D&D 5E Planescape shows up in the wild. Tease from Chris Perkins.

[Maxperson]

While I don't completely agree with your perspective, there has been lots of setting info for FR and VGtR followed CoS, I do get your point.

Additionally, though, those adventure paths spot hit fairly small areas of the Realms, rather than entire regions like the east, south or heartlands. Also, since I don't run adventure paths, I can't be expected to buy them in order to get what setting info is in them. Setting books are really needed.

Though they claim more setting info will be released. We will see.

Yep. We will see. If they do start releasing more setting stuff, I hope it isn't at the anemic rate that they have been releasing non-adventure path books. They're behind a LOT of setting material at this point.

Personally I don't need more setting info from WotC. Just a 5e intro and then I can get old stuff or new stuff on DMsGuild. I hardly think WotC design style matches my own, so it is no use waiting around for them anyway.

And that's fair. Not everyone uses stuff that is released. You might run the adventure paths. I do not. I will buy the anthology adventure books, though, since those are short and I can insert them fairly seamlessly into my game every once in a while. You don't need the setting books. I buy all of them for the settings that I run. We all have different needs to match our different styles of play.

 

[dave2008]

And that's fair. Not everyone uses stuff that is released. You might run the adventure paths. I do not. I will buy the anthology adventure books, though, since those are short and I can insert them fairly seamlessly into my game every once in a while. You don't need the setting books. I buy all of them for the settings that I run. We all have different needs to match our different styles of play.

I never run adventure paths, but I do often buy the adventures. I find them useful for monsters, items, and encounter ideas.

Mixed bag with setting books. We only run our own homebrew setting so I usually buy them (setting books) for basically the same reason I buy the adventures. I don't usually read much of the setting info actually.

 

[dave2008]

Setting books are really needed.

Just wanted to say I disagree with this part. They may be wanted, but not needed IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

Just wanted to say I disagree with this part. They may be wanted, but not needed IMO.

Only in so far as nothing is really needed, not even rules. However, for things really wanted and are very highly useful to many of us, and therefore called "needed," it's needed.

 

[JEB]

On the cares about lore bit, I think there's a big difference between cares about lore generally and cares about lore circa 1997. There's certainly less of the latter, mostly because ~40% of the player base wasn't born by 1997. They're not attached to previous lore because they don't even know it. Hell, I'm about to turn 40 in another year and I started playing 1997.

Out of curiosity, why would the age of the lore matter to a new player, if it's all new information to them?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

First principles D&D, the DM creates the setting. Setting books can make a useful time-saver, but they are peripheral to the game of D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

First principles D&D, the DM creates the setting. Setting books can make a useful time-saver, but they are peripheral to the game of D&D.

First principles D&D, the DM creates the adventure too. APs are also peripheral.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

First principles D&D, the DM creates the adventure too. APs are also peripheral.

I agree completely.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Absolutely. If you see discussions of BG3 for example, the FR wiki just constantly appears where r

Absolutely. If you see discussions of BG3 for example, the FR wiki just constantly appears where relevant, and most of those people have never played tabletop D&D.

Yeah all of this! People saying "Oh kids today don't like lore!" (and I think WotC themselves said something like that a few years ago, which is... concerning) stuff is just wild. Even WotC should know it given the thousands of tons of MtG lore that pour out every year.

Agree re: Planescape being a better fit now too - admittedly it was also a good fit for the 1990s (which also gave us stuff like Neverwhere, for example), but wouldn't have been as good a fit for the 3.XE/'00s audience/aesthetic.

Interestingly is that the whole shemozzle about the hadozee was driven by the combined multiple edition lore on the wiki being interpreted, not just what was on the Spelljammer wiki.

 

[M_Natas]

AFAIK they increased the page count after (though not necessarily because of) the less-than-enthusiastic feedback on Spelljammer. Hopefully with good content!

A problem with spelljammer was, that 50% of the book was ships. While they are important, they took up so much space that everything else fell flat.
Is their something similar in Planescape that could eat a lot of page real estate without giving us a lot of useful information?