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

[Paul Farquhar]

Definitely agree.

I find the assertions of "do not play this character" because of not enough information is baffling bizarre. And incredibly out of touch. DMs should be encouraging players. Not bluntly shooting them down.

Do not play this character if you are not sufficiently interested to take the 60 seconds required to google it.

I would certainly not dictate that players go out and spend £40 on a book in order to play a character.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Do not play this character if you are not sufficiently interested to take the 60 seconds required to google it.

I would certainly not dictate that players go out and spend £40 on a book in order to play a character.

They want to play this character because they came up with the character concept. They just lack the sufficient information. If they ask your help for the information do you then say "do not play this character"?

The point is for DMs running the adventure. And about DMs helping their players. No one has said anything about dictating players to spend on these.

 

[Xenonnonex]

But it's irrelevant - a dedicated FR setting book that covered Chult would say exactly the same thing, the fact that ToA also includes an adventure makes no difference whatsoever.

Would it? I did not realize you spoke for Wizards.

And you objection raises another issue. If WotC did do another FR setting book that advanced the timeline, the chances are the rabid FR fanatics would object to the design decisions made anyway.

The objection was to your asserted conclusion based only on inference.

 

[amethal]

You can do what you like with it - it's your setting.

I already knew that.

I'm almost certain that you knew that I already knew that. However, now you definitely know that I already knew that.

Advice on this thread has ranged the whole gamut from google for what's not in the book, make up stuff that's not in the book, and change or ignore stuff that is in the book.

That is advice that can be applied to every book ever written, but it wouldn't make a very good mission statement for a company that wanted to make books that people would pay money for.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

There are a couple of us pointing out the inaccuracy of the claim that ToA "has everything we need to run adventures in Chult". To say the ability to make adventures suddenly breaks down with the simplest of requests is your own assumed projection. It also demonstrates you do not understand the disagreement to the claim. But you do like to assert your opinion over others so I guess that is normal.

I mean, you're the one saying you "need" Ubtao's domain listed for it to be officially something you can use for adventures... now I'm guessing you probably don't need it at all, as I assume you were able to start ToA after you made your google search (which I pointed out you can do with your PH if you don't have internet).

Just trying to point out that need =/= want.

 

[Fenris-77]

 

[Parmandur]

I already knew that.

I'm almost certain that you knew that I already knew that. However, now you definitely know that I already knew that.

Advice on this thread has ranged the whole gamut from google for what's not in the book, make up stuff that's not in the book, and change or ignore stuff that is in the book.

That is advice that can be applied to every book ever written, but it wouldn't make a very good mission statement for a company that wanted to make books that people would pay money for.

And yet WotC seems to be doing OK with the Adventure-with-Setting format.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My take:

@Xenonnonex is being a little hyperbolic when he says he "needs" this information in the book.

@Urriak Uruk is being a little dismissive by reiterating that you don't "need" it. The way he is presenting his argument suggests that all content is unnecessary, because the DM can Google away, and/or improvise. And yet I'm betting he still uses published content.

It's somewhere in the middle, and the perfect balance is a matter of preference that varies by DM.

So can we drop it?

 

[Teemu]

Unearthed Arcana.
You have it backwards. The PHB has players select the deity first. Then they select the principles they want to embody. Which deity is the most important. If you do not have enough information for this this does not become feasible.


Player -> Hey DM. What is an appropriate deity for a native Chultan?
DM -> Ubtao looks about right
Player -> Great. Where can I find more about him?
DM is checking -> Not in ToA for sure.

How would the DM know that Ubtao looks about right when SCAG has no mention of Ubtao, and in ToA, which details the 5e Chult, makes it clear that Ubtao has receded and is not actively worshiped? A PC native to Chult would be from Port Nyanzaru, and ToA describes the city and its temples. The DM would recommend one of the deities who have places of worship in Port Nyanzaru.

 

[Parmandur]

How would the DM know that Ubtao looks about right when SCAG has no mention of Ubtao, and in ToA, which details the 5e Chult, makes it clear that Ubtao has receded and is not actively worshiped? A PC native to Chult would be from Port Nyanzaru, and ToA describes the city and its temples. The DM would recommend one of the deities who have places of worship in Port Nyanzaru.

Hmmm, almost like ToA is some sort of Setting book...