Compared to past editions of the campaign guide, this guide is a bare bones minimal book with only the briefest of content, and only in the broadest of terms about what they do speak about.
What happened to all of the known favorites of the Realms? Of the Seven Sisters, the only one I found mentioned was the Simbul, who now lives in secrecy in the Dalelands. What about Drizzt? Bruenor is apparently deceased, as I would imagine Cattie-Brie, Wulfgar, and the other shorter lived races. Thay is ruled now by one Red Wizard (guess which one.. not a hard guess), and out of the duo of antiheroes - Jaraxle and Artemis - only Jaraxle is actually listed. And the coup de grace - Elminster is given a small blurb about what happened to him, and no stats, at all.
As much as everyone hated those NPCs, they were a large part of the Realms. While I never used them in my game, I still wanted to know what happened to them, and the regions, new NPCs, etc. Instead, I got a lot of ho-hum material.
I thought this might be useful for my campaign (keeping it 3.5, I dislike 4th), but now I seriously think I could do better with just the teaser blurbs they gave us in the Dragon Magazine online, and this is the first time I have seriously thought about asking for my money back for a Forgotten Realms product. (I own all the game books from 1st edition onward.)
Anyone else thought the same about this "flop?"
Edit: After seeing the other post with other people's disappointment with the book, no more is needed on this post unless you just feel the need to point it out here.
-This is why I never buy a game book before flipping through it a little. I hope this is a lesson for you. :P
Hard to flip through a book when you order it online. Hope this is a little lesson for you assuming something before finding out the particulars of the situation.
Hard to flip through a book when you order it online.
-Hence why you don't buy things online. Because you can't flip through them to see if you like the actual product or not.
-Hence why you don't buy things online. Because you can't flip through them to see if you like the actual product or not.
buy them online fter you flir through them. Online is much cheaper
I think I'll stick with the lower cost, I just won't be buying any gamebooks from WotC anymore unless it is 3.5 old stuff, or maybe if they do something better with 5th edition in 8-12 years.
This really is your bare bone campaign guide.
I mean, I expected to be a bit P.O.ed, but I can't even bring myself to that level. I'm simply...
The people I know like it which is the most important thing to me.
I like it. Sparse in places but I am fine with that because that suits my needs.
The people I know like it which is the most important thing to me.
As I just posted on another thread, I feel this is a gamer vs. Realms lover thing. It's an "if and/or" thing for me.
this is the first time I have seriously thought about asking for my money back for a Forgotten Realms product. (I own all the game books from 1st edition onward.)
Anyone else thought the same about this "flop?"
Yeah you know what's funny? I play both 4e and 3.5e since I don't see 4th as such a huge disappointment nor benefactor in contrast, but this is the first time I considered going through the process of sending back an order from Amazon (and FR I guess).
This book is pretty crappy. In contrast to the 3e book of the same title, it's utter trash. I didn't expect it to be this bad, and then remembered they plan on doing an FR Player's Guide book in September, kinda wishing I had waited til then to get both books. Now i'm sitting on a bunch of maps and hints of content with nothing real. And what is with them starting the book with an adventure? I don't play published adventures aside from a few I tried out and felt they were dry and unchallenging. But at least til now they were in the back where I could just avoid them.
Really I try not to be such an insufferable curmudgeon but this book was terrible. I really hope the FR Player's Guide is better- by a lot.
Edit: and yeah I prefer looking through the book first too but i also ordered online and got it for $24. That's $15 off. I didn't count on it being deplorable, and frankly the ability to skim through something doesn't spare them from blame on making such a bad product. Thin ice, this time WotC.
Wait!! Is that Drizzt staring out the tower window there !!!
Wait!! Is that Drizzt staring out the tower widow there !!!
"My stat bloooooock!"
"My stat bloooooock!"
Calm.
Breath in....breath out....
Breath in....breath out....
... "by a bunch of hacks"
Bravo, as mature as the 'noobs' pros.
Bravo, as mature as the 'noobs' pros.
Can't we all just get along?
As much as everyone hated those NPCs, they were a large part of the Realms. While I never used them in my game, I still wanted to know what happened to them
Anything you want it what happened.
I know that isn't the answer you want, but its the only answer you'll get with 4th edition (you might get SOME answers in novels though). If you look at the 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting you'll see that its pretty bare bones. It gives you the structure of the setting, and then lets you build on it from there. They've taken this design style, and used it with 4th edition campaigns.
If you don't like that style (I personally do, it gives me room to make the game my own), I'd definitely say 4th edition campaign settings aren't for you.
You know I thought I might be able to come in here and resume civil discussions. Apparently not
The nerdrage is just too great.Calm.
Breath in....breath out....
Breath in....breath out....
I was just playing around. I'm not really that hair-rippingly furious but it is a pretty sad book. And here come the back-handed remarks from people who claim to want maturity, so I'm out.
Really, I just hope the FRPG is worth it, guess that's the final thought after reviewing this thing.
There are many people who think the way you do , trust me.
I was just playing around. I'm not really that hair-rippingly furious but it is a pretty sad book. And here come the back-handed remarks from people who claim to want maturity, so I'm out.
Really, I just hope the FRPG is worth it, guess that's the final thought after reviewing this thing.
Same here and with you. If the FRPG doesn't give greater detail, then I am seriously going to be P.O ed.
-This is why I never buy a game book before flipping through it a little. I hope this is a lesson for you. :P
boy, you're really astute when it comes to life lessons. presumptuous much?
boy, you're really astute when it comes to life lessons. presumptuous much?
Duh!
Now get ready. This is about to get heavy.
buy them online fter you flir through them. Online is much cheaper
-That works. Would you be able to put down something you want that's already in your hands, in exchange for a monetary discount, and 1-3 weeks of waiting for the product?
boy, you're really astute when it comes to life lessons. presumptuous much?
-Was anything I said disproved?
There are many people who think the way you do , trust me.
really?
-That works. Would you be able to put down something you want that's already in your hands, in exchange for a monetary discount, and 1-3 weeks of waiting for the product?
sure, and its usually not 3 weeks
I must say that that the map of Loudwater on pg 13 is perhaps the worst town map since 1ed. There is not Even a scale, which is probably a good thing. As I can not fathom that no one in the art department noticed how bad a map it is. I can only assume that it was a deliberate decision. In that case all I can say is
DON'T MAKE MAPS LIKE LOUDWATER AGAIN!!!
IT SUCKS
Well I wouldn't call it crap but it's really week when compared to the first three editions and though I will try and Keep a open mind till I get the players guide.
I must say that that the map of Loudwater on pg 13 is perhaps the worst town map since 1ed. There is not Even a scale, which is probably a good thing. As I can not fathom that no one in the art department noticed how bad a map it is. I can only assume that it was a deliberate decision. In that case all I can say is
DON'T MAKE MAPS LIKE LOUDWATER AGAIN!!!
IT SUCKS
how many people are supposed to live there I forget? I seem to remember an awful low number of buildings for a decent sized town
I was taken a bit by surprise when the book seemed to be... eh.. "reveresed". I thought the "adventure" would be at the end of the book, not the beginning.
I've also tried to find any neat new "updates" to the Realm's technology level. I mean, it's 100 years in the future, right? Shouldn't there have been more technological advances, despite the Spellplague? Where are the flying horse carts? The lightsabers?
:D
I haven't had a chance to really go through the book yet, though because as I said, it's signed and I tend to treat those books with kid gloves.
I've also tried to find any neat new "updates" to the Realm's technology level. I mean, it's 100 years in the future, right? Shouldn't there have been more technological advances, despite the Spellplague? Where are the flying horse carts? The lightsabers?
I have thought about that myself. The only tech was in Lantan and thats a goner
But I would think that a realm so reliant on magic would not naturally pursue technology as much
how many people are supposed to live there I forget? I seem to remember an awful low number of buildings for a decent sized town
2000 ish in and outside the town proper. I counted 58 buildings. The difference between Loudwater and Fallcrest is like night and day
As opposed to bare bones, I see it more as a morbidly obese world which just lost a lot of weight which was getting in the way of seeing it's good parts.
NPCs shouldn't have stats in my opinion, the players don't need to know if there better then Drizzt and the DM can make them the way he feels they should be.
Seems to me they just remembered a setting book should be about inspiring players and GMs with the feel of a world, not drowning them in minutiae.
really?
Yep. You should see my PM logs. ;)
Many of those people are just lurkers though and have told me they are almost afraid to post anything positive because they don't want to deal with the negativity from some vocal distraught fans. That is sad. Speak up if you like the changes folks. Nobody can hurt ya too much on the Net. :D
Plus if you do post try not to be as obnoxious as some anti-4E (and pro-4E) people okay?
-Looking at my FRCG it has Ed Greenwood's name where you put "by a bunch of hacks". :embarrass
-What is Ed a "hack" now? :P
-Also Brian R. James is inside the book. Is he a "Hack" also? :embarrass
18DELTA
;)-Looking at my FRCG it has Ed Greenwood's name where you put "by a bunch of hacks". :embarrass
-What is Ed a "hack" now? :P
-Also Brian R. James is inside the book. Is he a "Hack" also? :embarrass
18DELTA
Geez...
I didn't think anyone would read the 'fine print'.
And yes, it WAS immature, but I thought it would be funny.
And I already said something mean about Ed at CK last week for puttting his name on this travesty, and caught flak for it. I think even Ed realizes his contribution was only a 'token gesture' to placate angry fans - I doubt if much of anything he wrote made it in. That returned Abeir excerpt will be the very first thing he ever wrote that I did not fully enjoy (which is why I don't think he really wrote it).
Oh well... We all have to grow up sometime, and realize our heroes are 'merely human'.
I'm glad they didn't include player information in it (that would subtract from word count) but it just feels sort of not complete without it.
I want to read more about rituals, magic items and so on.
For Realms DMs the book does do what it's supposed to: Get them going in the setting, with a brief overview of the setting's history, places, plots and themes.
Geez...
I didn't think anyone would read the 'fine print'.
And yes, it WAS immature, but I thought it would be funny.
And I already said something mean about Ed at CK last week for puttting his name on this travesty, and caught flak for it. I think even Ed realizes his contribution was only a 'token gesture' to placate angry fans - I doubt if much of anything he wrote made it in. That returned Abeir excerpt will be the very first thing he ever wrote that I did not fully enjoy (which is why I don't think he really wrote it).
Oh well... We all have to grow up sometime, and realize our heroes are 'merely human'.
-Hopefully you learned your lesson 'Young Man'. Wags finger in Markus's face. :P
-Sorry dude that just needed to be called. :D
-Yes I know Ed is only human.
18DELTA
Many of those people are just lurkers though and have told me they are almost afraid to post anything positive because they don't want to deal with the negativity from some vocal distraught fans. That is sad. Speak up if you like the changes folks. Nobody can hurt ya too much on the Net. :D
Sure speak up. Frankly, I don't believe there is anyone out there
Plus if you do post try not to be as obnoxious as some anti-4E (and pro-4E) people okay?
Yeah. Don't be like me
No, it doesn't. Because the maps have errors.
You try making a map of an unknown location while surrounded by hungry monsters and people who would just love to kill you and take your equipment, see how many errors you avoid.
The map is an aid to the DMs campaign now, not a solid point of un-questionable realms lore.
2000 ish in and outside the town proper. I counted 58 buildings. The difference between Loudwater and Fallcrest is like night and day
so about 40 people live in each building?
Sure speak up. Frankly, I don't believe there is anyone out there
Hi! See my sig. Yay 4E Realms! :P
Seriously, the book is cool. It's like when Kyle Raynor became the new Green Lantern, and all the Hal Jordan fans were all bent out of shape about it. But you know what? Kyle turned out to be a pretty rad Green Lantern!
You try making a map of an unknown location while surrounded by hungry monsters and people who would just love to kill you and take your equipment, see how many errors you avoid.
You mean in the way that the incorporeal overseeing DM does? The FRCG isn't a narrative told from a first person perception. It is supposed to be an objective presentation of information, plot hooks, character information and things that the DM can choose to include.
The map is an aid to the DMs campaign now, not a solid point of un-questionable realms lore.
He/she/it wants to change the map? All well and good. But shouldn't the one published be exactly that to give everyone a similar solid base to work from?
Sure speak up. Frankly, I don't believe there is anyone out there
I like the changes and haven't spoken up.
In fact it is making me run the Realms for the first time since 2nd edition.
The FR Campaign Guide seems like it "needs" the Player's Guide to really make it complete.
I'm glad they didn't include player information in it (that would subtract from word count) but it just feels sort of not complete without it.
I want to read more about rituals, magic items and so on.
For Realms DMs the book does do what it's supposed to: Get them going in the setting, with a brief overview of the setting's history, places, plots and themes.
Yes! Yes! Yes! I absolutely agree 100%.
So shell out $30 or so, and get the 4.0 FRCS. Be happy that it leaves it up to you to fill in most of the content. People complained about the iconic NPC's, so they left them out. People should be overjoyed. Why put in an abundance of plot hooks when the players want to create their own? Why detail an area, when that’s what people complained about to begin with.
For my part however, I am not going to buy a campaign setting book that doesn't detail the setting. Lol, I actually find the idea of it hysterically ironic. I think I'll pass, especially if I'll be detailing it on my own anyways.
I prefered the 1e Gray box (I remember getting it on sale for $8 in 1991) over all FRCS's since, including 2e's revised set, because it gives vague statblocks and a decent glossography of the continent (Cyclopedia of the Realms is a masterpiece IMO) while leaving gobs of room for DM imagination. It sounds like they've taken that approach to the new version. Good for them.
But I hope a mammoth double-poster-sized map of the continent is on the way, even if it only has as much detail as the original 90 miles per inch map in the gray box. I'm a sucker for big maps. One of the things that got me hooked in 1990 was all the boxed sets and all their poster sized maps, even if the color scheme was horrid (as in peach for plains).
I guess you could say I like a top-down approach to a campaign setting rather than a bottom-up approach. Give me three new races, three new classes, a dozen new spells, a dozen new magic items, a dozen new types of equipment, a dozen new feats, a handful of new rules (like Krynn's moon magic, Dark Sun's defiling magic, or Ravenloft's fear checks), a poster-sized map of the lands of the setting, a glossography of those lands (maybe three or four paragraphs tops for each entry), maybe a dozen NPCs (with only their alignment, gender, race, class, and level, with a short paragraph on their description, a short paragraph on their history, and a short paragraph on their goals), and a pantheon about the size of the Greek pantheon, with about as much info on each deity as the NPC entries, with a list of known cults and a sentence or two about each, and then let me take it from there. And DON'T progress the timeline. Ever. Or if you do, change it by at least 100 years.
Our FRCG is finally in the mail right now and I'm anxiously hoping that it is similar to that boxed set.
That said, with the 4e book they spared us those details. They included that blurb that said, "Hey, if you want your party to fight these cats, make the stats yourself to fit your own campaign." I think this is also good because lets say I DID want my party to fight Manshoon, I could make a Manshoon that was appropriate for my party. Of course, a good counterpoint to that would be "Yeah, but I still could have made my own version of it in 3.X." I am sure that worked for many parties. However, for my players I know they would have griped if I changed the stats as written. "Eleminister can't do that! Drizzt can't do that!" And so on.
Basically, I like the fact that they drop a bunch of seeds on us and allow us to take it from there. I also think the criticism might be a little premature: there is still the players guide and also the history of the realms to be released. Yeah, more money needs to be shelled out for those books, but business is business.
Man, am I bummed. Where in hell do the gnomes live now? All I could find were some undead ones. Why are they fey? Do the size of their pointy hats still signify social standing?
-I think they are in the Feywild now!
We got it now lets use it. :D 18DELTA
-I think they are in the Feywild now!
18DELTA
but what about the hats?
This book is a fluff-heavy primer on all aspects of the campaign setting. It's a DM's book first and foremost--if you're not the DM, or aren't otherwise fond of story details, this is obviously not going to be your book. The FRPG next month, on the other hand, will probably be more to your speed. That's where the crunch will be prevalent, obviously, in the form of new player options.
I find it really difficult to understand why people think the inclusion of stats for every NPC is necessary, or even a good idea, for a gaming campaign setting book.
I find it really difficult to understand why people think the inclusion of stats for every NPC is necessary, or even a good idea, for a gaming campaign setting book.
Not for every (and not even the FRCS did that), but it's important for the most prominent NPCs. You never know when they are going to appear, and having their stats already done saves you a lot of headaches and time.
I find it really difficult to understand why people think the inclusion of stats for every NPC is necessary, or even a good idea, for a gaming campaign setting book.
I certainly don't want NPC stat blocks for every single one... but I would like more of them to have been presented at all and the ones that were presented to have more than about 100 words each...
Seriously, the book is cool. It's like when Kyle Raynor became the new Green Lantern, and all the Hal Jordan fans were all bent out of shape about it. But you know what? Kyle turned out to be a pretty rad Green Lantern!
and they eventually went back to Hal
Sure speak up. Frankly, I don't believe there is anyone out there
Speaking up. I like it, overall.
I was taken a bit by surprise when the book seemed to be... eh.. "reveresed". I thought the "adventure" would be at the end of the book, not the beginning.
What do you expect from a backwards thinking group of interlopers that have DESTROYED something that was wonderful and inspiring?
Saw the FRCS $e and have concluded and confirmed all the things I have come to believe about $e. It is essentially a lexicon of Orwellian Newspeak (perhaps not in the sinister sense mind you). For those that don't know what that is, please read the section in 1984 about the principles of Newspeak. It will blow your mind...
I had intended on playing in RPGA Living FR, but after reading this travesty, I just can't bring myself to do it...
Not for every (and not even the FRCS did that), but it's important for the most prominent NPCs. You never know when they are going to appear, and having their stats already done saves you a lot of headaches and time.
Is that really so? How often in a game does a 'major' NPC show up (The Drizzts, the Elminsters, the Cales, etc.) with a need for their stats so they can be involved directly in an encounter? If this happens more than once per campaign at most you're overdoing it; forgetting that the point of games like these is that events should center around the PCs and those they're up against.
Perhaps your gaming philosophy differs from mine, but the inclusion of NPCs in encounters that aren't actually the ones the players are fighting is a really bad habit for a DM to get into. Now, maybe you will have PCs go up against the good-guy NPC types, but like the blurb on the side says--if it's that important, stat 'em up yourself. The guys who're big names that PCs actually should have motivation to fight, like Szass Tam, Chembryl, and even Jarlaxle? Those guys, they're accounted for.
I certainly don't want NPC stat blocks for every single one... but I would like more of them to have been presented at all and the ones that were presented to have more than about 100 words each...
Aside from the adversaries, the only one who did get much of a mention, as I saw it, was Elminster (who is blissfully non-statted). It was a bit surprising as well to see even Drizzt absent but for a few mentions in background details here and there.
I'd actually bet money on the chance that Drizzt actually sees a more prominent mention in the FRPG next month, though, along perhaps with a handful of other heroic types past and present. In an abstract sort of sense, he would more represent a "player's" character on the scene in mechanic and motive. Criticize as you will; I've always felt that for the purpose of actual gaming that the FR novel characters are far, far better used as inspiration to a player rather than elements a DM must include.
What do you expect from a backwards thinking group of interlopers that have DESTROYED something that was wonderful and inspiring?
Boy, you're either trollin' or you need to chill out. Maybe I don't come on these boards often enough to be jaded by tearful hyperbole, but did you just seriously compare the revision of D&D game and setting elements to dour, speculative literature on socio-political implications of a form of government?
Or am I just not reading something right.
Aside from the adversaries, the only one who did get much of a mention, as I saw it, was Elminster (who is blissfully non-statted). It was a bit surprising as well to see even Drizzt absent but for a few mentions in background details here and there.
You're not kidding. I just did a quick word count for all of the NPCs listed in Cormyr... about 235(ish) words for 4 NPCs... Alusair in the FRCS gets 295(ish) of pure character description on her own. That is my problem with the way the NPCs have been handled. These are the broadest possible strokes. They don't feel like personalities to me, these NPCs could be anybody. Which I suppose is the point.
I've always felt that for the purpose of actual gaming that the FR novel characters are far, far better used as inspiration to a player rather than elements a DM must include.
On that I will agree with you, especially about the "must include" part. No character must be included... and if they are then it should be as inspiration not as a challenge
. But then I am a novel reader.-Looking at my FRCG it has Ed Greenwood's name where you put "by a bunch of hacks". :embarrass
-What is Ed a "hack" now? :P
-Also Brian R. James is inside the book. Is he a "Hack" also? :embarrass
Seeing as they participated in this abomination, yes they now qualify as "Hacks" insofar as $e FR is concerned. I'm sure they are wonderful people outside of the WotC sphere, but when they signed on to decimate the Realms, they lost alot of respect I once had for them.
Is that really so? How often in a game does a 'major' NPC show up (The Drizzts, the Elminsters, the Cales, etc.) with a need for their stats so they can be involved directly in an encounter? If this happens more than once per campaign at most you're overdoing it; forgetting that the point of games like these is that events should center around the PCs and those they're up against.
Let me count, in my current campaign (2 years playing) Alustriel appeared at least 7 times (the last one she gave the pcs their Harper pins), Storm twice (the second time was during my last session), Elminster (last session, he gave a couple of very rare spells to the wizard). And those are examples from some of the most prominent npcs, lots of lesser known ones have appeared during this campaign as contacts, allies, antagonists and other roles.
Perhaps your gaming philosophy differs from mine, but the inclusion of NPCs in encounters that aren't actually the ones the players are fighting is a really bad habit for a DM to get into. Now, maybe you will have PCs go up against the good-guy NPC types, but like the blurb on the side says--if it's that important, stat 'em up yourself. The guys who're big names that PCs actually should have motivation to fight, like Szass Tam, Chembryl, and even Jarlaxle? Those guys, they're accounted for.
Ohh, so here it is the problem, only npcs that can be killed are the ones who should appear in encounters.
I find it really difficult to understand why people think the inclusion of stats for every NPC is necessary, or even a good idea, for a gaming campaign setting book.
Because everybody has to know everything so they can dispute something they do not like. When i used to run campaigns I had to ban everything from the table but the Players Handbook because every second encounter there would be someone popping open their monster manual to dispute the creatures abilities or the Dm's guild to dispute the treasure rolls.
A bare bones Realms makes it easier for a DM to craft a campaign suited to his needs And from everything i have heard the Realms of 3.5 was so detailed you couldn't throw a stone without hitting lore. How can you start anything new and refreshing in that? There is 20 years of Realm material out there to flesh things out if thats what you want and with 4 edition there is 20 years of Realm material that you can IGNORE if want.
A bare bones Realms makes it easier for a DM to craft a campaign suited to his needs And from everything i have heard the Realms of 3.5 was so detailed you couldn't throw a stone without hitting lore. How can you start anything new and refreshing in that?
I have, in 4 different campaigns that were always new and refreshing. It's not our fault that some people don't have any skill to create stories in a world that already exists. I can improvise on the spot anything I want in the Forgotten Realms (counting 1st to 3rd edition material) and the lore never constrains me, it gives me more choices to create the story I want.
Settings that are bare bones need too damn much preparation for my tastes because they are just that, bare bones and I love a good piece of meat.
On that I will agree with you, especially about the "must include" part. No character must be included... and if they are then it should be as inspiration not as a challenge
I stand guilty of having done that like...once. It was before Salvatore started writing the Sellswords novels but after he had penned a few short stories about Jarlaxle and Entreri, that I decided, for an FR game I was running at the time; hey, they're traveling, why not have them show up? So Jarlaxle and his grim companion appeared to the PCs during a mage-faire, one of whom (the bard) promptly challenged the self-proclaimed "Legendary Drizzit Durdon" to a mageduel. Perhaps, though, that little fiasco is justified far-after-the-fact by how Jarlaxle has been so prominently statted as a potential adversary in the new edition?
To be perfectly honest, the way both returning villains and new threats have been presented make me want to use them more. The trick is building up to that. Granted; "According to this random encounter chart, a Manshoon clone just jumped from behind the bushes on the roadside and attacks you" is in and of itself something I'd be dearly tempted to pull.
Let me count, in my current campaign (2 years playing) Alustriel appeared at least 7 times (the last one she gave the pcs their Harper pins), Storm twice (the second time was during my last session), Elminster (last session, he gave a couple of very rare spells to the wizard). And those are examples from some of the most prominent npcs, lots of lesser known ones have appeared during this campaign as contacts, allies, antagonists and other roles.
Well, that's all well and fine, but do you really need their stats to have them act in that fashion? From the sound of things, it's more like that they were sponsors or otherwise benefactors to the PCs. Just knowing their personalities and resources should be perfectly sufficient for that. If you want to nitpick, anyway.
Ohh, so here it is the problem, only npcs that can be killed are the ones who should appear in encounters.
That's a little bit of an oversimplification, now, isn't it?
Boy, you're either trollin' or you need to chill out. Maybe I don't come on these boards often enough to be jaded by tearful hyperbole, but did you just seriously compare the revision of D&D game and setting elements to dour, speculative literature on socio-political implications of a form of government?
Or am I just not reading something right.
If you will read the edit, the implication is that the 4e FR and 4e in general represent a purposeful attempt to limit the range of thought inherent in inventive and imaginative minds. Each entry in the FRCS is far too brief, far too simple, and far too bereft of any details that DM's have traditionally used to craft campaigns from. Basically what you have is a hodgepodge of the core of 4e with what's left of traditional FR. It is utter crap and those who wrote it should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, and I will continue to be vocal about how horrible I think this setting has become in this edition.
If you will read the edit, the implication is that the 4e FR and 4e in general represent a purposeful attempt to limit the range of thought inherent in inventive and imaginative minds. Each entry in the FRCS is far too brief, far too simple, and far too bereft of any details that DM's have traditionally used to craft campaigns from. Basically what you have is a hodgepodge of the core of 4e with what's left of traditional FR. It is utter crap and those who wrote it should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, and I will continue to be vocal about how horrible I think this setting has become in this edition.
How can a lack of information inhibit imagination?
How can a lack of information inhibit imagination?
Because there is less to work with. My style of DMing is HEAVLY improvised, and settings without detail never give me all the things I need to DM.
I don't like Eberron because of that. But I'm not an Eberron hater who constantly complains there is too little detail, I just leave them be, the same courtesy I expected from FR haters, but no, they had to complain and kill the only D&D setting that was extensively detailed, that's why you aren't going to see me be polite to anybody who complains about the quantity of lore that FR had.
If you will read the edit, the implication is that the 4e FR and 4e in general represent a purposeful attempt to limit the range of thought inherent in inventive and imaginative minds. Each entry in the FRCS is far too brief, far too simple, and far too bereft of any details that DM's have traditionally used to craft campaigns from. Basically what you have is a hodgepodge of the core of 4e with what's left of traditional FR. It is utter crap and those who wrote it should be ashamed of themselves.
Oh, and I will continue to be vocal about how horrible I think this setting has become in this edition.
To get to the heart of the matter; you're put off because details you came to like haven't made it into a revision that's meant to serve as groundwork and structure.
The first version of the Eberron Campaign Setting book was pretty much the same, and look at how colorful that's gotten as they released new sourcebooks over time. Granted; you might or might not like Eberron yourself, but attempting to do anything more than this either becomes too cumbersome to make immediate use of (such as the 3rd Edition FRCS) or becomes logistically impossible.
By all means, you are welcome to hate on things as much as you like. You might want to stop and think about what it is you really and truly wanted to see, though, compared to what sort of obligation that writers and designers generally feel they have to repackage something in it's entirety.
Do you think for a moment that anyone personally involved (to the point where they're direct contributors, such as said writers and designers, not marketers) on projects like these is someone who truly couldn't care less about the quality of the product? That's not how it works in a production house with any hope of success.
Thing is, everyone's got their own little favorite corner or niche, especially in something like a roleplaying campaign setting, and sometimes those things make it in, sometimes they have to be put aside in favor of strengthening the whole. The 4th Edition FRCG seems to be following this philosophy pretty diligently, and as far a simple functionality goes, it's a pretty good one.
How can a lack of information inhibit imagination?
And the counter to that is: How can a wealth of information inhibit imagination?
And the counter to that is: How can a wealth of information inhibit imagination?
That's a good debate. It's kind of subjective in the end, though, depending on where you fall in the spectrum of how many 'hooks' you need to properly flesh out a game.
And really, it's not even as simple as that; another big factor is exactly what kind of subject matter sparks your imagination by default (enough to build a whole story from) and what kind of scenario is less familiar territory that you're better off going into with more pre-described info.
I kind of look at this as one of the challenges DM-types tend to end up having to face sooner or later, anyway.
Here, they pretty clearly went with the presumption that it would better to present bare-bones all around.
One thing to bear well in mind, though, is that for when something is lacking where you figure you need it, no one's telling you you can't fall back on stuff from previous editions. That's why my 3.x Eberron books aren't going anywhere, and my 2e Planescape shelf continues to happily sag under the weight of giant box sets.
Do you think for a moment that anyone personally involved (to the point where they're direct contributors, such as said writers and designers, not marketers) on projects like these is someone who truly couldn't care less about the quality of the product? That's not how it works in a production house with any hope of success.
This may well be the case. But how often, from what we have heard from the designers et al., are those people allowed to act on their desires for the setting. There are always constrains on money, time and yes marketing. You don't have to suggest that the designers themselves didn't care, but their hands may have been tied (see the Elven subraces comment of Rich's).
Thing is, everyone's got their own little favorite corner or niche, especially in something like a roleplaying campaign setting, and sometimes those things make it in, sometimes they have to be put aside in favor of strengthening the whole. The 4th Edition FRCG seems to be following this philosophy pretty diligently, and as far a simple functionality goes, it's a pretty good one.
Yes indeed and I have two points to make on that subject. First of all that most of this seems to be down to a clash of cultures, the one that suggests that the setting details had value in and of themselves and the one that suggests that a setting detail is only as useful as it helps to run a game. Herein, I believe, lies the problem.
The second is that people are saying "the holes will be filled by DDI"... and nobody seems this as a drastic change in policy. Would people have considered saying that you should wait for Dragon or Dungeon articles before you could properly flesh out the Realms in 3E? No, they wouldn't. Yet people seem to accept, without query, that they will need to pay more money so they can get the material that was included in the previous CS for free... and continue to pay for it.
As such I believe that in one specific regard the FRCG is a phenomenally impressive piece of work. In paying for it, if you liked it at all and even if you didn't but still want to know the "whole story" it automatically sells DDI to you. Absolute. Blooming. Genius.
One thing to bear well in mind, though, is that for when something is lacking where you figure you need it, no one's telling you you can't fall back on stuff from previous editions.
Thats kind of my train of thought when it comes to the Realms as it stands now. I suppose some people need more inspiration then others.
One thing to bear well in mind, though, is that for when something is lacking where you figure you need it, no one's telling you you can't fall back on stuff from previous editions. That's why my 3.x Eberron books aren't going anywhere, and my 2e Planescape shelf continues to happily sag under the weight of giant box sets.
Sure, we are lucky on that aspect, but those who are just starting will not have access to all that lore, thanks to the complete separation of the editions and the lack of fleshing the new edition will have.
but what about the hats?
-Ok what about them. :P
-If he/she/they want them to signify social standing so be it. I dont need the books permission to do that anyways. ;)
18DELTA
This may well be the case. But how often, from what we have heard from the designers et al., are those people allowed to act on their desires for the setting. There are always constrains on money, time and yes marketing. You don't have to suggest that the designers themselves didn't care, but their hands may have been tied (see the Elven subraces comment of Rich's).
That happens. For the most part in things like this, the noose isn't so tight that a basic freedom for the designers to implement the overall vision as they see it can't be granted, though. Which is nice, because the design of all these things is still in the hands of people who've been creating and playing this for years, not with a bunch of suits with degrees in advertising clenched in their frigid grips.
You'll notice in the broader sense of the entertainment/gaming world, most of the products that are really and truly awful generally tend to be those that are A) hideously under-budgeted, or B) based on a preexisting license over which the copyright holder maintains iron-fisted control, knows why the license sells, but doesn't really understand the dynamics of the medium they're trying to shove it under. The obvious example of 'B' is pretty much any video game made that's based on a movie. They almost always suck, and that is why.
The license of D&D products, and the relation of the D&D designers and writers with the WotC corporation as a whole, seems to still be relatively free of these constraints. That, in itself, can't exactly be stated with absolute certainty, but nine times out of ten if you have someone truly believing products like the D&D lineup are genuinely abominable, you have an example of a guy who's blissfully bereft of ever having experienced a truly foul piece of work.
As such I believe that in one specific regard the FRCG is a phenomenally impressive piece of work. In paying for it, if you liked it at all and even if you didn't but still want to know the "whole story" it automatically sells DDI to you. Absolute. Blooming. Genius.
Ouch. Just, ouch. That hurts so good.
They don't feel like personalities to me, these NPCs could be anybody
That's the point, yes. They are just ordinary people who live there. Nothing special about them, whether the name is Elminster of farmer XY.
For DMs this might be a good thing. They can built the NPCs according to their own imagination. They set the race, alignment, class, everthing.
But for people like me who don't intent to play in or DM a campaign in the FR, but who just want to sit down, read in the book and each time discover some new curiosities (as it was with the FRCS) is it horrible. The setting no longer feels 'alive'. Now the NPCs are just leaders, mages, great heores. But you cannot even say to what race they belong, or class; least of all the level.
And that's my problem with the new Realms. All I wanted were some short-stats. I also noticed this in the Pathfinder CS. It also contained no short-stats (except one lich lvl 12 I think). So, although there are some interesting ideas presented in the CG this new development is really giving course to concern, to me personally.
None of the 3e books were like that.
Keep making excuses for them and see what you get in 5e. ;)
Anyway, I will agree that my pic was too-much and rude, so out of respect for Brian James and love for Ed I have changed it to just read FAIL! :D
So all you people who quoted me - Nah nah Nyah nah nah. :P
If you don't intend to play the game, why do you need stats?
Good question, indeed.
Because I like to stat out NPCs, monsters, deities, and all. As some people write stories about characters, I (and if you look at the Realms NPCs threads you can see that many more too) prefer making stats (or like it, at least). And if the race, the level, the class is given it is easier for me. Otherwise I could as well create my own world and stat out my own NPCs.
Anyway, I will agree that my pic was too-much and rude, so out of respect for Brian James and love for Ed I have changed it to just read FAIL! :D
So all you people who quoted me - Nah nah Nyah nah nah. :P
-:P
18DELTA ;)
You try making a map of an unknown location while surrounded by hungry monsters and people who would just love to kill you and take your equipment, see how many errors you avoid.
The map is an aid to the DMs campaign now, not a solid point of un-questionable realms lore.
And it's a useless aid.
DM: It takes you 23 days to reach this location according to the number of miles you can move in a day.
PC: Sure.
DM: You get there. Whoops, I found out this city is really flush with the coast. There's another day of journeying in there.
PC: My knowledge skills are useless! BLEEP you!
Maps need to be accurate BECAUSE they are DM aids. What in god's name made you think a dungeon master would want or desire an inaccurate map? Why don't you ask Markus, who makes these things all the time, just how fun it is for players to have to deal with inaccurate map results?
That is the most counterintuitive argument I've ever heard. Building in errors so that the DM can have more control is just insipid and ridiculous.
Good question, indeed.
Because I like to stat out NPCs, monsters, deities, and all. As some people write stories about characters, I (and if you look at the Realms NPCs threads you can see that many more too) prefer making stats (or like it, at least). And if the race, the level, the class is given it is easier for me. Otherwise I could as well create my own world and stat out my own NPCs.
Fair enough. I personally don't mind the lack of stats but I can appreciate that you and many others would prefer otherwise.
so about 40 people live in each building?
no because we have some detail on 12 of the buildings. some of which have few if any residents(stables, temple and patrol headquarters)
The if you try to scale this map the walls are 20' thick vs the 10' walls in the "Raid on Loudwater" map on pg 9, similarly Starra's Knives on the big map is 40'*40' and 10'*30' on the raid map. Its just horribly wrong and looks like it should be in the corner of a video game with a flashing green icon to tell you ware you are.
no because we have some detail on 12 of the buildings. some of which have few if any residents(stables, temple and patrol headquarters)
I was approximating.
Maps need to be accurate BECAUSE they are DM aids. What in god's name made you think a dungeon master would want or desire an inaccurate map? Why don't you ask Markus, who makes these things all the time, just how fun it is for players to have to deal with inaccurate map results?
That is the most counterintuitive argument I've ever heard. Building in errors so that the DM can have more control is just insipid and ridiculous.
What are you doing worrying about maps and their accuracy for. All your time needs to be devoted to killing monsters. The DM can hand-waive any map errors just like WOTC hand waived 20 years of realms lore. The game is about killing things and pushing mini-figs around the board, not stories. /sarcasm
I was approximating.
And I was spewing my disgust:D
What are you doing worrying about maps and their accuracy for. All your time needs to be devoted to killing monsters. The DM can hand-waive any map errors just like WOTC hand waived 20 years of realms lore. The game is about killing things and pushing mini-figs around the board, not stories. /sarcasm
That is the first thing in months, on these boards, that made me laugh.
-Looking at my FRCG it has Ed Greenwood's name where you put "by a bunch of hacks". :embarrass
-What is Ed a "hack" now? :P
-Also Brian R. James is inside the book. Is he a "Hack" also? :embarrass
-Let's not forget that Ed Greenwood, Brian, George, Steve Schend, all those other people, they're not perfect. I can't stand when people put Ed Greenwood on a pedestal, and "worship him". Yes, he has written and put out sub-par quality products, as has everyone else.
You mean in the way that the incorporeal overseeing DM does? The FRCG isn't a narrative told from a first person perception. It is supposed to be an objective presentation of information, plot hooks, character information and things that the DM can choose to include.
-Exactly.
You mean in the way that the incorporeal overseeing DM does? The FRCG isn't a narrative told from a first person perception. It is supposed to be an objective presentation of information, plot hooks, character information and things that the DM can choose to include.
He/she/it wants to change the map? All well and good. But shouldn't the one published be exactly that to give everyone a similar solid base to work from?
It's a matter of opinion, those who are obsessed with the details enough to care now have the ability to mine all those old FR books and choose how to incorporate those things left out or not detailed enough into the 4E setting.
Those who don't want to get that detailed can go with what's new, or pick the amount they wish to bring in.
I think 4E and FR by extension are more about giving players and DMs ideas and direction, as opposed to a solid base to become a new encyclopedia of dogma.
That's just my opinion, and the new edition is able to support all opinions.
-Let's not forget that Ed Greenwood, Brian, George, Steve Schend, all those other people, they're not perfect. I can't stand when people put Ed Greenwood on a pedestal, and "worship him". Yes, he has written and put out sub-par quality products, as has everyone else.
such as just about every one of his novels
Because there is less to work with. My style of DMing is HEAVLY improvised, and settings without detail never give me all the things I need to DM.
I don't like Eberron because of that. But I'm not an Eberron hater who constantly complains there is too little detail, I just leave them be, the same courtesy I expected from FR haters, but no, they had to complain and kill the only D&D setting that was extensively detailed, that's why you aren't going to see me be polite to anybody who complains about the quantity of lore that FR had.
People on the boards don't change settings. Time and Sales and Marketing does that. ;)
"-Let's not forget that Ed Greenwood, Brian, George, Steve Schend, all those other people, they're not perfect. I can't stand when people put Ed Greenwood on a pedestal, and "worship him". Yes, he has written and put out sub-par quality products, as has everyone else."
This is true. I liked Rich's Red Hand of Doom adventure but am not fond with the Archmage trilogy. I did not some of James Wyatt's novels but liked Storm Dragon immensly.
I certainly don't want NPC stat blocks for every single one... but I would like more of them to have been presented at all and the ones that were presented to have more than about 100 words each...
Manshoon's entry is two pages long.
such as just about every one of his novels
-Some would say, sure.
This is true.
-And more people need to keep that in mind more often. I dislike when people reminisce about the "good ol' days", when the setting was more in the format of Ed's original idea. The contributions of other authors and designers have made the setting so much better than what it was all by it's own. And, I'm sure Ed himself would agree with that, ironically.
Plus not all of the older supplements were gold or better than certain newer products IMO. Some were great and others were pretty bad.
Very True for certain. There were some real 2e duds
I really, really wanted to love the Realms 4th edition. Truly, I had high expectations, even though I was kind of averse to the whole 100 years go-ahead idea.
I have been playing, on and off, since the late 80s. I have had the grey box, the gold box, the third edition, a gazillion supplements. I loved almost everything about the Realms, particularly the novels with their inspiring characters.
Let's face it, the third edition FR campaign setting hardcover didn't win prizes and awards out of hearsay, it was truly amazing and loved by many. A hard task to match or surpass such an item!
But this... this is disappointing. I like the layout, the concept, the intentions. But the sheer insubstantiality, the neglect of follow-up on heroes (why do they still have some of the same villains and no heroes?) that many love dearly... Abeir is not so important to old school peeps, they could have significantly downsized that part... The deities and cosmology? Way too little! What's with the adventure, irrelevant in a core campaign book as it is, and at the very beginning of the book?! What kind of editorial decision is that?!
Many plead that the FR Player's Guide will fill gaps, expand on X and Y... Well sorry folks, if the core book cannot account for such important features like its predecessors, well it is kind of embarrassing to call it a core campaign guide, isn't it? And why should the players know anything about the history, cosmology, geography, politics, heroes, etc.? I have a feeling they won't, because it won't be there, it will be in several other books we will have to pay good $$$ for. I'm not against expansions, options et cetera, but this whole thing feels rushed.
Rushed. I love the WoW floating motes, I can see them in WoW, mind you, instead of imagining them in my Realms. Cutting down on the gods might be cool, but neglecting all but the greater gods is also a big no-no. Talking about genasi all over the Abeir cross-over is fun, but not providing once an idea of what a genasi is besides the glossary entry, what they look like, etc. is not going to help newbies to the Realms. I had forgotten what they were, and had to look them up wikipedia... 35 pages of precious info lost to an adventure... in the core book. A good, what, EIGHT pages on history, traveling, current era, what gives?
I really want to like 4E, and the Realms again. Please make me see wonders, old and new.
The entire concept of whacking how many odd years of lore due to it being too much for a new player to handle is well...lazy. To me, that's like someone taking an encyclopedia, tearing out 90% of its pages cuz, well, thats too much information to read for the average person. That's my analogy, or attempt at one. ;)
I like to think of the Realms in terms of: Ioulam destroying an entire orc horde with a barrage of spells. Elminster blowing a crater out of the side of a hill in a fireball throwing contest. I somehow just don't see things like that happening with the standard, at will 3d6+10 damage "nuke name of choice goes here" that all casters get now.
And Szass Tam? Haven't we all seen this before? Raistlin Majere tried it with his bid for godhood in dragonlance.
At any rate, its late, i r tired, and rambling. Man this all makes me sad.
/rant off.
Hello, first time poster here.
I really, really wanted to love the Realms 4th edition. Truly, I had high expectations, even though I was kind of averse to the whole 100 years go-ahead idea.
I have been playing, on and off, since the late 80s. I have had the grey box, the gold box, the third edition, a gazillion supplements. I loved almost everything about the Realms, particularly the novels with their inspiring characters.
Let's face it, the third edition FR campaign setting hardcover didn't win prizes and awards out of hearsay, it was truly amazing and loved by many. A hard task to match or surpass such an item!
But this... this is disappointing. I like the layout, the concept, the intentions. But the sheer insubstantiality, the neglect of follow-up on heroes (why do they still have some of the same villains and no heroes?) that many love dearly... Abeir is not so important to old school peeps, they could have significantly downsized that part... The deities and cosmology? Way too little! What's with the adventure, irrelevant in a core campaign book as it is, and at the very beginning of the book?! What kind of editorial decision is that?!
Many plead that the FR Player's Guide will fill gaps, expand on X and Y... Well sorry folks, if the core book cannot account for such important features like its predecessors, well it is kind of embarrassing to call it a core campaign guide, isn't it? And why should the players know anything about the history, cosmology, geography, politics, heroes, etc.? I have a feeling they won't, because it won't be there, it will be in several other books we will have to pay good $$$ for. I'm not against expansions, options et cetera, but this whole thing feels rushed.
Rushed. I love the WoW floating motes, I can see them in WoW, mind you, instead of imagining them in my Realms. Cutting down on the gods might be cool, but neglecting all but the greater gods is also a big no-no. Talking about genasi all over the Abeir cross-over is fun, but not providing once an idea of what a genasi is besides the glossary entry, what they look like, etc. is not going to help newbies to the Realms. I had forgotten what they were, and had to look them up wikipedia... 35 pages of precious info lost to an adventure... in the core book. A good, what, EIGHT pages on history, traveling, current era, what gives?
I really want to like 4E, and the Realms again. Please make me see wonders, old and new.
I keep reading this from various posters and can't see why they ask this.
It's because the PCs are the heroes! People complained about too many uber NPCs and secret organizations, so they culled the herd. And since the PCs are the good guys the bad guys were kept.
Bel
Just out of interest - after only reading the PDF excerpts ... is it just me or has the letter size increased and the amount of text per page massively dropped - compared to the FRCS?
Yep, I noticed this, too.
Here I pointed it out, briefly.
Manshoon's entry is two pages long.
Well done Misc, you have proved me wrong. With a single cheap shot you have sunk my battleship.
Unfortunately from the context of the discussion we were talking about:
a) NPCs plural... which Manshoon has attempted to be in the past but doesn't seem to be managing it much "these days".
b) The talk was about texture NPCs since I suggested that these were people I didn't want to see stats for as I never thought they would be in an "encounter".
So, to be honest, your comment proves nothing (as it was taken out of context), adds nothing to the discussion (by not actually addressing my point as to why almost all the NPC descriptions were two lines long) and has also managed to decrease my considerable respect for you. Bravo.
This all just gets silly after 5 pages y'know. ;)
I'm seeing only 3 pages :P (I view 50 posts per page).
This all just gets silly after 5 pages y'know. ;)
To which particular "this" are your referring, Rauric?
(4 pages for me :D )
Just warning that by page five it will be silly as hell. :D
Yup, I agree. The FRCG is as silly as hell after five pages. :whatsthis
I think one of the issues with "culling the herd" is that they did not just lessen the number of good NPCs they pretty much eliminated them all. All the ones we knew and loved are dead, in hiding, or vanished; while most of the evil ones are immortal, stronger, and still around. While people die of old age (no issue with that) and the setting is geared more towards points of light surrounded by evil (also no issue), the player's can not be the heroes for the ENTIRE world lol. I mean the frequent flyer mile perks would be nice but I mean the wear and tear on the boots would be brutal :D.
I think more of a balance could have been struck by perhaps maintaining a few more good aligned organizations and keeping their power levels and numbers low. The same could have applied to good NPCs.
But I definitely agree that the main heroes are supposed to be the players. But even players might need help sometimes.
Manshoon's entry is two pages long.
Another mistake
Never used the Keystone Kops, and I certainly don't want to lose two pages better spent elsewhere on their leader.
I don't think ANYTHING should have been statted - all of that could have went into a Web Enhancement. You know - like those WONDERFUL player's guides Paizo does for EACH of its adventure-paths, and gives out as a FREE pdf. People shouldn't have to pay for useless information - anything that does not have universal appeal belogs in a WE.
And the Monsters hsould have gotten their own book - they were able to release Monsters of Faerûn in 3e as a core add-on, so why couldn't this have been don in 4e, where it would have made even more sense?
The Campaign Guide should have had nothing but geographic info on Faerûn oproper - anything outside of that means including a lot of information most DMs won't use. Honestly, how many people had Manshoon make an appearance in their games? Its a waste of space.
WotC wants their DDi to be a success, but they are completely cluless as to how to make that happen - they don't even understand the purpose of 'digital enhancements', it seems.
Just out of interest - after only reading the PDF excerpts ... is it just me or has the letter size increased and the amount of text per page massively dropped - compared to the FRCS?
-Yes, the font is indeed larger in the FRCG. I've seen other people complain about the font size of older products, but I never had a problem with that.
I think one of the issues with "culling the herd" is that they did not just lessen the number of good NPCs they pretty much eliminated them all. All the ones we knew and loved are dead, in hiding, or vanished; while most of the evil ones are immortal, stronger, and still around.
-Again, going back to the balance example I've used on other things, the balance is too far uneven now.
1. NPC’s. The FRCG ……pg 86 states “this book is filled with nonplayer characters”. It has some NPC names. A name is not a NPC A NPC has stats. Those do not exist in this guide.
On pg 82 it states “Not simply a geographical catalog, this is a vibrant gazetteer of fantastic imagery and story. Well they got that wrong too. It is a geographical catalog……………….. with a map.
-Again, going back to the balance example I've used on other things, the balance is too far uneven now.
Just throwing out one possible reason for this, and it may be that the designers really viewed this book as a DM Gaming Resource setting and not a Lore/Story Setting book (let's keep the should they have done this or not for another discussion, okay?). There could very well still be uber-heroes out there just not detailed in this book because of that philosophy. Their (the heroes) stories will be told through the novels to come.
For example: Geren form the Swordmage book seems to be VERY capable and the Tiefling Wizard in the same book (can't remember the name) definitely had some juice...
Just throwing out one possible reason for this, and it may be that the designers really viewed this book as a DM Gaming Resource setting and not a Lore/Story Setting book (let's keep the should they have done this or not for another discussion, okay?). There could very well still be uber-heroes out there just not detailed in this book because of that philosophy. Their (the heroes) stories will be told through the novels to come.
For example: Geren form the Swordmage book seems to be VERY capable and the Tiefling Wizard in the same book (can't remember the name) definitely had some juice...
This is a very appropriate place to discuss whether they should have made it a lore/story setting seeing as the setting's history is that of a lore/story setting. Once again, the end product (4e FRCS) really shows that WotC (meaning the bozos in charge there) lost sight of what makes a good FR setting.
This is a very appropriate place to discuss whether they should have made it a lore/story setting seeing as the setting's history is that of a lore/story setting. Once again, the end product (4e FRCS) really shows that WotC (meaning the bozos in charge there) lost sight of what makes a good FR setting.
Yes, it is an appropriate place just not what I was discussing with LK at the time and hence why I suggested we save that for another thread/discussion. If you read my post, I was responding to a possible reason why and not making any quality statement either way in regards to IF they should.
Yes, it is an appropriate place just not what I was discussing with LK at the time and hence why I suggested we save that for another thread/discussion. If read my post, I was responding to a possible reason why and not making asny quality statement either way in regards to if they should.
So you are assuming this is your personal discussion board and the rest of us don't matter? Good to know. However, I will disregard that and make sure to pipe in on your private discussions whenever it suits me, mkay?
Just throwing out one possible reason for this, and it may be that the designers really viewed this book as a DM Gaming Resource setting and not a Lore/Story Setting book...
-As a DM resource, you still need information. Having glossed it over, there's enough information in the book to scratch the surface. But, if this book is the only campaign guide for 4e, like the designers have stated is the plan for now, then there isn't nearly enough information in total. So, when the DM needs more information on the 4e incarnation of the Yuirwood? He/she's going to have to start making things up. Most people, I hear, buy into campaign settings so that they don't have to make things up.
-As a DM resource, you still need information. Having glossed it over, there's enough information in the book to scratch the surface. But, if this book is the only campaign guide for 4e, like the designers have stated is the plan for now, then there isn't nearly enough information in total. So, when the DM needs more information on the 4e incarnation of the Yuirwood? He/she's going to have to start making things up. Most people, I hear, buy into campaign settings so that they don't have to make things up.
I agree, I also would have preferred more info (although I'd rather see that additional level of detail in a separate sourcebook like they did in 3.x or at least in a DDI article). But some like it will the less detail. Like I said, I'm not making a qualitative judgment on it either way, just pointing out that I think it was a conscious decision on the designers to do it the way they did.
So you are assuming this is your personal discussion board and the rest of us don't matter? Good to know. However, I will disregard that and make sure to pipe in on your private discussions whenever it suits me, mkay?
Did you have too much caffeine this morning or just looking to pick an argument?
LK posted something and I responded to him (See, that why I used quotes to reference his comment, as opposed to a general post to the OP's topic). People have discussion between each other all the time here. That's what a forum is for. Sorry if you took offense to LK and I discussing our opinions with each other.
-Yes, the font is indeed larger in the FRCG. I've seen other people complain about the font size of older products, but I never had a problem with that.
Which is another thing that makes NO sense what-so-ever.
We have been told repeatedly that these books get massive cuts before they see print, and tons of good info gets 'dropped' because of space constraints. In fact, BRJ stated that Ed Greenwood submitted 70 pages on Waterdeep alone, which had to be 'boiled down' to just six pages.
What purpose, then, was making everything a larger Font, thereby requiring even more infomation to be cut? Were they just being 'mean' for no reason at all?
It makes NO SENSE.
Which is another thing that makes NO sense what-so-ever.
We have been told repeatedly that these books get massive cuts before they see print, and tons of good info gets 'dropped' because of space constraints. In fact, BRJ stated that Ed Greenwood submitted 70 pages on Waterdeep alone, which had to be 'boiled downn' to just six pages.
What prpose, then, was making everything a larger Font, thereby requiring even more infomation to be cut? Were they just being 'mean' for no reason at all?
It makes NO SENSE.
Yeah, I would have preferred a font somewhere in between the FRCS and the FRCG. The CS was a bit too small for my aging eyes and the CG a bit too big.
On a side not, I think Ed said he submitted something like 400 pages of info on Waterdeep. Bad news, it wasn't in the CG, good news (hopefully, if it didn't get tossed) they have plenty of fodder for descent DDI articles later.
When I first bought the book, I was upset that the print was so tiny - but then the preface (in normal-sized type) explained that the book HAD to be printed with ¼ sized type, oitherwise it would have been a 1000 pages long, and cost three times as much!!!
Back then, a 300 page rulebook went for about $18
Anyhow, that is how it should be - the cost of printing is by page-count, NOT word-count, so there is absolutely no good reason for them to increase the text size in order to omit more information.
The company that produced that game - FGU - cared about producing a quality product. That was their #1 consideration; NOT rushing any old garbage out the door with their name on it, just so they could pad their resumes.
The guys who produced the FRCG have NO pride, IMHO.
On a side not, I think Ed said he submitted something like 400 pages of info on Waterdeep. Bad news, it wasn't in the CG, good news (hopefully, if it didn't get tossed) they have plenty of fodder for descent DDI articles later.
Which would be the ONLY logical reason to increase the Font size and cause more cutting - so that they could sell us all that information in another format.
They make me SICK.
This is a very appropriate place to discuss whether they should have made it a lore/story setting seeing as the setting's history is that of a lore/story setting. Once again, the end product (4e FRCS) really shows that WotC (meaning the bozos in charge there) lost sight of what makes a good FR setting.
Funny, I thought thry finally started to see what makes it good.
I used to play a game called Chivalry & Sorcery years ago, and it had THE most comprehensive rules I hav ever seen.
When I first bought the book, I was upset that the print was so tiny - but then the preface (in normal-sized type) explained that the book HAD to be printed with ¼ sized type, oitherwise it would have been a 1000 pages long, and cost three times as much!!!
Back then, a 300 page rulebook went for about $18
Which would be the ONLY logical reason to increase the Font size and cause more cutting - so that they could sell us all that information in anoher format.
They make me SICK.
Anyhow, that is how it should be - the cost of printing is by page-count, NOT word-count, so there is bsolutely no good reason for them to increase the text size in order to omiy more information.
The company that produced that game - FGU - cared about producing a quality product. That was their #1 consideration; NOT rushing any old garbage out the door with their name on it, just so they could pad their resumes.
The guys who produced the FRCG have NO pride, IMHO.
Or they felt that a very small font made a book difficult to read and hence a inferior product for some. Just a thought...
Or is WotC assuming that all gamers are geeks that need glasses?
Or is WotC assuming that all gamers are geeks that need glasses?
Himm... never thought of it that way.
Glad I opted for LASIK a few year back.
I particularly like the fact that they encourage people who want a timeline to buy the Grand History of the Realms, which while certainly a good product, shouldn't be mandatory for people who want a timeline. I mean, I'd have thought that THE book for DM's who want to run a game in the Realms would have a timeline in. Even better, they say that if you want a timeline of events in the years between 1385 DR and the start of the 4th Edition setting, you'll need to get the articles on DDI about it.
However, as I mentioned above, the Realms is now a setting for novels, not gamers. So it'll be a while before that timeline comes out. Or if it does come out soon, it'll be incomplete. So no details on what happened to Mask before Kemp's novel. No details on what happened to Luskan before Salvatore's next novel. No details on what Elminster's actually like until the novel after Ed's next. If you're a gamer who needs that information, well, tough luck. You'll have to go out and buy all those novels.
Less is more
This clearly shows that the Realms is primarily a place for churned out novels to be set, rather then a world in which to game in.
Preach it, Brutha! :D
The setting has become an eltist playground for a small 'old boys club'. It has absolutely nothing that is meant to appeal to the fans anymore.
No timeline simply means the have to do less work (is that even possible? :uh-huh
when writing anything, be it source or novel. Same thing goes for the lack of details - they have made it so they can do whatever they want and we can no longer question it's cohesion.The settings a friggin' mess, and they should have never let that atrocity ship.
Glad I opted for LASIK a few year back.
My ex got lasik - best damn thing she ever did. I think I spent 1/10 of my married life loking around for her contacts.
Which is another thing that makes NO sense what-so-ever.
...
What purpose, then, was making everything a larger Font, thereby requiring even more infomation to be cut? Were they just being 'mean' for no reason at all?
It makes NO SENSE.
-Because, apparently, the smaller font size made it hard to read.
Having small children, I do notice that the letters in the Kiddy books are quite a bit larger then the 'grown-up' books.
;)
the margins are too wide, but it doesn't matter cause it's very low quality product
No, no. The margins are that wide on purpose. WotC wanted to make absolutely sure that you, as DM, had plenty of room for your handwritten notes that would flesh out the campaign setting. It was strategic, you see.
Then everything you write in it becomes canon in your game!
Isn't that the most excellent idea EVA?! :D
I find it really difficult to understand why people think the inclusion of stats for every NPC is necessary, or even a good idea, for a gaming campaign setting book.
Because people love to theorize (e.g. how would Elminster do vs. Szass Tamm or if Cale could beat Entreri) and even more love an officical answer to their theories (aka actually getting their official game stats)
I started playing DnD in high school. All there was at the time was the original box set. I did not play again for 20 years and I did not even know if the game was still around. I looked for it on line one day because I want to play it with my kids and I discovered 3.5e. I bought the 3.5 core books......and others......... and started to learn a game that I loved as a kid. To my surprise I learned there was a 2e and 3e before that. About a year later I found 3.5e FRCG. Wow, I thought, here was all the answers that we did not have 20 years ago as a DM. A complete world to start with. Later on I learned the history and my kids and I play the FR setting. The 3.5 guide allowed me to learn about the realms in detail. I could not have done the same thing if I had started with 4e. I would be asking the question, Elmister who? I would learn nothing about the guy. This is sad that new players will not have a deeper understanding of FR without buying a ton of books from either 3.5e or future FR books that I am assuming will be out to fill the gaps.
Isn't that the most excellent idea EVA?! :D
No, the next version of the setting will be released, 89 words at a time, on small collectible trading cards that come in booster packs of 12 randomized cards. You will need to purchase approximately 62,343 booster packs to assemble the book.
While other will only be availble in Cereal Boxes, and with the purchase of Happy Meals.
Elminster! I chose YOU!!! :D
No, no. The margins are that wide on purpose. WotC wanted to make absolutely sure that you, as DM, had plenty of room for your handwritten notes that would flesh out the campaign setting. It was strategic, you see.
-I've hit people, for attempting to use my D&D books as something to lean on while writing. You don't write on, or in, my books...:fight!:
I liked the old FR. It was a diverse, original setting, but now, a lot of what made this setting what it was destroyed to make place for the new stuff. Not that the new material is bad, in fact I rather like a lot of the new fluff.
But I don't like the fact that this new material replace almost all the old one, I think that it would have been better to keep what made the success of the old one rather than present something almost totally different under the name Forgotten Realms, while it's so unlike the old Realms that it could practically be a new setting. It's like they just kept the name to attract the old fanbase. It made me feel cheated.
I liked the Harpers. I liked the Weave. I liked the fact that the races had their own independant pantheons. I liked the fact that you could have an egyptian-like character adventuring in a medieval environment.
Now all these things that made a good part of the old FR are gone.
The new FR are a good game. But I wish they hadn't destroyed another good game to create this one.
Preach on, brother!! Deliver the soul!!
I think WotC has finally done it - they've figured out how to bring about World Peace!!!
We'll have Muslims and Israelis hugging in the streets next!
Finally... something EVERYONE can agree upon.
It just seems to tease but never quite get there. Right now I am stayiong home with the kids while my wife works so I have little money to spend on this stuff. I just feel burnt.
I don't need stats for every npc but I would like a little info on them. If you make mention of someone importamnt tell me about them. Its not that I am not creative I have been playing for 25 yrs, I would just like a point in the right direction.
On one note, I did like the map.
I've never felt so positive about negativity before in my whole life. :D
I think WotC has finally done it - they've figured out how to bring about World Peace!!!
We'll have Muslims and Israelis hugging in the streets next!
Finally... something EVERYONE can agree upon.
You're turning into an evil hippy.
Here's my review of 4E FRCG, based on reading through a friend's copy (he was promptly kicked out of his group for this sacrilege! :P).
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 fist has somehow 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 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.
- The map. I must say that the overall look is very bleak and hard on the eyes, due to poor choice of the color palette. And, as many keen-eyed fans have already reported, there are a number of errors on the map, and I can't help but wonder at the general laziness of the cartographer, because most of the edges of the landmass and the roads seem more "angular" (i.e. hastily drawn) than ever before -- not to mention that the mountains and forests look suspiciously like they were ripped from satellite photos with PhotoShop's 'Stamp'-tool. All in all the map is the ugliest map of Toril I've seen so far.
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.
Now, I am not totally disappointed (to be honest, I am psyched that the cosmology is unified again), but I also have another product called the Pathfinder Campaign Setting coming to my doorstep very soon, and if it proves better, I might just throw in my lot with 3.75.
- Most people, I hear, buy into campaign settings so that they don't have to make things up.
This isn't that reasonable an assumption, though.
Beyond the specifics of an adventure's needs, a DM does not actually have to go into major detail about the outlying area (such as the Yuirwood).
Any DM attempting to create a tome like the FR Campaign Guide would have to undertake an exceptional effort, before he or she ever found players and got the campaign started.
Believe me, I can see where you're coming from. It's just that drawing the line in the sand where you've drawn it seems impractical, even a cop out.
Realms Dungeon Masters have been doing more with less for a long, long time. That's just part of what being a Dungeon Master is.
It's the most fun part, IMVEANSHO.
Thats why the next setting book will be composed entirely of blank pages YOU fill in!
Then everything you write in it becomes canon in your game!
Isn't that the most excellent idea EVA?! :D
-Good Grief!
18DELTA :P
(Crossposted from Candlekeep and EnWorld):
-More Ed worshiping. I ever mention I don't like Ed worshiping?
Beyond the specifics of an adventure's needs, a DM does not actually have to go into major detail about the outlying area (such as the Yuirwood).
-I disagree most wholeheartedly. Players inquire about more than just things that get covered in the "major details". When running a campaign in Aglarond, a DM may want to have his characters venture into the Yuirwood. Plenty of history and allure to the forest. Mind you, I don't remember off-hand how much coverage the Yuirwood got, but replace it with any somewhat obscure-but-known place, and figure it got about a paragraph or three. Now, run a game based on three paragraphs of information. Players are going to encounter NPCs who are based in the region. Players are going to encounter monsters/creatures that are based in the region. Players are going to encounter flora/fauna native to the region. Players are going to be told and be needing to know the history of the region. Players are going to this, that, and that. As I player, I specifically ask about these sorts of things, and as a DM, I specifically provide my players with these things.
-Incorporating all of the history the region has, based on the (presumably) three paragraphs or so on the Yuirwood, a DM is ill-prepared to set something in the area without having to make gross generalizations about things, and make large amounts of material up. Not that this is a bad thing, but again, people seem to buy pre-published settings to cut down on the amount of original material they need to make up on their own. (And, just because I checked, the Yuirwood only has 4 paragraphs on it in the Alglarond section of the FRCS, and a few scattered other mentions I didn't bother looking up).
The guys who produced the FRCG have NO pride, IMHO.
-What Ed Greenwood and BRJ have no pride now? First you call them hacks and now this.
:surrender :raincloud - I don't hero worship them. I DO respect them. :D
18DELTA :P
-More Ed worshiping. I ever mention I don't like Ed worshiping?
No, you never did. ;) :P
Seriously, LK, I honestly think the parts written by Ed were the only salvageable stuff in the book. In fact, I quite liked them, and it has nothing to do with "worshiping" Ed just because he is who he is -- I just have always liked his style, and found it inspiring.
No, you never did. ;) :P
Seriously, LK, I honestly think the parts written by Ed were the only salvageable stuff in the book. In fact, I quite liked them, and it has nothing to do with "worshiping" Ed just because he is who he is -- I just have always liked his style, and found it inspiring.
That's what I love about personal preference. Two people can have totally opposite views of of an item yet both can be right.
For me, I've read just about every Realms novels there have been and I find Ed's style my least favorite.
I think it depends on what level of detail a DM and his players want in a Realms game. At the minimum, region-specific NPCs are really just the NPCs a DM needs to run his or her adventure.
Should players/DMs want more, the FR Campaign Guide (for example) tells DMs a lot about what surrounds the Uuirwood in Aglarond. This includes Aglardond’s cities, fortresses and geographical locations (such as Veltalar, Undumor, Watchwall, Laothkund the Drowned, the Tannath Mountains, Citadel Dantalien, The Withchhouse....), it’s leaders (the Simbarch Council) and so on.
This isn’t exactly an NPC list, but it certainly is enough to set the tone and point DMs in the right direction.
Monsters/creatures in the region will be the ones you place there, again in relation to your adventure. Also, the FRCG gives DMs some advice on what creatures to use in the Yuirwood (hostile fey, wild tribes of elves and half-elves, strange monsters found just beyond the exits of the numerous portals that riddle the Yuirwood, plageulands creatures, all manner of undead evils from Thay that “find their way into the Yuirwood” and the six Velprin Witches).
Notice all the key words DMs can work from to find monsters in the Monster Manual?
The flora/fauna will be a generalist description that a DM makes up. In my experience, players are concerned more with how big/tall a tree is, how wide a bush is, whether you can hide on it/in it and how much cover it provides than they are with what kind of tree or bush it is.
Local and ancient history is oft-tied in to an adventure. A DM can easily add historical elements that support what he or she is doing and be ready to give them to the players. (This supports your argument too, though, because I’m suggesting having a bigger timeline gives more potential adventure hooks.)
For its part, the FR Campaign Guide informs DMs about Aglarond’s wars with Thay, Thay’s (really Szass Tam’s) response, the lands one and lost over the last one hundred years as well as the makeup of the Yuirwood as it exists today.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The phrase I live by is one coined by Sean Reynolds: Dungeon Masters, not Dungeon Lackeys.
It can be used in a pejorative sense, which suggests some are asking for all the work to be done for them, but I prefer to use it in a more enlightened way, which is as a reminder that DMing involves creativity, hard work, a sense of fun and the ability to invest time for the benefit of others as well as oneself.
In that regard, gross generalizations are hardly anything to worry about.
No, you never did. ;) :P
-Well, in case I haven't, there you go!
Seriously, LK, I honestly think the parts written by Ed were the only salvageable stuff in the book. In fact, I quite liked them, and it has nothing to do with "worshiping" Ed just because he is who he is -- I just have always liked his style, and found it inspiring.
-When flipping through the book, I don't remember being able to distinguish who wrote what and where, so...But, as a general rule, many, many people seem to get on other authors/designers for incontinuities/bad products/whatever else, while holding Ed to be the 'only' one who ever gets things right, when that is obviously not true.
Most people, I hear, buy into campaign settings so that they don't have to make things up.
I hear many people bought into Eberron and it was quite popular despite needing quite a bit to be made up. So I'd say that while you might have heard it, it isn't necessarily true.
Or is WotC assuming that all gamers are geeks that need glasses?
I do need glasses, yes (although not to read things close up). I also find the PHB text to be at a good size. I understand many disagree including yourself, I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm simply putting forth my opinion.
I'd think that a lot of the in game elements probably had a lot more to do with attracting a fanbase than a detail light setting. Again I haven't looked enough into it but from what little I have seen it looks like a fun setting.
The funny thing is most of us are going to buy the Player's Guide and we might get ripped again.
Not a chance. I will read the book before I buy it. If it is as weak and lacks the detail of the FRCG I am done with FR 4e.
I haven't looked at the Eberron setting so I can't really comment if it was the lack of 'lore' in it or if it was the ideas in the setting. From comments I'm guessing there is a 'steam punk' feel to it and then there is a race of "Shifters" as well?
I'd think that a lot of the in game elements probably had a lot more to do with attracting a fanbase than a detail light setting. Again I haven't looked enough into it but from what little I have seen it looks like a fun setting.
Comparing the new FRCG to the old Eberron CS setting is not fair. The latter has far more information then the former. The FRCG feels like it's a skeleton. The "meat" just not there. It feels like the authors ran out of ideas and decided to leave it like that.
I like quite a few of the changes so far. But a bit more information would have been nice.
I hear many people bought into Eberron and it was quite popular despite needing quite a bit to be made up. So I'd say that while you might have heard it, it isn't necessarily true.
-Going by what people are saying right here, Eberron presents more than enough information. I don't have any of the books, so I don't personally know.
Perspective, mind.
how is this supposed to bring new people in when the older versions didn't cost the same same. $40 books is not a good strategy for new blood.
no races, no new classes.
You do know that these thing where never inteded to be in the FRCG and had been announced months ago that they would be in the FRPG?
Aye, the Third Edition Eberron book is far more detailed than the FRCS is. Of course, there were no Eberron books before that one at all.
-And, there are no previous Forgotten Realms books in the current era, either.
-The Eberron books seem to have captured the "balance".
To get to the heart of the matter; you're put off because details you came to like haven't made it into a revision that's meant to serve as groundwork and structure.
The first version of the Eberron Campaign Setting book was pretty much the same, and look at how colorful that's gotten as they released new sourcebooks over time. Granted; you might or might not like Eberron yourself, but attempting to do anything more than this either becomes too cumbersome to make immediate use of (such as the 3rd Edition FRCS) or becomes logistically impossible.
By all means, you are welcome to hate on things as much as you like. You might want to stop and think about what it is you really and truly wanted to see, though, compared to what sort of obligation that writers and designers generally feel they have to repackage something in it's entirety.
Do you think for a moment that anyone personally involved (to the point where they're direct contributors, such as said writers and designers, not marketers) on projects like these is someone who truly couldn't care less about the quality of the product? That's not how it works in a production house with any hope of success.
Thing is, everyone's got their own little favorite corner or niche, especially in something like a roleplaying campaign setting, and sometimes those things make it in, sometimes they have to be put aside in favor of strengthening the whole. The 4th Edition FRCG seems to be following this philosophy pretty diligently, and as far a simple functionality goes, it's a pretty good one.
Right. The first FR stuff wasn't all that great and detailed. It took 20
years to get detailed by TSR and WOTC. The 1st EB book did not inspire me at all. I had to read a few more supplements to get into the setting. I am sure the DI articles will try and do the same thing for people.
The new book is fine for me. My imagination is pretty helpful.
...And I certainly won't miss all those miscellanious NPCs cluttering up the place. Elminster can stay permanently retired, for all I care.
It's funny, but everything the OP mentions as being what he dislikes about the new book, is exactly everything I'm starting to like from it. I like that it's a bare bones minimum sourcebook with just enough material for GMs to flesh things out to their liking.
I agree.
I'd also note that the OP's concern over the NPCs is really more of a fluff/novel concern that will not direct how one's campaign in the Realms happen, unless one went out of their way to incorporate the great NPCs into it.
-And, there are no previous Forgotten Realms books in the current era, either.
Which doesn't really matter, because one can't exactly pretend the older lore doesn't exist and isn't applicable.
Which doesn't really matter, because one can't exactly pretend the older lore doesn't exist and isn't applicable.
-Some of it is applicable, and some of it isn't applicable.