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

[gyor]

Btw the Ecapist is also right about the book beings too small for a hardcover, it hard to use it because it won't stay open without breaking the spine, books this size should be soft cover or PDFs.

 

[pukunui]

... if they utilitalized kickstarter for all, but key products they could make sure every such product is profitable and that they're is a large enough market for it.

Do you really think they haven't considered kickstarter? I can't imagine it wouldn't have come up in any of their planning meetings. There must be a reason why they have chosen not to go that route.

 

[Corpsetaker]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]: Let's not forget that these guys are gamers too. I'm not sure that saying they don't want to make more books is accurate. I'm sure that they personally would love to make more books. It's just that they're unable to do so, for the reasons you stated. And so they try to put a positive spin on it. Wouldn't you do that too, though? Do we really want to hear them say, "We can't afford to release more books per year than this because it's not profitable"?


[MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION]: Perhaps he does have a clue, and it's just that your experience is not as common as you seem to think it is. Maybe he's got market research that would put you in the minority. You always seem so eager to see the worst in WotC employees. Try putting yourself in their shoes. Chris and Mike et al are people too. What would you do if you were in their position, in charge of a great game with much gravitas but in a vastly reduced position, forced to rely on ex-colleagues to help you out? Wouldn't you try to put as positive a spin on things as possible too?

He has no market research because they have never done the 5th edition rules with a quick and heavy release schedule so he doesn't know.

 

[gyor]

http://io9.com/two-major-rpg-books-came-out-this-month-and-theyre-bot-1742001057


SCAG got another bad review. I feel bad for Green Ronin, they're rep is being damaged, but its WotC's fault, Green Ronin was just taking orders.

I also think its messed up that the APs even got more pages then SCAG, insane.

 

[Hussar]

Ummm, [MENTION=6670153]gyor[/MENTION], how many pages is a Pathfinder AP module? The new Inner Sea sourcebook clocks in at 272 pages. Why are you surprised that a 15 level adventure path takes more page count than a player's guide?

 

[jayoungr]

I mean that it's a punishment for the characters (since players don't become mortared) whose players aren't interested in diving into the god-lore. I'm not generally of the opinion that PC's need to be punished when their players aren't engaged in the setting. Rather, I need to give players a carrot - something they get for caring.

You don't think that's a bit harsh? Most of the people in my Tyranny of Dragons campaign are new to D&D as well as the Realms. I've drip-fed them some setting info as we've gone along, but for the most part they haven't really delved that deeply into the details on their own, nor do I really expect them to.

No, I don't consider it harsh. I think that knowing the basics about one deity is an extremely low bar to entry and one that even a complete newbie should be able to manage without having to be coaxed and rewarded. It's meant to be an important part of the setting. I understand if someone doesn't have the time to read up on the whole pantheon (it's huge), but you don't have to do that. Just know the name of the deity your character follows and what that deity's domains are.

If you can't choose for yourself, you can ask the DM to recommend one, or heck, just close your eyes and point to the page at random. And if even that is too much of a burden somehow, ask if you can defer the decision until it comes up in-game. "My character knows who he follows, but I haven't decided yet" is different from "My character follows no deity at all." And if you object to playing a character who follows a deity at all, then either the Realms are not for you, or you should be prepared to have the character go to the wall of souls.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, I don't consider it harsh. I think that knowing the basics about one deity is an extremely low bar to entry and one that even a complete newbie should be able to manage without having to be coaxed and rewarded.

This is a game we do for fun. If we're not rewarded for playing it, it stops being fun, and we go do other things. If our imaginary characters are punished for us not playing it in some particular way that is dull for us, that's getting the incentive wrong - my players don't owe the setting a dang thing.

It's meant to be an important part of the setting. I understand if someone doesn't have the time to read up on the whole pantheon (it's huge), but you don't have to do that. Just know the name of the deity your character follows and what that deity's domains are.

If you can't choose for yourself, you can ask the DM to recommend one, or heck, just close your eyes and point to the page at random. And if even that is too much of a burden somehow, ask if you can defer the decision until it comes up in-game. "My character knows who he follows, but I haven't decided yet" is different from "My character follows no deity at all." And if you object to playing a character who follows a deity at all, then either the Realms are not for you, or you should be prepared to have the character go to the wall of souls.

It's not that it's hard. It's that they don't care about it. There's no particular reason for them as players to care about it. It's not worth the minimal effort it would take because there's no real payoff at the end. It's one choice they don't care to blow cognitive bandwidth on.

They could've designed it to be easier. Like, include recommended (or even "default") deities in each class and race's section. Maybe a background-style table to roll on, a bit of equipment to go with it (My fighter worships *roll* Helm! He's got a gauntlet that has an eye on it as part of his starting armor.).

But instead they just use the wall of souls as a punishment and so if you don't want your character to be mortar in the afterlife you've gotta do homework.

 

[pukunui]

[MENTION=6702445]jayoungr[/MENTION]: I think it is a bit harsh, especially in the 5e Realms, where the gods have become more distant. Religion is a little more a matter of faith now. It shouldn't matter as much if a player can't be bothered choosing a patron deity for their character because it's more viable to have an agnostic character now.

 

[JohnLynch]

Yeah, another slightly odd choice for a player's guide...for a more player-focused experience, they might've given a list of gods for each domain, and then described maybe 1-3 (depending on page count) in deep detail.

This would have been complained about even more with people declaring they can't play a priest of 2/3rds of the gods because they weren't deemed important enough to get a writeup. It would also have borne a striking resemblance to how 4th ed handled the gods. Only a few gods were killed or merged (relatively speaking). The majority were simply left undetailed, and yet it was a major complaint.

I need to give players a carrot - something they get for caring. "Because my character will have a bad afterlife" isn't a reason for the player at the table to really care. But, like, "because I'm eligible for this particular perk" might be

I've never had someone choose god(s) they pay homage to because they had to, but instead because they want to. Those who do get better immersion in the city, aid in times of need and potential plothooks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This would have been complained about even more with people declaring they can't play a priest of 2/3rds of the gods because they weren't deemed important enough to get a writeup.

This isn't a problem with the format - you could just as easily have a brief table under each domain that shows ALL the gods you might worship with that domain (and maybe still write up 1-3). The point is to make the choice of a god part of building your character organically, not just presented in, basically, a lore-dump.

It would also have borne a striking resemblance to how 4th ed handled the gods. Only a few gods were killed or merged (relatively speaking). The majority were simply left undetailed, and yet it was a major complaint.

Nothing about the format specifies the quantity of deities. It's just about how you present them.

I've never had someone choose god(s) they pay homage to because they had to, but instead because they want to. Those who do get better immersion in the city, aid in times of need and potential plothooks.

That's a lot of churn for me as a DM. It's not like Azuth plays a major role in HotDQ or anything. I could make it relevant, but if the player isn't even that invested in being an Azuthite, why would I bother? Neither of us are particularly interested in that narrative, my player just doesn't want his character to be mortar in the afterlife.