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

[Fenris-77]

Can we talk about who "appropriate thoroughness" actually appeals to? If you want to make a case for the book you need to make a case for why this would appeal to a wider audience. Hardcore Realms veterans are not the wider audience.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I mean, I kind of agree with everything you've written here... except FR already has one setting book, the SCAG. Not sure why it deserves to have 2 released before GH, Ravenloft or DL have one.

I mean, here is all the setting material published for FR so far;

• The SCAG (covering the entirety of the Sword Coast)
• Tyranny of Dragons (covering the SC, but also Thay)
• Out of the Abyss (the Underdark beneath the SC)
• Tomb of Annihilation (Chult)
• Waterdeep Dragon Heist (Waterdeep)
• Baldur's Gate Descent into Avernus (Baldur's Gate)

That's a lot of material. And I don't think it is going to stop either; every annual adventure contains something relevant to FR. So I don't think WotC is interested in revisiting another setting book for them, when their adventures keep providing new material instead.

This would be a perfectly acceptable solution, but they haven't touched the outside world beyond Chult as of yet. The good news is that they are running out of places within the Sword Coast to detail like that, so perhaps they might start looking abroad (I know Cormyr and Lantan have been hinted at). If they start doing so, then a lot of the complaints would stop.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Can we talk about who "appropriate thoroughness" actually appeals to? If you want to make a case for the book you need to make a case for why this would appeal to a wider audience. Hardcore Realms veterans are not the wider audience.

The same question could be asked of the 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e setting books. Who did covering the whole setting appeal to then? Why then and not now?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The same question could be asked of the 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e setting books.

There is a difference: for 1st, 2nd and the start of 3rd edition, you couldn't just Google it, you needed the book.

 

[Fenris-77]

The same question could be asked of the 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e setting books. Who did covering the whole setting appeal to then? Why then and not now?

Because WotC pretty obviously has a different business model than TSR did back in the day, and different even that pre-Hasbro WotC. Also, the nature of who plays the games and the general level of popularity is different than with any of those editions. In short, because now is different than then.

 

[amethal]

That's legitimate, but possibly inconsequential to most readers, many of whom posses neither your familiarity with the setting, nor your reams of previous source material. I think going online for a map is a natural and obvious choice to most folks who might have noticed the Peninsula Conundrum. I'm not hating, just saying the level of detail you're concerned with might not be shared by you average gamer.

You might be right, but the only opinion I have to offer is my own.

 

[Fenris-77]

You might be right, but the only opinion I have to offer is my own.

I get it, I'm a Realms fan too. I'm just trying to take what we want and locate it the greater context of what makes sense for WotC in terms of the current fanbase and popularity.

 

[teitan]

Please no more War of the Lance Dragonlance.

Oh no, I think it could be awesome with a twist. Not playing the heroes of the Lance. It opens up the story in some pretty cool directions I think. Remove the railroad, remove the “this character can’t die until...” and you have the makings of a great 5e adventure. Imagine doing YOUR story of an iconic D&D adventure that everyone knows the characters for and how it could be different. I was not behind the idea until I started really thinking about it. I now think this is one of Perkins projects.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

But then why did Wizards release Tyranny of Dragons before other adventures? We already have Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat.

Tyranny of Dragons is just Hoard and Rise combined into one book, with a handful of revisions and new concept art. If you think that is what people are asking for when they're demanding an entirely new setting book, then you've lost the argument.

Well this reminder somewhat convinces me that it isn't there plan to release a setting book, at least not a traditional one, but I don't think it negaes the need or at least usefulness of one.

As for Greyhawk, as I've said up-thread, I think that is a grognard pipe-dream. I just don't think it has the wide appeal. Ravenloft? Maybe, but if the above list negates the need for an FR book, then why not Curse of Strahd?

I actually agree with you that both Greyhawk and Ravenloft seem unlikely (for now) to get their own books. Greyhawk because it's because fan, Mearls, has said himself that he doesn't know the right way to release GH as a book. And Ravenloft because I find it more likely that WotC would release an Innistrad book instead.

I feel like only Planescape and Dark Sun are sure bets. Dragonlance may eventually happen, but I think it's more likely they would remake some of its adventures instead of make a true setting book.

 

[Parmandur]

No.

As he said: "The core of setting from Moonshae to Thay, Unther and Mulhorrand, to the Dalelands and the Sea of Fallen Stars can be done with appropriate thoroughness as they have always been done in past corebooks or boxed sets for the Realms."

Those areas are not covered with "appropriate thoroughness".

What is the measure for how appropriate the thoroughness is, though...?