| Author |
 Topic  |
|
combatmedic
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 01:43:06
|
This has likely been done before, but which edition of D&D/AD&D (or which other game system) and which era/ period of FR do you prefer to run or play?
I am a partial to AD&D 2E rules with the early 1st edition setting materials as a baseline, and some changes that deviate from canon.
My previous experiences playing FR mostly fell into this category. I recall Evil Azoun riding a Thunder Lizard on an elf hunt, in one DM's game. I wish I could say that was me. But it was my buddy Travis.
Eeeeebil Azoun.
I ignore TSR/WotC metaplot, unless I' m playing havoc with it to throw off some players who are a little too comfortable with canon.
What about you guys?
|
YMMV= Your Mileage May Vary. I'm putting it here so I don't have to type it in every other post. :) |
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1272 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 01:58:34
|
I've settled in the "current" era, 1490s DR, and use 5e Rules.
I fill in most of the lore with old 2e era stuff, pulling Current Clack, villains, and NPCs from those old sourcebooks and tweaking the names and dates to taste.
Most of the current plots and such (Rage of Dragons, Out of the Abyss, etc) have either not happened in my home game, or have happened in the background of my current game. I basically run under the assumption that if my players haven't played through the module, it hasn't happened yet. You might hear rumors about something going on in Phandelver, but they're just rumors.
When I started playing in the Realms, I played largely 3.5, but the group I played with really didn't care about the lore. Playing in FR was just a convenient, prepackaged geography and dots on the map, for the most part. There was some attention to culture and such, but it was minimal.
Since I started DMing in 3.5, I played in the late 1370's, early 1380's, mostly in the Dragon Coast, but after that Campaign wrapped up, I jumped to the 5e Playtest, and moved my game to the "current" era after they announced the Sundering.
My favorite books to read are the 2e era books, but I like playing in the largely blank slate that 5e is so far. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
Edited by - Delwa on 17 Nov 2015 02:15:38 |
 |
|
|
Rymac
Learned Scribe
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 02:01:17
|
I preferred 2e, and when they came out, some of the Players Option stuff (but not all of it, because then it was a bloated mess of rules and class customization). I liked that some of the alignment restrictions were lifted in 3e (rangers, in specific).
Up until the Spellplague (and minus the resettling of Myth Drannor, and the reemergence of Netheril via Shade) is my preferred timeline. If I ever get around to DMing a new campaign, I'm going to reset to 1350ish DR using 5e.
Other systems? I got into Mutants and Masterminds for a stretch in the aughts. |
- Ryan |
Edited by - Rymac on 17 Nov 2015 02:02:02 |
|
|
|
combatmedic
Senior Scribe
USA
428 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 02:56:34
|
I should add that my actual time spent running FR has been minimal.
I am basically familiar with the late 80s Dragon articles. I own the Cyclopedia of the Realms, plus some 1st and early 2nd edition FR stuff on PDF from Paizo's defunct digital catalog.
|
YMMV= Your Mileage May Vary. I'm putting it here so I don't have to type it in every other post. :) |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 03:05:52
|
| By far my favorite Edition was 2nd, with 1st the runner up. Once WOTC took over, the vast majority of material was a restatement / modification / simplification of something you can find in earlier works. In the old days, ideas were given as possibilities. In 3rd E, they usually decided to choose 1 possibility and declare it fact. Pretty much anything in the 30000 year history of the realms prior to 1200 DR falls into this category. I don't think the reduction of mystery helped the setting at all. |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 03:10:55
|
| 2E is my favorite. Tried 3E and maybe I'm just getting old, or it's lack of time but there were too many rules to wrap my head around for the 3E era. I certainly liked some of the things, but there was just too much to keep track of in my opinion. Never tried 1E rules, though we did use the grey box at first until the 2nd campaign guide. Lot of good memories as a kid. |
|
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 03:15:44
|
I've played 4th ed in the 1480s, AD&D 2nd ed in 1357 and 5th edition in 1489 DR. So the only game I've played "outside of the assumed era" was AD&D 2nd edition ;)
I was quite prepared and willing to run 5th edition in the 1357 era but the quality of the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide persuaded me to use the current era.
As for the era I prefer? I'm equally happy with either 1357 DR or 1489 DR. I'm not especially interested in the 3rd ed or 4th ed eras. The reason for this is the feel of the game that's possible with 1357 is (IMO) easily replicated in 1489 but with a couple of extra races thrown in. The Shade metaplot and Spellplague makes it difficult (for me at least) to capture that feel I like when reading the 1st edition and 2nd edition stuff (I'm not even a fan of the Time of Troubles).
I won't be keeping up with the 5e published adventures except in so much as my gaming group has played them. So Rise of Tiamat is technically something that has happened (or is happening) because my gaming group has played it without me and I want to make the Realms feel connected with all our past adventures (another reason I've chosen 1489 DR). But unless the group also decides to run Out of the Abyss or Elemental Evil when I'm unable to DM for whatever reason, those won't be canon in my Realms. |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
Edited by - JohnLynch on 17 Nov 2015 03:16:14 |
|
|
|
Brylock
Acolyte
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 04:09:48
|
2e was my (well, "our" technically since I did not discover the Realms alone) favorite era for the Realms, and it had more detail on more subjects then I'd expected fantasy settings to really have at the time, which is part of what really captured my interest in the setting itself in the first place.
We played 3e for awhile but the rules of 3e gradually wore us down over time, especially as it became increasingly obvious that certain character builds, no matter how fun they sounded, we're just not viable without completely ignoring many rules of the setting. I often found it mildly funny that Drizzt wasn't actually a very powerful build when you looked at his 3e stats, and that any properly built PC of the same level would usually be significantly more powerful without even trying very hard.
Right now we're using 5e/1489DR as the setting as 5e recaptures some of 2e's feel for our group, and since the universe seem to basically hit a gigantic reset button to being placed somewhere between 2e and 3e Realms thematically it felt appropriate to use 2e/1e material again and just change around NPC's mentioned so our old supplements still work out.
I feel the need to point out that SOME of 4e's changes I liked and am glad they kept between 4e and 5e; Elturgard was a pretty cool nation, a sort of young and vibrant state that still technically was in a dangerous frontier area, held together by the efforts of a very small force of paladins and clerics who try to keep the settlements in the area relatively safe despite being stretched pretty thin.
I also liked the Warlock Knights of Vaasa (partially because of how badass that name sounds) as a utilization of a new class by incorporating it into the setting instead of Warlocks just suddenly popping out of nowhere while everything remained the same even though Warlocks were just Wizards by another name before, as well as filling out Vaasa which had in 3e seemed to perpetually be stuck in the "monster-infested muddy north" mode it was during the Bloodstone Pass modules despite having that take place a fairly long time ago timeline-wise.
I'm also okay with keeping Tymanther and the dragonborn around, just keeping them as an exotic and unusually encountered people from the Unapproachable East/Old Empires region and thus rare outside of those areas.
The stuff I wasn't fond of was scooping up large portions of the Realns and replacing them with giant holes in the ground (literally) and new nations that sometimes had nothing to do with previous setting information at all, making it seem like the guy designing 4e's Realms just didn't bother reading about the setting beforehand and just doing whatever he wanted when making the different areas. |
"It's almost like whenever you talk you flip through the dictionary and pull out words at random or something." |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 05:27:01
|
I prefer 3rd Edition D&D rules.
As for era, I am comfortable wth either side of the Spellplague.
Cormyr is my preferred starting point; Waterdeep my second.
I will happily use material from one era in another, and I prefer to fold older material in with my own material, and use it in the modern Realms because that's where my focus is at the moment. I've learned that novels, third party sourcebooks and non-game media are great resources for a good campaign, in addition to the regular WotC fare.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
KanzenAU
Senior Scribe
Australia
763 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 06:03:18
|
Playing with 5th, have played with D&D Basic back in the day, then 3rd, then 4th. I have great memories of basic, memories of 3rd having a lot of rules, and 4th having to spend way too much time in combat, leaving little time for roleplaying.
Playing in 1489 DR, but only because I only started using the Forgotten Realms last year. I use material from every edition pretty indiscriminately. I modify names of characters and such in older material to use in 1489 so I can still maintain my own internal canon - there are a lot of direct descendants still doing the same thing their ancestors were in the 1370s ;). Thank the gods for the pdfs being available online now. It's been an expensive year, but the collection is growing fast - and the Ctrl+F is so much less time consuming than going through a tonne of books for obscure references!
Having starter with Lost Mine of Phandelver and Rise of Tiamat, Sword Coast is the primary area we've been playing in, but I'm keen to get in a Cormyr campaign sometime along the line. |
Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4454 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 06:37:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by combatmedic
This has likely been done before, but which edition of D&D/AD&D (or which other game system) and which era/ period of FR do you prefer to run or play?
Preferred edition? To me its hard because I get burned out rather quickly on most editions. I'll pretty much jump at the chance to play 3.5/PF, 4th, or 5th edition. Currently I have existing characters in all 3 editions and like to run both 3.5 and 4th. If I've been running/playing 4e for a while I'll start to want to play 3.5 and when we're playing 3.5 for a while I'll start to want to play 5e.
The cool thing is, there's SO much info out there for these 3 that I can really never run out of ideas to play.
As for era of Realms, mostly 1480's DR or post Spell-Plague. Sometimes I'll jump back to 1374 DR if we're starting up an already existing campaign but for all 4e and 5e games, all post Spell-Plague. I also steer clear of Canon and haven't added (or will ever add) the events in the Herald or any reversing of Abeir from my Realms games. Tymanther, Akanűl, and Returned Abeir will stay put on Toril. No Egypt/Mexico in my Realms, thanks. |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Nov 2015 : 15:22:54
|
| 2E for me. 1350s-1360's DR. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11904 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2015 : 02:50:25
|
I prefer 3.5 rules for the breadth of good optional crunch material out there AND etools software to implement such, but I know it needs some fixes. I love pathfinder because it instituted a lot of those fixes, but they didn't develop the alternate prestige classes that I'd be looking for so I'd have to adapt them, and there's no way to import them easily into herolabs (if herolabs could import the WotC 3.5 material into pathfinder with just tweaks on hit dice to match what they did to increase wizards and such, I'd be in heaven). Thirdly, I love 5th edition, but find it lacking in alternate rules to flesh out your character mechanically to what you picture (say a fighter mage or a cleric mage)... though such things could be worked in with feats.
As to eras, 1340's to mid 1370's is my goto, but I have always wanted to run a mid to high level campaign around the formation of Thay. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36833 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2015 : 04:25:04
|
Rules-wise, I like 3.5 and Pathfinder. I'm playing the latter now. I also really like 2E; that was the rule set I "grew up" in.
As for the era... To me, the sweet spot is right after 2E ended and before 3E got started -- so early to mid 1370's. If I was DM'ing, I'd start there and move things around how I wanted from that point. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2015 : 05:30:31
|
One of my many (slow-moving) projects is taking what I love from 3.5 and moving it to Pathfinder. I think Pathfinder fits the rules well. If I want to play something really different, I'll play a Kara-Tur campaign with FantasyCraft rules.
As to era. I really like the 3.5 era with Bane returning (whom I also believe is Xvim). From there, build out where the campaign should go for your game. Make the events of later games reflect those earlier games. So, after 1373, there's a Temple to Helm near Mistledale... both a tribute to my favorite campaign and one of my favorite players.
I am happy to start my games anywhere I have information. I have run Dalelands games, a Silverymoon campaign, and (attempted) a Shackled City game in the Tashalar (and I will try again, too!). Everywhere is fun in its own way, and a different type of campaign can be run depending on where you want to start and what you want to do. |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
|
|
|
Magor
Acolyte
15 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2015 : 09:59:41
|
Concerning the rules set it always was 2E (with minor modifications - as everyone does) for us. I mostly took 1E FR material to be 2E, rules-wise this never prompted a problem.
Regarding content/plots/etc. I have to say Unther, Mulhorand, Horde, Maztica, Kara-tur, Al-Qadim, Chult and many, many stuff that never felt right, was simply ignored. We always played in the northern area up to icewind dale and as low as Waterdeep, but mostly in the underdark area around the Darklake (Menzo, Blindgenstone, Mantol Derith and so on).
It was not exactly hard to ignore the aesthetically unappealing material (fluff; so especially TOT and any of the ridiculous metaplots & RSEs) from the old days (1E/2E) and just go on doing our thing, but with 3E-5E doing this (in terms of fluff & mechanics and art, don't get me started on the last of these) means having left exactly nothing to play with. I never took myself to be hardcore OSR, instead I always aimed for consistence, aesthetics, fit, feel, minimalism and convincing & interesting fluff/history/background/story. I never was able to find any of these after 2E. |
Edited by - Magor on 19 Nov 2015 10:02:31 |
|
|
|
Khaelieth
Learned Scribe
103 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2015 : 12:26:41
|
3.5rd edition without sorcerer and warlock classes, but I also played 2nd. I was entirely turned off by 4th.
I'm generally a fan of everything (geographical) from Zhentil Keep to Waterdeep. Time-wise, I prefer 1368 DR to 1372 DR as a starting point. |
Also known on other forums as ChazSexington, Kusghuul, and Claudius.
|
Edited by - Khaelieth on 19 Nov 2015 12:28:16 |
|
|
|
Darkheyr
Learned Scribe
264 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2015 : 23:33:38
|
2E or 3E Era, using Pathfinder rules.
Going beyond P&P though I've spent most of my FR roleplaying time online - small NWN project, so basically a modified (by NWN and us) 3.0 ruleset. Starting point was in 3E as well (1378, but before any of the events post '72 were released, so none were included), but we advanced up to 1393, without doing all the 4E stuff by now. |
silm.pw - A Neverwinter Nights Persistent World |
|
|
|
Ozreth
Learned Scribe
194 Posts |
Posted - 20 Nov 2015 : 19:25:17
|
While I've casually followed the realms for a very long time I don't think I've ever memorized enough of the lore to be able to pick a favorite era. However, I know that the time of troubles bugged me a little bit, and the move to 4th edition seemed disastrous to me. I see a few people mention that 5e is a clean slate? How is this the case? I've been considering starting up a new campaign with 5e rules (which we love) and the Old Gray Box as my group doesn't like to feel too restrained by the lore of a published setting. I figure starting with the OGB we could just totally make it our own. However, if 5e is a clean slate for the setting maybe we will start up a new campaign there.
Perhaps I should pick up the SCAG... |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3807 Posts |
Posted - 20 Nov 2015 : 19:28:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozreth
While I've casually followed the realms for a very long time I don't think I've ever memorized enough of the lore to be able to pick a favorite era. However, I know that the time of troubles bugged me a little bit, and the move to 4th edition seemed disastrous to me. I see a few people mention that 5e is a clean slate? How is this the case? I've been considering starting up a new campaign with 5e rules (which we love) and the Old Gray Box as my group doesn't like to feel too restrained by the lore of a published setting. I figure starting with the OGB we could just totally make it our own. However, if 5e is a clean slate for the setting maybe we will start up a new campaign there.
Perhaps I should pick up the SCAG...
Not really a clean slate, as much as the result of a RSE, the Sundering, that basically reverted a lot of what happened in the past (even going as far back as to revert many of the consequences of the ToT). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2015 : 04:50:17
|
Interesting reading. I'm glad several people have responded, and I can see most of the positives that have been pointed out. Once 2e came out, I never looked back at 1e. Same happened with the arrival of 3e, and 5e is looking pretty decent. I got the 4e PH, but never purchased anything else from that edition. I'm just now beginning to ponder getting the 4e FRCG. So rules-wise, I've stayed fairly current.
Setting-wise... not so much. I like to create campaigns around events, and they can be anywhere on the timeline. So it's cool to see that others are looking at running the older material with the 5e ruleset. Whatever makes playing Fun.  |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36833 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2015 : 05:18:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Once 2e came out, I never looked back at 1e.
My first D&D purchase was the 1E DMG, which I got secondhand. I didn't buy anything new until shortly after 2E came out -- but for rules, I've never seen much difference between the two editions, and for Realmslore, the main difference is that 2E had bigger books. IMO, of course. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1293 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2015 : 14:20:07
|
| Rules 2e, Era 1e...so 1350s DR :) I don't mind 3e rules, but 2e is just second nature to me (and has the best sourcebooks if you ask me). |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3807 Posts |
Posted - 21 Nov 2015 : 14:34:12
|
| My campaign is set before the ToT, but I have no problem using any element that I enjoy in that time, or homebrewing some parts of the setting. We use a set of homebrew rules, even if we played 3.5e/PF for the first year or so, and we tried 5e for a couple months. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 21 Nov 2015 14:35:27 |
|
|
|
pedro2112
Acolyte
11 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2015 : 06:16:32
|
| I am running a 5th Edition FR campaign set in 1489 DR, in the Sword Coast/Neverwinter area. |
Pedro2112 |
|
|
|
moonbeast
Senior Scribe
USA
522 Posts |
Posted - 28 Nov 2015 : 08:12:12
|
| Am prepping for a 5th Edition Era campaign…. starting 1490, just right after the Sundering activity is over. This gives me some leeway to directly throw my Players into one of the APs if I choose to do so (e.g. Tyranny of Dragons, Princes of Apocalypse, etc). More likely I will start them at the lower levels with my own non-epic adventures, essentially shorter adventures borrowed from from earlier D&D (e.g. Village of Hommlet, Steading of the Hill Giants, etc) but obviously converted to the current 1490s era. |
|
|
|
kysus
Learned Scribe
USA
114 Posts |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 08:16:06
|
| Im currently running a 3.5 edition game set at 1365 dr in the dalelands specifically Highmoon. While 3.5 edition is the main ruleset i use, im also fond of 2nd edition and wouldnt mind running a game using that every now and then. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6369 Posts |
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 15:13:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
I wonder if there is a reason that people tend to run FR using only different editions of the DnD rule set. Is it out of habit, is it because it the two have been parcelled together since the beginning. Is it because other systems do not approximate the fantasy classes or magic very well. Or is it just because people like that particular system above all else warts and all.
I'd have to think it's because most of us tend to favor one edition/rule set above the others. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6369 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36833 Posts |
Posted - 02 Dec 2015 : 17:16:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
But why favour a DnD system over other systems. I know a few have tried the fate system and there are others as well, but it seems to me that most people play FR using one of the DnD systems and I was wondering why. Have people that favour DnD systems even tried other systems.
A large part of it is the simple fact that since it's been in print, the Realms has been a D&D setting.
Until recently, D&D was always the big name in RPGs. It used to be that all other RPGs put together still didn't compare to D&D's market share. This is no longer the case, but they do still have the name recognition.
So that's why most Realms players play D&D -- it's a D&D setting, and D&D was the RPG that most players used for a long time. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Edition and era
