4th Ed. Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting - what the.....

[XXsiriusXX]

I just read a copy of the new 4th Ed. Forgotten Realms campaign setting and I just have to ask, what the hell have they done? I have read about 60% of the book and it has really put me off of the whole setting. I was just wondering what others thought of the changes to the setting and how they liked them.

Edit: The CBG does not endorse piracy and does not promote discussion thereof.  This post has been edited to reflect this fact.  Cheers! -Ish

[Elemental_Elf]

IMO, they changed the setting because WotC wanted to make Forgotten Realms more like Eberron. More mystery, more adventure, less background, less NPCs. It worked great for Eberron, so why not Forgotten Realms?

Of course the end product (which I have read much about, save actually buying the FR book) was terrible. They butchered a wonderful and deep setting so they could push more setting books... Its a shame because FR was amazing... What they created is a shell of its former self.

FR died in 2008.  

[Ninja D!]

I don't like the changes.  I do like the Spellplague.  Of course, I never was a big fan of Forgotten Realms.

[Drizztrocks]

I ordered my books with an open mind. I hope I like it.

[Eclipse]

I never liked Forgotten Realms. I'm going to start off with that fact, pure and simple.

However, having read the books...I like the new FR, quite a bit. The Spellplague is interesting, and I love the idea of playing a spellscared swordmage. That being said, much as I never liked FR, they shouldn't have strip-mined it to create this new setting. They should have started from square one, not butchered an existing (and much loved) setting.

[Polycarp]

I respected FR for what it was - an all-inclusive, kitchen sink, ready made, standard D&D world.  Because I don't find all of those things necessarily agreeable, I was never a big fan, but there's something to be said for a world as comprehensive as FR was (and is).

I never quite appreciated this until I played NWN and realized how great it was to have a campaign setting so common that you could go from world to world and still know something about what was going on.  It's fine to learn the lore of a campaign setting when your PnP group is beginning a campaign that could last for years, but for one-shot/short-term PnP campaigns or NWN servers it's a real asset to have a "common language."

In some sense I think it's silly to criticize a world for changing.  After all, if you like the c. 1372 DR FR better, there's nothing (except maybe a little conversion work) stopping you from playing it with 4th ed rules.  I do think their recent changes are somewhat ham-fisted (the complete erasure of Halruaa stands out, not to mention the criminally over-used plot device of "Mystra dies"), but that won't change the fundamental reasons why FR is useful.  It is what it is and I don't think its new incarnation has "ruined" that in any fundamental respect.

[XXsiriusXX]

IMO, they changed the setting because WotC wanted to make Forgotten Realms more like Eberron. More mystery, more adventure, less background, less NPCs. It worked great for Eberron, so why not Forgotten Realms?

Of course the end product (which I have read much about, save actually buying the FR book) was terrible. They butchered a wonderful and deep setting so they could push more setting books... Its a shame because FR was amazing... What they created is a shell of its former self.

FR died in 2008.  

I with you on that one

I ordered my books with an open mind. I hope I like it.

While I find it to be disappointing, I hope that you enjoy it.

I never liked Forgotten Realms. I'm going to start off with that fact, pure and simple.

However, having read the books...I like the new FR, quite a bit. The Spellplague is interesting, and I love the idea of playing a spellscared swordmage. That being said, much as I never liked FR, they shouldn't have strip-mined it to create this new setting. They should have started from square one, not butchered an existing (and much loved) setting.

spellscared swordmage does sound interesting, my only question for you is do you like Eberron? The only reason that I ask is because I have been talking to a few other people about this and have found that people who like Eberron like the new FR, just wanted to see if it still holds true.

I respected FR for what it was - an all-inclusive, kitchen sink, ready made, standard D&D world.  Because I don't find all of those things necessarily agreeable, I was never a big fan, but there's something to be said for a world as comprehensive as FR was (and is).

I never quite appreciated this until I played NWN and realized how great it was to have a campaign setting so common that you could go from world to world and still know something about what was going on.  It's fine to learn the lore of a campaign setting when your PnP group is beginning a campaign that could last for years, but for one-shot/short-term PnP campaigns or NWN servers it's a real asset to have a "common language."

In some sense I think it's silly to criticize a world for changing.  After all, if you like the c. 1372 DR FR better, there's nothing (except maybe a little conversion work) stopping you from playing it with 4th ed rules.  I do think their recent changes are somewhat ham-fisted (the complete erasure of Halruaa stands out, not to mention the criminally over-used plot device of "Mystra dies"), but that won't change the fundamental reasons why FR is useful.  It is what it is and I don't think its new incarnation has "ruined" that in any fundamental respect.

I'm not criticizing the world for changing; I am criticizing the changes to the world. I am all for adding changes to an established world, but changes that enhance not detract. I'm not saying this because we disagree; I am just stating my position.

We do seem to agree that some of the changes are rather hackneyed

I personally believe that for the 4ed switch over WotC should have reintegrated the minor campaign settings of Al-Qadim and Maztica back to Faerun.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I think the FR does a good job at being a high-magic setting with fully-detailed world in which players can play literally any kind of character they want.  Want to be an amazonian-jungle-dwelling misfit?  Want to be a cold-hearted, pillaging barbarian?  Want to be a sophisticated socialite?  Want to be a desert raider?  Want to be Indiana Jones?  Want to be Han Solo?  All of these can be played in the FR, and that's what the setting does well.

[Eclipse]

I never liked Forgotten Realms. I'm going to start off with that fact, pure and simple.

However, having read the books...I like the new FR, quite a bit. The Spellplague is interesting, and I love the idea of playing a spellscared swordmage. That being said, much as I never liked FR, they shouldn't have strip-mined it to create this new setting. They should have started from square one, not butchered an existing (and much loved) setting.

spellscared swordmage does sound interesting, my only question for you is do you like Eberron? The only reason that I ask is because I have been talking to a few other people about this and have found that people who like Eberron like the new FR, just wanted to see if it still holds true.

Yup, loved Eberron's unique flavor and feel. That probably is a huge reason I like the new FR, though I still stand by my view that the new FR shouldn't have been FR at all - they should have progressed the old setting naturally, and used the spellplague to create a whole new setting.

[lionrampant]

WotC was always going to have a 4th edition Forgotten Realms.  There are a lot of Forgotten Realms players, and they buy lots of books.  If they simply left Forgotten Realms alone, and started up a whole new setting, a lot of those Forgotten Realms players would have just stuck with the previous version of D&D, rather than updating (or so they likely feared).  Thus, to keep the money rolling in, they HAD to update Forgotten Realms to 4th edition.  The significant differences between v3 and v4 of the game rules (new races, new power sources, etc.) meant that they had to change Forgotten Realms significantly to justify having all that stuff in Forgotten Realms.

Now, whether you like those changes or not, is of course up the individual.  But they were always going to change the setting to fit the new rules, as there is too much money to be lost if they left it alone.

[XXsiriusXX]

I think the FR does a good job at being a high-magic setting with fully-detailed world in which players can play literally any kind of character they want.  Want to be an amazonian-jungle-dwelling misfit?  Want to be a cold-hearted, pillaging barbarian?  Want to be a sophisticated socialite?  Want to be a desert raider?  Want to be Indiana Jones?  Want to be Han Solo?  All of these can be played in the FR, and that's what the setting does well.

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk when I make this statement, so do not take it as such.

Your post is a huge generality that can be mapped onto almost all RPG settings.

What makes FR so popular are the novels and games based on the setting. Mainly the works of R.A Salvatore and the gaming lines of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights. These materials work in two ways, the first is to reach a demographic out side of the core gamer market and generate interest in the setting which would lead in the individual to purchase further products in the product line. The second is to maintain the core gamer's interest in the product line.

We could discuss how the games and novels wouldn't exist without the setting and how the setting would have not gained or maintained its popularity without the games, but I think it is a rather paradoxical argument

[XXsiriusXX]

WotC was always going to have a 4th edition Forgotten Realms.  There are a lot of Forgotten Realms players, and they buy lots of books.  If they simply left Forgotten Realms alone, and started up a whole new setting, a lot of those Forgotten Realms players would have just stuck with the previous version of D&D, rather than updating (or so they likely feared).  Thus, to keep the money rolling in, they HAD to update Forgotten Realms to 4th edition.  The significant differences between v3 and v4 of the game rules (new races, new power sources, etc.) meant that they had to change Forgotten Realms significantly to justify having all that stuff in Forgotten Realms.

Now, whether you like those changes or not, is of course up the individual.  But they were always going to change the setting to fit the new rules, as there is too much money to be lost if they left it alone.

It kind of goes without saying that they were always going to update the Forgotten Realms setting for 4th edition. The point of the whole post is the problems with the changes that were made. I along with others who have posted in the threat feel that the changes to the setting were not positive, and that WotC has in some ways damaged one of there most popular settings.

You are right that it is up to the individual whither or not they wish to use the new setting or not. I personal will not be using it.

[XXsiriusXX]

I never liked Forgotten Realms. I'm going to start off with that fact, pure and simple.

However, having read the books...I like the new FR, quite a bit. The Spellplague is interesting, and I love the idea of playing a spellscared swordmage. That being said, much as I never liked FR, they shouldn't have strip-mined it to create this new setting. They should have started from square one, not butchered an existing (and much loved) setting.

spellscared swordmage does sound interesting, my only question for you is do you like Eberron? The only reason that I ask is because I have been talking to a few other people about this and have found that people who like Eberron like the new FR, just wanted to see if it still holds true.

Yup, loved Eberron's unique flavor and feel. That probably is a huge reason I like the new FR, though I still stand by my view that the new FR shouldn't have been FR at all - they should have progressed the old setting naturally, and used the spellplague to create a whole new setting.

Yeah it is holding true, everyone I have talked to who likes Eberron, likes the New FR.

Do you feel that they are trying to remodel FR to be more like Eberron?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

I think the FR does a good job at being a high-magic setting with fully-detailed world in which players can play literally any kind of character they want.  Want to be an amazonian-jungle-dwelling misfit?  Want to be a cold-hearted, pillaging barbarian?  Want to be a sophisticated socialite?  Want to be a desert raider?  Want to be Indiana Jones?  Want to be Han Solo?  All of these can be played in the FR, and that's what the setting does well.

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk when I make this statement, so do not take it as such.

Your post is a huge generality that can be mapped onto almost all RPG settings.

What makes FR so popular are the novels and games based on the setting. Mainly the works of R.A Salvatore and the gaming lines of Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights. These materials work in two ways, the first is to reach a demographic out side of the core gamer market and generate interest in the setting which would lead in the individual to purchase further products in the product line. The second is to maintain the core gamer's interest in the product line.

We could discuss how the games and novels wouldn't exist without the setting and how the setting would have not gained or maintained its popularity without the games, but I think it is a rather paradoxical argument

First, that didn't sound like a jerk statement, it sounded like a well thought out statement, so disclaimer unnecessary.

Second, I suppose I should have prefaced my statement with "I don't particularly like the Forgotten Realms, but..." since that is the general taste 'round these parts.  Keep in mind my statement merely said, "I think Forgotten Realms does well at what it attempts to do" (paraphrased, of course). My statement does not say, "Hundreds of other settings don't do nearly as well as the Forgotten Realms," and certainly said nothing along the lines of "Forgotten Realms is the most detailed, awesomest setting on teh intrewebz!!1!1!"  I will concede that I did make a generalization about the setting, but I disagree with you that the same can be said of "almost all RPG settings."  That's not a defense of the 'Realms (since I'm not really a huge fan of them), but it is a defense of the statement I made about the 'Realms. There are quite literally hundreds of settings that I have read that are not nearly as detailed as the Forgotten Realms.  You pointing out that the novels and games make it so does not invalidate my point, but rather pushes it even further along.  One could argue that the sheer volume of text on the subject of the Forgotten Realms, either in-game text, computer-game text, novel text, etc, all contribute to said detail and internal variety.  As much as I love my own setting, I cannot say that I have more detail or internal variety in Memory Fading than Forgotten Realms.  I can possibly say it's more original, but that's not really the point of this post, is it?  The point was merely, as stated above, I think Forgotten Realms does pretty well at what it attempts to do.

[Eclipse]

I guess Ishy hit the nail on the head. While I did not like old FR and feel in favor of new FR, what FR did better than any other setting I've come across is provide detail - countless little details over dozens of books, enough so that they actually published a history time-line as a full book in it's own right. With the new FR, they've demolished that level of detail, and removed the one thing that FR did good and really, the one thing that made it FR.

Oh, and Ishmayl, I think you should amend the last sentence of your last post. It should read "Forgotten Realms did pretty well at what it attempts to do."