| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 11 Aug 2013 : 08:48:48
What form should the introductory 5E Forgotten Realms campaign sourcebook take, and why?
EDIT: If there's some feature you'd like to be a part of your preferred format (parchment color pages, tiny font, black and white drawings and not color, etc.) please mention it below. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 02 Aug 2015 : 14:36:02
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
People will be lining up to throw their money at WotC.
People already are but Wizards doesn't seem to care because they stick with their horrible stories and emaciated release schedule. |
| wannabesuperman |
Posted - 01 Aug 2015 : 21:36:50
If they could make an updated version of the 3e book, without crunch, I'd pay up to $60ish. That 3e hardcover was amazing.
Honestly, I want separate books for regions and magic, etc, just like FR 3e. I don't have any other expensive hobbies. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 31 Jul 2015 : 20:05:01
I could see spending $75 on a boxed set: One that came with two books on The Realms (a lore book/DM guide & a Cyclopedia/Player's guide), Quick start rules with an adventure (with Dungeon tiles and maybe with pregen handouts), several plastic minis to play that adventure, and a beautiful new map of The Forgotten Realms on QUALITY paper (preferably done by Mike Schley).
Everything you need to begin playing in The Realms. The adventure and minis will be like crack to kids - they will want... NAY... NEED.. more. Make the minis Drizzt & company (and the adventure based on their exploits) and its PURE WIN. The thing will sell itself. People will be lining up to throw their money at WotC. |
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 31 Jul 2015 : 18:41:09
Boxed set... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 08 Feb 2015 : 06:03:21
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Ed do that "Rise of the Drow" series for Pathfinder?
He was one of about a dozen authors, the lead author names were Stephen Yeardley and Jonathan Nelson. I still need to try and get a copy. 'Try' being the operative word.
I picked up one of those books because it had info on my favorite fantasy deity, Cayden Cailean. Later, Paizo had a big sale, and I picked up the other books in the AP for like $5 each.  |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 08 Feb 2015 : 00:32:26
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Ed do that "Rise of the Drow" series for Pathfinder?
He was one of about a dozen authors, the lead author names were Stephen Yeardley and Jonathan Nelson. I still need to try and get a copy. 'Try' being the operative word. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 28 Dec 2014 : 20:04:35
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
The Shoon Imperium would be fun. Heck I think Cormyr, the Dalelands, Moonsea, Sembia, and the Vast areas would be an excellent frontier playstyle if set in 112 DR, The Year of the Tusk. They have a small map of what the land looks like in the Old Grey Box.
It would be pretty cool to see Cormyr as a frontier land, to discover who their enemies were and what dangers the elves and others left behind for the enterprising humans of Suzail.
I don't know when Marsember was founded, but seeing that place in proto form would catch my interest. |
| Rymac |
Posted - 21 Dec 2014 : 02:59:18
quote:
Originally posted by Eilserus
The Shoon Imperium would be fun. Heck I think Cormyr, the Dalelands, Moonsea, Sembia, and the Vast areas would be an excellent frontier playstyle if set in 112 DR, The Year of the Tusk. They have a small map of what the land looks like in the Old Grey Box.
I love that idea. The setting would be somewhat like the Dark Ages. An era of high (human) civilization just ended with the frontiers getting wilder. It's not to far off, but far enough from the fall of Netheril that the ruins would be ripe for taking. |
| Shadowsoul |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 16:28:11
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Ed do that "Rise of the Drow" series for Pathfinder? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 16:16:08
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Is there much of a difference, Wooly, if we saw some sort of 3.5 lore for FR? 3.5 is compatible with PF (you may have to tweak some encounter power levels, but we've always had to do that with prefabs anyway).
FR can support 3.5 without directly supporting PF, and it would probably be just as good.
In fact, if the WotC guys were smart (and I think they are), they would be looking at ways to steal-back some of their lost fans, and providing rules that are compatible with the ones Paizo fans are familiar with would be a GREAT first step. All they would need to do is figure out how to achieve this goal with little or no expense.
Supporting 3.5 would be a smarter move for them... I just don't want it to come at the cost of lore. I think the ideal approach would be to put 5E lore and (not too much) 5E rules in the books, and do rules conversions for 2E and 3.5E in web enhancements. I'd not even object to those particular web enhancements being DDI-only.
2E and 1E are quite similar, and 3.5E is the basis for Pathfinder... So that approach would support the most people. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 15:30:42
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
quote:
- Netheril, the Arcane Age - covering the various ages of the Empire of Magic.
- The Rysars - covering near-present elven empires like Cormanthor/Myth Drannor, maybe Evermeet. Maybe supported with a Weeping War adventure path.
- The Crown Wars - aiming for earlier elven eras.
- We, Imaskari - ditto for the long history of the Imaskari.
- Against the Magelords - Adventure in the time of Athalantar and contemporaries.
- Skyfire Centuries - the eras of Calimshan at the height of the genie lords.
- The Shadow Chronicles - a "What If" Shar really almost won during the Spellplague truly post-apocalyptic version of the Realms.
I love this, but let's not forget The Rise of Thay and The Shoon Imperium! 
The Shoon Imperium would be fun. Heck I think Cormyr, the Dalelands, Moonsea, Sembia, and the Vast areas would be an excellent frontier playstyle if set in 112 DR, The Year of the Tusk. They have a small map of what the land looks like in the Old Grey Box. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 15:15:41
Is there much of a difference, Wooly, if we saw some sort of 3.5 lore for FR? 3.5 is compatible with PF (you may have to tweak some encounter power levels, but we've always had to do that with prefabs anyway).
FR can support 3.5 without directly supporting PF, and it would probably be just as good.
In fact, if the WotC guys were smart (and I think they are), they would be looking at ways to steal-back some of their lost fans, and providing rules that are compatible with the ones Paizo fans are familiar with would be a GREAT first step. All they would need to do is figure out how to achieve this goal with little or no expense.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 14:52:33
quote:
Originally posted by Kanaric
They should make additional source material for people who play pathfinder IMO. Nobody who switched to that is going to return to DND so it's not like they are going to lose customers. Also nobody stays with a game system just because of a campaign setting.
My gaming group plays Pathfinder... But one of the guys is in another gaming group, and is playing 5E in that one. People may not switch, but there are going to be plenty of people who adopt multiple systems.
I don't see WotC adapting anything to Pathfinder, and honestly, I wouldn't want them to. WotC has had a habit -- at least with past Realms material -- of sacrificing pagecount for stats and rules instead of lore. Supporting two game systems would take up even more manpower and pagecount that could go towards pure lore.
And supporting Pathfinder means supporting their biggest rival -- a rival that was, at least before 5E was released, outselling WotC. Helping give them business is not a good business strategy.
Many DMs move material between systems as they need it. I don't think WotC is happy with that approach, but it's still better for WotC than them actively supporting a rival is. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 20 Dec 2014 : 05:31:06
I hope the 5E campaign guide omits areas.
Some can be developed later and others can be left alone on purpose, to give DMs room to build their own cities, geography, nations, etc. |
| Kanaric |
Posted - 07 Jan 2014 : 21:39:26
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by astolfo
Updated Grey Box set.
But, such a big but.....please oh please update give us a source book on 5th edition Kara-Tur and Zakhara!
This sort of thing - areas outside The Heartlands - may be better served as web enhancements.
Anything that we can't say that at least 75% of the fanbase would want should be in web enhancements. Which is why all the crunchy bit should be there as well - not every fan plays D&D.
Not that I don't totally love the idea of new material on K-T (and beyond), but I really want the 5e CG to be focused - much more so then the 4e guide was. As much as I love the stuff Ed wrote for Returned Abeir in 4e, I feel like no-one actually used that portion of the book. It was a complete waste, IMHO. If the Loudwater, Abeir, and crunchy bits were all left out of the 4eFRCG, imagine how much better the actual lore might have been.
Thats what I want - a Campaign Guide that reads like a really good story, not a dry textbook. The old 1e (and into 2e) sources read like that. I think thats what got us so many non-gamer fans buying the sourcebooks, and we need to return to that format. I think 3e's impersonal approach was the start of a bad trend, and 4e was just the nail in the coffin.
I agree completely.
Played a significant amount of "DND Next" 5e betatest and my group decided to switch to pathfinder instead.
New to this forum but we've been playing since 1999 and were introduced to DND through Baldur's Gate so the realms is the setting we always used because of that. We played 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, dabbled in 4th before going back to 3.5 and then went to 5th (dnd next test up until a couple months ago). We didn't like 4th edition and 5th edition is seemingly near the same thing. We've also play a lot of MMOs the DOTA and League of Legends together and 4th/5th just feels like we are playing that to be honest.
IDK what it is about 4th and 5th edition. It's almost like it's TOO high fantasy and everyone has special abilities they are using at all times. It's just not nearly as interesting to play.
They should make additional source material for people who play pathfinder IMO. Nobody who switched to that is going to return to DND so it's not like they are going to lose customers. Also nobody stays with a game system just because of a campaign setting.
It's just tiring that WOTC has this policy of continuously revamping their game systems. With having to constantly rewrite campaign settings as well it's only a matter of time before Paizo's Golarion is more detailed and interesting. Because of their putting their offers into constantly rewriting everything the Realms and the other DND campaign settings are effectively losing detail. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Jan 2014 : 15:20:42
quote:
Originally posted by astolfo
Updated Grey Box set.
But, such a big but.....please oh please update give us a source book on 5th edition Kara-Tur and Zakhara!
This sort of thing - areas outside The Heartlands - may be better served as web enhancements.
Anything that we can't say that at least 75% of the fanbase would want should be in web enhancements. Which is why all the crunchy bit should be there as well - not every fan plays D&D.
Not that I don't totally love the idea of new material on K-T (and beyond), but I really want the 5e CG to be focused - much more so then the 4e guide was. As much as I love the stuff Ed wrote for Returned Abeir in 4e, I feel like no-one actually used that portion of the book. It was a complete waste, IMHO. If the Loudwater, Abeir, and crunchy bits were all left out of the 4eFRCG, imagine how much better the actual lore might have been.
Thats what I want - a Campaign Guide that reads like a really good story, not a dry textbook. The old 1e (and into 2e) sources read like that. I think thats what got us so many non-gamer fans buying the sourcebooks, and we need to return to that format. I think 3e's impersonal approach was the start of a bad trend, and 4e was just the nail in the coffin. |
| Pazuzu |
Posted - 03 Jan 2014 : 11:02:32
I would be totally OK with a single hardcover book like the third edition campaign setting which can be later expanded with additional source books. Also I would like to see a free pdf download voucher included in the product. Furthermore, I really liked the web enhancements. I would really like to see some more information or especially maps as a pdf as much as I would like to see high resolution image downloads. |
| dmgorgon |
Posted - 31 Dec 2013 : 03:19:42
I'd like to see a box set that has a players guide book and a DM guide that is mostly void of rules. The box set should contain a smaller booklet for players and another for the DM that contains rules and game mechanics. The reason is that I want the core of the campaign setting to be edition neutral.
One box set that did a really great job of this was the Taladas: Time of the Dragon box set. IMO, this is one of the best campaign box sets that TSR ever created. It even had several show cards with renderings of the various races that matched the campaign guide book. I know the designers of the 5e realms are working on the same sort of thing with their renderings of the various FR races and cultures.
With that said, maps that make us dream are one of the most important aspects of the campaign setting. |
| astolfo |
Posted - 31 Dec 2013 : 01:56:09
Updated Grey Box set.
But, such a big but.....please oh please update give us a source book on 5th edition Kara-Tur and Zakhara! |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 28 Dec 2013 : 23:31:15
As of December 28th, we are at 101 votes.
The Grey Box replica (updated to 1480) is in the lead with 37 votes, followed closely by the Two Hardbacks option at 27 votes.
Coming in at third I see that the Single Hardcover option and the Ptolus-style book option are tied at 16 votes each. The choices are similar, meaning if we add them together we get 32 votes.
Given that, I can't call a clear winner. But I do feel comfortable saying a boxed set would please most everyone from that section of Realms fandom that is most likely to visit Candlekeep. |
| Scars Unseen |
Posted - 28 Dec 2013 : 12:59:29
What I'd like to see, apart from whatever initial campaign guide/player guide offering, is progression. Pick a region, and announce a major event. Request related short story submissions and articles for Dragon publishing. Maybe send surveys to DDI members and allow participation in determining how it gets resolved.
Over the next 6 months, publish articles, Dungeon adventures and maybe a printed adventure or two to support the event. At the end of it all, take those articles, add in depth regional information and some maps, and put together a printed product. Maybe call it something like "Chronicle of the Realms: Place Fancy Name for Event Here".
Basically, keep up the sort of player/developer interaction that they started with the playtest, and keep events in the new Realms moving so maybe they don't feel a need to blow everything up every time they change the system up. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 25 Dec 2013 : 00:03:06
Thank you. That was a well thought out answer. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 24 Dec 2013 : 23:44:55
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Both would be awesome, but probably not feasible in the long run.
Do you think it's at all possible WotC might try a historical Realms adventure path as a one shot, to test the market?
WotC has the resources to make anything possible, especially relative to their nearest competitors, or even those competitors combined. Whether or not they decide to do so is another matter.
That's the thing holding WotC back much of the time. When they launch something, if all the pieces fall together, they are unrivaled in advertising and coverage. They just don't stick with anything long enough to build self-perpetuating momentum.
Wizards didn't stick with an official LFR. For the Sundering modules in their Encounters format, the third adventure may not even have a print release.
They launched 4E Essentials just two or three years after 4E. It might not be a true 4.5E, but it felt like it. The total life-cycle of 4E was relatively short, made especially pronounced by the early announcement of 5E and the rapid decline in 4E support publications.
Both Dragon and Dungeon are going on hiatus during the 5E transition. They can't even keep an electronic magazine in publication.
They also need to get their department coordination in order. I've noticed any "Year of ___" event Wizards only puts out a trilogy plus related anthology and maybe one or two game products tangentially related to the theme.
If they launch an AP it should be an event in itself. Give us the AP, give us a regional supplement for the area, a players guide, a loosely related novel, a tie-in adventure, etc.
It should not be a novel oriented event tied to a trilogy or extended series (like every event WotC does including the Sundering to a degree). That's a different type of event, that's a story event, where we follow novel characters and the focus is not on the open ended adventure.
Invariably, if the novel takes point for an event, the PCs will play second fiddle to the novel characters. That's just the nature of such prioritization. It defeats the purpose of an adventure. The Realms can handle having both active novel events and PC proactive adventure events.
If they test the Historical AP format, I'm afraid they may turn tail half-way through if sales don't meet some artificial criteria. Then we'd be left with an unfinished series or one rushed through to completion with shoddy design and production.
I think WotC has done enough testing the waters. By now they should have enough basic acumen to know what sort of products stand a reasonable chance to sell. Then they need to commit fully to that model for a few cycles with resources appropriate for such projects. Changes should be implemented as behind-the-scenes housekeeping.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Dec 2013 : 14:57:18
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Both would be awesome, but probably not feasible in the long run.
Do you think it's at all possible WotC might try a historical Realms adventure path as a one shot, to test the market?
It's possible... I think a better question would be how it would be judged, by WotC. We already know that the number-crunchers have, in the past, set unrealistic goals for products.
So that becomes the question: if WotC does try a historical Realms adventure path, will it really get a fair shot from the numbers folks? |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 24 Dec 2013 : 10:04:48
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Both would be awesome, but probably not feasible in the long run.
Do you think it's at all possible WotC might try a historical Realms adventure path as a one shot, to test the market? |
| sagechan |
Posted - 08 Oct 2013 : 01:42:28
I'm in the 2 HC camp. A cruchless, grand overview of modern 5e Realms in the Campaign Guide. A light crunch, locality based, if my PC is from here, part of this orgianiztion, etc look for the PG. I think the PG does deserve some crunch where appropriate though. |
| KacyCrawford |
Posted - 24 Sep 2013 : 12:36:15
I like to see a boxed set. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 14 Sep 2013 : 18:54:02
I've had Wooly's attitude, but it wasn't any sort of 'formal declaration'. My loyalty goes as far as what I like (and I apply that to everything in life, not just games). If something suits me, I go with it, if not, I don't bother with it. I (usually) don't actively campaign against something unless it has really irked me in some way.
My whole problem with 4e was that they felt they needed to 'reinvent' FR, which was not only completely unnecessary, it was just a really BAAAAAD business decision; in the end, destroying that what makes your fans fans is kinda stupid, no? Thats like a pizza parlor finding out that everyone prefers their Sicilian (square) pizza over their regular, and so they get rid of their Sicialian pizza... only to find that that was 90% of their business. You can't force your customers to like what YOU like. Thus, 4e irked me.
So, if they produce something I like, I'll buy it. If paizo stops producing stuff I like, I won't buy any more from them. I don't think thats something that needs a declaration - its just called being an intelligent consumer. Loyalty for loyalty sake is brainless - I used to buy EVERYTHING TSR, and then I realized I wasn't even reading half of it. That was just plain dumb on my part.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
I'd like to see it take a form similar to that of the 3.0 Realms Campaign Setting book, though with less focus on stats. NPC stats that is, regional feats, classes/specializations/kits/backgrounds/whatever-they-end-up-being-called, spells, etc. can be present if there is room (though that seems more suited to a Player's Guide book to the Realms). Important or noteworthy NPCs...I'd rather they do it similarly to the Forgotten Realms Adventures book of 2e (give us the class, perhaps levels, and any noteworthy tactic(s) or things this NPC is known for in very brief summary).
That's a good point -- the page-long stat blocks really need to be avoided. Throw it into a web enhancement if you must, or go back to the approach of prior editions and let DMs do what they need to with the stats.
If they are truly going to make an attempt at this 'edition neutral' paradigm (and I think they should - it sounds like pure win), then it would make perfect sense to put ALL the stats online - maybe even behind their paywall. Some folks don't even play (more then many of us realize), and only want to enjoy the story behind RPG worlds. Imagine how great FR (and any D&D) products could be if they were almost pure fluff, and they kept all the rules 'elsewhere'? That would make the books ideal for everyone, including people who have no desire to 'play by their rules'. This way, no-one will feel like they are paying for something they will never use - there could be a different section of the DDi for each edition, with rules for each sourcebook. That really shouldn't be too hard - they could probably enlist a lot of fans (including the old RPGA folks) to do a lot of that. In fact, that would mean the stat-blocks themselves weren't 100% canon - we could have multiple stats for the same person, at several different power levels (time periods?) The 'official' stats themselves become little more then recommendations (which is how I always looked at them anyway).*
I'm picturing sourcebooks very much like the Volo's series (crunch-light), with very vague dating and nothing truly 'set-in-stone' (uncertain 3rd person).
*EDIT:
Come to think of it, this would almost entirely eliminate a lot of the problems with novels - multiple ways of statting an NPC means that fans can't ask those questions, "how is {so-&-so) able to do such-and-such when he is only level (fill-in-the-blank)?!" With multiple stats for multiple editions/rules, all of that goes right out the window. |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 14 Sep 2013 : 17:56:54
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mystic Lemur
All I know is whatever I buy for the new realms will be the first money WotC has seen from me in the better part of ten years. By even buying anything from them, I'll be breaking my word to never give them another red cent.
And that's why I avoided declaring a personal boycott -- I simply stated I'd not buy from them until they put out something I'd want. The end result was pretty much the same -- they got maybe $20 from me, for the entire 4E era -- but it left me an easy out.
Hmm... I probably should have done this, instead of personal boycotting WotC. But I suppose it's not too late to change... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Sep 2013 : 22:24:57
quote:
Originally posted by Mystic Lemur
All I know is whatever I buy for the new realms will be the first money WotC has seen from me in the better part of ten years. By even buying anything from them, I'll be breaking my word to never give them another red cent.
And that's why I avoided declaring a personal boycott -- I simply stated I'd not buy from them until they put out something I'd want. The end result was pretty much the same -- they got maybe $20 from me, for the entire 4E era -- but it left me an easy out. |
|
|
