or even the 3e FRCS one. But its clear and concise. I like it, though they could have done better.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 22, 2008)

I was okay with this book, but it does feel like it's lacking something.



> In other words, if you want the timeline for the last 94 years, YOU HAVE TO PAY EXTRA FOR IT. You have to get a DDI subscription to have access to what should already be in the book you just paid $39.95 for!




Well, to be fair, it seems like most of the current novels now are or will be taking place in this hundred-year gap, so I think they don't want to provide details because (a) the Novels aren't all finished and they don't want to spoil them and (b) there is enough of the "unknown" that they don't want to be tied into a fixed and detail 100-year plot.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> Well, to be fair, it seems like most of the current novels now are or will be taking place in this hundred-year gap, so I think they don't want to provide details because (a) the Novels aren't all finished and they don't want to spoil them and (b) there is enough of the "unknown" that they don't want to be tied into a fixed and detail 100-year plot.




So, instead of having the history defined now, they'll let/force DMs to fill in their own history, then let the novel authors loose to redefine the history (with more RSEs), causing DMs to either retcon their campaigns or ignore canon, but risk the very "But that's not how it is" arguments with fans they wanted to avoid in the first place?

Fresh start indeed.


----------



## sckeener (Aug 22, 2008)

What the heck happened to Mulhorand?  What is this High Imaskar doing there?  Why is Skuld in ruins?

Messempar and Unthalass in ruins I get...I had heard that dragons-kin had taken over...I'm sure Tiamat is pleased.....

But out of the trio of old empires, Chessenta (greek), Unther (Sumerian), and Mulhorand (Egyptian), Chessenta is the only one to survive?  Half-orc/Sparta Chessenta?


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 22, 2008)

Fenes said:


> So, instead of having the history defined now, they'll let/force DMs to fill in their own history, then let the novel authors loose to redefine the history (with more RSEs), causing DMs to either retcon their campaigns or ignore canon, but risk the very "But that's not how it is" arguments with fans they wanted to avoid in the first place?





Yeah, I hate authors of novels or modules crapping all over settings…_Dark Sun_…_Ravenloft_…_Planescape_, need I say more?


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 22, 2008)

Double Post


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 22, 2008)

I accuse the makers of this book of Racism.  It seems that the marketing people that forced Redgar to be one of the Iconics has won.  Except for the Tuigan barbarians (who cares if the darkies are barbarians after all) every interesting nonwestern culture in the realms has been devastated or destroyed.  Fair Calimshan with its 13th century Moorish culture has been overrun with Genasi and mostly reduced to a desert.  Maztica, with its Amerindian cultures and a platform to deal with the weighty issues of colonialism has been replaced with Abeir which is just a "cool" place to kill more monsters.  Of Kara-Tur we hear nothing except the dragon in the Dragonwall was set free and presumably went on a rampage.  The Bedine tribes of the Anauroch with their Bedouin culture have been assimilated by Netheril.  Thay, though not devastated, is now simply a 30th level capstone encounter with Szass Tam when it used to be a rich Ottoman type magocracy.  They have completed the destruction of the Old Empires, which themselves were an incredibly rich set of cultures that were a refreshing break from the pseudo-Western medieval standard D&D fare.  The beautiful Egyptian style Mulhorandi have been displaced by the culturally ambigious Imaskari, the Untherics by Genasi again, and the Chessentans, though still there, are now just a warlike culture instead of the Golden Age Greeks that they were.

Its rare that I ever take back a book, but this one is going back as soon as I have the time.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

sckeener said:


> What the heck happened to Mulhorand?  What is this High Imaskar doing there?  Why is Skuld in ruins?
> 
> Messempar and Unthalass in ruins I get...I had heard that dragons-kin had taken over...I'm sure Tiamat is pleased.....
> 
> But out of the trio of old empires, Chessenta (greek), Unther (Sumerian), and Mulhorand (Egyptian), Chessenta is the only one to survive?  Half-orc/Sparta Chessenta?




Hm... that's something the book may be good for: Running a 3E adventure where my current high-level party in Mulhorand/Unther can foil such events. Unless of course those events are not detailed in the book...


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:


> I accuse the makers of this book of Racism.  It seems that the marketing people that forced Redgar to be one of the Iconics has won.  Except for the Tuigan barbarians (who cares if the darkies are barbarians after all) every interesting nonwestern culture in the realms has been devastated or destroyed.  Fair Calimshan with its 13th century Moorish culture has been overrun with Genasi and mostly reduced to a desert.  Maztica, with its Amerindian cultures and a platform to deal with the weighty issues of colonialism has been replaced with Abeir which is just a "cool" place to kill more monsters.  Of Kara-Tur we hear nothing except the dragon in the Dragonwall was set free and presumably went on a rampage.  The Bedine tribes of the Anauroch with their Bedouin culture have been assimilated by Netheril.  Thay, though not devastated, is now simply a 30th level capstone encounter with Szass Tam when it used to be a rich Ottoman type magocracy.  They have completed the destruction of the Old Empires, which themselves were an incredibly rich set of cultures that were a refreshing break from the pseudo-Western medieval standard D&D fare.  The beautiful Egyptian style Mulhorandi have been displaced by the culturally ambigious Imaskari, the Untherics by Genasi again, and the Chessentans, though still there, are now just a warlike culture instead of the Golden Age Greeks that they were.
> 
> Its rare that I ever take back a book, but this one is going back as soon as I have the time.




I am usually sceptical when claims of racism in books are made, but it is very strange how every non-european culture was destroyed/changed while the medieval european setting parts were left in place.

For someone who prefers those "exotic" parts to the western medieval setting, that's another strike against the setting.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 22, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:


> I accuse the makers of this book of Racism. It seems that the marketing people that forced Redgar to be one of the Iconics has won. Except for the Tuigan barbarians (who cares if the darkies are barbarians after all) every interesting nonwestern culture in the realms has been devastated or destroyed. Fair Calimshan with its 13th century Moorish culture has been overrun with Genasi and mostly reduced to a desert. Maztica, with its Amerindian cultures and a platform to deal with the weighty issues of colonialism has been replaced with Abeir which is just a "cool" place to kill more monsters. Of Kara-Tur we hear nothing except the dragon in the Dragonwall was set free and presumably went on a rampage. The Bedine tribes of the Anauroch with their Bedouin culture have been assimilated by Netheril. Thay, though not devastated, is now simply a 30th level capstone encounter with Szass Tam when it used to be a rich Ottoman type magocracy. They have completed the destruction of the Old Empires, which themselves were an incredibly rich set of cultures that were a refreshing break from the pseudo-Western medieval standard D&D fare. The beautiful Egyptian style Mulhorandi have been displaced by the culturally ambigious Imaskari, the Untherics by Genasi again. And the Chessentans, though still there, are now just a warlike culture instead of the Golden Age Greeks that they were.





I'm sad to hear all of that, as the non-western parts of the Realms were my favourite bits!

…But if they manage to slip in a hot, drow, shemale society I could be happy.


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 22, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:


> I accuse the makers of this book of Racism.




Sorry, but thats both unfair and nonsense. I do not think that racism has even a little bit to do with the decisions the designer made for the realms. They just tried to remove as many real world rip off regions as possible.

Yes, you can argue Cormyr is still there, but it, too, changed a great deal from an Arthurian legend ripoff.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

Steely Dan said:


> Yeah, I hate authors of novels or modules crapping all over settings…_Dark Sun_…_Ravenloft_…_Planescape_, need I say more?




It's sad when authors can't write a story with good characterisation and plot, and have to resort to changing/wrecking the setting to cover up their shortcomings.


----------



## ferratus (Aug 22, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:


> I accuse the makers of this book of Racism.  It seems that the marketing people that forced Redgar to be one of the Iconics has won.  Except for the Tuigan barbarians (who cares if the darkies are barbarians after all) every interesting nonwestern culture in the realms has been devastated or destroyed.




I guess I'm a racist too, because I hate cultures from earth transplanted into fantasy settings, especially if they are placed randomly on the map. 

Why in the hell was Mulhorand still using bronze weapons?   Why did the Mesoamerican continent get invaded just like our Mesoamerica did?  

It was creatively lazy and broke the suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 22, 2008)

Obergnom said:


> Sorry, but thats both unfair and nonsense. I do not think that racism has even a little bit to do with the decisions the designer made for the realms. They just tried to remove as many real world rip off regions as possible.
> 
> Yes, you can argue Cormyr is still there, but it, too, changed a great deal from an Arthurian legend ripoff.




Those "rip off regions" were the best parts of the setting - rich, vibrant, and detailed, and somewhat logical. Give me such a "rip off region" instead of some cheap "look ya'all, ain't it kewl" hack place any day of the week.


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 22, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Those "rip off regions" were the best parts of the setting - rich, vibrant, and detailed, and somewhat logical. Give me such a "rip off region" instead of some cheap "look ya'all, ain't it kewl" hack place any day of the week.




rip off was a bad choice of words I guess. I'm not happy with some of the changes either. Allthough I love the new Calimshan. Djinn rulers, genasi nobles, human low life and slaves... thats a nice high fantasy arabic setting 

I just wanted to say, that the racism claim is not really fair.


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 22, 2008)

ferratus said:


> Why did the Mesoamerican continent get invaded just like our Mesoamerica did?





I'll give you _Maztica_, I mean; Douglas Niles just phoned that one in.


Is _Kara-Tur_ still around?


----------



## Eridanis (Aug 22, 2008)

Throwing around words like "racism" can get a thread closed very quickly if people don't hold their emotions in check. The thread stays open, but please keep the discussion calm and reasoned.


----------



## EATherrian (Aug 22, 2008)

ferratus said:


> I guess I'm a racist too, because I hate cultures from earth transplanted into fantasy settings, especially if they are placed randomly on the map.
> 
> Why in the hell was Mulhorand still using bronze weapons?   Why did the Mesoamerican continent get invaded just like our Mesoamerica did?
> 
> It was creatively lazy and broke the suspension of disbelief.




I look at Mulhorand as a society in a state of static decadence, along with Unther.  They had been ruled by actual godlings for millenia so there was no real need to innovate.  It would have been interesting to see where they went without that power involved, but alas.  Note, I thought they did the whole stealing from other cultures really well with Mulhorand and Unther, they fit it into the world perfectly.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 22, 2008)

Are you kidding?  These "rip-off" cultures are the closest thing WotC is ever going to get to make a real vibrant culture that wasn't an excuse for stomping monsters in a pseudo-medieval fantasy, you will never see a rich artificial culture like Empire of the Petal Throne http://www.tekumel.com ever come out of those offices even as a small part of another world.  Read the Maztica trilogy, the invasion of Maztica did not happen like our own did.  Its a much better written set of books than Salvatore's Drizzt dribble.  Thank you Fenes and EATherrian.  And yes they were islands of Logic in an otherwise illogical world and they are mostly gone now all for monster stomping.


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 22, 2008)

I prefere regions that are real world "rip offs" with the fantasy level tuned up to 11... like the new Calimshan... maybe I never got the Old Empires (never cared for Maztica, Chult was enough for my taste) but their "magic level" allways seemed to low for me... I would have prefered them change that instead of removing them though...


----------



## Steely Dan (Aug 22, 2008)

Obergnom said:


> I prefere regions that are real world "rip offs" with the fantasy level tuned up to 11... like the new Calimshan... maybe I never got the Old Empires (never cared for Maztica, Chult was enough for my taste) but their "magic level" allways seemed to low for me.




I see where you are coming from, like I have always been a huge _Kara-Tur_ fan, but I definitely think it could do with a bit more of the fantastical.

As I am a gigantic _Al-Qadim_/anything genie related fan, this new Calimshan sounds right up my alley –sweet!


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 22, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Those "rip off regions" were the best parts of the setting - rich, vibrant, and detailed, and somewhat logical.




...if you like real-world stuff dropped in with only the slightest effort to file off the serial numbers. I don't, as I find that lazy and uninspired.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 22, 2008)

JohnRTroy said:


> . . . Well, to be fair, it seems like most of the current novels now are or will be taking place in this hundred-year gap, so I think they don't want to provide details because (a) the Novels aren't all finished and they don't want to spoil them and (b) there is enough of the "unknown" that they don't want to be tied into a fixed and detail 100-year plot.




I agree with you that this is probably why they don't have the timeline included.  Not to argue, just stating fact, there hasn't been a campaign/setting book of FR in any edition, that didn't include a timeline.  Now, I would understand them not reprinting timeline entries that are already more fleshed out in _The Grand History of the Realms_ than they ever were in any other FR product, but not providing a timeline of the last 94 years, when a new campaign might very well be dependent on knowing what happened in those intervening years*, is completely unacceptable to me in a $40 product.  I mean, this is *THE* _Campaign Guide_.  This is the prime sourcebook for DM'ing the Realms.  Now if revealing major timeline occurences would cause spoiler issues with upcoming novels, or even worse, they don't have the timeline fleshed out yet (despite having a bare-bones timeline included in their advertisement), this tells me one of two things: a) they weren't ready to reveal the new realms and don't have the game side in sync with the novel side - or b) they don't have the everyting properly fleshed out yet.  I personally doubt it's "b".  They could have given a timeline with all of the elements that wouldn't spoil the novels, or written them in a way as to be teasers for the novels.  But, in comparison to other edition Campaign/Setting guide releases.  This falls way short.

*The beginning of chapter 2 states: "The easiest way to adjust your campaign is to change it all at once.  Continue your games events in 1375 DR and beyond if you wish, perhaps using some of the events described in chapter 6 and in _Grand History of the Realms_ to introduce the "future history" of the setting into your game."

I understand that no-one is making you use FR canon in your game, however, there are those who *want* to use FR canon in their game.  For those who want to use canon, at best, they are essentially running their games with loose "preview" style information.  People running the Realms have already been doing that since the anouncement of 4E.  However, this is a $40, supposedly definitive, sourcebook product.  Without the timeline information, this product cannot be used as definitively as past edition campaign sourcebook products.

The timeline may not be that important to some, or even most, of the people who would buy this product.  But to me, It is a huge hole in the middle of what otherwise is a pretty good product.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 22, 2008)

I picked it up last night.  It seems pretty solid.  All told, though, I think the 1e Realms were the best, by far, with the various regional sourcebook/modules.  The 1e Realms were even lighter on detail, but gave me just enough stuff to hook a campaign on.  I still have my old Grey Box, along with the kickass maps.

IMHO, FR started to get crushed under its own weight through 2e, and got ridiculous in 3e and 3.5e (although the sourcebook was nice).  I couldn't see myself running a 2e/3e Realms game, but I can totally see running a 1e or 4e Realms game now.

I'll join the chorus and say that some of my favorite, most exotic parts of the Realms will be missed.  Halruaa, Dambrath, the Hordelands...

So yeah...  1e Realms > 4e Realms > 2e Realms > 3e Realms

-O


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> ...if you like real-world stuff dropped in with only the slightest effort to file off the serial numbers. I don't, as I find that lazy and uninspired.




Yeah, because you know doing the research on those cultures and adapting them to a new game world takes way less work then just taking modern day American culture and medievalizing it by taking away your cell phones and laptops and giving you swords.  I'm sure there are a lot of game designers who would agree with you.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 22, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> ...if you like real-world stuff dropped in with only the slightest effort to file off the serial numbers. I don't, as I find that lazy and uninspired.




So vibrant, detailed, logical, and realistic feeling settings are lazy and uninspired, but Ye Olde England rip off #453278 isn't?

I don't know if "racist" is the right term, but it's definately rearing it's head.  "Lazy and uninspired," ironically, is pretty much how I'd classify this book.  The adventure is lazy and uninspired.  The changes are lazy and uninspired.  The new places are lazy and uninspired.  The OLD places that WERE lazy and uninspired are the ones that are still around, and yes, they're still lazy and uninspired.


----------



## Primal (Aug 22, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> Dang, and I was trying to be the first person referring to the original grey box, which is what keeps leaping to my mind as I read the 4e FRCG, high-level, easily digestible fluff (and there is actually a lot of it when you get down to it) that covers a lot of area (I'd rather have _Dragon_ articles such as the Cormyr backdrop get into the nitty-gritty setting details).  I do have to admit to a weird disconnect when I first started reading it, as I got used to the 3e style of tons and tons of information in tiny font packed into each page, but I'm getting over it.




I wonder if we read the same book, because I definitely didn't think of the 'Grey Boxed Set'  when I was reading the FRCG -- on the contrary. While the original FR Boxed Set had a lot of juicy, well-written flavour and details,  in my opinion most of the content in FRCG was lazily written and lacked "depth", details and most importantly, the "feel" and "spirit" of the Realms that I've come to love. It also lacked proper explanations for most of the changes (e.g. the sudden disappearances of several deities, or why some major deities have ended up being 'Exarchs'). I definitely felt a strong disconnect with the 4E Realms, and I think it was the worst FRCS yet (including the two Boxed Sets for 1E and 2E).


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Aug 23, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:


> Except for the Tuigan barbarians (who cares if the darkies are barbarians after all) every interesting nonwestern culture in the realms has been devastated or destroyed.




I have to agree. The spellplague seemingly selectively decimated nations that didn’t conform to the default D&D culture. And I think the realms are poorer (and blander) for it.

For those that argue against using real-world cultures, I have to beg to differ. RW cultures are a wonderful shorthand, a way of making a people relatable to your players without having to detail the intricacies of a culture. When I understand that Impiltur is gothic, Mulhorand is Egyptian or Chessenta is Greek, it immediately brings to mind architectures, cultures, clothing styles and belief systems that I can use to add color to a setting. It inspires stories that I can borrow from history, mythology and pop culture and creates the sense of a living, vibrant world. It means that if I want to create an adventure with an Egyption flavour I don’t have to leave the realms to do it.

Of course, in the 4e FR, it’s not just the RW analogues that got the chop. Anywhere that was differentiated from the default has been axed. Halruaa, Dambrath, Lapaliiya, Luiren, the Shaar and many more, all blown up.


----------



## Oni (Aug 23, 2008)

In previous editions of the Realms, how many people actually featured in their games the more "exotic" locals that got the axe?   They might be fun to read about but how many really used them?


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Aug 23, 2008)

Oni said:


> In previous editions of the Realms, how many people actually featured in their games the more "exotic" locals that got the axe? They might be fun to read about but how many really used them?




<puts his hand up>

I can't speak for the majority of players of course, but not only did I use them, but they added flavor to the realms even when the characters weren't there. For example, I created one adventure around a visit to Suzail by the pharoah of Mulhorand (who entered like Cleopatra in Rome). Of course, after 300 came out, one of my players wanted to play a hoplite, who would of course come from Chessenta. It not just the places that matter, it's the people and cultures, and they can make an appearance anywhere in the realms.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 23, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> So vibrant, detailed, logical, and realistic feeling settings are lazy and uninspired, but Ye Olde England rip off #453278 isn't?




I've got a great idea. Try actually reading my post, especially the part where I said "real-world stuff dropped in." Or did you think that England wasn't a part of the real world, or that I was making some kind of exception for it without actually making one?

And sure, real-world ripoffs are detailed, logical (as logical as humans can get) and realistic because they're usually copied from reference books with a few changes.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 23, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:


> just taking modern day American culture and medievalizing it




What part of "I don't like real-world stuff dropped in with the serial numbers filed off" is so difficult to grasp? Last I checked, America was a part of the real world.


----------



## rounser (Aug 23, 2008)

> I don't know if "racist" is the right term, but it's definately rearing it's head.



Xenophobia might be the word you're looking for, but I don't think even that's correct.  It's just a case of what people are inspired by and consider cool.  It's not a surprise that westerners quite like western pseudomedieval setting as a default.

I think it's okay if people find they want to run a pseudomedieval pseudoeuropean setting, rather than a fantasy africa, egypt, arabia or orient, for instance.  All of the latter rock if given the right D&D treatment.  But it would have been an easy decision to make from a purely logical and rational business-thinking basis - it's not FR's "core business", and not many people used it, so it's gone.  For instance, I gather that Mulhorand only exists because Greenwood wanted somewhere for his cultists of Set to come from.  

The game got a lot of fat trimmed in the rules, so we see a lot of fat trimmed in the settings.  If there are intangibles that get lost in the process (like what the heck a warlord actually is, and where are my cultists of Set going to come from now), then that's not too surprising.  We've already seen a lot of that in the core books.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 23, 2008)

SPECTRE666 said:


> -I will get to use alot from the supplement Serpent Kingdoms in the 4E FRCG. (Which is one of my favorite 3E Realms book PERIOD!) Najara is actually on the big map, and has a two page spread in the book. The Sarrukh kingdom is back down in the south. Which has a couple of pages.




I was almost going to give this a miss, then you had to go and bring up the sarrukh.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 23, 2008)

Oni said:


> In previous editions of the Realms, how many people actually featured in their games the more "exotic" locals that got the axe?   They might be fun to read about but how many really used them?




I have been running campaigns in those "exotic" locations for years, far longer than in the North. Semphar, Calimshan, Mulhorand, Unther, Chessenta, Turmic, Vilhon Reaches, Amn - all those are much more interesting to me than ye olde North/Dalesland.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 23, 2008)

Oni said:


> In previous editions of the Realms, how many people actually featured in their games the more "exotic" locals that got the axe?   They might be fun to read about but how many really used them?




I'm another one.

Even in the games that didn't directly involve them, they often had mentions and points brought up; after all, the purpose of a large trading city is the mishmash of different cultures.  When you reduce a world to "Boring ye olde england city and lots of places around it that nobody cares about," you do just that - you reduce the world.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 23, 2008)

The Little Raven said:


> What part of "I don't like real-world stuff dropped in with the serial numbers filed off" is so difficult to grasp? Last I checked, America was a part of the real world.




So you are another M.A.R. Barker with your own richly detailed world with about 5 or more artificial languages including one in which it takes 30 different ways to say "you" with races that no one has ever seen before like the Hlaka or the Ahoygga with a detailed history from the Empire of Llyan through Nayari of the Silken Thighs to the modern Throne Emperor?  Then your campaign must feature cultural details like the 20 accepted Mesque plates and the various insult handsigns, the difference between various cities like Bey Su or Jakalla, and with details on the regional foods of your countries including the different ways they serve Chutmel.  If that's the case, then bravo for you.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 23, 2008)

Oni said:


> In previous editions of the Realms, how many people actually featured in their games the more "exotic" locals that got the axe?



Not me, that's for sure. 

My best Realms games were back during the 1e Grey Box (the greatest rpg product _ever_), which was dripping with flavor yet vague enough for us to fill in the gaps with our imaginations.

But we definitely ignored the direct cultural analogs when possible, especially the worst of the 2e bunch (the Horde and Maztica).


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 23, 2008)

Racism because the "what i thought ancient egypt/south america/etc. looked like" cultures are gone? And those parts were the most logical parts of the setting? Logical? And you´re all aware that the Shou play an important role now in the eastern realms?Is this some kind of bizarro alternate universe we´re talking about?
Those cultures were removed because they took the "shared setting" concept that the FR is built upon too far, because there was no longer a common theme to the campaign world. They were included simply because TSR knew that creating them as stand-alone books would diminish sales. And i´m so happy they´re gone. Nothing more embarassing as explaining the campaign world to new players, talking about all the interesting locations and weird cultures, and then having to say: "and here´s, um, egypt. More or less."


----------



## Najo (Aug 23, 2008)

I am going to chime in with my 2 cents:

I think it is possible to use real world cultures in fantasy settings to help players connect and get the concepts of the regions quickly. When you drop them in to close to the historical earth version, it does ruin the suspension of belief and feels cheesy to me.

I think the key to using real world cultures in fantasy is to change them enough that they feel similiar and based on the original culture but not a copy of it.

Forgotten Realms use of the our mythological gods and the exact look and feel of those countries seemed hokey to me. I am glad many of those copied elements are gone, but I would like to keep things that are inspired by them still.


----------



## Vancian Magic (Aug 23, 2008)

For a 288 page count book there really doesn't seem to be much in it.  Though I guess that's my general annoyance for them blowing up the Realms in order to make it more generic, then spending a good chunk of dead tree telling us all about how it got blowed up and has changed the setting (because...  that is useful for new DM's to know?).

End of the day, I think ever FR book I see gets compared to the old grey box.  And there was something I really loved about that pair of cyclopedia books that made the Realms feel so alive to me.  Every edition since then has simply felt like the same stuff, but stretched thinner and thinner through more and more support books...  Especially since it has had to bow to corporate decision making and the novel 'canon' which so easily supercedes the role-playing game it seems.

I think it's very interesting to see Ed still putting word count into the FR, especially since it isn't even close to his own one anymore.  But I guess once you disconnect from what is being published it isn't so bad...  Kind of like an "elseworlds" or "infinities" product, heh.


----------



## rounser (Aug 23, 2008)

> End of the day, I think ever FR book I see gets compared to the old grey box.



I think it's been superceded, personally.  IMO, the 3E FRCS is _a lot_ better than the Grey Box.  The artwork's better, the content's better, there's more of it, it's more relevant, the book as a whole is beautiful...

It was just a class act, and a high water mark for WOTC D&D, IMO.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 23, 2008)

rounser said:


> I think it's been superceded, personally.  IMO, the 3E FRCS is _a lot_ better than the Grey Box.  The artwork's better, the content's better, there's more of it, it's more relevant, the book as a whole is beautiful...
> 
> It was just a class act, and a high water mark for WOTC D&D, IMO.



100% agreed. QFT, even. 

I own both (the original FR box and the 3e FRCS book) and I've even used both, if in very different ways. Not that I'm a huge Realms fan - hardly - but I've always maintained that the 3.0 FRCS is a work of beauty and overall, of quality.


----------



## Jadeite (Aug 23, 2008)

Wormwood said:


> But we definitely ignored the direct cultural analogs when possible, especially the worst of the 2e bunch (the Horde and Maztica).




I always thought the Moonshaes were considered the worst (which seem to be still there).


----------



## rounser (Aug 23, 2008)

> I always thought the Moonshaes were considered the worst (which seem to be still there).



Depends who you ask, I guess.  They're probably my favourite part of the realms.  I agree that the Horde and Maztica seem to get very little love.  They're rarely even mentioned.

Keep in mind that the Moonshaes were airlifted into FR - they were originally intended as a "British Dragonlance" unto themselves.  They also harbour another minisetting which wasn't originally FR - the Korinn Archipelago of the module N1 Treasure Hunt.

That said, I think Douglas Niles did a rather good job of integrating the Moonshaes into the realms.  There's a lot of references to mainland FR in the novels.  The flavour and thematic imagery is different, though...Ed Greenwood's Moonshae module (Halls of the High King?) puts more of a typical "FR vibe" stamp on the Moonshaes...harping around the fireside, Zhents under the beds etc...so more of a "classic Ed FR" flavour can be done with them too.

From what I've heard of the original Moonshaes, I'm sort of glad they got changed.  Their original incarnation (a sort of Earthsea-like place) sounds less interesting than the celtic mythology/northmen vs ffolk/King Arthur/Bhaal avatar vs Earthmother's children/Robin Hood mishmash that the Moonshaes offers, and it does interesting things with the role of druids, bards and mages in society.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 23, 2008)

Keefe the Thief said:


> Racism because the "what i thought ancient egypt/south america/etc. looked like" cultures are gone? And those parts were the most logical parts of the setting? Logical? And you´re all aware that the Shou play an important role now in the eastern realms?Is this some kind of bizarro alternate universe we´re talking about?
> Those cultures were removed because they took the "shared setting" concept that the FR is built upon too far, because there was no longer a common theme to the campaign world. They were included simply because TSR knew that creating them as stand-alone books would diminish sales. And i´m so happy they´re gone. Nothing more embarassing as explaining the campaign world to new players, talking about all the interesting locations and weird cultures, and then having to say: "and here´s, um, egypt. More or less."




Um, yeah FR 10 "The Old Empires" did exactly that.  No it wasn't a book that detailed a trio of rich vibrant cultures and made them come alive with wonderful detail and integrated them seamlessly with the rest of the Realms.  All it said was, oh this is Egypt, this is Babylonia, and this is Greece.  Seriously it was only a single page long and didn't even fill that page.

If you don't believe me check it out:  http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=16817&it=1


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Aug 23, 2008)

I absolutely agree with this.  The 3E FRCS was quite simply the best campaign setting book ever published, in much the same way Ptolus was the best City supplement ever published.

Based on what I've read here, it sounds like I won't be picking up the 4E FRCS.  It sounds like a big step backward to me.

Ken



rounser said:


> I think it's been superceded, personally.  IMO, the 3E FRCS is _a lot_ better than the Grey Box.  The artwork's better, the content's better, there's more of it, it's more relevant, the book as a whole is beautiful...
> 
> It was just a class act, and a high water mark for WOTC D&D, IMO.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 23, 2008)

I think what is happening here is that its a fight between people with a history of playing in the odd places in the realms and people who didn't and stuck to the Sword Coast or the Dalelands.  I ran an entire campaign in Thay and the Old Empires because I had read FR 10 and loved it (it had started in the Dalelands, but didn't last long there and eventually we went into the underdark and then the outer planes), I didn't just have a blurb from the 3e FRCS book, I had both Dreams of the Red Wizards and Old Empires from 1st/2nd Edition.  I had the 1st Edition Oriental Adventures and the Kara-Tur boxed set when I wanted to that part of the realms.  I had the Al-Qadim book and boxed set.  I had read Douglas Niles Maztican Trilogy before I had the Maztica boxed set (which is still available for free on the Wizard's website http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads) and loved the novels and the boxed set, and I honestly don't understand them throwing away Maztica for Abeir when there is an entire unknown continent to the west of Maztica they could have put it on (and for that matter put Tythmanther and Akundul where the Dragon sea is for all I care).

As for culture that should be another thread and I made one:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=239294

Just explain what you think makes a good fantasy culture.


----------



## PeterWeller (Aug 23, 2008)

I like the book.  No, it's not the encyclopedia that the 3E book was, but as a framework to build a campaign on, it's better in many regards.  It gives me a lot of room to breathe as a DM.  I feel a greater freedom to change things to my own liking, and that applies to keeping things that were lost in the edition change.  The lack of a timeline for the last 100 years lets me play with history a lot more, but at the same time, there are enough historical details scattered throughout the text to give me a good framework for that playing.

Aesthetically the book is very well laid out.  I like the 4E book style.  And I like the map.  Honestly, I'm tired of Faerun looking like it's mostly a light shade of tan.  This new map reminds me of the original 1E maps, only done with Photoshop instead of hand-drawn.

I find it funny that the people complaining about the amount of detail seem to be the same people who already have an encyclopedic collection of FR details.  Just port over the stuff you want to keep.

Also, the racism thing?  Get real, people.  First of all, there's a damn nation of Shou right in the middle of Faerun now, not to mention they're apparently an even bigger part of the East's population.  Calimshan is as Arabian in flavor as it ever was.  And there's many mentions of people worshipping the Adama in the South, implying a strong and direct cultural connection with Zakhara.  Oh, and Amn- Amn has always been Northern Italian merchant jerks.

What makes that argument even sillier is that all those nations that they "racistly" removed might have been analogues of non-European cultures, but they were also corrupt and evil analogues.  What is more racist: removing non-European analogues or having a world where everyone who isn't pseudo-European be corrupt and evil?  Frankly, I'd rather have no pseudo-Egyptians or pseudo-Muslims at all than have them be a bunch of racist, Howardian stereotypes.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 23, 2008)

PeterWeller said:


> I like the book.  No, it's not the encyclopedia that the 3E book was, but as a framework to build a campaign on, it's better in many regards.  It gives me a lot of room to breathe as a DM.  I feel a greater freedom to change things to my own liking, and that applies to keeping things that were lost in the edition change.  The lack of a timeline for the last 100 years lets me play with history a lot more, but at the same time, there are enough historical details scattered throughout the text to give me a good framework for that playing.




What I find funny is that people claim they have room to fill now, yet we all know novel writers will fill it too, even if WotC wouldn't bring out more sourcebooks in the next years.

So, I do not see any advantage in having less information - anyone who already feels secure enough to pick and choose from official material does not need a sourcebook with less info, and anyone who is a slave to canon (or has nitpicky canon fanatic players) will be in trouble once the next novel redefines what happened in his campaign.


----------



## Jack Colby (Aug 23, 2008)

Vancian Magic said:


> For a 288 page count book there really doesn't seem to be much in it.  Though I guess that's my general annoyance for them blowing up the Realms in order to make it more generic, then spending a good chunk of dead tree telling us all about how it got blowed up and has changed the setting (because...  that is useful for new DM's to know?).
> 
> End of the day, I think ever FR book I see gets compared to the old grey box.  And there was something I really loved about that pair of cyclopedia books that made the Realms feel so alive to me.  Every edition since then has simply felt like the same stuff, but stretched thinner and thinner through more and more support books...  Especially since it has had to bow to corporate decision making and the novel 'canon' which so easily supercedes the role-playing game it seems.




My thoughts, exactly.  The grey box had a feel to it that no other version has managed to match.  They all feel watered down or too vastly different to actually be the Realms.  

And what I feared about the new 4E version is that they would change it then waste time explaining how it changed instead of just getting on with it as if it were a new setting.  I haven't followed it in years and the information of how it used to be means nothing to me, since the "old" Realms wasn't the one I knew either.

I think if I want to use the Realms with 4E I'll go back to that grey box.  No extra rules crunch needed, it is just a setting, after all, meant to work with the rules from the rulebooks.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 23, 2008)

PeterWeller said:


> What makes that argument even sillier is that all those nations that they "racistly" removed might have been analogues of non-European cultures, but they were also corrupt and evil analogues.  What is more racist: removing non-European analogues or having a world where everyone who isn't pseudo-European be corrupt and evil?  Frankly, I'd rather have no pseudo-Egyptians or pseudo-Muslims at all than have them be a bunch of racist, Howardian stereotypes.




Have you read the background material?  If you at least look at FR 10, both Unther and Mulhorandi had battles between good and evil.  The Untherics were in a civil war against their God-king Gilgeam to the point that Tiamat was getting good worshippers because they had nowhere else to turn to.  And Mulhorand was in a struggle between Set and Horus for possession of the throne.  One of the major characters in FR 10 was a paladin, geez.  Don't accuse me of generalizing if you do it.


----------



## jensun (Aug 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> What I find funny is that people claim they have room to fill now, yet we all know novel writers will fill it too, even if WotC wouldn't bring out more sourcebooks in the next years.



It is much easier to ignore novels than specific setting game material.


----------



## PeterWeller (Aug 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> What I find funny is that people claim they have room to fill now, yet we all know novel writers will fill it too, even if WotC wouldn't bring out more sourcebooks in the next years.
> 
> So, I do not see any advantage in having less information - anyone who already feels secure enough to pick and choose from official material does not need a sourcebook with less info, and anyone who is a slave to canon (or has nitpicky canon fanatic players) will be in trouble once the next novel redefines what happened in his campaign.




You're right, the setting will bloat again, and one is always free to ignore or change whatever he or she wants.  The thing is, you have a lot more room to fill on your own with this book than you did with the previous one.  Less detail means less worrying about what the repercussions of making your own detail.  Even when you're secure enough (and I like how you cast not wanting to meddle with a complete product as a type of insecurity) to take and leave what you want as a DM, you're still left with weighing what the ripple effects of your changes will bring.  As cool as trade and economy details can be, for instance, their existence can make it more difficult to change a city, and they're not something I would consider necessary or essential for a FRPG campaign setting.

And that's the kind of detail most people are lamenting: the ancillary and nitty-gritty.  The stuff that's incredibly easy to make up on your own or port over from a different product.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 23, 2008)

rounser said:


> I think it's been superceded, personally.  IMO, the 3E FRCS is _a lot_ better than the Grey Box.  The artwork's better, the content's better, there's more of it, it's more relevant, the book as a whole is beautiful...
> 
> It was just a class act, and a high water mark for WOTC D&D, IMO.




I don't know that 3e superceded it, but it was a great book. It just had a different feel.

Original FR boxed set had a sort of low end feel to it, a lot of focus on the dalelands which I didn't care for, but it felt like a place where some first level adventurer could leave the farm and become a king.

2nd edition felt sort of bland to me, having the avatar crisis smash the realms into a new shape to fit 2nd edition mechanics. I do think the unicorn rider was one of the best covers ever made, but leira was gone and things just seemed to be getting odd in the realms.

3rd edition felt huge. Sure, the realms had been growing and growing, but it wasn't all expanded on in the core book. Expansions expand things, but in 3e it was one big huge pantheon covering a huge world.

4th edition wasn't content to just leave out stuff and focus on the part they wanted. They had to nuke everything else in the name of "condensing the realms for new players". Mulhorand doesn't have to be destroyed to focus on the swordcoast...


(As for me, I found Al Qadim, Karatur and Mulhorand to be neat realms based on real world analogies but D*D'd up a bit. They fit in their places, but at the same time they were far removed so they weren't a required part in everyday FR unless you wanted them to be.)


----------



## PeterWeller (Aug 23, 2008)

Achan hiArusa said:


> Have you read the background material?  If you at least look at FR 10, both Unther and Mulhorandi had battles between good and evil.  The Untherics were in a civil war against their God-king Gilgeam to the point that Tiamat was getting good worshippers because they had nowhere else to turn to.  And Mulhorand was in a struggle between Set and Horus for possession of the throne.  One of the major characters in FR 10 was a paladin, geez.  Don't accuse me of generalizing if you do it.




That's right, there is good struggling against evil in those realms, but whose job is it to set things right?  The players, who are probably playing White adventurers, who by the powers of their White gods, the arcane magics gained via their White wits, and the enchanted arms crafted by their White Elf and Dwarf forebears will free the common folk from their sinister overlords.  Heck, even if you play as native characters, your characters, the ones played (most likely) by White males are the only ones who have a chance of setting things right.  What set's them apart but the fact that they're played by the White male players?

Sounds like the ultimate exercise in playing out White Mans' Burden to me.  Or, more seriously, it sounds like making an argument about whether or not a fantasy setting is racist based on the existence of non-European analogues is incredibly retarded.

I can understand being upset that Unther and Mulhorand are gone.  I like all the "it's like [real world place] but with magic" regions.  I even like Maztica (with all its ridiculous White Mans' Burden  ).  However, they're not necessary for it to be FR to me.  I'm one of those guys who has always run my campaigns in the Heartlands and the North, with various trips and expeditions to the more exotic locales.  Unther and Mulhorand may be gone, but they've been replaced with equally exotic and cool (IMO) regions that will serve me just fine.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 23, 2008)

I was really going to stay out of this at first, but...



PeterWeller said:


> That's right, there is good struggling against evil in those realms, but whose job is it to set things right?  The players, who are probably playing White adventurers, who by the powers of their White gods, the arcane magics gained via their White wits, and the enchanted arms crafted by their White Elf and Dwarf forebears will free the common folk from their sinister overlords.  Heck, even if you play as native characters, your characters, the ones played (most likely) by White males are the only ones who have a chance of setting things right.  What set's them apart but the fact that they're played by the White male players?




This argument makes no sense. First off, what about Dragonborn, Tieflings,  Genasi,  Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc.  are these races "white"?  I don't think so, so how is it a correct assumption that most players " are probably playing White adventurers..."?  The 4e PHB doesn't describe any of these races as white.

Second, this argument is akin to saying player = character... and it doesn't, it also disregards those of us who are not white and play D&D (like me... ) who may want the freedom to base our character off non-european archetypes.  I mean my group is mostly black so I wouldn't say what sets our PC's apart is the fact that they're played by "White male players", I would say that it's the fact that they are the protagonists of the game.



PeterWeller said:


> Sounds like the ultimate exercise in playing out White Mans' Burden to me.  Or, more seriously, it sounds like making an argument about whether or not a fantasy setting is racist based on the existence of non-European analogues is incredibly retarded.




First...see above.  I'm not going to go so far as to say the 4e FR are "racist" or that the designers are either.  However there was a thread not so long ago where it came out that WotC made a conscious effort to minimize diversity in artwork to appeal to their fanbase... this could be the same thing... of course if the artwork issue is anything to go on, we won't find out until years later...if at all.



PeterWeller said:


> I can understand being upset that Unther and Mulhorand are gone.  I like all the "it's like [real world place] but with magic" regions.  I even like Maztica (with all its ridiculous White Mans' Burden  ).  However, they're not necessary for it to be FR to me.  I'm one of those guys who has always run my campaigns in the Heartlands and the North, with various trips and expeditions to the more exotic locales.  Unther and Mulhorand may be gone, but they've been replaced with equally exotic and cool (IMO) regions that will serve me just fine.




That's great for you, and your preference for the areas of FR that you enjoyed.  However I don't see how you can rationally argue that for others this may not be the case.  They may have enjoyed those fringe regions more than the euro-centric, cookie-cutter regions that are found in 99.9% of all fantasy rpg settings.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 23, 2008)

PeterWeller said:


> That's right, there is good struggling against evil in those realms, but whose job is it to set things right?  The players, who are probably playing White adventurers, who by the powers of their White gods, the arcane magics gained via their White wits, and the enchanted arms crafted by their White Elf and Dwarf forebears will free the common folk from their sinister overlords.  Heck, even if you play as native characters, your characters, the ones played (most likely) by White males are the only ones who have a chance of setting things right.  What set's them apart but the fact that they're played by the White male players?
> 
> Sounds like the ultimate exercise in playing out White Mans' Burden to me.  Or, more seriously, it sounds like making an argument about whether or not a fantasy setting is racist based on the existence of non-European analogues is incredibly retarded.
> 
> I can understand being upset that Unther and Mulhorand are gone.  I like all the "it's like [real world place] but with magic" regions.  I even like Maztica (with all its ridiculous White Mans' Burden  ).  However, they're not necessary for it to be FR to me.  I'm one of those guys who has always run my campaigns in the Heartlands and the North, with various trips and expeditions to the more exotic locales.  Unther and Mulhorand may be gone, but they've been replaced with equally exotic and cool (IMO) regions that will serve me just fine.




You...wow.  Just...wow.  I'm really glad Imaro already hit this one, because...I don't think I have words for this.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 23, 2008)

Fenes said:


> What I find funny is that people claim they have room to fill now, yet we all know novel writers will fill it too, even if WotC wouldn't bring out more sourcebooks in the next years.




I hope WotC puts more control over the novel writers. (It would be silly to change the Realms due to all the damage the novels did to it ... then let it happen all over again.)


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 23, 2008)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I hope WotC puts more control over the novel writers. (It would be silly to change the Realms due to all the damage the novels did to it ... then let it happen all over again.)




I don't understand this.  WoTC isn't going to let any novel writer do whatever they want to the Realms in their novels.  I would feel pretty safe in saying even Ed Greenwood doesn't have unlimited carte blanche to do whatever he wants with the Realms.  Whatever happens to the Realms in a novel, I think you can be pretty sure WoTC either proposed it or at least approves of it.  Otherwise, they wouldn't print it.


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 23, 2008)

Double Post


----------



## Achan hiArusa (Aug 23, 2008)

Oh, let's see, okay In my 3.0/3.5 e FR game I had over the period of time I ran it, five white males (playing a Githezerai, a Half-orc, a Half-elf, a female Drow, and a Gold Dwarf), three white females (playing two half-elves and a halfling), one Chinese female (playing a tiefling), and one Pakistani (playing a human), but not more than five of them at a time.  I didn't have more than five at once and we played two adventures in the Dalelands to about 3rd level, about 17 levels worth in Thay and the Old Empires, then about, 6 levels in the Underdark, and 2 in the Astral Plane.  Not a perfectly diverse group, but diverse enough.  And they thoroughly enjoyed the Old Empires the best of all.  And let's not forget that the DM (me) is half-Korean, a quarter Cherokee, and a quarter Irish.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 23, 2008)

Can we just let the racism thing drop in this thread? If you want to discuss racism, then fork a new thread.


----------



## rounser (Aug 23, 2008)

> 2nd edition felt sort of bland to me, having the avatar crisis smash the realms into a new shape to fit 2nd edition mechanics. I do think the unicorn rider was one of the best covers ever made, but leira was gone and things just seemed to be getting odd in the realms.



See, this is why I have little common ground with the average FR fan.  _*Who cares about the gods?*_  They're the least important part of the setting, but people treat them as personal pets!  You'd think they were the only thing that mattered about FR, by the way people focus on them.  4E FR comes out and first thing people talk about...the gods.  Looking back, only thing talked about...the gods.  Stuff the gods, IMO.  They're irrelevant, most of the time.

I thought that the 2E boxed set was really good, as well, by the way.  That Shadowdale book was much more helpful than reprinting Pages of the Mages and the School of Wizardry.  And I remember a lot more content in the bigger boxed set, too.  It may not have had parchment pages, but it was definitely not walked all over by the Grey Box either, IMO.  Maybe we're just into silver lining on the memories territory here.

But one thing _had_ changed by 2E FR, and that was that many other authors had tried their hand at the world, and some of the original "Greenwood vibe" was getting overwritten, or downplayed.  I think a lot of people, players and writers alike, never really got it in the first place.  That _could_ be what you're talking about when you big up the Grey Box, but that's very different to whether some deity or other got in or not.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Aug 23, 2008)

rounser said:


> See, this is why I have little common ground with the average FR fan.  _*Who cares about the gods?*_  They're the least important part of the setting, but people treat them as personal pets!  You'd think they were the only thing that mattered about FR, by the way people focus on them.  4E FR comes out and first thing people talk about...the gods.  Looking back, only thing talked about...the gods.  Stuff the gods, IMO.  They're irrelevant, most of the time.




See, that's how I felt about Elminster & such, totally irrelevant to my game. The gods though, were at least a common influence. Churchs are in each city, players have clerics. Mostly though, Cyric bugged me. Not even the Avatar Crisis itself, but the stuff that followed. Suddenly gods were behind all kinds of plots on a level that dwarfed the Moonshae stuff. Leira wasn't anything special, but the clergy was fun with the silvered masks. 2e nixed her for no real reason and it was a symptom of the times.



> I thought that the 2E boxed set was really good, as well, by the way.  That Shadowdale book was much more helpful than reprinting Pages of the Mages and the School of Wizardry.  And I remember a lot more content in the bigger boxed set, too.  It may not have had parchment pages, but it was definitely not walked all over by the Grey Box either, IMO.  Maybe we're just into silver lining on the memories territory here.




That was a bit later, IIRC, than the players guide I remember leading off the setting. The boxed set read too much like "now you can play the game like Greenwood intended!" and I wasn't a big fan of Shadowdale to start with.



> But one thing _had_ changed by 2E FR, and that was that many other authors had tried their hand at the world, and some of the original "Greenwood vibe" was getting overwritten, or downplayed.  I think a lot of people, players and writers alike, never really got it in the first place.  That _could_ be what you're talking about when you big up the Grey Box, but that's very different to whether some deity or other got in or not.




I think all of the settings were good for having a solid core of people to build, that had diverse opinions but worked togethor well. Dragonlance, FR, Eberron.

Then later on, you had more folks coming into it and there seemed to be little oversight. Dragonlance certainly lost it's way, and FR was changing in ways that just became tedious to work with in a campaign. (Like a comic book run where they change editor and suddenly the entire setup changes.)

You could see it happening with Eberron, the line isn't tightly controlled, and with 4e it's changing even more.


----------



## PeterWeller (Aug 24, 2008)

Imaro said:


> I was really going to stay out of this at first, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That argument wasn't intended to make sense.  More to illustrate how stupid that kind of discussion can get.



> That's great for you, and your preference for the areas of FR that you enjoyed.  However I don't see how you can rationally argue that for others this may not be the case.  They may have enjoyed those fringe regions more than the euro-centric, cookie-cutter regions that are found in 99.9% of all fantasy rpg settings.



I was saying that I can understand why people are upset about losing those territories.  I was saying I liked those territories as well, but I'm also pretty amped about what replaced them.  I was never saying that other people should feel how I do.  The loss of the Old Empires is one of those complaints about 4E FR that I see and say, "this is a perfectly rational and justified complaint."

The thing is, though, while I liked those parts of the setting, they did feel tacked on.  The new regions, on the other hand (and in my opinion, of course), feel more integrated.   They feel made specifically to fill those parts of the map, whereas the Old Empires always felt like they were made off on their own, and later inserted into that section of the map.

The other thing is, if you don't agree with me on that, I understand why.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 24, 2008)

PeterWeller said:


> The thing is, though, while I liked those parts of the setting, they did feel tacked on.  The new regions, on the other hand (and in my opinion, of course), feel more integrated.   They feel made specifically to fill those parts of the map, whereas the Old Empires always felt like they were made off on their own, and later inserted into that section of the map.
> 
> The other thing is, if you don't agree with me on that, I understand why.




I thought that official incarnations of Mulhorand and Unther were "tacked on" by TSR, like the Bloodstone Lands, Kara-Tur, and the Moonshae Islands.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 25, 2008)

I think the blame for the focus on the gods lies with 2E's Time of Troubles and also 2E's Faith and Avatars....


----------



## Irda Ranger (Aug 25, 2008)

TheSleepyKing said:


> my initial impressions are not good ... I finding the 4e FRCG a disappointment ... the 4e Realms (so far) doesn’t feel like a living world ... we’re left with is a setting without a thematic core or a sense of connectedness. Each element tends to stand on its own without much reference to those around it. And none, I have to say, is that compelling on its own ... What’s hard is to come up with an entire world, to create a complex mythology and history, to layer in the elements that turn cities and nations into a living, breathing world. That’s what I want in a campaign guide – not what we’ve got here, which is more like a kit of readymade city and dungeon ideas with few details attached.
> 
> The ... much lower word count in the 4e Forgotten Realms book leaves a lot to be desired. Even when you’re devoting several pages to a region, it feels like you’re just skimming the surface. Major settlements are being skipped over or given the most cursory treatment because you’ve left no space to detail them.
> 
> ...




I concur with the above. I thought it was lousy. The biggest problems for me are:

1. Too little information on each area. If I wanted to play in a Cormyr-like Kingdom I could brainstorm the amount of content provided by the 4E FRCS in ten minutes or so.

2. Uninspiring. Perhaps related to the above point, but everything was "Grrr! I'm a monster!" and "Spellplague!! Dark and brooding geography!!" and not very thematic at all. It has no flavor. I think parts of it were worked over by the Committees for Selling Dungeon Tiles & Minis.

Just as one example - Eladrin?? Does FR have no life whatsoever apart from the Core Rules? Apparently not. Apparently it was just too confusing to stick to calling them Gold or Grey Elves and making a note to use the Eladrin stat blocks from the PHB. So, one more bit of flavor that makes FR feel like FR gets flushed down the toilet. 

Maybe my expectations were falsely misled by the words "Campaign Setting" on the cover. I expect a Campaign Setting to provide details that take a lot of time and creativity to brainstorm all by myself, and to provide a "theme" or "feel" that communicates itself to the players.  By example, there's no mistaking whether or not you're in Planescape or Ravenloft.  This book should have been called "34 Unrelated Kingdom Sketches, Plus A Free Bundled Adventure."

I could name many other problems I have with the book (like what happened to Wheloon and Calimshan - WTF!?), but that would be too nitty. My overall opinion: crap. Good use of whitespace doesn't save the fact that the key reasons for buying a CS are missing. Better luck next year, WotC.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 25, 2008)

I'm warming to this more and more as I read through it.  I think it looks like a good successor to the Realms.  As a DM who couldn't stand the thought of running a Realms game in 2e or 3e, it's got a lot of good stuff going for it.  It seems a lot more like a place where PCs have adventures, rather than a place where NPCs and novel characters go and change the world.

Now I just wish I had the Player's Guide to match...

I have another 7 hours of airplane time later this week...  Maybe I'll get a chance to dig more into it.  Then again, I also picked up the Knights of the Old Republic campaign setting for SWSE, and that looks to be a stellar, 5-star product...  We'll see what I read when the time comes around!

-O


----------



## DEP (Aug 25, 2008)

It is a fairly decent book, not great, but I still enjoy it. The lack of information does not really bother me as it gives me freedom to do as I want. I have all the 2ed books that I would use, and a few 3e books as well to draw some info on. 

The race thing doesnt really bother me, as I can ignore it and make it so they are still there. 

All in all, this actually makes me want to run a FR game, which I will be doing. In 3e I tried, but god it was a hassle. This however will be a bit easier.

*still not my favourite world, but it will do


----------



## Fenes (Aug 25, 2008)

Does it go into details of what happened to Thay, Unther, Mulhorand and Chessenta? That's about the only reason for me to buy it, to get some possible plots for my 3.0 campaign (of course, as plots the players can foil, not some cheap railroaded "and so it came to pass, so enjoy the raid" adventure).


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 25, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I think the blame for the focus on the gods lies with 2E's Time of Troubles and also 2E's Faith and Avatars....




I thought it was the fact that every NPC from Elminster to the damn page of some noname duke was a Chosen of Mystra.  Seriously, count the number of Chosen of Mystra in the main 3rd ed book.

Look, Midnight, I know you were lonely after Kelemvor's post-mortem snub, but you don't have to go around 'Choosing' every man, woman, and child you bump into who happens to wear a pointed hat.

That sort of indescriminant 'Choosing' will just end up getting you killed--


--OH WAIT

Seriously, it was -hard- not to walk away from the 3rd edition Realms stuff without thinking the entire setting was just a bunch of messy pies from all the god's dirty fingers poking in them.


That reminds me, how's Halastar doing?


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 25, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> That reminds me, how's Halastar doing?




Didn't he die in 3.5 already?


----------



## Penguinised (Aug 25, 2008)

Well I've got to say as a newcomer to FR (yeah I know, someone who's played D&D and never used the biggest campaign setting?) it's fairly good if a little thin. It inspires a lot of ideas for adventures I could run and I really like the way the gods are organised. I figure that the Players Guide will have the rest of the stuff I feel is missing so overall I'm pretty happy with it


----------



## Obergnom (Aug 25, 2008)

@penguinised: How much does the constant speaking about X changed like this during the spellplague bother you?

I thought it was rather anoying, I would have prefered them to just describe the setting as is, without constantly referencing the old one. Which I know very well, thus my question to you, as you do not even know what they are talking about.


----------



## Shroomy (Aug 25, 2008)

Fenes said:


> Does it go into details of what happened to Thay, Unther, Mulhorand and Chessenta? That's about the only reason for me to buy it, to get some possible plots for my 3.0 campaign (of course, as plots the players can foil, not some cheap railroaded "and so it came to pass, so enjoy the raid" adventure).




Yes, it does provide details about what happened to those countries, but other than Thay, all the major changes were caused by the Spellplague.  Chessenta is still around, but its only half its size; the other half is now taken up by the genasi kingdom of Akanul, which came from Returned Abeir.  Likewise, the dragonborn country of Tymanther basically fell on top of Unther in a huge cataclysm.  The Spellplague left Mulhorand devastated and mostly devoid of life; colonists from Deep Imaskar emerged and reclaimed the land as High Imaskar (I think that the reborn sarrukh lands of Okoth also claimed some of the land).  Thay was pretty much turned into an undead wasteland by the lich Tam, who was trying to attain godhood via a ritual; it failed, but not before destroying much of the life in Thay and thrusting the entire plateau upward.  Many living Thay expatriates were driven north into Algarond.


----------



## Fenes (Aug 25, 2008)

Shroomy said:


> Yes, it does provide details about what happened to those countries, but other than Thay, all the major changes were caused by the Spellplague.  Chessenta is still around, but its only half its size; the other half is now taken up by the genasi kingdom of Akanul, which came from Returned Abeir.  Likewise, the dragonborn country of Tymanther basically fell on top of Unther in a huge cataclysm.  The Spellplague left Mulhorand devastated and mostly devoid of life; colonists from Deep Imaskar emerged and reclaimed the land as High Imaskar (I think that the reborn sarrukh lands of Okoth also claimed some of the land).  Thay was pretty much turned into an undead wasteland by the lich Tam, who was trying to attain godhood via a ritual; it failed, but not before destroying much of the life in Thay and thrusting the entire plateau upward.  Many living Thay expatriates were driven north into Algarond.




Well, Spellplague can be replaced with any other cause one can think of. Phlan was shifted to another plane once, and some high-magic rituals caused the world to shake.

Still, I am not convinced the material therein is worth buying the book. If they have as few details as was said, I'd have to make up 99% of the relevant details anyway, and the ideas I already can take from this thread.


----------



## soulcatcher78 (Aug 25, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Didn't he die in 3.5 already?




They whacked him at the beginning of Exp. to Undermountain but with all the odd happenings in Waterdeep (as of 4E FRCS), I am keeping my fingers crossed for his return.  

Even if they don't, I will.


----------



## Penguinised (Aug 25, 2008)

@obergnom: Yeah I guess it was a bit confusing, but seeing as they are only really just references and don't hold any entirely vital info (as in there are no "your Magic X used to be blue and now it's pink" but not actually describing Magic X) it didn't really bother me. It just lets me know that there is a vast cannon already there (admittedly I would have to have been living under a rock not to already know that it's there)  which I can look into if it interests me and I want to find out more.
I think it is a pretty brave thing they've done to change such an established setting in such a dramatic way. The massive stink that some are kicking up about the lack of historical data in the book seems a bit odd to me. Why put more information in a new book about times and places and people that everyone (except me obviously) already knows inside out? To break new ground, effect some really fundamental changes and to keep that level of mystery hanging over the last 100 years are very bold moves and I'm pretty interested to see where the game books and novels take it from here.


----------

