D&D 5E (2014) Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Corwin]

I'm betting that when I get VGtM in hand, that it'll be FR in title only.

I'm sure there will be huge boilerplate warnings that sections of the book are intended for use in FR campaigns only.

 

[delericho]

However, if I go to Barnes & Noble and purchase this book, how would I (who doesn't know who the hell Volo is) know it is Forgetten Realms specific?

Google is your friend.

Furthermore, assuming I do know Volo, what am I to make of the reference(s) to the GreyHawk setting in the book?

A handful of references buried in the interior text of a 224-page book aren't the same as a direct reference in the title, nor the product description on the manufacturer's website.

If you can't understand that distinction, I can't help you. Though, frankly, at this point I'm inclined to think you understand it perfectly well.

 

[delericho]

I'm betting that when I get VGtM in hand, that it'll be FR in title only.

Sure. I'm quite certain it will be every bit as usable in a non-FR game as 3e's "Monsters of Faerun".

I'm merely noting that because WotC chose to make it FR in title (only?), presumably because they felt that would help sales, then I'm choosing to respect their decision.

 

[dave2008]

Google is your friend.


A handful of references buried in the interior text of a 224-page book aren't the same as a direct reference in the title, nor the product description on the manufacturer's website.

If you can't understand that distinction, I can't help you. Though, frankly, at this point I'm inclined to think you understand it perfectly well.

It all depends on POV. I have never used any of the official settings. To me, there is no more relevance to the FR setting in Volo or any other character described in the book. It is simple lost on me. So to me, there is no distinction other than being on the cover and more frequently throughout the book. One is not more FR than the other, even when some are not FR at all. Does that make sense?

To be clear, I understand your point and I can agree with it from a particular POV. It is FR because WotC says it is, I have no issue with that. I'm just pointing out that it works just fine setting neutral as well, i.e. it appears to be FR in name only. Don't really know yet since I don't have it.

I guess the most important thing for me (or WotC) is it is the first book since OotA that I will be buying and I don't play a lick in the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well we do have three editions of rapid release that have all failed to triple the fan base so there is at least some evidence that rapid release does not equate to greater appeal.

It appeals to hard-core 'loyal' fans who stick with the game through the full run of every edition, and thus buy a lot of product. It's a way of flogging revenue out of a very small, very devoted, fan base (it continues to work for Paizo with PF, for instance).

The slow pace of release, as ByronD very cogently pointed out, doesn't flog revenue, nor does it build up the game itself or the broader hobby by getting new players to try the game nor retaining them with an on-line subscription model, as 4e was meant to, even though all the tools were never delivered.
What keeping a core, readily-identifyable 3-book set on the shelves does do, is help maintain the D&D name & IP's place in the hobby.
That can be leveraged to make real money in some other market.

 

[jayoungr]

The slow pace of release, as ByronD very cogently pointed out, doesn't flog revenue, nor does it build up the game itself or the broader hobby by getting new players to try the game

That's debatable. Some people think that the slow pace actually encourages new players to try the game, by lowering the perceived bar to entry. I don't know whether that's true or not--personally, I think "getting new players to try the game" is more of a personal networking thing--but it's certainly not an agreed-upon fact that a slow pace of release acts against garnering new players.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's debatable. Some people think that the slow pace actually encourages new players to try the game, by lowering the perceived bar to entry.

It certainly gives the game a clearer identity, which can't hurt in that regard. But it's not a driving force, by itself.

And, D&D had a complicated market presence as its sales were growing by leaps and bounds: in the early 80s, the original game was still in print, there were supplements being actively produced for it, including 3pp from Judges Guild and Arduin, and there were older Basic Sets floating around, and B/X, and AD&D. So while a muddled market presence may not hurt, it clearly couldn't hold the game back either.

personally, I think "getting new players to try the game" is more of a personal networking thing--but it's certainly not an agreed-upon fact that a slow pace of release acts against garnering new players.

Agreed. By far the best way to learn a game like 5e D&D (as with the classic D&D it so carefully resembles) is to learn it from an experienced DM, preferably with some experienced players at the table. 5e has brought back many experienced players, and encourages capable DMs to run, and run the best games possible, through DM Empowerment (OK, in theory, it also encourages pathological DMs to abuse that empowerment, but on balance I think the net effect is well into the positive side).

Also agree that the slow pace of release, even if it doesn't exactly help with attracting new players, certainly doesn't hurt. It only puts off the really hard-core-system-wonks who like having a really complex, deep, system to work with - on the player side. That's a bad thing in the sense that 5e is trying to be all-D&Ds to all-D&Ders, and abandoning such a loyal segment of the establish fanbase is arguably giving the lie to that whole inclusiveness thing, But it's not a bad thing in terms of leaving the door open for new players, and it's a good thing when it comes to creating a strong brand identity.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Laugh Greenstone.Walker, jasper, DM Magic, BrockBallingdark laughed at this post.

I gotta ask these people.

What exactly do you find so funny about the initial post?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What exactly do you find so funny about the initial post?

Some folks seem to think it's a 'Thumbs Down' button.

 

[Shasarak]

While that's true, 2nd Ed wasn't a WotC edition - it was produced prior to the buy-out.
@Hussar was referring to 3.0e, 3.5e, and 4e as his "three editions".

In that case do we have 3e, 3.5, 4e and Essentials as the last four editions before 5e?