Forgotten Realms 4e

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 6:03 pm

I'm kind of with Julian - I'm a little burnt out on FR. I played FR from 1988 until about 1993 or so, getting over a burn-out of Greyhawk. I went back to Greyhawk and played there for a couple of years, but my players wanted to go back to FR. So from about 1995 until 2002 I played more FR. I got to go back to Greyhawk and have been there ever since, with a little dabbling in my homebrew. Over half my gaming life I've played FR and I like Greyhawk more!
If I were to go back to FR, I'd definitely go back to the grey box set. I would have had no problems picking up a new 4e FR setting, if only for the additional information. But with the timeline advance and shoehorning of the new races and classes, plus (I'm assuming) no mention of the classes and races that were removed, then I don't think it'd be worth the investment. I have the grey box and the FR-series, so I'm good, I reckon.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:10 pm

Yes, I have the Grey box on up through the 3E FR releases. I do not need yet another version/interpretation for me to run campaigns in the FR, or GH setting.

Now if they do awesome new maps, that alone could make me buy them. To be the kind I want they would have to do boxed sets.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:47 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
shoehorning of the new races and classes, plus (I'm assuming) no mention of the classes and races that were removed, then I don't think it'd be worth the investment.

The Dragonborn do indeed seem shoehorned to me. I see absolutely no need for them to introduce the new races. The Eladrin wouldn't be so bad if they used the term Sun and Moon Elves more regular than they do eladrin. Would have made it seem more realistic to me. As for shoehorning new classes? Kind of at a loss there, they aren't shoehorned, even slightly. Thats like griping about the new classes of the 3e PHB2 in relations to FR or GH or anything.

As for removals?

No races were removed. The FR Player's Guide even discusses gnomes and half-orcs. I assume that is what you are referring to.

Loss of classes? I've never been thrilled with stuff like that but it is not a first. 2nd edition didn't exactly have assassins, barbarians or monks (or even half-orcs for that matter)when it released but 2nd edition FR marched on. I personally don't miss any of the omitted classes but can understand that some people do. Sucks, but they'll be out soon enough. They didn't cease to exist in the Realms.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:30 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
The Dragonborn do indeed seem shoehorned to me. I see absolutely no need for them to introduce the new races. The Eladrin wouldn't be so bad if they used the term Sun and Moon Elves more regular than they do eladrin. Would have made it seem more realistic to me. As for shoehorning new classes? Kind of at a loss there, they aren't shoehorned, even slightly. Thats like griping about the new classes of the 3e PHB2 in relations to FR or GH or anything.

As for removals?

No races were removed. The FR Player's Guide even discusses gnomes and half-orcs. I assume that is what you are referring to.

Loss of classes? I've never been thrilled with stuff like that but it is not a first. 2nd edition didn't exactly have assassins, barbarians or monks (or even half-orcs for that matter)when it released but 2nd edition FR marched on. I personally don't miss any of the omitted classes but can understand that some people do. Sucks, but they'll be out soon enough. They didn't cease to exist in the Realms.

Indeed. The dragonborn need shoehorning. But I would also say the others do, to a lesser degree. There were no eladrins, as they're written in the PHB, before now in FR. Neither were there Tieflings, either. Unless they decide to ignore the PHB and call eladrins Sun Elves and Tieflings tieflings (as of old, which still doesn't explain their different physiology) but I thought they weren't going to do that sort of thing in 4e - that races were unified and consistent across all settings and such. Everything "Core " and all that.
I hate that they remove classes. It means rewriting NPC's, ones many have come to know as they were written - and unless they made all of those warlocks and warlords, that's more finagling they have to do with the setting. I do remember quite well that certain classes got nixed in 2e...and the same three go the hammer again. For as much as I liked 2nd Edition, I was just as displeased then as I was when I heard 4e was doing it, too. I know you don't care too much (since you said so), but you're right; a lot of people do.

Bullocks, I say. But do enjoy it, good sir. I honestly do enjoy hearing your thoughts on the setting, despite my vocal displeasure of what has happened to it.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:37 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
It means rewriting NPC's, ones many have come to know as they were written

Then it boils down to which write of an NPC you want to go by. How many Elminster and Drizzt rewrites have we seen over the years?

Racial rewrites aren't anything new either. Or have halflings always been that way....

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:14 am

My Fr burnout came from hanging in places like Candlekeep and the like. Mainly the canon monkeys insisting that everything written for Fr be considered and no deviations allowed. That mindset gets tiring quickly and combined with WOTC's moving later Fr releases (Post Silver Marches) to more crunch and less fluff was also a deal breaker. And 14 years of using the same world gets old after awhile. I needed a break.

I still look through my stuff and miss adventuring in my old stomping grounds (NW faerun). Someday I'll go back but not now.

As for Tieflings I enjoyed their addition in 3e Fr and actually use the race additions in my C&C games as options. Eladrins are something I want to know more about as they might get added in my C&C game if I like them more. However I have yet to see a C&C conversion of them or know enough to decide. The idea of them though is cool in my book.

Hmm All this FR talk has me wanting to look over my stuff again.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:17 am

As an addendum:

Another thing that burnt me on FR was finding out things about Ed Greenwood's game and habits. There are certain things you should keep to yourself. Ed has yet to learn that.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:37 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
As an addendum:

Another thing that burnt me on FR was finding out things about Ed Greenwood's game and habits. There are certain things you should keep to yourself. Ed has yet to learn that.

Care to elaborate? That makes me curious.

And yeah, the same world gets tired after a while. I've played in Greyhawk a while, but not for extended lengths of time like FR.

That the main problem with making my homebrew. By the time it really gets rolling, I get a little bored with it.

Danger Dwarf wrote:
Then it boils down to which write of an NPC you want to go by. How many Elminster and Drizzt rewrites have we seen over the years?

Racial rewrites aren't anything new either. Or have halflings always been that way....

But see, that doesn't make it alright. After so many rewrites, it gets old. The 1e to 2e rewrite was an unwelcome change. It was hard to swallow the change in some of the classes and races, but at least there wasn't MASSIVE changes in the setting itself just from the edition changing - and the changes that were happened mid-edition; the change wasn't specifically because of the edition change. The same can be said for the other edition changes, too. I think this edition had the first event that was directly related to the edition change (Spellplague - but I admit that I could be mistaken ). Not to mention the 100-year advance. And then, what was it, a 10-year advance, iirc, between 1e and 2e, and then five years between 2e and 3e?

And speaking of the change between 2nd and 3rd there were no classes or races that were in 2nd that were left out in 3rd. None, whatsoever. At least WotC did something right. So changes/rewrites werent that hard - at least druids were druids and bards were bards.
My apologies if I'm being argumentative. It just seems like this change trumps the previous ones in the f'd up department.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:01 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
Care to elaborate? That makes me curious.

Dig around on Candlekeep. They have a series of downloads that are archives of his discussions on FR. I don't want to start a bashing session on Ed nor on the things discussed. I'll boil it down to what EG finds acceptable in his games is not what I would.

In the end though Ed created on hell of a world. And I'd love to see his original maps. But, I wouldn't want anything more.

Quote:
That the main problem with making my homebrew. By the time it really gets rolling, I get a little bored with it.

I hear that. That is why I have reduced mine to something similar to what 4e does with it's core world. A snippet of history here, a bit of lore there and names of locations, all left vague enough to be added to or subtracted from. Hell, outside of maps for certain locations I don't even have a world map.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:27 pm

Quote:
I hear that. That is why I have reduced mine to something similar to what 4e does with it's core world. A snippet of history here, a bit of lore there and names of locations, all left vague enough to be added to or subtracted from. Hell, outside of maps for certain locations I don't even have a world map.

Interesting concept. I might have to steal that thought process. I tend to overdo my campaign worlds, so maybe a lighter approach is necessary. I try to start small, but it starts to snowball and the next thing I know I have a spiral notebook filled with campaign notes.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:01 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
Interesting concept. I might have to steal that thought process. I tend to overdo my campaign worlds, so maybe a lighter approach is necessary. I try to start small, but it starts to snowball and the next thing I know I have a spiral notebook filled with campaign notes.

Yeah, I find going lite/vague is better until the players fill it in with where the go and the actions they take.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:09 pm

It's worked the best for me and, since I can usually think fast enough on my feet,if they want more info I can usually BS through it. It also works nice with drop-ins like Yggsburgh and Haunted Highlands since I don't need to redo or redraw any maps. And all I usually need to to is match a few things up with the setting.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:33 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
It's worked the best for me and, since I can usually think fast enough on my feet,if they want more info I can usually BS through it. It also works nice with drop-ins like Yggsburgh and Haunted Highlands since I don't need to redo or redraw any maps. And all I usually need to to is match a few things up with the setting.

Yep, all the players care about 99% of the time is their immediate environment. They usually don't care about the "big picture". Typically they only start caring about such things if/when I make them landed nobles, they go into business, etc...
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:03 am

Well, this discussion has got me to get my FR stuff back out. I've been rereading it and noting changes I want to make if I run a new campaign there. Curiously I was looking at rivers to find a spot for Yggsburgh.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:06 am

Heh, I've been peeking around for a place to put HH.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:26 am

I don't know about HH, but I think Yggsburgh might go well in the river valleys south of the High Moor/NW of Boareskyr Bridge. I was also looking at Narfell. I thought those places might be alright.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:55 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
Heh, I've been peeking around for a place to put HH.

I don't have my map on hand nor do I know what they did with the area in 4e buuuut, I'd look at places around Silverymoon or around Luskan.

Speaking of which; what was done to NW Faerun?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 1:57 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
I don't know about HH, but I think Yggsburgh might go well in the river valleys south of the High Moor/NW of Boareskyr Bridge. I was also looking at Narfell. I thought those places might be alright.

Maybe. I tend to play a bit more north than that though. I may not even look at dropping HH or Yggsburgh into FR at this point. I might have them as demi-planes or something.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
Speaking of which; what was done to NW Faerun?

Not really sure what the area was like pre-4e so don't know how much it changed.

The campaign book details the town of Loudwater, just south of the High Forest and gives a few adventures around that area. Decent stuff there and seems a suitable area to begin a campaign.

There's an orc kingdom call the kingdom of Many-Arrows now. Stemming from the Drizzt vs. the Ten Bajillion Orcs series. I like orc kingdoms so its good by me.

Luskan is largely abandoned and a place of civil unrest and crime. It lacks a central government and is now run by rival groups of thieves and pirates.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:30 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote:
Luskan is largely abandoned and a place of civil unrest and crime. It lacks a central government and is now run by rival groups of thieves and pirates.

Yep, and a petition has been going around to reflect this change by changing their cities name from Luskan to Freeport.
The Citadel of Many Arrows has been there since before Drizzt. The only real change has been in who is leader.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:34 pm

Treebore wrote:
The only real change has been in who is leader.

Well, that and the fact that its an actual kingdom instead of a citadel now.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:48 pm

I actually liked the Hunter's Blade Trilogy. That was where the kingdom was set up and it is something that made it to my realms. Luskan is a change but I don't know if that is a good or bad one. Of course my FR is different than the baseline so it gives me room to adopt some changes and leave others if I so want.

I was curious about NW Faerun because that is where most of my campaigns take place.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:04 pm

I never finished the HUnters Blade trilogy. My wife did and said it wasn't bad. The orcs managed to maintain the kingdom, and even occasional trade is seen with neighboring nations.

Luskan isn't remotely Freeport. Perhaps the old Luskan was, but it predated Green Ronin.

Current Luskan in bleak. Most of the city is in ruins and the port it pretty much worthless. Population went from 16000 to 4000, criminals flee there because authorities wont pursue. Most consider having to live in Luskan worse punishment than actually being apprehended and placed in jail.

I guess the harpers broke up but a remnant of them reformed with the tower in Everlund being the only harper hold.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:55 pm

4e Luskan sounds similar to my version of Waterdeep.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:11 pm

Ok DD one more question. What is this returned Aieber that I keep hearing of?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:33 pm

Perhaps it is Abeir-Toril, which would be the planet itself.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:55 pm

Alright, here's from the book:

Long ago the world was twinned to save it from a final conflict between gods and primordials. The gods took one sibling (Toril), and the primordials claimed the other (Abeir).

Ages later, the Spellplague caused to two separate worlds to collide and overlap. Portions of each world shifted into the other. Then the worlds separated again, contact severed, but each having contributed to the other. Perhaps as much as one quarter of Toril now hosts lands native to Abeir.

So, looks like the old term Abeir-Toril stems from the world being metaphysically divided or something way back in the dawn of time. The plague caused a temporary collision and overlapping of the twinned worlds, leaving their marks on eachother. Parts of Toril's twin world got left behind.

Theres a few areas where parts of abeir now mark Toril's surface, including a new continent.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:22 am

Wow, that sounds an awful lot like a setting called Aihrde / Inzaa which are "twins" too. Heh, never anything new under the sun.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:15 am

serleran wrote:
Wow, that sounds an awful lot like a setting called Aihrde / Inzaa which are "twins" too. Heh, never anything new under the sun.

I've seen these twin world ideas before, one written by Piers Anthony. I just like the Aihrde/Inzae creation myth best.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:11 am

BAH! If you read the greybox you'll see how hinky that whole thing is. Abeir was never a seperate world. Damned retcons.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog