D&D 5E The case for (and against) a new Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book

[Xenonnonex]

I'm talking about you, not him. Your expectations, your special pleading, your shifting goalposts. I sympathize that you want more content than is in the book, but that's not really what's at issue here.

My points have been demonstrably consistent. To the point of sounding like a broken record. But you have since demonstrated an inability to register what was posted. Whatever makes you feel better.

 

[Fenris-77]

Nah. I would just like the adventure to even briefly describe the things it lists. But that is according to you impossibly and implausibly high.

I think this exchange is why we agreed to disagree. You cited some specific details that weren't present as evidence of a false claim. However, the claim never involved those details, or indeed any claim to specific content other than a general claim that the right moving parts are present, i.e factions etc etc, which is true, especially in terms of reasonable expectations for something touted as a mini-setting book, not a complete setting book.

 

[Xenonnonex]

The phrase "all you need" pretty obviously doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean everything you might conceivably need. That phrase indexes the basic building blocks needed to run a campaign, which were listed in a post upstream.

To new DMs this will be terribly confusing. Sympathize with them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Your claim that ToA has everything you need to run any adventure in Chult is demonstrably false.
One of my players wants to play a native Chultan who worships Ubtao. They are deadset on worshipping Ubtao. Where is the information on Ubtao?

Here: Ubtao

I want to run adventures set in the Valley of Dread. Or in the Sky Lizard Mountains. Or in the Sanrach Mountains. Or in Samarach. Because these look cool. Where is this information?

They are on the map, with terrain, climate and random encounter information. Which is more than the 3rd edition book had. Most of Samarach is outside the area covered though, so it makes as much sense to complain about the absence of Icewind Dale.

 

[Fenris-77]

My points have been demonstrably consistent. To the point of sounding like a broken record. But you have since demonstrated an inability to register what was posted. Whatever makes you feel better.

Interesting. I'd agree that your posts have sounded like a broken record at least. We might differ on where the inability to register lies. Anyway, I'm not interested in fanning the flames here anymore. I'm content that my point of view is well supported by the thread contents so I'm going to bid you good day sir.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I think this exchange is why we agreed to disagree. You cited some specific details that weren't present as evidence of a false claim. However, the claim never involved those details, or indeed any claim to specific content other than a general claim that the right moving parts are present, i.e factions etc etc, which is true, especially in terms of reasonable expectations for something touted as a mini-setting book, not a complete setting book.

Before you waded in.
Clearly some of us feel the adventures offer a mini setting. Clearly some of us feel the adventure itself offers the material but does not offer more than that.
That is all fine.

 

[Parmandur]

By the standard presented, I suppose there has never been a Setting book released for D&D at all, including the FRCSz because someone using the book will have to make something up...I mean, the FRCS even encourges that, Heaven fortend...

 

[Xenonnonex]

Here: Ubtao

Clearly I am asking about the information in book. Anyone can Google that information.
You claim ToA has everything you need for Chult adventures. Ubtao is a substantial part of Chult. Obviously there is a disconnect here.

They are on the map, with terrain, climate and random encounter information. Which is more than the 3rd edition book had. Most of Samarach is outside the area covered though, so it makes as much sense to complain about the absence of Icewind Dale.

They are on the map yes. Which is why I am asking. Some groups may decide to set their adventures there.
However there are no site entries for these areas. There are no encounters of interest for these sites. Unlike the majority of the other sites that have been detailed.
If a new DM looks at the map they would assume Samarach is part of Chult.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Interesting. I'd agree that your posts have sounded like a broken record at least. We might differ on where the inability to register lies. Anyway, I'm not interested in fanning the flames here anymore. I'm content that my point of view is well supported by the thread contents so I'm going to bid you good day sir.

I am not the one always wanting to frame arguments with assumptions already drawn. I am not the one telling others off for what you assumed was said. I am simply taking the claims as they are presented. Good luck to you.

 

[teitan]

If you want locate an adventure in Chult ToA gives you all you need. Forget about the Death Curse and all the related dungeons, just drop in whatever adventure you want to play.

That's something you can't do with the 3rd edition setting book. It isn't detailed enough. You have to put in the work to flesh out the location before you can use it. It's no good out of the box.

This is what I am getting at though, you are advocating people in this approach to pay $50 for minimal material. I keep saying it and no one is willing to acknowledge that and how it’s a bad look for the game. It enforces an elistist stance and I’m not a PC kind of guy but in this case you are literally advocating for people to suck it up and not making the setting material available. WOTC wants the game available to all thus Basic being Free.

Would an FRCS be adequate? No but I’ve been advocating for full region books following on from SCAG. I only mention the FRCS because people kept saying it couldn’t be done in one book and required an 800+ volume.

Then again the FRCS and boxed sets are an overview and sourcebooks were available for greater detail on various regions which is an approach I very much advocate for because it works. The 3e FRCS is a benchmark in setting design. Largely it is the model for campaign setting design being a huge influence on Eberron and the 3.5 DLCS and the 5e setting books as well. All of them, including Wildemount, follow the same model but don’t quite get to that peak though Eberron 5e kinda comes close. I still think the 3.5 Eberron book is superior. Even Paizo continues to use the FR model for Golarion. Especially in PF1 with the central book, a couple hardcovers and small sourcebooks focused on regions that amplified the minisettings in the AP books. I think it’s great that WOTC essentially uses the same model for the adventures. I also think that on its own SCAG is a poor example of a setting book for FR.