However I've been reading some reviews on the new FRCS and I have to say from what I have read is that it hasn't gone over too well with previous FR fans, and that the book is not that great and kind of a mess with the editing and such. Granted I have only glanced through my friends copy and he says he likes it, but he will eat up anything FR, doesnt matter what it is so I'm not exactly gonna go out and buy it on HIS reccomendation. So that's why i decided to ask strangers from the internet :D
What are your feelings on the new FRCS? Likes? Dislikes? I just want to get a little bit more feedback before i drop $40 on a book that may just make me cry.
Personally, I like what I've read so far but then I'm from an earlier era of FR. However I don't see why our opinions should matter more than your friend's, since they're all going to be equally biased.
I finally feel like the setting is mine (and my players') now.
And yeah i would ask to borrow his book but I don't see him enough to get it back to him in a timely enough manner. =)
Not that I don't like the book, but that was my first impression.
I've been with the Realms for the RPG since the grey box, but I'm not canon-entrenched or even too familiar with the novels. I love the 4e Realms because everything was wiped out. There was just too much canon out there for my taste and I constantly felt like I was tampering with someone else's game. I hated having to rewrite half of the modules because my campaign had different events and major NPCs than the "official" version pulled from someone's novel. To avoid having to wrangle all that work, the campaign stayed in a small area of the Sword Coast. Now we actually feel like exploring the rest of this world. I hope I hope I hope WOTC keeps the novels separate from the game this time and lets us write our own stories.
I finally feel like the setting is mine (and my players') now.
Novels are considered just as canon as they were before. They are not separate. The only thing accomplished was a wipe. Which will have to happen for those who like little material again in a few years.
As a setting, I think it's fascinating and well presented. Now, I have to here acknowledge that I go back to even before the Gray Box, at least in the sense that I purchased and read and spectacularly failed at running the Bloodstone modules as they were released, and in that my high school/college days DM launched our second campaign with the Dragon magazine version of the "Lord Lashan" module (though he quickly veered into a home brew that just used FR place names). So one of the things that fascinates me is how much has--and has not--changed. The book stands up very well--in my opinion--to the old gray box in terms of quantity and quality of information. And of course art design and production values have come a long way since 1987 (though I'll always have a soft spot for the old "vellum textured" paper).
So, as the latest big change in the published Realms, I think it works great--it acknowledges what's gone before and then lays out how things are now.
It's more difficult for me to judge it as a standalone piece of gaming design because of all my personal history with the Realms, but there, too, I believe it's work. There are more than enough launching pads in just the two hardcovers for creative DMs and players to begin a thousand stories heading in a thousand different directions. As with the earliest Realms products, that density of information in the geographical descriptions is there, it passes the old test. Open to a page and plunk down your finger at random in Chapters 6 or 7, and you'll find something that you can build a campaign out of.
There's stuff I wish there was more of, but that's how it always is at the beginning. My only real "complaint" is that while I like the general aesthetic of the maps they're not rigorous enough for the kind of utility I like to get out of campaign cartography.
I've been with the Realms for the RPG since the grey box, but I'm not canon-entrenched or even too familiar with the novels. I love the 4e Realms because everything was wiped out. There was just too much canon out there for my taste and I constantly felt like I was tampering with someone else's game. I hated having to rewrite half of the modules because my campaign had different events and major NPCs than the "official" version pulled from someone's novel. To avoid having to wrangle all that work, the campaign stayed in a small area of the Sword Coast. Now we actually feel like exploring the rest of this world. I hope I hope I hope WOTC keeps the novels separate from the game this time and lets us write our own stories.
I finally feel like the setting is mine (and my players') now.
Seconded. For the first time in over a decade, I feel like I want to play in the Realms, not that I'll simply tolerate it.
I love the Realms setting. Started playing with the 3E release and loved the kind of atmosphere and history of the setting. When 4E was released i was skeptical but gave it a chance and is slowly growing on me, and i think I'll like it more as more options for characters come out.
What are your feelings on the new FRCS? Likes? Dislikes? I just want to get a little bit more feedback before i drop $40 on a book that may just make me cry.
Well, everyone here already knows that I'm biased against the 4E Realms setting. I do not like it. However, if your friend has the book, pore over it for a bit and see if it "grabs" you.
If you shop around, you can probably get the book for less than $40. Amazon usually gives a good discount.
I think overall if you don't need the class and other stuff, for a DM, the FRCG is the better book. It's got a lot of good ideas for plots, scenes and other things, with some useful new monsters here and there. If you're not a DM, the FRPG is all you'll really need to be honest, the class and other things in there make it quite worth it.
If you want a comprehensive and detailed resource on realms history, NPCs and stuff this isn't what these books are for. They are clearly for setting the scene of the realms and similar (IE: this is how things are in various places), so to make the realms for anyone to put their ideas into rather than an existing metaplot. This is both good and bad, because while it gives a DM much more freedom it also means you need to do a lot more work in setting things up (as for example, there aren't fixed NPC stat blocks and similar for numerous NPCs like in the FRCS). Personally, I don't mind this aspect because reading the book gives me plenty of adventuring ideas in nearly every location (bar a few) and that's what I need from a setting.
Not giant statblocks of random NPCs that I am almost certainly going to kill off. From my point of view, the lack of giant pointless NPC statblocks, except where appropriate for things my PCs could theoretically actually fight, is a real positive.
However I've been reading some reviews on the new FRCS ... and that the book is not that great and kind of a mess with the editing and such.
I own the book and use it for my own 4E Realms campaign.
I have to say I have not noticed the kind of editing errors you mention having read in other reviews.
Granted I have only glanced through my friends copy and he says he likes it, but he will eat up anything FR, doesn’t matter what it is so I'm not exactly gonna go out and buy it on HIS recommendation. So that's why i decided to ask strangers from the internet :D
What are your feelings on the new FRCS? Likes? Dislikes? I just want to get a little bit more feedback before i drop $40 on a book that may just make me cry.
I guess it depends on whether you want the book primarily to read about the setting or to use it to game in the setting.
If the later, the book is great. It’s right on par with the Gray Boxed Set books in terms of presenting the “new” Realms. Plenty of information to start a campaign around, an adventure right at the front end of the book and some useful information for building characters. And unlike other FR sourcebooks, this FRCG even has two pages worth of unique Realmsian words and phrases that can be used during play.
Pick up the FR Player’s Guide along with the FRCG and you’re all set.
If on the other hand you want the book as a lore resource, well the FRCG may not be the best purchase. Granted it’s pretty much the only book of lore for the current setting, but it’s not nearly as encyclopedic a tome as one might want.
Just like twenty years ago, we'll have to wait for more information to be relased about the new setting.
So, definitely more than enough information to run a fun and exciting campaign in the Realms, but not the sort of sourcebook that’s on par with something like a Volo’s Guide or similar.
:::::::::::::
As an aside, I've found the FR Campaign Guide is a good "random read."
That is, I like to pop it open to a random page and just read what's there. Usually I find something interesting and I read a few pages.
For example, tonight I read Elminster's sidebar (on page 113) for the first time.
If you can, borrow your friend's copy or go to a bookstore and read through it. If you love it and think you'll use it, then that's great. If not, remember that there is a ton of early material that's kept alive also.
For example, tonight I read Elminster's sidebar (on page 113) for the first time.
I'm undecided if I want to bring him back into the setting or leave him rotting in the 9-hells like I decided to last time I ran a realms campaign. I kinda like the idea he's a little kooky and keeps to himself out on his farm.
I feel you, Aegeri.
Elminster has disappeared from my 3E game per the events in the Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land adventure. Though the Simbul took on his form to fool my players a few times, I eventually revealed it was her.
I think I want to keep Elminster out of my 4E game until the players hit the Epic Tier (levels 21-30) which should be some time from now.
This will give me the time I need to establish what happens to Elminster in my 3E game (as both my 3E and 4E game follow the same timeline, with the same players) and really let the epic 3E characters shine once the big throwdown with Shade and the minions of Vaerhaun and Kiaransalee happens.
I personally think that too much was changed in the 100-some years, and it doesn't quite feel the same. So far I prefer the old version; there are quite a few changes that sound weird or just absurd to me.
Which old version? :D
1) Volume of Material - I mean, seriously, for a while under TSR, almost everything under the sun was Forgotten Realms this and that, and it was all FLUFF. The amount of detail was completely and totally staggering. While being a interesting read, there were many times where I wondered what I really should do with all this time lines, and all this cultural information, much less what the heck do I do for adventures there. If you ran more then one region in the Realms back then, I think you'd have to be amazing. It was far easier to work with the Gazettes (Mystra) then it was with the realms.
When 3E came around, they dropped a lot of the fluff, though not all of it, and there was STILL too much of it. With ... what, seven books? detailing the content, with each region given it's special thing still...
Shorter form. There was too much to know. Not everything you read was worth knowing. Therefore taking the game and making it your own was very much harder.
2) The Fans - This is slightly evolved problem that ties into the first. I've not read every novel. I don't read every TSR supplement. I do not have a vested interest in the Realms. I don't like Dritz. I don't care about Elmenster. I tend to dislike Drow in general, anyway. There is a lot of material that I don't want to read to run the game. However, bring up that you are going to run the realms at the local game store, and you NEED to have read everything under the sun. The fans will go on about whole novels and campaigns for hours on end, and while you know everyone does this to an extent, it really drives the point home that if you want to run the realms before 4E, you had to be ultra dedicated to the material. This means that the Forgotten Realms was not a Casual Game. This annoyed the heck out of me, and discouraged me from running in the Realms at all.
3 The Gods - No, I don't mind having over 300 gods. I can deal with that. The problem that I have is that pretty much in the Realms, ever since the ToT, which Personified the Gods into Characters, there seems to be an overwhelming need to have the Gods involved in everything. While I am all for a church or two getting involved in plots, a lot of the material, from what I gathered directly tied into "This God wants this done, and is making all these things happen.", and really, that's not why I'm running games. While I can certantly ignore that level, the people who play the Realms expect this level of play. It's still a problem even with the reset, in my opinion.
----
The reason I like 4E over the 2nd Edition releases to the end of 3.5 (I actually liked the Grey Box) is that there is the intended promise of Not a Huge Amount Of Material That I WILL Need To Memorize. I am not being weighed down with a Historical Timeline of every region. I am not being weighed down by thirty plus cultural differences between each region. I'm not being weighed down by each regions special monster, or the details of X or Y. For once, I find myself with Grey Box Level of information to run a game with. I am finding spaces which are not described in details in the books. I am finding some room to run again, and because they moved the timeline forward far enough, I don't have to deal with any of the baggage that people might still connect with the older setting.
Really, I don't mind people love the Realms, really I don't. I am glad that there are people who are passionate about their games and their books. It just really makes it harder then heck to use the space when the expectation bar is set really high.
If your a 4e player and looking for a setting, it's the only game in town, so I guess you should buy it (or make-up your own).
I wouldn't recommend it to long-time fans of the Realms, for various reasons, but for new players it does it's job adequately.
Karazhan, I really appreciate and respect your calm response, and maybe it was the people who I met that makes the expectations high. I'm glad that you feel more comfortable having a wealth of information to call upon for your games.
Well, I appreciate yours as well. I think a lot of the problems with anger towards the settings could be solved if people approached the discussion in such a way. Personally, I can see how so much information might be daunting to some.
The Campaign Guide, well, I didn't feel I got great value there in terms of content, but it was all right, very professional; there were no glaring errors or imbalances or anything like that. I read it and felt that I might be willing to play in the Realms, or even DM in the Realms - and I used to HATE the Realms.
I thought that I would like a bit more information (or a bit _less_ information; we don't need to know the name of a treant in a forest in a country on the other side of the world from where my campaign might to be set) on each region. Either would be OK! My own preference would have been to have two regions (one new, one old) in much more detail - 20 pages or so for each and then slightly edited down summaries of the rest of it; I would have found the book real-estate by cutting the adventure at the beginning.
Although maybe it's a good idea to have the first 40 pages or so taken up with adventures, I didn't think the adventures were especially good (they weren't bad, you understand, I just felt that they were rather contrived and unoriginal, probably OK to play though), or particularly setting-specific. Also - and this is probably my main concern - I think it's a bad idea to start a campaign with a pre-made adventure, and, since this adventure is for first level characters...
The reason I like 4E over the 2nd Edition releases to the end of 3.5 (I actually liked the Grey Box) is that there is the intended promise of Not a Huge Amount Of Material That I WILL Need To Memorize.
I can understand and appreciate that you found the old Realms hard to get into. However, I think you do in fact know that you didn't "need" to "memorize" anything. And I seriously doubt the 4E sourcebooks are going on the premise that the older sourcebooks insisted that people "memorize" them...because they didn't.
By the way, I really don't understand this exaggerated meme going around about FR fans having read and memorized every single product with the FR logo on it, or that doing that is necessary to enjoy the setting. I'm big fan of the setting and there's tons of stuff I haven't gotten around to reading yet--and to be honest, there are in fact pre-4E Realms products that I'm not entirely interested in.
While I am all for a church or two getting involved in plots, a lot of the material, from what I gathered directly tied into "This God wants this done, and is making all these things happen.", and really, that's not why I'm running games. While I can certantly ignore that level, the people who play the Realms expect this level of play.
Which people? Certainly not me...
The old Realms weren't for you and I think that's perfectly fine. But please be careful about caricaturing those who might not feel the same way you do.
Also - and this is probably my main concern - I think it's a bad idea to start a campaign with a pre-made adventure, and, since this adventure is for first level characters...
Why do you say it's a bad idea?
Not everyone who picks up these books are skilled DMs. A pre-made adventure can help people get started in the right direction.
For those unfamiliar with landscape features, that's a sudden dropoff in the terrain that's nearly impossible to perceive.
By the way, I really don't understand this exaggerated meme going around about FR fans having read and memorized every single product with the FR logo on it, or that doing that is necessary to enjoy the setting.
But surely by now you've seen (and responded) to enough of these statements to know the idea is very real.
Some people perceived -rightly or wrongly- that it's necessary to read and know as much as possible about the old Realms before play could start in it.
There's no sense trying -no matter what method you choose- to disprove this fact or otherwise tell people they were "mistaken."
With respect, comments that take judgemental stances of other forum members views on how they perceive the setting should not be part of "What do you think about X?" threads like this.
This is how the last set of flame wars started. Let's not repeat that, please.
I personally think that too much was changed in the 100-some years, and it doesn't quite feel the same. So far I prefer the old version; there are quite a few changes that sound weird or just absurd to me.
Thats pretty much me too. This is not the Realms anymore, its a different setting. You may like it (I personally think it was poorly designed) or you may not, but it is certainly not the Realms
I can understand and appreciate that you found the old Realms hard to get into. However, I think you do in fact know that you didn't "need" to "memorize" anything. And I seriously doubt the 4E sourcebooks are going on the premise that the older sourcebooks insisted that people "memorize" them...because they didn't.
By the way, I really don't understand this exaggerated meme going around about FR fans having read and memorized every single product with the FR logo on it, or that doing that is necessary to enjoy the setting. I'm big fan of the setting and there's tons of stuff I haven't gotten around to reading yet--and to be honest, there are in fact pre-4E Realms products that I'm not entirely interested in.
Not that I don't agree with your second statement, but local reality has shown me differently.
The players that I had access to in Southern California didn't follow your thought processes on the game. Maybe it's just the RPGA people, but there was a huge wealth of information that needed to be memorized well enough to know which of the plethora of books you needed to find the information in. You had to know which of four books to find a particular specialty priest, which of several books you had to look in to find the specialty equipment, which supplement (And later, just have access to the Encyclopedias) had which spell. I'm sorry, there is a HECK of a lot more then just fluff going on to remember, and the Fluff, unfortunately, did matter, which is worse. Heck, about every RPGA player in Orange County could quote the Ravens Bluff Book verse and chapter, so obviously the fluff and setting were very important to people.
So yes, there was a LOT of pressure to know everything, and know everything as well as your players.
Which people? Certainly not me...
The old Realms weren't for you and I think that's perfectly fine. But please be careful about caricaturing those who might not feel the same way you do.
I can't help it if you want to take this statement personally, and I deeply respect that you didn't run the realms the way I've seen it run. It would have been refreshing not to have to deal with that particular baggage
However, your game is not a reflection on what often happens to people who are new and are looking for a Realms game end up finding. They find people who are much more hard core then you seem to be, and being hard core, they want games that reflect they have read. I know of three very specific players who wanted to run into Avatars, who wanted to be personal buds with Dritz and Elemenster and Hastar, and who quite frankly seemed to know everyone of importance in the Realms and most of the time, anything they had recall upon was correct.
Maybe if I had you as a DM or as a Player, I would have a different reflection, but as I didn't, I just have to go by the experiences I've had. Experience has shown that Forgotten Realms hadn't been a casual experience since the advent of 2nd Edition. I am really hoping that the FRCG/PG will help instill a new sense of casualness to the setting.
The players that I had access to in Southern California didn't follow your thought processes on the game.
Going by what you're saying, that appears to be the case, although of course I've never met these players and I do not know the whole story.
I can't help it if you want to take this statement personally...
It's not about me "wanting" to take stuff personally. I just requested, as a friendly suggestion, that you be careful about generalizing people. I really don't think that's too much to ask.
...and I deeply respect that you didn't run the realms the way I've seen it run. It would have been refreshing not to have to deal with that particular baggage
Well to be honest I've never "run" a game--I've never been a DM, only a player.
But I do think it's fair to say I wouldn't run games in a such draconian manner, because I think these games are for fun.However, your game is not a reflection on what often happens to people who are new and are looking for a Realms game end up finding. They find people who are much more hard core then you seem to be, and being hard core, they want games that reflect they have read. I know of three very specific players who wanted to run into Avatars, who wanted to be personal buds with Dritz and Elemenster and Hastar, and who quite frankly seemed to know everyone of importance in the Realms and most of the time, anything they had recall upon was correct.
Of course my experiences are not a reflection of what happens to everyone. However, just remember that the same thing goes for everyone, yourself included. Personal experience does not necessarily impart "universal truth", and even if it did that, people still would seldom evaluate their experiences objectively.
Maybe if I had you as a DM or as a Player, I would have a different reflection, but as I didn't, I just have to go by the experiences I've had.
Right, but I'm sure I already said I accepted that?
My players and I don't like the new pantheon, which logically doesn't make sense for what would have happened. Why would elves and dwarves, whos lifespans are so long, drop so many gods in less than one generation? So much chaos, and pain, why did gods with these natures get dropped (loviatar comes to mind firstly, as an example).
I understand that WOTC wanted to stream-line things, but in the end their going to just release more books and make it just as complicated. I think they should have thought things through a bit more before release. I see a FR players guide 2 being released relatively soon.
That being said, not all of it is bad. The book details some new classes which are interesting. I will always recommend looking at the book and deciding before you buy. If you have a currently running FR game, and think you can somehow switch over to new editions, don't even bother. It's basically not do-able.
Please remember that disagreeing with each other is acceptable in these forums, just keep your posts from straying into personal attack territory.
Thanks,
However, your game is not a reflection on what often happens to people who are new and are looking for a Realms game end up finding. They find people who are much more hard core then you seem to be, and being hard core, they want games that reflect they have read. I know of three very specific players who wanted to run into Avatars, who wanted to be personal buds with Dritz and Elemenster and Hastar, and who quite frankly seemed to know everyone of importance in the Realms and most of the time, anything they had recall upon was correct.
This has been my experience as well. It's pretty frustrating, really. It's great that players want to effect the world (talking past lvl 15) but in general being buddy-buddy with these high-place NPC's really ends up bogging the game down. This coming from a DMs perspective.
Not having the 100 year jump covered in detail doesn't bother me, which is strange because I'm so into history. Still, it reminds me of growing up hearing stories about the Great Depression and WW2. They were epic events that shaped the world as I knew it (and know it now), but without the actual memory of it, it was just stories. I didn't experience the sweeping changes as they happened, so the way the changes left the world was the only way I ever knew. It's like if I tried to get my 13 year old nephew to imagine a time before video games and the internet. He'd know there was once a time when seeing a little white square get batted back and forth across a TV screen was amazing, but I doubt he'll ever understand what it was like to see it for the very first time, the jaw-dropping wave of awe that swept across us as we stood mesmerized by the *blip* *boop* *blip* (sounds like a Kuo Toa deity, eh?) of Pong.
So in comparison, whatever summaries and "trust us, this happened" they put out is fine by me. I'm not hard core Realms, so the details of the inner-workings aren't as important. Still, for the sake of those who are, they should do something to give them a good grasp of events. (It's also good pickin's for adventure plots! I plucked a little from GHotR and dropped an elven artifact, a sword, into the hands of one of the drow PCs. He enjoys the irony.)
-Thanks guys/gals for not turning this thread into a flamefest. Thank you all.
18DELTA :D
4e FR stuff = Epic win!
Enough said.
(IMO, of course)
I had to work pretty hard at keeping my old players from wanting to pal around with major NPCs.
I was thinking--if the PCs want to do that, is it really so bad? Up to a point (which is different for everyone), it could be immersive. As PCs gain levels, it makes sense that they'd attract friendly attention as well as unfriendly attention, and creating a network of contacts and allies can make the players feel like they are gaining power in the setting and are actually affecting things.
Which old version? :D
Ah, good point. I liked the 3.X one, though I admit my knowledge of the previous one/s was rather cursory.
I was thinking--if the PCs want to do that, is it really so bad? Up to a point (which is different for everyone), it could be immersive. As PCs gain levels, it makes sense that they'd attract friendly attention as well as unfriendly attention, and creating a network of contacts and allies can make the players feel like they are gaining power in the setting and are actually affecting things.
I felt they would have started relying on the major NPCs to get themselves out of jams instead of working their own ways through things. I didn't mind too much if, as I said, they contacted said NPC for advice or something like that. What I wanted to avoid was them trying to take someone like Drizzt into a dungeon with them. I wanted the players to be the stars, not be deferring to the NPC.
I felt they would have started relying on the major NPCs to get themselves out of jams instead of working their own ways through things. I didn't mind too much if, as I said, they contacted said NPC for advice or something like that. What I wanted to avoid was them trying to take someone like Drizzt into a dungeon with them. I wanted the players to be the stars, not be deferring to the NPC.
-Hey, it's their choice. Drizzt goes in there with them, does everything for them, and at the end of the day, he gets all of the accolades and EXP.
18DELTA :embarrass
I felt they would have started relying on the major NPCs to get themselves out of jams instead of working their own ways through things. I didn't mind too much if, as I said, they contacted said NPC for advice or something like that. What I wanted to avoid was them trying to take someone like Drizzt into a dungeon with them. I wanted the players to be the stars, not be deferring to the NPC.
Well, I guess my point is that deferring to an NPC or being overly dependent on them is not quite the same thing as being friends with them (and using that to an advantage in the game). Again, the limits of what's acceptable are different for everyone.
What I wanted to avoid was them trying to take someone like Drizzt into a dungeon with them. I wanted the players to be the stars, not be deferring to the NPC.
Sucks for the DM too.
You do all that prep work and the PCs copout and ask someone else to take care of the problem for them.
Better to keep "name" NPCs out of the picture until the PCs are high enough level that they're on even footing.
Then the players can be portrayed as equals and figure out they need to keep stepping up to the plate on their own.
In many ways, what I did to get rid of this problem (naturally though, this caused problems as well when players are determined to go looking for these NPCs, despite being more dead than dead could be
) was similar to 4E. Getting rid of high level good NPCs also let me set the power level of my campaign more comfortably. Nobody can take a threat from a middle power type orc chieftain seriously when someone could have just teleported in and ruin his face easily without any effort (because they are epic level and this is like, a dood about level 9). If there is one thing about 4E realms I love, it's that I decide the power level of the campaign: not the designers.
What are your feelings on the new FRCS? Likes? Dislikes? I just want to get a little bit more feedback before i drop $40 on a book that may just make me cry.
It will make you cry. Don't spend 40 cents on it