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

[Parmandur]

Now it’s pointing out people are saying “if you wanna run an X style campaign by adventure Z and use the information in that” and the information being a few scant pages that really can’t be used that way.

OK, here's the thing: if someone wants to run a game in Waterdeep, Dragon Heist doesn't have "scant" pages of straight setting material, it has a ton of page count just for that. Same with Baldur's Gate in Descent into Avernus.

15 years ago, WotC would have charged $20-30 for a smaller amount of the same material, and now you can get that and more for less on Amazon. The current approach is more pro-consumer than the older framework. If spending $20-30 in Amazon is a burden to someone who wants to run a Waterdeep campaign, they have bigger problems than WotC product lineup.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Serious question: what are you considering substantial setting information? You seriously consider Ghosts of Saltmarsh to have substantial setting information for Greyhawk?

Substantial for Keoland, I'd say yes. To a different region of Greyhawk, not so much.

 

[Parmandur]

Serious question: what are you considering substantial setting information? You seriously consider Ghosts of Saltmarsh to have substantial setting information for Greyhawk?

It has enough Setting material that TSR would have sold in a book by itself similar in actual cost to the whole GoS package. Have you read the book...?

 

[Parmandur]

You are ignoring the question of what will happen if they die.
Some undead are directly tied to Acecerak and the atropal.
His eventual master Acecerak?

The death rules are in the Core books.

Acecerack can be the final BBEG, if it comes to that. The connection to random undead can be a mystery the players solve, or don't solve.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I think I just made a pretty good case that the design of the book covers new and veteran players pretty well. I'm starting to think that your definition of 'mini-setting' might be a little different than mine or @Parmandur . The book meets my definition of that term just fine.

Which is fine. Your emphasis is more on the experienced DMs. Your coverage is skewed there. To claim the adventure books are mini-settings is still reaching. Especially as some of us do not feel it meets our definition.

 

[Parmandur]

Not so easily removed by new DMs.
Substantially altered and with substantial narrative differences by experienced DMs.

Sure, that's why they are there. Easy to take out, hard to add. Part of the product value.

 

[Parmandur]

Which is fine. Your emphasis is more on the experienced DMs. Your coverage is skewed there. To claim the adventure books are mini-settings is still reaching. Especially as some of us do not feel it meets our definition.

DMs who aren't comfortable with using ToA as a Setting book won't want a normal Setting book.

 

[eyeheartawk]

It has enough Setting material that TSR would have sold in a book by itself similar in actual cost to the whole GoS package. Have you read the book...?

I have, which is why I'm genuinely curious. I mean, even compared the original folio I wouldn't consider GoS to be full of substantive setting material for Greyhawk.

I mean, substantive to me = more than just one town and its immediate environs.

 

[Xenonnonex]

The death rules are in the Core books.

So you agree changing the Death Curse death effects to core rule book death effects is a substantial change.
So you agree that removing the Death Curse in that way is not "literally nothing much changes".

Acecerack can be the final BBEG, if it comes to that. The connection to random undead can be a mystery the players solve, or don't solve.

The ties to the Death Curse are still there.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Sure, that's why they are there. Easy to take out, hard to add. Part of the product value.

Which is what adventure books provide.