Boxed Sets

[Prince of Happiness]

Usually I like them. The City of Splendors boxed set was convenient for me to put in Waterdeep and the North and Volo's Guide to Waterdeep for the "Total Waterdhavian Package." That was nice.

However, I just got the Kara Tur boxed set, and it is awful. Two flimsy 96 page books which could have been put together in one larger book (it's not organized like the Grey FR Box at all), and a bunch of double sided maps that hardly provide any context to which region you're looking at and how it fits into the larger world. Now got to find the Trail Map for it. Ah well, at least I can fit "Swords of the Daimyo" in it.

 

[Psion]

I liked the boxed sets I had (PS boxed sets, Undermountain), but found that they easily got crushed and pieces got lost.

I'd just as soon the contents be assembled into a hardbound volume.

 

[Treebore]

I don't like how the boxes themselves broke down, but I liked the "extra's" and how they broke apart the DM and player material. Plus I am buying the Judges Guild boxed set coming out late this year or early next. If I was into Midnight I would probably buy that one too. It sounds exactly what I liked about boxed sets.

 

[PJ-Mason]

I voted no. When all is said and done, they become too much of a pain. Accumulate enough of them over the years and they become a hassle to keep together and make moving a hazard proposition them. Them all you got is box parts and your looking for somewhere to story your magazine sized gamebooks.

 

[dead]

I don't miss boxed sets although I have very fond memories of them. (And I own about a million.)

No, to tell you the truth, I like campaign settings released as hardcovers. It makes things easier to reference.

 

[adriayna]

I like the old box sets, but with the seemingly skyrocketing prices of products, I'm afraid if box sets would be released, the prices would be literally unaffordable.