D&D 5E Future format of books that mimic SCAG: Will you buy them?

[Doctor Futurity]

I said yes, because...

1. I no longer have the time or patience for very large world books.
2. I am a casual Forgotten Realms fan, who doesn't use it for gaming and mostly wanted this book as a reference for the novels as well as some additional options for players I can cannibalize for my homebrew, and this format works great (but it does mean I would prefer books with new rules that are setting free, too)

 

[SkidAce]

At that point, I walk away from D&D, permanently.

While I agree that would be the stupidest thing ever, I would just ignore it instead of walking away.

I respect your point of view however...

 

[JeffB]

I was being partially tongue-in-cheek. I don't think that FR will swallow GH and Darksun whole. Probably not.

But I do think that FR has had the habit of taking on parts (and sometimes the wholes!) of everything. And, as you point out, this is why people either love it or hate it (I tend to agree with your take). It's the kitchen-sink of campaign settings- it's trying to be everything for everyone.

Personally, I like GH for standard fantasy, because it just feel so much more ... open. Instead of telling you what is happening, it hints at things for the DM to create. And I like settings like Dark Sun and Eberron because they have a unified point of view.

FR, on the other hand, just keeps accumulating detritus. Some people absolutely love it (and I get that), but it's not for me. I do think it's a little aggravating that whenever something really cool is featured in another campaign setting, you can almost be guaranteed that it will pop up in FR. Llolth, Vecna, you name it.

Excellent post. This is why, when I run FR, I use the OGB and a few choice bits in supplements from other editions (1E through 4E) and do my own thing. I went so far as to re-write the results of the ToT and the timeline up to 3E's FRCS being published, and even posted it here, bitd..but it's just easier to take the framework of the OGB and season to taste, rather than ignore the large percentage of BS that has been published post 1988.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

Castle Greyhawk was classic. I enjoy gonzo Greyhawk material.

 

[Low_Fantasy]

I don't play in any campaigns that use the official settings so the only thing that interests me is new mechanical options, I'd only pay for a new book that was done in the same vein as the phb.

 

[77IM]

I was just thinking this morning about how little crunch there was in SCAG and how I hope the 5E character options are spread out amongst a lot of small books, because it makes it a lot easier for DMs to manage rules bloat.

What I mean is: If the game features a PHB, a PHB2 and a PHB3, players are going to show up to my table with all 3 expecting to use all the options therein, and as DM I'm going to have to understand and account for all those options. Conversely, if the game features a PHB plus a dozen small supplements filled with character options, a player is likely to show up with only the books they care about and as DM it's easier for me to allow/disallow things on a case-by-case-basis. In other words, it sends a much stronger message to have a single large PHB that is "core" and then additional rules are found in smaller packages. Bonus points if those smaller packages are loaded with lore like SCAG is, so that the new character options have some context and purpose behind them.

 

[Corpsetaker]

This would be more convincing if Forgotten Realms was enormously popular as opposed to being a setting that only interests a small minority of D&D players (a larger minority than other D&D settings, but still only a minority).

I would like to discuss this further.

The Forgotten Realms is a very popular setting but I think the problem is the new Forgotten Realms may not be. I see that Skidace mentioned Wizards having data. Well they probably have data on the time when it was popular but that won't really help with this edition because there would be no data.

I would also like to point out that it's probably Drizzt who is the most popular so in turn they kind of force FR on people.

 

[vandaexpress]

If I'm honest with myself: yes, probably.

But... the only reason I would buy it is because this appears to be the only thing I'm going to get as far as official products and I absolutely love this game.

This does not mean I'm particularly thrilled with the format or owning yet another physical book.

I get excited when these books come out because it signals the availability of their digital assets, like maps, artwork, FG modules, etc.

If they would do a PDF, I would buy that right away at full price.

I DM. I do it well. I get fully invested into my campaigns. I shoot for verisimilitude. I make high-quality handouts, use digital battlemaps, professionally painted GF9 minis, terrain, etc. I am a diehard fan.

And it's a good thing I'm a diehard fan. Because I feel like I have to fight through Wizards of the Coasts' boneheaded digital product policy in order to bring my campaigns to life.

I am sick and tired of needing to haul around and cross-reference multiple physical books when I really want to organize my campaigns like I do everything else in my life: digitally. This isn't 1980, no, forcing us to use proprietary tools like FG to view information electronically doesn't count. I have legal PDFs of my books. How? I send them to a bookscanner and pay him money on top of the cost of the physical book, who shreds the original copy of the book when he's done to prevent copyright issues. There has got to be a better way for me to pay for digital copies of 5e rulebooks.

As it stands, they are doing a really good job of making pirated digital copies seem incredibly appealing.

We are in the year 2015. I tag, sort, organize, structure, combine, and execute everything like I would a work project: digitally. Why? Because I don't like to waste my time thumbing through physical books or printing off third-party indexes from ENworld for my PHB so I can find things faster because WotC doesn't have a digital publishing strategy. I like to run things by the book and I don't like wasting time flipping through books at the table when Billybob the Bard thinks that Countersong or whatever it's called gives him advantage on skill checks. I prefer to type a few keystrokes, pull up the relevant page and show it on a big-screen TV so Billybob stops talking within seconds of opening his clueless mouth and we can get back to the game.

I feel like forcing me to accept this stuff in a physical format is WotC telling me that they are unable to adapt to the realities of modern living and are clinging to a dying business model.

I recognize I am an outlier and they shouldn't necessarily cater to me, but I cannot tell you how much I love Paizo for letting me buy digital products, maps, and art directly from them so that I can easily use them in my own campaign instead of having to hunt around online for the original artist or scan in portions of my physical products. If I wasn't so in love with the D&D brand and 5e mechanics, I would defect to pathfinder simply because their digital strategy is so much friendlier for people like me.

Are they really curbing piracy? I don't know. You didn't have to look very far to find all the key crunch leaked for SCAG. I have a player that's using one of the SCAG options even though I can all but guarantee he never bought the book.

WotC infuriates me sometimes, especially when I see them release digital copies on DriveThruRPG of old products from past editions: I can hardly wait for 6th edition because then I'll be able to buy a digital 5th edition. :|

/end rant

Again, I know I'm the minority and everyone else loves physical books. I know I'm overreacting. I just wish it was easier for me to use the incredible material they've written in a way that is time-efficient for me.

I would buy a SCAG PDF for $40. I would buy a SCAG PDF + Mike Schley's full maps + Printable Spellbook cards for the new spells for more. But I recognize others would not. Maybe this is the smart play for them as a company, but there has got to be a better way.

 

[was]

At my FLGS for the full asking price: not a chance. If I can get it cheaper, such as at Amazon: probably.