D&D 5E Escapist article on SCAG is Brutal.

pukunui · Nov 13, 2015

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]: Let's not forget that these guys are gamers too. I'm not sure that saying they don't want to make more books is accurate. I'm sure that they personally would love to make more books. It's just that they're unable to do so, for the reasons you stated. And so they try to put a positive spin on it. Wouldn't you do that too, though? Do we really want to hear them say, "We can't afford to release more books per year than this because it's not profitable"?

[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION]: Perhaps he does have a clue, and it's just that your experience is not as common as you seem to think it is. Maybe he's got market research that would put you in the minority. You always seem so eager to see the worst in WotC employees. Try putting yourself in their shoes. Chris and Mike et al are people too. What would you do if you were in their position, in charge of a great game with much gravitas but in a vastly reduced position, forced to rely on ex-colleagues to help you out? Wouldn't you try to put as positive a spin on things as possible too?

Irennan · Nov 13, 2015

pukunui said:
[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]: Let's not forget that these guys are gamers too. I'm not sure that saying they don't want to make more books is accurate. I'm sure that they personally would love to make more books. It's just that they're unable to do so, for the reasons you stated. And so they try to put a positive spin on it. Wouldn't you do that too, though? Do we really want to hear them say, "We can't afford to release more books per year than this because it's not profitable"?

Personally, I'd respect the honesty, if they were to say that.

pukunui · Nov 13, 2015

Yes, I'm sure some would. But we humans are funny creatures, and we don't always want to hear the ugly truth.

BryonD · Nov 13, 2015

pukunui said:
[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]: Let's not forget that these guys are gamers too. I'm not sure that saying they don't want to make more books is accurate. I'm sure that they personally would love to make more books. It's just that they're unable to do so, for the reasons you stated. And so they try to put a positive spin on it. Wouldn't you do that too, though? Do we really want to hear them say, "We can't afford to release more books per year than this because it's not profitable"?

Sure. The "they" in my post is the company and the people making the choices.
And, to be clear, I'm not looking to bash companies for making what they believe to be best value choices for their resources.
But if Chris is or is not completely on-board with me in wishing there was a lot more material being produced, he is playing the hand he has been dealt.

I've often said I'd love to have a beer with Mearls 10 years post-WotC. I think it would be a hellova conversation.

Edit: I think I failed to answer your question. I don't want to hear them say that and I don't think they ever would. But there is nothing wrong with calling spin what it is either. And I would prefer "we are doing what is best for the brand" over something that kinda assumes I'm not smart enough to see through the spin.

jayoungr · Nov 13, 2015

I'm A Banana said:
(though I've always kind of loathed the Wall of Souls, always seemed like a bit of a "screw you" to characters who just didn't want to bother learning about the fantasy pantheon)

I assume you mean players rather than characters in the quote above. And it seems to me that if a player can't be bothered to learn enough about the setting to pick a deity for his/her character ... that player probably should be playing something other than D&D, or at least some other setting than Forgotten Realms.

I'm A Banana · Nov 13, 2015

pukunui said:
Does everything in the book need to be useful "in play"?

It's how I evaluate bang for my buck - if I can't work the info into the game I'm playing, then it's not really helping me to play D&D. I don't buy an RPG book primarily to read for pleasure (novels do that better) or to look pretty on my bookshelf (like an art or photography book), I buy it to help me play D&D.

I'll admit that I'm not at all disappointed by it. Yes, part of me would've liked a bigger book with more fluff and/or crunch in it, but I'm still pretty happy with what is in the book.

Definitely not tryin' to tell you how to feel.

You like it, you like it. Just pointing out that there's some criticism to be had that's not necessarily just sour grapes. Not that there's not plenty of sour grapes, too.

JohnLynch said:
As DM I find the god's info extremely useful because for once it covers worshipers and clergy, not the god's themselves. Little tidbits will be getting sprinkled throughout a lot of my adventures as a result.

Yeah, another slightly odd choice for a player's guide...for a more player-focused experience, they might've given a list of gods for each domain, and then described maybe 1-3 (depending on page count) in deep detail.

jayoungr said:
I assume you mean players rather than characters in the quote above. And it seems to me that if a player can't be bothered to learn enough about the setting to pick a deity for his/her character ... that player probably should be playing something other than D&D, or at least some other setting than Forgotten Realms.

I mean that it's a punishment for the characters (since players don't become mortared) whose players aren't interested in diving into the god-lore. I'm not generally of the opinion that PC's need to be punished when their players aren't engaged in the setting. Rather, I need to give players a carrot - something they get for caring. "Because my character will have a bad afterlife" isn't a reason for the player at the table to really care. But, like, "because I'm eligible for this particular perk" might be. That's why I think things like the PDK and the Bladesinger to a slightly better job of being integrated into the setting - they've got setting-specific requirements, so someone who plays an elf in FR has a clear "elves might do THIS, and no one else can!" element.

pukunui · Nov 13, 2015

jayoungr said:
And it seems to me that if a player can't be bothered to learn enough about the setting to pick a deity for his/her character ... that player probably should be playing something other than D&D, or at least some other setting than Forgotten Realms.

You don't think that's a bit harsh? Most of the people in my Tyranny of Dragons campaign are new to D&D as well as the Realms. I've drip-fed them some setting info as we've gone along, but for the most part they haven't really delved that deeply into the details on their own, nor do I really expect them to. I certainly don't hold it against them. I've helped them out with details where it mattered - like I suggested that the elf rogue came from Evermeet and that the human noble fighter came from a patriar family in Baldur's Gate, and I suggested to my wife that her dwarf wizard come from Iltkazar, the dwarf kingdom under Tethyr that is ruled by a disguised silver dragon. They were all quite happy to go along with my suggestions.

Oddly enough, the one player who has quite a bit of experience playing in the Realms is playing a character that is the least grounded in the setting. He's playing a goliath druid and I have no idea where his character came from - some mountain range somewhere. He's a "last of his tribe" sort, so it doesn't really matter, although I might suggest that maybe he came from the mountains near Parnast at an appropriate time ...

pukunui · Nov 13, 2015

I'm A Banana said:
It's how I evaluate bang for my buck - if I can't work the info into the game I'm playing, then it's not really helping me to play D&D. I don't buy an RPG book primarily to read for pleasure (novels do that better) or to look pretty on my bookshelf (like an art or photography book), I buy it to help me play D&D.

Fair enough. I think what I was trying to say was that it can all be useful information in some way, just not necessarily at the table during an actual game session. Some of the setting stuff might only come up for players during character creation, for instance. That doesn't make it useless info, just because they're not actively referring to it at the table. I get what you're saying, though.

Definitely not tryin' to tell you how to feel. You like it, you like it. Just pointing out that there's some criticism to be had that's not necessarily just sour grapes. Not that there's not plenty of sour grapes, too.

Yeah, fair enough.

Rather, I need to give players a carrot - something they get for caring.

Agreed. In the context of an activity in which we partake for fun, carrots are (almost) always gonna more effective than sticks.

Hussar · Nov 13, 2015

Irennan said:
Personally, I'd respect the honesty, if they were to say that.

Haven't they though?

Mearls says that too many books is bad for the line.

Perkins says (I think it was him) that they're looking for 100k sales for every title.

Is it really that much of a stretch to come to the conclusion that they aren't publishing books because it's not profitable (enough)?

gyor · Nov 13, 2015

pukunui said:
[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]: Let's not forget that these guys are gamers too. I'm not sure that saying they don't want to make more books is accurate. I'm sure that they personally would love to make more books. It's just that they're unable to do so, for the reasons you stated. And so they try to put a positive spin on it. Wouldn't you do that too, though? Do we really want to hear them say, "We can't afford to release more books per year than this because it's not profitable"?

[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION]: Perhaps he does have a clue, and it's just that your experience is not as common as you seem to think it is. Maybe he's got market research that would put you in the minority. You always seem so eager to see the worst in WotC employees. Try putting yourself in their shoes. Chris and Mike et al are people too. What would you do if you were in their position, in charge of a great game with much gravitas but in a vastly reduced position, forced to rely on ex-colleagues to help you out? Wouldn't you try to put as positive a spin on things as possible too?

I don't buy into your arguement, I'm not saying your wrong about them not wanting release more, but feeling they can't, I'm saying that the issue isn't profitablity, they seemed to have made a profit on every 5e product so far, its the business model they're using that's the problem, if they utilitalized kickstarter for all, but key products they could make sure every such product is profitable and that they're is a large enough market for it.

But they don't and its a loss for everyone invovled.