D&D 5E With the release of each new setting book, the SCAG looks worse and worse...

[DEFCON 1]

Just because they've done 4 setting books recently doesn't mean they are likely to go back and do a new Realms setting book (especially one that covers all the parts that aren't the Sword Coast.) Three of those setting books are completely new lands, so it is information that players never had before. And the other one is basically a rehash of the same two books they had just done for it in 4E and 3.5.

I sincerely believe that the current brand officers of D&D right now do not want to rewrite or "update" information for past settings they have already done before, unless it is a part of a specific area that is bounded by an adventure path. So we'll see a little touch of Greyhawk around a Saltmarsh book, we'll probably get a bunch of Planescape stuff when the autumn's planehopping AP is released. And of course we got a bunch of updated Realms info for areas where their APs occurred.

But I still think anyone who is expecting a stand-alone Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting book (ala 3E's) for the entirety of Faerun is going to be left disappointed, because it is nothing more than "updated canon". And WotC still does not want to spend their time just updating canon without having some other reason (like an AP) to do so.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

When I was running a campaign in the Sword Coast, I routinely used the SCAG as a reference. As a player, much of the content has since been duplicated elsewhere, so I have less reason to use it when I'm not DMing.

I do agree that it suffered a bit by trying to be too many things at once.

 

[Jester David]

At 159 pages, the SCAG is the shortest setting book released for 5E so far.

Yes, yes it is.

Out of all the 5E setting books (Ravnica, Eberron, Wildemount), the SCAG has the least amount of lore,

Not really.
If the book had the 40-pages of monsters the other setting books had on average, and comparably large sections on "building adventures" and the introductory adventure, the book would be 240-pages easily.

Heck, if it were designed like the other campaign settings, they'd have probably dramatically cut down the 140-odd pages of lore in the book.

the fewest player options, the fewest monsters (zero),

It has eleven subclasses, twelve backgrounds, plus two new subraces, variant half-elves, tieflings, and halflings, and spells.
That's more player than any book apart from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. In terms of class content, SCAG is only limited compared to 3e/4e books.

the fewest magic items (zero), and the fewest adventures (zero). I really want to like it, but it's just so... slight. And... inadequate. It needs about 100 more pages to be really good.

Yes. It's a shame there's no other FR adventures for 5e to fill that gap.

I know it will never happen, but I wish Wizards would release an updated and revised version of the SCAG. Failing that, I wouldn't mind another Forgotten Realms setting book that matched the quality of Eberron and Wildemount. Because as it is, despite getting a lot of attention this edition, FR definitely got shafted in the setting-guide department.

You'll be waiting until 6e.
If even then, as WotC doesn't seem as interested in classic settings, so we may never get a new big FR campaign book.

 

[the Jester]

Just rehashing things is not fun for a writer (and yes it is plagiarism. It's legal plagiarism, but rehashing is still plagiarism). And when a writer does not enjoy what they are doing it isn't going to be very good quality. Most of those earlier rehashes where done by amateurs.

Dude, I think that you are wrong on so many levels here. And you're being a bit disparaging about older game designers, who, despite whatever you may think of them, were professionals. I think you need to recognize that what you are posting is just your opinion. I'd bet money that there are quite a few designers at WotC who would love to work on a new Realms book.

 

[gyor]

Just rehashing things is not fun for a writer (and yes it is plagiarism. It's legal plagiarism, but rehashing is still plagiarism). And when a writer does not enjoy what they are doing it isn't going to be very good quality. Most of those earlier rehashes where done by amateurs. WotC staffers are far more professional now, which means they aren't going to be satisfied trotting out reheated left-overs. The reason Wildermont is so much better than SCAG is simple: Ownership. It's Matt Mercer writing about his own setting, so there is a real passion in the writing. You can tell from SCAG that the authors are going through the motions. Hence all the pointless 1st person stuff. It's just an attempt by the writers to stave off boredom.

Plagiarism - Wikipedia

Please stop miss using the term Plagiarism.

And there are folks at WotC and among freelancers that they use or could use that are huge Realm Sages, huge realms fans.

And the SCAG was well written by folks that loved the setting, but with one fatal flaw, it wasn't big enough to be a proper Campaign Setting guide, but it's a great regional guide, and it functioned as a place holder for a Campaign Setting Guide until one comes.

Your really projecting up in the writers of the SCAG, they wrote in first person to boost immersion and to be creative.

 

[atanakar]

Older settings are a trap for current designers, even if they are fans. The backlash can be very violent when the time line progresses not to the liking of the fan base.

Besides all the old books are available on Drivethru RPG. I'm not interested in buying books that have 70% of rehashed material.

It's far easier for WoTC to put out new settings with no publication history. I'm glad the newer books have more meat. But still have not found one I want to purchase. Maybe Theros when I see it at the local store.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Dude, I think that you are wrong on so many levels here. And you're being a bit disparaging about older game designers, who, despite whatever you may think of them, were professionals.

It depends what you mean by "professional". They where professional in that they where paid for what they where doing, but they had not received professional training, because the profession had not existed for long enough.

I think you need to recognize that what you are posting is just your opinion.

The opinion of someone who is a professional writer (as well as a teacher), yes.

I'd bet money that there are quite a few designers at WotC who would love to work on a new Realms book.

Sure. So long as it is original content, not reheating what was done in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th edition.

 

[gyor]

It depends what you mean by "professional". They where professional in that they where paid for what they where doing, but they had not received professional training, because the profession had not existed for long enough.


The opinion of someone who is a professional writer (as well as a teacher), yes.


Sure. So long as it is original content, not reheating what was done in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th edition.

It's so nice they elected you to speak on their behalf/s

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I'm personally a little torn on this; I think the SCAG does it's job, being a guide to the Sword Coast. It certainly isn't a guide to all of the Forgotten Realms, and was never intended to be. And I certainly wouldn't be upset if FR got another setting book detailing areas beyond the Sword Coast, with updated art and less-stereotypical lore.

However, I struggle to believe that Forgotten Realms deserves a second book. People are quick to point out that it appears like the most popular setting, but I believe that has more to do with it being the most known setting (it is the default in 5e, and has been in place in the most editions of D&D).

And the other setting books that have/will be released are not exactly guides to their entire planet's of material either. Ravnica and Theros are, but are both incredibly monolithic in their content (Ravnica is one city, and Theros is dominated by the same culture and pantheon). Eberron and Wildemount are arguably just as limited in scope as the SCAG is, as Eberron is a guide to Khorvaire (there is precious little material about anywhere else), and Wildemount even admits in its name that it is a guide to its one continent, not all of Exandria.

Plus, Forgotten Realms has benefited (or been hurt by, depending on your POV) from being 5e's default setting. There have been a total of ELEVEN adventures books or boxed sets that are in Forgotten Realms, and their release has given even deeper content for the Underdark, Chult, Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, and Undermountain.

I fully expect that this pattern, of the annual adventure book containing content for FR, will continue.

I'll ask FR fans this; would you be willing to trade one more setting book, for not getting annual adventure books? I doubt it, but I'm perhaps mistaken.

 

[gyor]

Older settings are a trap for current designers, even if they are fans. The backlash can be very violent when the time line progresses not to the liking of the fan base.

Besides all the old books are available on Drivethru RPG. I'm not interested in buying books that have 70% of rehashed material.

It's far easier for WoTC to put out new settings with no publication history. I'm glad the newer books have more meat. But still have not found one I want to purchase. Maybe Theros when I see it at the local store.

Bashlash comes at new settings as well for a host of reasons, including ignoring existing IPs in favour of other settings, look at the backlash that doing Exandia and MtG settings has so far generated.

Not every book has to be targeted to btw.