D&D: WotC’s New Lore Changes Raise Questions Among Players

Quote from Waylorn >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Yurei, this might surprise you but I would be okay with that. I'm honestly sick of them trying to adjust things to be setting agnostic. If it is a mechanic it should be agnostic but mm, and the like should be done with a setting in mind so that we can get the depth of the settings without having everything be setting agnostic

I am sorry if I come off as like one of the ones who started the dumpster fire. My issue is 5e was initialized as FR as the default which had a lot of baggage packed in with the flavor text. Had 5e started off as how it is now but the settings books were full fledged out and big think books filled to the brim of setting specific lore regardless if it was updated. I would have been fine. I just dont like cutting out what we have without having it officially somewhere to make up for it.

 

Nah, MM and all the main books should be setting agnostic. Get the pre-baked bland lore of the Realms out of my books.

 So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Quote from Waylorn >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Yurei, this might surprise you but I would be okay with that. I'm honestly sick of them trying to adjust things to be setting agnostic. If it is a mechanic it should be agnostic but mm, and the like should be done with a setting in mind so that we can get the depth of the settings without having everything be setting agnostic

I am sorry if I come off as like one of the ones who started the dumpster fire. My issue is 5e was initialized as FR as the default which had a lot of baggage packed in with the flavor text. Had 5e started off as how it is now but the settings books were full fledged out and big think books filled to the brim of setting specific lore regardless if it was updated. I would have been fine. I just dont like cutting out what we have without having it officially somewhere to make up for it.

 

Nah, MM and all the main books should be setting agnostic. Get the pre-baked bland lore of the Realms out of my books.

 So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.

 That's what setting books are for. Like a Typhon, or a Woe Strider.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Quote from Waylorn >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Yurei, this might surprise you but I would be okay with that. I'm honestly sick of them trying to adjust things to be setting agnostic. If it is a mechanic it should be agnostic but mm, and the like should be done with a setting in mind so that we can get the depth of the settings without having everything be setting agnostic

I am sorry if I come off as like one of the ones who started the dumpster fire. My issue is 5e was initialized as FR as the default which had a lot of baggage packed in with the flavor text. Had 5e started off as how it is now but the settings books were full fledged out and big think books filled to the brim of setting specific lore regardless if it was updated. I would have been fine. I just dont like cutting out what we have without having it officially somewhere to make up for it.

 

Nah, MM and all the main books should be setting agnostic. Get the pre-baked bland lore of the Realms out of my books.

 So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.

 

That are only in a single setting but found in a setting agnostic book?

 Look, I'm a old Planescape player. All this talk about "lore" and "alignments" is just amusing to me. Make cool stuff, make stuff agnostic lore-wise, mix it all together, play cool games. Settings can add that extra flavor to describe specific cultures within a race based on lore if they need to, but it's easier to do that from setting specific lore books.

Quote from Orthusaku >>

 So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.

 
Why should the Monster Manual be tuned for the Forgotten Realms?  Eberron didn't get any special fancy entry in the Monster Manual.  Neither did Greyhawk, or Athas.  No Spelljammer monsters in the Monster Manual - but it's chock full of Forgotten Realms stuff that players exactly like you say shouldn't ever be used outside the Realms?

The hell good does that do anybody?  And why should the Forgotten Realms get to take over all the core books and muscle every other equally valid setting away?

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

 So than no monsters or any information for anything that are only in a single setting.

 
Why should the Monster Manual be tuned for the Forgotten Realms?  Eberron didn't get any special fancy entry in the Monster Manual.  Neither did Greyhawk, or Athas.  No Spelljammer monsters in the Monster Manual - but it's chock full of Forgotten Realms stuff that players exactly like you say shouldn't ever be used outside the Realms?

The hell good does that do anybody?  And why should the Forgotten Realms get to take over all the core books and muscle every other equally valid setting away?

 So what I meant and clearly didn't communicate that clearly

Is that each setting should have its own individual monster manual.  Or have a blander that covers a more saying agnostic approach but is in essence kind of bland,  you would get only stat blocks with no fluff and no other information.  Besides stats, spells attacks

Edit: fighting text to speech and mobile interface where enter doesn't move cursor to the new line.

I meant is that if you want a monster manual that is setting agnostic then you would get only monsters that are found in all settings with no fluff and ideally an averaged stat block  where as you would also have a setting dependent monster manual that went in more depth of the monsters of the Lord of their culture of all the fluff and stat blocks that are more aligned with the setting

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Erriku I guess got 7 I might just create a private website tool set to do what I need and just copy the books over to it for person archival

 

edit: How about Dungeon World Beyond or any other system beyond for my point.

edit 2: you seem like you personally don't want people using the versions they want to use. From some weird ass reason.

Do you think about your posts before you start swinging? Was this the approach you used to get that double pay for half the work? For someone who thinks their contributions are valued and necessary to DDB contracts, one would think you would do a better job selling yourself. Were this a negotiation, it would have ended here. I am sorry that providing you with grounded, rational responses causes you such emotional turmoil. I do not care what you play. I am just stating very plainly that the content you want will not be offered here or on any other website. I am not sure how you could possibly have interpreted that as me not wanting you to have a version of the game you want.

...you're acting like that's a bad idea?

I'm 110% behind selling multiple books for a properly fleshed-out, well designed setting. Grim Hollow's going gangbusters selling a Campaign Guide, Player's Guide, and no a Monster Grimoire for their setting, all meant to be used in conjunction with the base 5e set, and they're making millions.  yeah, you may not be able to do that with a billion fifty-dollar hardprint books, but Wizards is going to have to accept that digital products exist at some point in their future.  One of the big benefits of digital is allowing a higher volume of sales, and many other games (Savage Worlds comes to mind) do pretty well by themselves with selling multiple books tailored to individual settings within the broader scope of the game.

Erriku, honestly I was reading your posts as your opinion on the topic and points made not necessarily what is being offered or what the current status is on things. I guess I wasn't being clear enough on that and I ended feeling like I wasn't being listened on a personal level but just heard with to be responded to with standard this is how things are.

Do you(at a personal level) think it would be bad for people to have access to and use the version of any book they have on a digital platform?

Yurei, I think it would be a wonderful idea to have proper fleshed out books for each setting that cover a phb, DMG, setting guide and mm for each setting cause it would allow me to invest deeply in the setting and know I have basically everything I need for that setting alone.

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Erriku, honestly I was reading your posts as your opinion on the topic and points made not necessarily what is being offered or what the current status is on things. I guess I wasn't being clear enough on that and I ended feeling like I wasn't being listened on a personal level but just heard with to be responded to with standard this is how things are.

Do you(at a personal level) think it would be bad for people to have access to and use the version of any book they have on a digital platform?

Ah, in that case, I apologize for the confusion.

I do not think it would be bad necessarily. I think it is more work than it is worth even if WotC was agreeable to allowing it. If they allowed this older content, which content should they focus on offering? How would it be organized? There has been quite a bit of content that received an update over the years. How would players know which content they are looking for without reading through all of it first? Can they toggle off specific paragraphs or would only specific versions of books be allowed and those who want individual sentences retrievable be left in the wind? When you start offering pre-errata content again, it can become a hot mess very quickly. This would be a resource-heavy endeavor that frankly, not enough people are willing to pay for.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

One was a person of mixed heritage who tried to get into D&D during older editions and felt drawn to half-orcs thematically, as a representation of his own heritage...but then he saw that half-orcs received a sharp penalty to Intelligence and Charisma simply for bearing orcish blood and bounced off the game entirely.  For that player, the message was clear - mixed-heritage creatures were Bad, Undesirable, and Not Okay, and he didn't want to deal with that in the game when he dealt with it in everyday life.  D&D was hostile to him, so he didn't engage with it.  He was not welcome at the table.

~ Did it make any difference to him, I wonder, to know that half-elves get a Charisma score increased by 2, and two other ability scores of their choice increased by 1?  I could see someone saying that a mixed-race creature getting negatives applied to them would be off-setting.

Another player from back then is gay, and in a stable and healthy relationship with their beau.  Until very recently, D&D had absolutely zero representation for non-straight, non-cisgendered folk, and it was considered good manners to simply not talk about those things at the table.  That was, in fact, the argument thrown about many, many, many times when this buddy of mine (and myself, for that matter) were arguing in favor of the direction Wizards is taking, if not necessarily their specific execution.  Players said "why does your sexual orientation or identity matter?  Why do I have to put gay or trans or whatever characters in the game just so you can feel like you belong in it?  Can't you just belong in it because you have a big sword and a quest list?"  The harm was that Wizards' tacit approval, up until 'bout two or three years ago, of  what amounted to Don't Ask Don't Tell meant a lot of folks felt offput by the game.  My buddy had to learn to tolerate constant friction and pain points while playing if he wanted to enjoy his favorite game.  He was welcome at the table...but only so long as he kept his sexual orientation to himself and didn't rise to the bait when people made light of 'Other' folks.

~ Was this other players making light of 'Other' folks in the game or IRL?

I wasn't made privy to the precise details of said buddy's history of pain, but I presume he woiuldn't have mentioned anything if it had been a random in-game riff by characters acknowledged as in-world bigots.

Quote from Erriku >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Erriku, honestly I was reading your posts as your opinion on the topic and points made not necessarily what is being offered or what the current status is on things. I guess I wasn't being clear enough on that and I ended feeling like I wasn't being listened on a personal level but just heard with to be responded to with standard this is how things are.

Do you(at a personal level) think it would be bad for people to have access to and use the version of any book they have on a digital platform?

Ah, in that case, I apologize for the confusion.

I do not think it would be bad necessarily. I think it is more work than it is worth even if WotC was agreeable to allowing it. If they allowed this older content, which content should they focus on offering? How would it be organized? There has been quite a bit of content that received an update over the years. How would players know which content they are looking for without reading through all of it first? Can they toggle off specific paragraphs or would only specific versions of books be allowed and those who want individual sentences retrievable be left in the wind? When you start offering pre-errata content again, it can become a hot mess very quickly. This would be a resource-heavy endeavor that frankly, not enough people are willing to pay for.

WotC isn't going to go for allowing multiple versions of their rulesets because giving old versions legitimacy is a bad idea. It's really that simple. It sends the wrong message about the errata process and it's a slippery slope. Right now they present a unified (stress on the uni- part) ruleset with the rule zero addendum that, of course, you're free to change what you want. Legitimizing a dozen versions of the rules pretty much screams "we don't know anymore, figure it out for yourselves". 'Here's a complete ruleset: use it as is, change it, add to it, delete from it, whatever you want - it's a complete ruleset ready to use out of the box for your convenience' is a good proposition to their customers. 'Here's a bunch of versions of a complete ruleset because we can't make up our mind about what makes the best standard, so you guys are going to have to do some work up front to figure out what you want' is a terrible proposition to their customers. It's not going to happen. One set of core rulebooks + sourcebooks with optional rules - that's a yes; a bunch of fuzzy sets of core rulebooks nobody really knows exactly how, where or why they differ from all the others + sourcebooks with optional rules - that's a no. 

Exactly.  Pangurjan nailed it.  It's just not business feasible.

Like I said - the best you could possibly get, and even this is asking a god damned lot, is archived, read-only versions of pre-errata books.  Nothing usable in the tools, nothing that can ever remotely be confused with current books.  Remember - Adam Bradford had to fight tooth and nail just to allow DDB to make any form of homebrew a thing on the service, Wizards originally wanted it locked to nothing but what was in the most-current books.  Wizards has seen what happens with uncontrolled digital databases in the form of the various fan-run D&D wikis - they get choked to death with ten trillion people's worthless homebrew, and people bounce off the game in disgust because they see terrible shit designed by complete nitwits and think "THAT'S what they want me to spend hundreds of dollars on?  No thanks!"

You're not gonna get opt-in errata here on DDB.  Wizards wouldn't let you "opt in" to the errata in older physical print books if it was physically possible for them to change it - they'd change existing print copies if they could.  Yes, that means they would Come For Your Books(C), so fine.  They came for your books.  Sorry about that.  Y'all knew they would though, and since you all know all the old pre-4e lore you want to preserve forever by heart anyways...why is it such a nasty deal?

I do not like the removal/replacement of Established Lore.

Changing the Established Lore makes our knowledge of the settings wrong, true = false.
All the time and effort to learn the Established Lore, is now pointless waste.
It feels like WoTC is saying, I should feel stupid for knowing the "old" Established Lore, and it emotionally hurts.

The Established Lore that I have learned is, the evil races are evil because of their evil promoting cultures or biological needs.

I actually thought about this today in depth and one solution, I came up with was using routed URLs. Which are already utilized in the current site. The book urls are listed as such

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/$Book/$Chapter#$Header

which to include revisions it would be changed to this

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/$Book/$Revision/$Chapter#$Header

Currently when you go to a book, the backend will run a function to locate the book and then put you on the landing page

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/$Book/

With my suggestion You would see a drop down in the upper left on desktop view that defaults to Current

That would be the extent of the front end work.

Now for the back end. You would have a git server (git does not mean github, you can run a private git server since that is how linus torvalds built it) and an array that links the selector and the commits, so for selector entry 0 which for the  drop show shows Initial, the array would have [initial_commit_id, update_1_id] and the in entry 0 for the array would be the commit id for the initial release.

When you go to say https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/PHB/1/$Chapter#$Header

You would go to the first revision of the PHB or first edit after that initial release and see the chapter as it was

The back end would load the commit for the 1st revision via the git show REVISION: /path/to/file as the content for the page.

This would remove the need to reformat the book files as they are stored, as the path to file would be the same file, and the only changes would be listed would be in the revision history and they wouldn't need to store multiple copies for each file, as with git, everything is built from the first file and just updated with the differences between the diffs. Like having a snapshot of your windows install vs a full system backup.

Now this may not be a fully scalable solution or one ready for production as there may be some latency hit that needs to be worked out.

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Stuff about how to technically archive

 

This is all well and good, but it's not simply a problem for D&D Beyond.

D&D Beyond and their license with Wizards is to faithfully represent the current iteration of the books.  Not historical revisions.  When you purchase a product on D&D Beyond, you are not purchasing a specific instance, you are purchasing whatever Wizards deems the current iteration.  If Wizards were to publish an errata tomorrow saying all Humans got a +5 to all stats on level 1?  Well, that'd be bloody stupid BUT D&D Beyond would faithfully amend that.  That's how their license works.  A lot of the complaints here seemingly stem from a fact of not knowing that before getting into bed with D&D Beyond and their toolset.  That's an end-user problem.  If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere because the only way D&D Beyond will have the ability to petition Wizards for a change is if they lose the ability to pay for the license specifically due to issues like this.  

I do not like the removal/replacement of Established Lore.

Changing the Established Lore makes our knowledge of the settings wrong, true = false.
All the time and effort to learn the Established Lore, is now pointless waste.
It feels like WoTC is saying, I should feel stupid for knowing the "old" Established Lore, and it emotionally hurts.

The Established Lore that I have learned is, the evil races are evil because of their evil promoting cultures or biological needs.

Kingdom Hearts had to retcon the fact of Mickey not having a shirt in Kingdom Hearts 1 by adding lore to Kingdom Hearts 2.8.  This happens all the time in lore.  We don't have to like it, NOR do we have to use it.  That's the beauty of D&D as a product.  EVERYTHING given is at liberty for the DM to create a story of their own choosing.

No one can 100% faithfully go that there aren't things in D&D History that aren't inherently racist.  They just can't.  A lot of the changes are in an attempt to address blanket stereotypes, but anyone with an iota of intelligence can read between the lines and go "Wizards isn't trying to say that certain beings/instances of them AREN'T a stereotype, but that exceptions CAN and DO exist and we shouldn't blanket stereotype them."  If you want your games to keep saying all female drow are misandrists?  That's your table's prerogative.  I personally think its a shitty one, but that's your table(just don't invite me).  Wizards are trying to say that it isn't the ONLY thing they are capable of, that an intelligent being isn't a one-dimensional caricature of their upbringing/birth/etc.

Now, here is the issue people conflate. More so for older players.  Just because there were inherent things that could be considered racist/misogynist/misandrist, does not mean that the PEOPLE PLAYING THE GAME WERE TRYING TO DO THESE THINGS.  We see this very often when someone goes and goes "WELL, X THING WAS RACIST" and the kneejerk is to go for some people "WELL, I'M NOT RACIST".  Great, thanks, it's not about YOU, now move on.  What this move for is to continue to be more inclusive to those who DO see these things are hurtful.  

Is that each setting should have its own individual monster manual.  Or have a blander that covers a more saying agnostic approach but is in essence kind of bland,  you would get only stat blocks with no fluff and no other information.  Besides stats, spells attacks

I absolutely do not want a return to what AD&D 2nd was, in the 11 year run having released OVER TWO HUNDRED SOURCES OF MATERIAL.  I do want more material for sure, I do not think we need this.  

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts >>

The Established Lore that I have learned is, the evil races are evil because of their evil promoting cultures or biological needs.

And the simple fact of the matter is that individuals of said races will, when steeped in that culture or having that biology, almost certainly still be evil. The Established Lore is what it was before. This isn't some Spellplague retcon or recreation of a setting's cosmology or something. These races are pretty much the same. Just because it doesn't say "EVIL" in bright red letters anymore doesn't mean their cultural background or biological makeup just up and vanished. 

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from Erriku >>

Quote from Orthusaku >>

Erriku, honestly I was reading your posts as your opinion on the topic and points made not necessarily what is being offered or what the current status is on things. I guess I wasn't being clear enough on that and I ended feeling like I wasn't being listened on a personal level but just heard with to be responded to with standard this is how things are.

Do you(at a personal level) think it would be bad for people to have access to and use the version of any book they have on a digital platform?

Ah, in that case, I apologize for the confusion.

I do not think it would be bad necessarily. I think it is more work than it is worth even if WotC was agreeable to allowing it. If they allowed this older content, which content should they focus on offering? How would it be organized? There has been quite a bit of content that received an update over the years. How would players know which content they are looking for without reading through all of it first? Can they toggle off specific paragraphs or would only specific versions of books be allowed and those who want individual sentences retrievable be left in the wind? When you start offering pre-errata content again, it can become a hot mess very quickly. This would be a resource-heavy endeavor that frankly, not enough people are willing to pay for.

WotC isn't going to go for allowing multiple versions of their rulesets because giving old versions legitimacy is a bad idea. It's really that simple. It sends the wrong message about the errata process and it's a slippery slope. Right now they present a unified (stress on the uni- part) ruleset with the rule zero addendum that, of course, you're free to change what you want. Legitimizing a dozen versions of the rules pretty much screams "we don't know anymore, figure it out for yourselves". 'Here's a complete ruleset: use it as is, change it, add to it, delete from it, whatever you want - it's a complete ruleset ready to use out of the box for your convenience' is a good proposition to their customers. 'Here's a bunch of versions of a complete ruleset because we can't make up our mind about what makes the best standard, so you guys are going to have to do some work up front to figure out what you want' is a terrible proposition to their customers. It's not going to happen. One set of core rulebooks + sourcebooks with optional rules - that's a yes; a bunch of fuzzy sets of core rulebooks nobody really knows exactly how, where or why they differ from all the others + sourcebooks with optional rules - that's a no. 

I agree on all counts.

As a lifelong Star Trek fan, I feel like I am experiencing déjà vu here. People who demand that lore be left alone really plan to be the last fan an IP has. When they die, they hope the IP also dies so they can be buried with it - that is exactly what happens to fiction that cannot remain relevant to a modern audience. I came into ST when TNG started and the TOS zealots wanted nothing more to destroy TNG and cursed the existence of those who loved it, just like TOS and many TNG fans now want DSC to die, just like "oldguard" D&D players, who cut their teeth on AD&D, want the new direction of D&D to die. It is deeply saddening that this entrenched devotion to outdated and harmful ideas and misplaced sense of ownership forces people to choose to kill the thing they love, rather than let it grow and evolve, and allow it to be attractive to newcomers. Change is coming. It must. Change with it.