So i started to read the Farseer trilogy recently, finished the first book (~600 pages, that's roughly two Geralt books combined) and i am a third into the second one (Royal Assassin) and so far i see only few differences, although significant differences to the Witcher saga.
First of all the protagonist is a child first and only later/now an adolescent (15+). I guess there will be another time skip before the trilogy ends, but i'm not sure. Geralt on the other hand is right from the start "an old man" compared to that, he has already much life experience and has already seen some shit. But you can easily compare Fitz to Ciri, at least in the emotionally aspect, even though Ciri had it much worse.
Furthermore Fitz is a minion for the king, while Geralt has no boss at all. In generally Fitz is nothing compared to Geralt (so far). He has many faults, is often anxious and well, behaves like a child.
The whole story is heavily focused on politics and the characters involved in them, Fitz is just a part of it. "The Last Wish" and "Sword of Destiny" are focused on "what witchers are doing", politics are just a tiny part of it, at least in the short novels books. The whole Witcher saga is more about the characters and their journey, literally. The political affair and war is just the context of it.
Also the Farseer world is apparently without any monsters or such mythical creatures (so far?). If there are any, they are unknown to the public, but this is just a marginal note.
So if you like me expect a bad ass character like Geralt, you kinda get disappointed like me, because so far he is just a boy with corresponding problems.
Can anyone tell me if that changes in this trilogy?