D&D 5E The case for (and against) a new Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book

[Xenonnonex]

No, bit ToA is quite thorough.

Not everyone wants every product, but if a product serves it's function (by selling well for five years, for example) it is unlikely to be replaced swiftly.

Again. ToA uses locations that are relevant to the adventure. If I want to run something without the overhanging Death Curse and with other places of Chult I cannot. Unless I homebrew.
Books released by Wizards have followed themes. They need to bring new themes to the table. However as something that was released in the infancy of 5e and with a third party dev SCAG may just be something that needs a re-release. Like Tyranny of Dragons.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Hence SCAG. It's a one-two combo.

The point is that if the other book requires another book to make full use of it then clearly the original book does not contain enough information.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Again. ToA uses locations that are relevant to the adventure. If I want to run something without the overhanging Death Curse and with other places of Chult I cannot. Unless I homebrew.
Books released by Wizards have followed themes. They need to bring new themes to the table. However as something that was released in the infancy of 5e and with a third party dev SCAG may just be something that needs a re-release. Like Tyranny of Dragons.

Unless my GM was changing a lot of stuff behind the scenes, there was no Death Curse related materials in 80% of the places we visited. The few places that did have something to do with the DC were mostly "Go here, find this person, talk to them to get pointed to the next location".

I don't agree that you can't run Chult: Generic Adventures from the ToA book with little to no adjustments.

 

[Parmandur]

Again. ToA uses locations that are relevant to the adventure. If I want to run something without the overhanging Death Curse and with other places of Chult I cannot. Unless I homebrew.
Books released by Wizards have followed themes. They need to bring new themes to the table. However as something that was released in the infancy of 5e and with a third party dev SCAG may just be something that needs a re-release. Like Tyranny of Dragons.

The "places that are relevant to the Adventure" are basically everything of significance in late 15th century Chult, though. Port Nyanzaru is the city on the peninsula.

 

[Demetrios1453]

One book for all of Faerun would be either too big and costly for most FR gamers to afford, or if it were condensed down to something affordable, would gloss over so many things as to be useless.

They've successfully done so for four previous editions, so what's the difference now? Yes, there's more history, but the history section in all of the setting guides so far have always been condensed to a few pages, so theres no reason that couldn't happen again. Beyond that, the land area and other topics (deities, factions, etc.) to cover would basically be the same as previous books. So if previous books successfully fit all that in, there's no reason that future ones couldn't as well.

 

[Parmandur]

Unless my GM was changing a lot of stuff behind the scenes, there was no Death Curse related materials in 80% of the places we visited. The few places that did have something to do with the DC were mostly "Go here, find this person, talk to them to get pointed to the next location".

I don't agree that you can't run Chult: Generic Adventures from the ToA book with little to no adjustments.

This is accurate: you can cut out the Death Curse, and frankly forget about the Lost City or tomb sections, and have everything to run a complete campaign.

 

[Parmandur]

The point is that if the other book requires another book to make full use of it then clearly the original book does not contain enough information.

Not required, by any means.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

You think there is strong correlation between video games and RPGs? I honestly don't know, as I've never gotten into video games beyond the odd foray into Tetris and this or that app.

But my point remains: The huge cohort of new players have almost all played in the Forgotten Realms, simply by default (as most story arcs are set there). They know what it is. Most of them don't know about Greyhawk or Mystara or Dragonlance, or probably even Planescape and Dark Sun - except through rumors. This isn't unlike how most of my cohort--the "D&D boomers" of the early 80s--didn't know much about Blackmoor or even Wilderlands, at least at first, until they were republished in some way, and/or if we went looking.

This is why I'd love to see WotC offer a series of articles through the website or Dragon+ that essentially introduces the "legacy settings" of D&D, and even does some polling to see which settings readers want to see more of. This would be a decent way to gauge interest in older settings, beyond guessing.

See, I think you're confusing one argument (that FR is the most well-known and most used setting) with a completely different point (that most people want another FR setting book).

Point 1 is indisputable; FR benefits from the video games as you say, but it benefits most from being the setting in nearly every hardcover adventure book for 5E. That alone will make it easily the most used and well-known setting used by 5E players, no question. Even Exandria can't match that.

But just because Point 1 is true, it does not mean that all of those users want another FR setting book. In fact, it could mean the exact opposite, and that those users want something other than what they have; they may ask for more material for gothic horror campaigns, or epic fantasy campaigns, or steampunk, whatever.

I suspect that WotC internal market research points to that same conclusion, that most 5E players want more setting books, but for material that is outside of FR's purview; that's why we have gotten settings for Ravnica, Eberron, and Theros, which are decidedly not FR. And if you look at the recent UA, they seem to be pointing to either Dark Sun or Planescape material.

 

[Parmandur]

See, I think you're confusing one argument (that FR is the most well-known and most used setting) with a completely different point (that most people want another FR setting book).

Point 1 is indisputable; FR benefits from the video games as you say, but it benefits most from being the setting in nearly every hardcover adventure book for 5E. That alone will make it easily the most used and well-known setting used by 5E players, no question. Even Exandria can't match that.

But just because Point 1 is true, it does not mean that all of those users want another FR setting book. In fact, it could mean the exact opposite, and that those users want something other than what they have; they may ask for more material for gothic horror campaigns, or epic fantasy campaigns, or steampunk, whatever.

I suspect that WotC internal market research points to that same conclusion, that most 5E players want more setting books, but for material that is outside of FR's purview; that's why we have gotten settings for Ravnica, Eberron, and Theros, which are decidedly not FR. And if you look at the recent UA, they seem to be pointing to either Dark Sun or Planescape material.

Planescape material is support for FR, too, really, being the default meta-setting that includes FR. A Planescape book, with planar details and adventuring material, would be very handy for FR players, and Homebrewers. Probably more so than a FRCS.

 

[Fenris-77]

Planescape material is support for FR, too, really, being the default meta-setting that includes FR. A Planescape book, with planar details and adventuring material, would be very handy for FR players, and Homebrewers. Probably more so than a FRCS.

Planejammer. It needs to be a thing.