D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[Zhern]

Previous 3? Did Mearls release 6e already?

I did not see that coming.

2E, 3xE and 4E all had rapid release schedules. There were quite a few splat books for 2E, such as the guides/kit books, etc.

 

[delericho]

2E, 3xE and 4E all had rapid release schedules. There were quite a few splat books for 2E, such as the guides/kit books, etc.

While that's true, 2nd Ed wasn't a WotC edition - it was produced prior to the buy-out.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was referring to 3.0e, 3.5e, and 4e as his "three editions".

 

[Zhern]

While that's true, 2nd Ed wasn't a WotC edition - it was produced prior to the buy-out.
@Hussar was referring to 3.0e, 3.5e, and 4e as his "three editions".

Gotcha - I've always lumped 3.0 and 3.5 into one big chunk, but it makes sense that when speaking of just WotC it would be 3.0e, 3.5e, and 4e. I would argue that TSR started the trend of splat this, splat that, splat for you, splat for me, etc. and that the approach for 3.0 was heavily influenced by that, but that is a whole other discussion. So yes, 3.0e, 3.5e, and 4e makes sense.

 

[Corwin]

New classes, sub-classes, races, skills, feats, magic items, equipment, optional rules, monsters, and so on.

But those do not necessarily fall into "general content". Do you consider the PHB to be "general content"? Because it's chock full of setting references. So I guess that means you are still waiting for the *first*
"general content" offering for 5e? How long do you think you are willing to wait before you stop standing there sternly with your arms crossed, scowling, and just pick up what's there and make it work for you? You know, like everyone else does?

 

[Corwin]

Not really. What those can prove is that incredible amounts of content kill games. They can't prove that releasing content at a quarter(or less) of the rate of those systems would kill 5e, and adding 1 book of general content per year still leaves 5e at a quarter(or less) of the release rate of those two games.

Yes really. Do you realize you are responding to an answer unrelated to the point you are now making. So please don't do that. I believe its called a "strawman".

 

[Corwin]

My God! I want paper money that's green and you can buy things with.

So now you not only want specific, narrowly targeted releases on a specific schedule, you want someone to give you the money to purchase them?

The horror! I'm so hard to please! What I am asking for isn't even remotely hard to do, and I am in fact easy to please.

Are you sure? Are you pleased now? I know I am. And, apparently, the vast majority of 5e players as well. If you go by the survey results and sales figures, anyway. <shrug>

For the last several posts you have repeatedly portrayed my position disingenuously and I'm done.

I dunno. I thought he was pretty spot on, ol' chap.

 

[dave2008]

Not on the cover or the product description.

The cover just says: "Immerse yourself in monster lore in this supplement for the world’s greatest roleplaying game"

Not sure how that is supposed to be FR specific, but I grant you the product description does mention, "iconic monsters in the Forgotten Realms."

However, the product itself also mentions GreyHawk only NPCs (at least that is my understanding).

I don't have any issue with how you wish to interpret it, but it seems to me that they are going to some effort to make it not completely or solely Forgotten Realms oriented.

Personally, since I have only ever used my one homebrew settings, I don't get what all the fuss is over setting specificity. I, thankfully, can use it all!

 

[delericho]

The cover just says: "Immerse yourself in monster lore in this supplement for the world’s greatest roleplaying game"

No, the cover doesn't just say that; it also says "Volo's Guide to Monsters". That direct reference to an FR-specific NPC in the title of the book, coupled with the product description of the book on wizards.com directly mentioning the Forgotten Realms, is what makes it a setting-specific product in my book. (And, in exactly the same way, I count "Curse of Strahd" as being a setting-specific adventure - in this case, the setting being Ravenloft.)

Neither the cover of the book nor the product description reference Greyhawk, or any of the locations or characters from that settings.

Again, I don't have any issue with them producing setting-specific materials. I'm merely noting that because they chose to describe it in a way that marks it as setting-specific, I'll choose to consider it as such.

 

[dave2008]

No, the cover doesn't just say that; it also says "Volo's Guide to Monsters". That direct reference to an FR-specific NPC in the title of the book, coupled with the product description of the book on wizards.com directly mentioning the Forgotten Realms, is what makes it a setting-specific product in my book. (And, in exactly the same way, I count "Curse of Strahd" as being a setting-specific adventure - in this case, the setting being Ravenloft.)

Neither the cover of the book nor the product description reference Greyhawk, or any of the locations or characters from that settings.

Again, I don't have any issue with them producing setting-specific materials. I'm merely noting that because they chose to describe it in a way that marks it as setting-specific, I'll choose to consider it as such.

However, if I go to Barnes & Noble and purchase this book, how would I (who doesn't know who the hell Volo is) know it is Forgetten Realms specific?

Furthermore, assuming I do know Volo, what am I to make of the reference(s) to the GreyHawk setting in the book?

 

[Azzy]

I'm betting that when I get VGtM in hand, that it'll be FR in title only.