D&D 5E Escapist article on SCAG is Brutal.

[Jester David]

And, FR fans are extremely adverse to any setting changes, just like fans of pretty much anything with the D&D name on it. Tradition is very, very important.

Natural change is usually accepted. Progress and evolution. The change of kings in Cormyr was pretty accepted. The natural flow of history. And new additions that fit the setting and work with the established lore.
When things get crazy or revolutionary instead of evolutionary, then people get upset.

Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms fans demonstrated massive changes aren't well accepted.

You mention the Inner Sea Guide - 2011 release there. So, what, three years into a setting that had zero background information? We're one year into 5e. Give it time. They'll get there eventually.

That was a reprint of a 2008's Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, updating it from 3.5.
Since they'd only published a couple Adventure Paths and hadn't much expanded the world, the setting was pretty blank. So the tapped 26 authors - including a bunch of recent RPG Superstar finalists - and just kinda assigned people a place with a name and let them invent a nation.
The opposite of how you'd want to handle a FR setting with lots of lore and details.

 

[Shasarak]

And, FR fans are extremely adverse to any setting changes, just like fans of pretty much anything with the D&D name on it.

That is not even a little bit true.

 

[Celtavian]

You are assuming everyone is familiar with the Realms. What happens when that new person gets a hold of the over map and starts looking at other places on the map that isn't covered?

Look, their strategy is just not a good and will come back to bite them in the bum.

A new person does an Internet search on the area of the Forgotten Realms he is interested in and finds a huge amount of material. That's what happens when a new person gets a hold of the over map and starts looking at other places that aren't covered in the current book because everything has been covered over the last twenty plus years. The FR has so much material that you would have to have ridiculous expectations to find something not covered like "How come there is no entry for this tiny fishing village named Plink?" Everything has been covered and has material on it somewhere.

 

[gyor]

It is a sad state of affairs when a 1e Campaign Guide can be used for a 5e game because it is essentially the same.

Actually it won't, the SCAG and the Sundering novels show enough of the world to know that while a 1e/2e map might serve in a pinch, too much has changed to use a 1e/2e/3e/4e material as anything other then a historical reference.

The resemblance is a mix of skin deep and spirit of previous editions.

Honestly I could see the influence of all the editions, plus many unique 5e twists.

The sword coast is resembles 3e.

Evermeet is been significantly changed and seems a blend of 3e and 4e.

Alagorond and Dambath still resemble thier 4e verisons more.

Mulhorand feels most like BEFORE 1e, back when the Mulan Gods came for thier people, but with more current 5e twists, like an end to slavery.

Unther and Gilgeam have been shaped by thier time in Abier, so a mix of 2e and 4e.

Molghom is still ruled by Dragon lords ala 4e.

Calimshan is no longer ruled by Djinn, who have been driven into the desert, and the Genasi and Human seem to have a truce, but beyond that we know too little to say.

Nathlan, we know nothing.

Menz, seems more like 1e, but with elements of 3e and 4e.

Myth Drannor seems like 1e or 2e, ruins with the Knights of Myth Drannor, with the exception of the fact the destroyed city of Shade in upon it.

Shade is uniquely 5e because its dead.

Feywild is a creation mostly of 4e, that is the same.

Most NPCs from 1e/2e/3e are dead, 4e is better, but some of those are dead too, and thier are new 5e NPCs.

So as much SCAG is a poor substitition for a campaign guide (not the fault of the authors, they had thier hands tied behind they're backs), its still you best shot to run the 5e realms, but you may have to reference previous editions at times as well, especially if you move outside the sword coast.

What we really need is the FRCG.

 

[pukunui]

So as much SCAG is a poor substitition for a campaign guide ...

That's because it *isn't* a campaign guide, as I keep pointing out. It's a player's guide, and as such, has about the same level of setting detail as you'd expect for such a product.

What we really need is the FRCG.

Perhaps. Although I am left wondering why so many DMs seem unable (or unwilling?) to fill in the blanks themselves. I'm pretty sure that's what WotC is hoping we'll do. I think they're leaving a lot of detail out on purpose for that very reason. I've been saying all along that 5e is the DIY Edition of D&D. WotC is running D&D on a skeleton crew. They provide us with the coloring book. It's up to us to color it in. (Or they provide us with the dots and it's up to us to connect them.) Etc etc.

 

[delericho]

Heh, it's funny. Paizo did EXACTLY the same thing that WOTC is doing now. Start with a honking big world map and then fill it in, slowly, with each AP - 2 per year, IIRC. If you want to run a campaign outside of the coloured in areas that have been covered by an AP, you're SOL.

Not really - the Pathfinder AP line started in late 2007 and the Campaign Setting was published in August 2008. That's not a huge lead time, especially since they were starting from a blank slate.

You mention the Inner Sea Guide - 2011 release there. So, what, three years into a setting that had zero background information?

As JC notes above, that's an update of their previous book, bringing it up to date with the changes from 3.5e to PF.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Perhaps. Although I am left wondering why so many DMs seem unable (or unwilling?) to fill in the blanks themselves.

To be quite blunt, that is not the Forgotten Realms and that is where WoTc will always fail when it comes to that setting. The popularity and uniqueness of the setting is based around it having so much lore that you don't need to fill in a lot of blanks unless you want to. The setting is based around heavy and detailed lore.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The problem is Wizards is trying to have it both ways but fail to do so.

They want the vagueness of Greyhawk but the popularity of the Forgotten Realms and the two don't mix.

 

[delericho]

I miss the 2E and 3E Forgotten Realms books.

Yep. I'm not exactly a fan of FR, but the 3e FRCS is my go-to example of a setting book done 'right'. And, yeah, it was a premium product even back then, but it was a book that deserved the higher price tag that WotC applied to the 3e FR books.

Edit: As regards the SCAG, I have no opinion either way - I'll be giving it a pass because of the price tag vs page count, and because of the mixed reviews. Which means I'm not in a position to comment on the quality one way or the other. If other people like it, though, that's great!

 

[garnuk]

I feel like I might be the only one who noticed the they made a typo on the Wood Elves, calling them "Sy'tel'quessir". I wonder what other mistakes they have in the book.