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

[garnuk]

Then licience out the settings to other publishers, not as one offs, but as serious game lines.

Anyways all I was disappointed that some of my favourite deities were left out, the ones with the best stories, Sharess, Lurue, Nobanion, Gargos, Gaurath (may have missed spelled that), the Mulhorand Pantheon, the Untherite Pantheon, the Dragon Pantheon, the Giant Pantheon, the Gobliniod Pantheon, Finder, Ghuander, Moander, ect...

A few were given as Warlock patrons, but they should still be in the Pantheons.

Licensing it out, would be the same as them publishing it. They homebrew, not more "mandatory canon"

Mulhorand pantheon gets a brief mention, and you can use that to extrapolate to other pantheons you know about.

 

[aramis erak]

Depends on what you mean by "rehash". Tyranny of Dragons is vaguely reminiscent of the War of the Lance, although it's a tale that's been a long time coming in Realmslore. Princes of the Apocalypse is more overtly inspired by the Temple of Elemental Evil, but I'm still not sure it counts as a rehash. As for Out of the Abyss, I don't think it's based on anything that's come before.

It riffs off the Drow Trilogy (D1-3) and EX1-EX2 Dungeonland/The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror. But it's not a rehash of either.

The 5e approach to the realms is to rail road people into playing the way WotC wants them to play, from the way AL is being run, to releasing SCAG which only has use to those running the APs, to no FRCG, ect...

Funny, but there's a 4 page chunk devoted to using the 30 pages of rules in other settings. LOW utility is not the same as NO utility.

There was a podcost/audio interview with Mike Mearls where he said that all future character options would come in thematic books. His classic example was a Seafaring book with all the rules for doing ship battles, and having classes such as the swashbuckler or storm sorcerer.

Obviously, his example was not how those sub classes got released, but it does fit his general comment.

Note that UA isn't actually "Release" but "Playtest"... We're likely to see a more nautical group of options for other classes in some future Isles companion.

Others have answered this, but, I'd point to the fact that in the past year, since the release of the core books, we have two modules and one SCAG. [snip]

How many people are buying SCAG because of the Realms material and how many are buying it for the class material? By wedding fluff and crunch books together, and not relegating books to tiny niche ghettos (buy this book if you want to play one of the ten or fifteen base classes!!!), they're much more likely to gain broader appeal.

I bought it because I run AL games, and need it for those. I'm using it in my homebrew game world because I have it for other reasons.

Also, you left out a POD supplement - EEPC was available dead tree as a POD version.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Look the book has it strengths, but it also has serious issues and hardcore FR fans, and those who wish for something other then FR have good reason to be disappointed.

I better turn in my Hardcore FR Fan card, then.

As I continue to read the book, I have yet to identify a "serious issue" that leaves me feeling disappointed or otherwise wishing I could get my money back.

Neither the Escapist or the io9 articles should be taken seriously. Using them as a standard by which to generalize about the SCAG is a mistake.

 

[aramis erak]

That's not accurate, the Escapist didn't seem to be FR fans, but that had little to nothing to do with substance of thier complaints, and io9 wanted to explore FR beyond the Sword Coast, its a big exciting setting, I feel the same way and I've been an FR fan since I was a kid.

Look the book has it strengths, but it also has serious issues and hardcore FR fans, and those who wish for something other then FR have good reason to be disappointed. This book suits a small minority of FR players/fans needs, and does very little for anyone else.

Some are satisfied by crumbs, some of us aren't.

And the very title says, "This ain't the book io9 wanted". It has been clear from the get-go that it's SWORD COAST. Not Kara Tur, Not even Faerûn. JUST the sword coast.

if anyone's being deceptive about the content, it's io9. (Whose editors often show a lack of general D&D knowledge, IMO. So it's no surprise they can't even make a credible argument for it being a bad book. )

 

[Parmandur]

That's not accurate, the Escapist didn't seem to be FR fans, but that had little to nothing to do with substance of thier complaints, and io9 wanted to explore FR beyond the Sword Coast, its a big exciting setting, I feel the same way and I've been an FR fan since I was a kid.



Look the book has it strengths, but it also has serious issues and hardcore FR fans, and those who wish for something other then FR have good reason to be disappointed. This book suits a small minority of FR players/fans needs, and does very little for anyone else.



Some are satisfied by crumbs, some of us aren't.

Have some hard data on the "minority" aspect? Most of the posted reviews have been positive.

 

[Morrus]

The reviews, by and large, have been good; Amazon user ratings stand at over three stars average. It isn't a perfect book, and some actively dislike it, but both this linked review and the Escapist dislike the book for being set in the Forgotten Realms, which is kind of...petty.

It's a valid opinion. People aren't petty if they don't enjoy the same campaign setting you do, or, indeed, if they publicly write about that on the Internet. For some, the FR focus is a problem.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

It's a valid opinion. People aren't petty if they don't enjoy the same campaign setting you do, or, indeed, if they publicly write about that on the Internet. For some, the FR focus is a problem.

Sure, it's a valid opinion.

It's not, however, a valid reason to write articles that masquerade as reviews. Which is to say both article authors should have set their bias aside and given the SCAG a fair shake, but they didn't.

 

[Morrus]

Sure, it's a valid opinion.

It's not, however, a valid reason to write articles that masquerade as reviews. Which is to say both article authors should have set their bias aside and given the SCAG a fair shake, but they didn't.

People don't need valid reasons to express their opinions on the Internet. You can disagree with them, but that's all.

And no sentence without bias has ever been written. This is a feature, not a bug. We're people, not robots. Every opinion encompasses bias by definition. The bizarre illusion that the written word should only include soulless robotic non-biased prose is one of the weirdest modern phenomena to emerge in recent years.

A scientific paper should be unbiased. A review? That's just silly.

 

[Parmandur]

It's a valid opinion. People aren't petty if they don't enjoy the same campaign setting you do, or, indeed, if they publicly write about that on the Internet. For some, the FR focus is a problem.

Sure, I'm not even a Realms fan per se, like [MENTION=6670153]gyor[/MENTION] is. But a review of a book about the Forgotten Realms the states dislike for the Realms as such is of suspect use for judging how a book is being received. Like a review for the PHB that states that D&D is foe nerds, so the writer doesn't like it: one may be entitled to an opinion, but that is all it is.

 

[Parmandur]

People don't need valid reasons to express their opinions on the Internet. You can disagree with them, but that's all.

And no sentence without bias has ever been written. This is a feature, not a bug. We're people, not robots. Every opinion encompasses bias by definition. The bizarre illusion that the written word should only include soulless robotic non-biased prose is one of the weirdest modern phenomena to emerge in recent years.

A scientific paper should be unbiased. A review? That's just silly.

The Escapist review is not so bad: he states his bias, and moves past it: it is not even a particularly negative review, though the guy did not like the book, "brutal" is a mischaracterization.

The other review mistakes his personal preference for fact.