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

[Mercurius]

I'd hesitate if the maps are as godawful as the ones in SCAG (hard to view/too small regional map, useless city "inkblot" maps). But who am I fooling...sure, probably. I'm a bit disappointed by SCAG as I was hoping for more detail, but it is still a decent product and, well, not much else is coming out.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't much care about the format. If the mechanics don't provide viable alternatives to what is present in the PHB, I'm unlikely to buy. I see no point in purchasing material with inferior mechanics that will rarely or never see use in campaigns I run. Most of the mechanical options in SCAG were of this variety. I need better mechanical options to purchase a book, options that will see use. I won't buy a book that will sit in my bag seeing next to no use. I still can't fathom how they can write that many deities and only include one new domain. It was an extremely sad offering compared to what they used to produce during the 3E era.

 

[FedeII]

I liked the SCAG because as a player i don't particularly enjoy huge geografical fictional lore. And the sections about Race culture, religion and background were interesting. I would maybe have appreciated something more original, like a chapter on the "traditional" enemy organizations (more on thay or orcs or others specifically in sword coast), bit they decided a Low Page count, so the lack of something like that is understandable. So, i voted yes.

I don't get one thing about the SCAG though. WOTC Said that they wanted to avoid bloat in this Edition, and wanted all the rules, the mechanics for Players to be in a book. Now they are actually in Three (player's handbook, princes of apocalypse, SCAG). If they continued to make SCAG-like books, wouldn't that be pretty much against their original intentions? A player ' handbook 2 probably would have been more in Line with what they stated, i think.

 

[delericho]

I'd very much prefer something else. $40 for 160 pages is a tough sell.

But... if that's the format they eventually put the finalised Eberron material in, then yes I'd buy it. (But I won't be buying the "Dalelands AG" or the "Birthright AG", or whatever - only the book that hits my specific interest.)

 

[wedgeski]

I haven't decided on SCAG, simply because I haven't yet been able to have a close look. If I like what I see, I'll get it. Same applies to all other products down the line. I have nothing whatsoever against the format so I voted Yes.

 

[JohnLynch]

I haven't read it cover to cover but I did like what I've read so far. So I'd say yes at this stage I will be buying future books in this format.

 

[IlluminatedSeraph]

I think this a very "it depends" answer for me. It's worth noting that I didn't buy SCAG, though I get to have it in my house because my lover did; I've got exactly the wrong mix of familiarity with and general distaste for the Realms for the book to appeal much to me personally. That said, I thought it was very well done as the introductory guide it set out to be, and if they ever put out such a guide for a setting I'm not familiar and am intrigued by then they're very likely to make a sale.

As for the mechanics, [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION], I was actually pretty pleased with most of what was in there. I probably wouldn't have bought the book for them, either, but I'm really glad to have those options available at my table (Sun Soul and Bladesinger are already set to get play in an upcoming game, and Purple Dragon Knight, Long Death Monk, Storm Sorc and both Rogue options have prompted speculation from my group).

 

[CapnZapp]

If future setting books mimic the format of SCAG, will you purchase them?

I will kick it off by saying no. I think this format is way to thin and lacking for my tastes. Forgotten Realms is a massively, rich world full of lore and this format does it no justice.

I think you're just protesting, and that you (and everybody else) will come round once it's apparent this is all we're gonna get.

Yes, I believe the time for 3E FRCS style books has passed.

Yes, I believe the time for Complete Fighter style books has passed.

WotC has simply decided it's too much effort for too little gain. Better to sell books that combine 10% of the fluff from an old-edition campaign guide with 10% of the crunch from an old-edition class splatbook, and sell that at 100% of the price.

Remember, WotC is far from going all-in on Dungeons & Dragons this time. To me, it's apparant Hasbro has instructed WotC to maintain a holding pattern, investing the minimal effort needed to keep the gamers reasonably happy to keep the brand afloat.

All the while, expanding D&D into movies and toys is where the real money is at.

I fully expect the next "adventurer's guide" to cover another region of Forgotten Realms, and to include a new smattering of crunch. Leaving the Realms for another campaign setting simply draws a smaller audience. If anything, it wouldn't surprise me if WotC were to add stuff previously exclusive to other campaign settings (such as Eberron) into that FR book.

So yes, I believe the time where WotC simultaneously provides active support for more than one setting has passed. It makes much more financial sense to target ALL gamers all the time, never delving into a niche.

SCAG fits this pattern. It appeals to players and dungeons masters alike. It offers bits of support for previous editions (such as bladesingers and warlords/purple knights). It adds crunchy bits you can use for your own campaign set in another world (such as Eberron, Dark Sun or what have you) without needlessly excluding the Realms fans.

So I vote "yes". But not only that, I wager you too will come around and vote yes, eventually.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'd very much prefer something else. $40 for 160 pages is a tough sell.

DING! I can't justify the asking price for that page count.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

No. And it's not just the format. The 5E Realms is too much Salvatore and not enough Ed. SCAG was WotC's one chance to win me over to their new vision for FR and I didn't/don't like it.