I don't use premade adventure paths, though. Buying them would mean spending a chunk of money on a mostly wasted product. I'm not going to do that and it's not wrong of me to balk at it and expect that setting information be put out in a setting book.
Wrong, no, but as a product strategy it works for WotC, and is handy to have in play.
Which is fine, but they aren't setting books, even if they have a bit of setting material.
Which is why the SCAG sucks. It should have contained all of the gazetteers that are scattered throughout the Sword Coast adventures. And why Minsc and Boo's Journal of Villainy is better than the SCAG.Which is fine, but they aren't setting books, even if they have a bit of setting material.
They aren't exclusively setting books. Or primarily setting books.Which is fine, but they aren't setting books, even if they have a bit of setting material.
They aren't setting books OR support, no matter what WotC considers them. Their primary purpose is the big multi-level adventure. What other information in them supports that adventure, not the campaign setting. WotC is deluding itself if it thinks people are going to buy those books only for the bit of setting info that they contain. Those books could be considered setting support if people were reasonably buying them only for the setting portion that those books contain. It isn't reasonable to do that, though. It's throwing most of the money spent on the adventure in the trash to do that.
That's exactly my point. I DON'T have a big adventure book providing a few details about the setting. Why? Because I don't use big adventures and it would be throwing money in the trash to buy it. The meager setting details in them aren't worth paying full retail price to get, and it's unreasonable for WotC to expect that I would do so. Further, having a few setting details spread out over several books rather many setting details in one or two setting books is a piss poor way to organize a setting.
