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

[pukunui]

So far, the only thing I can find to complain about is the book's numerous typographical errors and similar discrepancies. Like the mixing of past and present tense in the description of the second Sundering ("... the Chosen of Auril foments war ... and was defeated.") and the few lines of overly-large text on page 61 (starting with "harnessing the primal power ...").

The fact that, while Caer Callidyr is referred to as the capital of the Ffolk on the Moonshaes, it isn't marked on the map (whereas the ruins of their former capital, Caer Corwell, are) is a little irksome as well, and it's also a bit confusing when you see things like "Dornall Forest" in the text and "Dernal Forest" on the map. The Moonshaes are also misspelled as "Moonsheas" in the section on druids later in the book.

Aside from picayune quibbles like these, I really have no qualms with this book whatsoever.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=54629]pukunui[/MENTION] I agree for the most part. I quite like the book, overall. There are some areas I wouldn't mind them having expanded upon, and some areas that are outside the Sword Coast region that I wish got more attention, but that's because those areas are ones I personally find interesting, and I didn't really expect much on them. I'm sure it's only a matter of time until Chult and Sembia get some focus. Till then, I'll keep doing what I need to with them.

All that said, I can understand some of the criticisms of the book. Some are valid, even if they don't bother me.

 

[Werebat]

If you're going to criticise someone's writing, best spell it correctly, eh?

BURN!

 

[neobolts]

I'm not familiar with the io9 review, other than folks have mentioned it here.

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

 

[prosfilaes]

The reviews, by and large, have been good; Amazon user ratings stand at over three stars average.

Right now on Amazon, SCAG has 3.4 stars. For some rating sites, that might be pretty good. Amazon is pretty biased towards 5 stars, though. The 5E DM Screen gets 4.0 stars, Out of the Abyss is 4.6, Princes of the Apocalypse is 4.6, 5E PHB is 4.5, etc. The lowest Pathfinder hardback book I found is the Strategy Guide with a 3.8, and the lowest other 5E hardback book I found is Hoard of the Dragon Queen, with a 4.1.

I found D&D books that had less than 3.4. The 4E PHB has 3.1 stars. (4E DMG & MM both have 3.6 stars.) 3.0 Hero Builder's Guidebook hit a 3.1. (Masters of the Wild was the low point of the 3.0 splatbooks with a 3.5.) Monster Manual IV was 3.2. Book of Challenges and Cityscape both hit 3.1. Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, 4th Edition hit a 2.6.

That is, this is reviewing worse than any comparable Pathfinder or 5E book, more than a full star worse then most of the others in the 5E line. There are 4E and 3.x books that rated worse, and they're either universally considered weak or were simply hated by some part of the market.

 

[garnuk]

Right now on Amazon, SCAG has 3.4 stars. For some rating sites, that might be pretty good. Amazon is pretty biased towards 5 stars, though. The 5E DM Screen gets 4.0 stars, Out of the Abyss is 4.6, Princes of the Apocalypse is 4.6, 5E PHB is 4.5, etc. The lowest Pathfinder hardback book I found is the Strategy Guide with a 3.8, and the lowest other 5E hardback book I found is Hoard of the Dragon Queen, with a 4.1.

I found D&D books that had less than 3.4. The 4E PHB has 3.1 stars. (4E DMG & MM both have 3.6 stars.) 3.0 Hero Builder's Guidebook hit a 3.1. (Masters of the Wild was the low point of the 3.0 splatbooks with a 3.5.) Monster Manual IV was 3.2. Book of Challenges and Cityscape both hit 3.1. Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, 4th Edition hit a 2.6.

That is, this is reviewing worse than any comparable Pathfinder or 5E book, more than a full star worse then most of the others in the 5E line. There are 4E and 3.x books that rated worse, and they're either universally considered weak or were simply hated by some part of the market.

But compared to previous forgoten realms books it's a huge success!

 

[Hussar]

Right now on Amazon, SCAG has 3.4 stars. For some rating sites, that might be pretty good. Amazon is pretty biased towards 5 stars, though. The 5E DM Screen gets 4.0 stars, Out of the Abyss is 4.6, Princes of the Apocalypse is 4.6, 5E PHB is 4.5, etc. The lowest Pathfinder hardback book I found is the Strategy Guide with a 3.8, and the lowest other 5E hardback book I found is Hoard of the Dragon Queen, with a 4.1.

I found D&D books that had less than 3.4. The 4E PHB has 3.1 stars. (4E DMG & MM both have 3.6 stars.) 3.0 Hero Builder's Guidebook hit a 3.1. (Masters of the Wild was the low point of the 3.0 splatbooks with a 3.5.) Monster Manual IV was 3.2. Book of Challenges and Cityscape both hit 3.1. Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, 4th Edition hit a 2.6.

That is, this is reviewing worse than any comparable Pathfinder or 5E book, more than a full star worse then most of the others in the 5E line. There are 4E and 3.x books that rated worse, and they're either universally considered weak or were simply hated by some part of the market.

Yeah, star systems are a bit borked. I mean, look at the Pathfinder Inner Sea Races Guide. Came out about the same time as SCAG and gets a 5 stars review. By 5 reviewers. But, it's currently sitting at #87425 in books. SCAG, at 3 stars, has been reviewed by 45 customers and is sitting at #754 in books.

Which one is more successful?

It does put some perspective on the relative size of what we're talking about. Is, say, Pathfinder, getting better reviews because they are better books or because they are simply getting fewer reviews overall and the reviews tend to self-select? I'd much rather judge based on sales than reviews. Just like the reviews we've seen from Escapist and especially I09, where the reviewer is disappointed, not because the book itself is bad necessarily, but, because it isn't the book they personally want.

It's kind of like going to a James Bond movie and complaining that it doesn't have Roger Moore. And basing the review around the fact that the new James Bond movie doesn't star Roger Moore. Because, after all, only Roger Moore does it better.

 

[Hussar]

But compared to previous forgoten realms books it's a huge success!

I know this was meant tongue in cheek, but, is there a grain of truth there? How successful were previous FR books? I have no idea. I really don't. Did the FRCS outsell this book? Again, no idea. So, when it comes to questions of success, that's not an easy thing to answer.

 

[prosfilaes]

Yeah, star systems are a bit borked.

But as a measure of quality, they're better than sales. Unless Avatar was really the best movie of all time (#2 adjusted for inflation).

In any case, it proves what I was claiming; that the reviews on Amazon are pretty bad.

Is, say, Pathfinder, getting better reviews because they are better books or because they are simply getting fewer reviews overall and the reviews tend to self-select?

Nice way to turn it into an edition war. Let me repeat a statement that I made: the SCAG has an Amazon average that is a full star less than any other 5E hardback book.

I'd much rather judge based on sales than reviews.

That's not at all true, if you're buying a book that is sitting at #745 in books. Several thousand books a year reach that point; do you buy all of them?

Green Ronin has put out a number of books. Given that by that standard all their recent books have been complete failures, why exactly did Hasbro tap them to do this project? Could it have something to do with the fact that Wizards of the Coast putting out an official book about the Forgotten Realms was going to sell way, way higher then about anything a non-WotC company could put out in the RPG field? Could it have something to do with the fact that brands really do matter in gaming and this book had a couple of the biggest in the industry on it?

Just like the reviews we've seen from Escapist and especially I09, where the reviewer is disappointed, not because the book itself is bad necessarily, but, because it isn't the book they personally want.

If people are buying SCAG and being disappointed because it isn't the book they personally want, that's a problem for the buyers. They shouldn't buy it because it's "successful" (as rated by sales); they should read reviews and figure out that it's not a book that will make them happy!

I would say that it's certainly a bad book for WotC if a lot of people are complaining that it isn't the book they personally want. When they're only putting out a handful of books a year, they can't afford to put out many books that aren't what their customers want. Even if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that the problem with this book is that it's not what people wanted, that's not a dismissable problem.

 

[Shasarak]

Yeah, star systems are a bit borked. I mean, look at the Pathfinder Inner Sea Races Guide. Came out about the same time as SCAG and gets a 5 stars review. By 5 reviewers. But, it's currently sitting at #87425 in books. SCAG, at 3 stars, has been reviewed by 45 customers and is sitting at #754 in books.

Which one is more successful?

It does put some perspective on the relative size of what we're talking about. Is, say, Pathfinder, getting better reviews because they are better books or because they are simply getting fewer reviews overall and the reviews tend to self-select? I'd much rather judge based on sales than reviews. Just like the reviews we've seen from Escapist and especially I09, where the reviewer is disappointed, not because the book itself is bad necessarily, but, because it isn't the book they personally want.

And that is a valid preference if you like Justin Bieber, Twilight and Beanie Babies.