D&D 5E Is the "setting guide" format defunct?

[Manchu]

I'm new here so please bear with me if I don't have a firm handle on the local jargon. I am assuming HotDQ/RoT is considered to be an "adventure path" (AP). I am also assuming that an AP is (most simply) defined as a self-contained campaign driven by a single high-level plot arc. The implication of the AP format is the PCs will be limited to certain locations. The AP itself should contain all the relevant info about those locations the DM needs to run the encounters that constitute the plot and subplots. In that case, is there any need for a setting guide?

The obvious answer is, yes because some people do not want to play a particular plot-arc. But even should the customer have no plans to run the AP encounters, all the setting information an AP contains is still useful as the backdrop for homemade campaigns. A setting guide is certainly a more efficient product for this kind of customer but from the publisher's point of view, efficiency as to any one market segment must be weighed against efficiency to all others.

To hypothetically apply this idea, would you (as a customer, DM or PC or both) prefer a Ravenloft AP or a Ravenloft setting guide?

 

[Reynard]

APs are not an efficient means by which to supply enough setting info to allow DMs to build their own games. Every encounter eats space that could otherwise be used for a location, an organization or even a new setting specific rule.

My personal preference is for setting gudes that paint a broad picture and then individual books, articles and adventures that delve into the specifics. That makes setting a la cart, which is much more useful than reams of lore, IMO.

 

[PinkRose]

I don't think it's dead. They could easily put out a setting guide for Forgotten Realms or smaller sections of FR like Moonsea or The North. That would detail the cities and people that live there, and could add rumors, NPCs and treasures that are specific to that area.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Paizo seems to do a pretty healthy business selling both AP's and regional campaign sourcebooks. Since that's apparently too small potatoes for WOTC, hopefully they license the worlds out. I'd pay good money for a nice post Faction War planescape guide (provided it reversed the god awful decision to kick the factions out Sigil) or some more detailed regional Dark Sun books. And no, PDF's don't count. I'm sorry, I just don't value them compared to a physical book and they suck to browse through.

Kickstarter is a good platform to show there's interest in this sort of thing as well. My wife and I backed the utterly amazing Horror on the Orient Express mega boxed set remake, when most gaming stores would have a hard time justifying taking a risk on a massively expensive boxed set.

 

[DMZ2112]

Even ignoring Wizards's substantial back catalog of setting material, which obviates the need for more broad-scope publications, Wizards can only publish one 5th Edition FRCS or Domains of Dread box. But they might publish any number of Forgotten Realms or Ravenloft APs. It's a false equivalency. Yes, a single AP is not as valuable as a single setting guide, but a single setting guide is not nearly as valuable as a half dozen APs.

You could argue that they could supplement a setting guide with gazetteers, but why publish a gazetteer when you can publish an AP that includes all of that information /and/ an adventure? With either strategy, you're going to have regions left out of the detail. I would rather have fewer regions covered be covered in AP detail than more regions covered in setting guide/gazetteer detail.

For me, the usable content ratio is higher in APs, and I don't even buy or use published adventures.

 

[Manchu]

I should have clarified that I meant "dead" in terms of WotC's 5E releases, not for Pathfinder or other RPGs or for third-party publishers of 5E material.

Also - I think Paizo often repackages setting material originally published in APs into short, specific products that get republished again together in HC format. I don't envision WotC doing any of that.

 

[Manchu]

Wizards's substantial back catalog of setting material, which obviates the need for more broad-scope publications

I don't think that is a realistic approach to 5E's market, which is far wider than the demographic who find decades' old material from older editions appealing.

It's a false equivalency.

Only inasmuch as there is nothing about publishing one that is mutually exclusive with publishing the other. To me, that's beside the point given the release pattern of 5E so far. We have three core books and two APs ... and no setting guide. I wonder if WotC even plan to release any material for a setting beyond FR (not counting Ravenloft or Planescape, which are demi-settings).

 

[DMZ2112]

I'd pay good money for a nice post Faction War planescape guide (provided it reversed the god awful decision to kick the factions out Sigil)

Then you wouldn't pay good money for a post-Faction War Planescape guide. You'd pay good money for reprinted '90s setting material. I'm not criticizing -- this is /exactly/ my position on Dragonlance. But you should call a space a spade, because the question of whether the existing settings get expanded upon or simply rehashed is central to this discussion.

I don't think Dragonlance benefits from expansion. It is a vignette setting. I don't think it has benefited from the expansion it's already seen. On the other hand, I think Faction War, Dead Gods, and Die, Vecna, Die! were logical extensions to the Planescape fiction and planar D&D fiction in general and retconning them would be a mistake. These were events with far-reaching consequences for D&D as a whole.

An environment of expansion is tailor made for APs, while rehashing existing material suggests more of a setting guide approach.

 

[Reynard]

Even ignoring Wizards's substantial back catalog of setting material, which obviates the need for more broad-scope publications

::sigh:: No it doesn't.

You could argue that they could supplement a setting guide with gazetteers, but why publish a gazetteer when you can publish an AP that includes all of that information /and/ an adventure? With either strategy, you're going to have regions left out of the detail. I would rather have fewer regions covered be covered in AP detail than more regions covered in setting guide/gazetteer detail.

For me, the usable content ratio is higher in APs, and I don't even buy or use published adventures.

This makes no sense at all. Every part of the adventure is space not dedicated to setting details off which you can build your own adventures or even just flavor the world. APs are not good setting guides. They are barely good adventures.

 

[Manchu]

An environment of expansion is tailor made for APs, while rehashing existing material suggests more of a setting guide approach.

This is a very strong point and does not bode well for setting guides in 5E's future.

They are barely good adventures.

Could you expand on this point?