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

Quote from Grunk999 >>

Quote from Erriku >>

Quote from Grunk999 >>

I don't think the lore changes are necessary.

 

 Why? There are real world testimonies from players (linked either here or one of the other threads on this topic) who found these changes very necessary and of personal relevance. Do you not think that these voices are material?

 

No, I don't deny their feelings, and I'm sure they are being genuine.

But making changes based on a statistical minority of players can be risky.

 

So going back to my larger point that the game is being designed to enable a multiplicities of play styles.  Recent errata do not impede or discourage the play style you're accustomed to playing.  But what's being removed are "lore" elements that do discourage players and DMs from playing the way they want because the way some lore and even suggestions are presented to date have been too close or associated with "the rules."  So like I said, I"m sure there will be more Death Houses in the futures (Hell, maybe even a Dark Sun though that would be require a masterpiece of critical guidance on how to rehabilitate some of the contemporary problematic tropes of Howard and Burroughs ... but IRL fiction writers have been doing that for a while now so who knows) but there will be a lot of other ways supported as well.

EDIT: seeing your comment about sales which is one form of market growth.  I think the more D&D is able to accomodate, the more consistent brand loyalty they'll have.  D&D has said they wanted to push "what you can do with D&D" and I think they're doing that with what I see as minor renovations (and really those are reorientations, what used to be "key" aka "essential" lore now is more realistically acknowledged as food for thought).  There's growing the market and maintaining the market, and I think D&D is aware of itself as a "gateway" TTRPG, and there's a lot of stuff stuff out there to pull away chunks of "gaming whale" purchases.  Yet they are also aware of the problems of product bloat ... the present release style seems to be a more thoughtful approach of "what do players need?" as opposed to "if we just churn out splatbooks they will come" which seemed to be the swansong of 3.5 (as it was with 2e).  Keep growing the game, don't go too deep into stuff DMs and Players will likely rewrite anyway (my next hope for 5e errata is calling the Purple Dragon Knight just a Knight ... I mean would the hard core Forgotten Realms players be really upset that their Cormyrean subclass gets a little more generic adaptation?).  I just don't see why Inspiring Surge and Bulwark are somehow "essentially" Cormyrian ... probably most head scratching subclass in terms of presentation in the game.  I mean even in FR, you don't think the Flaming Fist or even the Zhentarim have Fighters that can be badass leaders / forces to reckon with along these lines?

Quote from Erriku >>

Quote from Grunk999 >>

Quote from Erriku >>

Quote from Grunk999 >>

I don't think the lore changes are necessary.

 Why? There are real world testimonies from players (linked either here or one of the other threads on this topic) who found these changes very necessary and of personal relevance. Do you not think that these voices are material?

No, I don't deny their feelings, and I'm sure they are being genuine.

But making changes based on a statistical minority of players can be risky.

Why are you assuming that those impacted are a statistical minority? How are these changes risky, in your estimation?

 I don't know if they are or not. That's why I asked if WoTC conducted a statistically valid survey on this change.

I said making changes based on a statistical minority of customers can be risky. I didn't say it definitely was in this case. As I said in my other reply, without the internal financial and operational data, there is no way for us to know for sure.

Grunk999,

If your only measure for what is necessary is a significant impact on sales, is it not premature to call these changes unnecessary, as you do not have the data to support your statement?

Quote from Grunk999 >>

I said making changes based on a statistical minority of customers can be risky. I didn't say it definitely was in this case. As I said in my other reply, without the internal financial and operational data, there is no way for us to know for sure.

Even with their data, they can't know for sure --- every business is essentially a gamble. And they don't really owe customers their marketing data.

But they seem to be doing OK.

Quote from Grunk999 >>

Quote from Erriku >>

Quote from Grunk999 >>>

Do the changes make sense, yes. Are they necessary, no. As many people have said in this and other threads, the DM can mold their world any way they choose.

 How do you define ‘necessary’ then? Because your footing does not seem very solid from what I am seeing.

 

In this context, I define necessary changes as those that will materially impact sales. If WoTC didn't make the changes, would their sales have materially suffered? Without having the pre and post financial and operational data to assess and measure the impact, those of us external to the company will never know for sure.

 

 
Then why does it matter?  You're trying to insinuate that the changes aren't positive/helpful as well as being unnecessary.  if we'll never know their impact, then why use them to try and flog other people into silence?  It's a nonissue, a nothingburger, and unworthy of discussion.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from Grunk999 >>

Quote from Erriku >>

Quote from Grunk999 >>>

Do the changes make sense, yes. Are they necessary, no. As many people have said in this and other threads, the DM can mold their world any way they choose.

 How do you define ‘necessary’ then? Because your footing does not seem very solid from what I am seeing.

 

In this context, I define necessary changes as those that will materially impact sales. If WoTC didn't make the changes, would their sales have materially suffered? Without having the pre and post financial and operational data to assess and measure the impact, those of us external to the company will never know for sure.

 

 
Then why does it matter?  You're trying to insinuate that the changes aren't positive/helpful as well as being unnecessary.  if we'll never know their impact, then why use them to try and flog other people into silence?  It's a nonissue, a nothingburger, and unworthy of discussion.

Any discussion about a fantasy game is by definition unnecessary, but people who like the game have differing opinion, and a desire to express them. That's what forums like this are for.

I don't believe I was flogging anyone into silence. I think that's an inaccurate representation of my post and intent.

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from Grunk999 >>

I said making changes based on a statistical minority of customers can be risky. I didn't say it definitely was in this case. As I said in my other reply, without the internal financial and operational data, there is no way for us to know for sure.

Even with their data, they can't know for sure --- every business is essentially a gamble. And they don't really owe customers their marketing data.

But they seem to be doing OK.

 

I never said that they owe customers that data.

You're right, there are never any guarantees, and companies are risk-adverse, but that's why they spend a lot of time and effort to increase the likelihood of a new initiative being sucessful.

Actually, never mind, the point I was making was pretty inconsequential and didn't forward the conversation any. My apologies. Carry on.

Quote from Archaeolexi >>

So, I suppose I'm just not sure why you're bothering to play 5E at all if you basically just want to play older editions? It seems like a case where you are carping about something that doesn't even matter to you for the sole purpose of roiling up controversy. You can still play ADnD, or 3.5, or whatever. For some of us, seeing the changes that have come around over the course of playing this game since around 1992 is welcome. The game has, in many ways, improved. Particularly when it comes to the basic lore and allowance for creativity baked into the rules. There are certainly some things from 3.5 that I preferred, but overall this is a much healthier, welcoming, and accepted game than it used to be. 

 Well, for one thing except for the one who wanted to do 2e, the other players in the group are all new and are of 5e; they asked for 5e.  For another, 5e gives me access to DDB's web tools, which I am finding extremely helpful and useful to have; so you know, pro's and cons.  I'm so much better off with this tool than I used to be habing to have all my books scattered across the floor taking notes in a binder.  It's lovely.

Quote from Erriku >>

Am I understanding that you do not appreciate the lore changes being more generalizable to all D&D games in 5e,

a system that you apparently did not use even when the lore was focused on FR? If this is the case,

I am at a loss for why you have been such a booming voice in this thread given that you were not invested in 5e to begin with.

It's more that I don't appreciate deletions as a means of changing lore versus, say publishing a canon story to explain why from a certain point of 'the present' things are different from how they used to be.  It's also that I don't necessarily appreciate the motivations behind changing the lore moreso than that I don't appreciate some of the changes in and of themselves.  

I don't count it as not using the system just because I tweak the mechanics to include bits I think were left behind.  As far as I'm concerned, I'm tweaking to become more lore friendly.

Well, I just respond to posts that are responded to is all; it's nothing in particular.  I like these kind of discussions.  I wasn't invested cause I've not been a part of it in while.  Now that I'm into it again, I'm re-invested.  We'll see how it goes.  We're at session 3 tomorrow.  Also, it's an interesting time; 2 years to the 50th, and stuff already in the works with a promise of back compatability just as i've been brought back into the game - bit of an exciting time.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from Erriku >>

Am I understanding that you do not appreciate the lore changes being more generalizable to all D&D games in 5e,

a system that you apparently did not use even when the lore was focused on FR? If this is the case,

I am at a loss for why you have been such a booming voice in this thread given that you were not invested in 5e to begin with.

It's more that I don't appreciate deletions as a means of changing lore versus, say publishing a canon story to explain why from a certain point of 'the present' things are different from how they used to be.  It's also that I don't necessarily appreciate the motivations behind changing the lore moreso than that I don't appreciate some of the changes in and of themselves.  

I don't count it as not using the system just because I tweak the mechanics to include bits I think were left behind.  As far as I'm concerned, I'm tweaking to become more lore friendly.

Well, I just respond to posts that are responded to is all; it's nothing in particular.  I like these kind of discussions.  I wasn't invested cause I've not been a part of it in while.  Now that I'm into it again, I'm re-invested.  We'll see how it goes.  We're at session 3 tomorrow.  Also, it's an interesting time; 2 years to the 50th, and stuff already in the works with a promise of back compatability just as i've been brought back into the game - bit of an exciting time.

Back compatibility to 5e.  As for lore "deletions," the philosophy behind what's going on re canon or what you call lore, other party's conspiracy theories and valuations aside, is laid out here.  The fidelity you seek to see maintained, from a business and game practice standpoint is regarded as a "barrier to entry" sort of like your professed forecasted irritation at potential players not know lore like you do.  The design studio's perspective of what they want and seeing the playerbase wanted is almost literally the opposite valence.

Anyone can curate their game any way they want, but lore is proving to be less a fundamental than what the design studio is putting out as fundamentals, so the game goes forward without a consistent canon lore.

Maybe we should back up a step and ask whether these are changes to begin with. 

From the MM:

Alignment

A monster’s alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation. For example, a chaotic evil monster might be difficult to reason with and might attack characters on sight, whereas a neutral monster might be willing to negotiate. See the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of the different alignments.

The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign. If you want a good-aligned green dragon or an evil storm giant, there’s nothing stopping you.

Some creatures can have any alignment. In other words, you choose the monster’s alignment. Some monster’s alignment entry indicates a tendency or aversion toward law, chaos, good, or evil. For example, a berserker can be any chaotic alignment (chaotic good, chaotic neutral, or chaotic evil), as befits its wild nature.

Many creatures of low intelligence have no comprehension of law or chaos, good or evil. They don’t make moral or ethical choices, but rather act on instinct. These creatures are unaligned, which means they don’t have an alignment.

I mean, other than a change in editing it's really more of a confirmation of what the rules say anyway.

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Back compatibility to 5e.  As for lore "deletions," the philosophy behind what's going on re canon or what you call lore, other party's conspiracy theories and valuations aside, is laid out here.  The fidelity you seek to see maintained, from a business and game practice standpoint is regarded as a "barrier to entry" sort of like your professed forecasted irritation at potential players not know lore like you do.  The design studio's perspective of what they want and seeing the playerbase wanted is almost literally the opposite valence.

Anyone can curate their game any way they want, but lore is proving to be less a fundamental than what the design studio is putting out as fundamentals, so the game goes forward without a consistent canon lore.

 
The linked article is quite interesting, actually.  It backs up quite further than I'd figured Wizards was going to on matters of canon and echoes the sentiment myself and others have expressed before - "if it isn't in a 5e book, it isn't canon."

Note how Crawford states the company goes out of its way to reduce canon and the impact of canon in order to lessen the burden on DMs, and incidentally on players.  Note how Crawford also goes out of his way to state the company's policy on older/alternative D&D sources and state that everything has its own canon, and not all of it needs to be intercompatible.  Dark Alliance 3 can have different canon than Strixhaven can have different canon than 4e can have different canon than Ravenloft, and Wizards won't ever tell you which of those is 'right' or tell you that your own version or interpretation is wrong.  Part of that is obviously commercial - the customer is always right in matters of taste and such - but it's also the only real way a shared creative universe works without strenuous and expensive Canon Police efforts.  "Your version is true for you.  My version is true for me.  Her version is true for her.  His version is true for him.  They're all true, even though they contradict each other, because each one is its own thing."

People can cling to the lore of past editions, and that lore is true.  For them.  It does not have to be true for me, or you, or Lady Gaga, or Frank the Pug.  It only has to be true for them.  The lore of Tursk is true for my table, it's as canon as Eilistraee is - for us.  It doesn't have to be true for anyone else, which is good because I've been playing in it for a couple of years now and I still have only the vaguest clue what's going on - and I'm the goddamn historian.  Hueh.  I've been catching up on some old Keith Baker blog articles recently, and he's on record as stating that what's canon for him at his personal table, in his personal Eberron campaigns, isn't the same as what's canon in any of the extant Eberron books, 3.5e or 5e, and furthermore he'll flex canon as he needs to in order to make an interesting story for his table.  The entire world of Eberron has deliberate, designed-in blanks and unanswered questions, places where "Canon" deliberately does not and never will exist, so that individual DMs can have room to scribble in the blanks and come up with their own cool stories.

"Lore" is what one makes of it and what applies in one's own world.  it doesn't need to be universal, and in fact it's actively detrimental if it is.  Every table deserves its own lore (with blackjack, and hookers!), and Wizards isn't going to step on that.

Good.  We'll chalk that up as ONE good decision that godsforsaken company has ever made.

Hey, there's been more than one good decision!

Like.....um.....that one time....where they changed the thing.....

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Back compatibility to 5e.  As for lore "deletions," the philosophy behind what's going on re canon or what you call lore, other party's conspiracy theories and valuations aside, is laid out here.  The fidelity you seek to see maintained, from a business and game practice standpoint is regarded as a "barrier to entry" sort of like your professed forecasted irritation at potential players not know lore like you do.  The design studio's perspective of what they want and seeing the playerbase wanted is almost literally the opposite valence.

Anyone can curate their game any way they want, but lore is proving to be less a fundamental than what the design studio is putting out as fundamentals, so the game goes forward without a consistent canon lore.

 
The linked article is quite interesting, actually.  It backs up quite further than I'd figured Wizards was going to on matters of canon and echoes the sentiment myself and others have expressed before - "if it isn't in a 5e book, it isn't canon."

I think it even goes further in that "Not even the lore you're reading in a 5e book is necessarily canon".  For those who play in the Sword Coast centered Forgotten Realms, maybe Tyranny of Dragons happened (as a weird echo of the Dragonlance saga) maybe it didn't.  Maybe Storm King's Thunder had some reaction in part to the giants involvement or lack of involvement in Tyranny or dragons, or maybe STK and/or Tyranny of Dragons didn't happen.  Maybe the Fall of Elturel was a big deal as Descent into Avernus was a big part of your game, including prologues dealing with the sanctimonious hypocrisy of its theocracy of Elturgard ... or maybe Elturel never fell and the Companion was actually a good gift from Torm or whoever.

I've run Descent into Avernus before, but in my game now I'm using Bernie the Barber and Arkhan's camp in ways very different than the way they were presented in the module.  As far as my present game goes, DitA never happened but anyone familiar with the module knows where I'm getting those two figures from (and had DitA never been written, I doubt I would have had the idea for characters like them).  Folks may recognize them in a "I see what you're doing there" but I'd be very perplexed if anyone thought I was using them wrong.  And that's the extent of lore functional utility in the game as played.  Sure it's fun to look into lore, I do deep dives all the time, but lore shouldn't dictate, just inspire.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

They're soulless, will-less shells

I’m not trying to single you out, but your terminology is something I can use to start saying the point I’m trying to make.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and yes this is relevant. For ten whole years I’ve been fighting a glitch in my brain that caused me to suffer, my family to suffer because of me, and nearly caused things I don’t want to contemplate. I don’t feel like I’m overly exaggerating when I call this disease an evil.

My experience is not unique and definitely not the worst example of people suffering from, as you say, “soulless, mindless, will-less” evils. Diseases, mental illnesses, natural disasters, take your pick. You yourself my have experienced any of these, and if so I apologize if I have presumed you haven’t in this writing.

The idea of the impersonal evil force, often embodied as monstrous beings (which I’ll concede that D&D orc, kobolds, and such have always been too humanlike to really count for) as always represented in my mind these things. So I hope you understand that my fantasies of fighting these forces and monsters are every bit as important to me as yours about standing up against the humans who also mess the world up.

Quote from Fifinger >>

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

They're soulless, will-less shells

 

I’m not trying to single you out, but your terminology is something I can use to start saying the point I’m trying to make.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and yes this is relevant. For ten whole years I’ve been fighting a glitch in my brain that caused me to suffer, my family to suffer because of me, and nearly caused things I don’t want to contemplate. I don’t feel like I’m overly exaggerating when I call this disease an evil.

My experience is not unique and definitely not the worst example of people suffering from, as you say, “soulless, mindless, will-less” evils. Diseases, mental illnesses, natural disasters, take your pick. You yourself my have experienced any of these, and if so I apologize if I have presumed you haven’t in this writing.

The idea of the impersonal evil force, often embodied as monstrous beings (which I’ll concede that D&D orc, kobolds, and such have always been too humanlike to really count for) as always represented in my mind these things. So I hope you understand that my fantasies of fighting these forces and monsters are every bit as important to me as yours about standing up against the humans who also mess the world up.

 

 You already stated that this doesn't apply to Orcs, Kobolds, and the like. Which specific player races does this apply to?  If none of them, then I would have to say that it is hardly relative to the discussion.  The errata didn't make Beholders, Fire Giants or Devils any less evil for example, it just affects player races. You still have a whole Monsters Manual (plus many many more monsters) that are the embodiment of evil to fight without any issues of morality to get in the way.

Quote from Golaryn >>

 You already stated that this doesn't apply to Orcs, Kobolds, and the like. Which specific player races does this apply to?  If none of them, then I would have to say that it is hardly relative to the discussion.  The errata didn't make Beholders, Fire Giants or Devils any less evil for example, it just affects player races. You still have a whole Monsters Manual (plus many many more) monsters that are the embodiment of evil to fight without any issues of morality to get in the way.

 This isn't necessarily so.  The reason many of us are all riled up is because they specifically did say changes being made included mindflayers and beholders as an example.  Similarly, you are even stating formerly monster races as player races in your question.  What makes an Orc or Kobold any more 'human' than a fire giant?  Fire Giants have a culture and society too and an INT score of 6 or above; i.e. they are sapient/sentient 'free willed' entities; perhaps even more so than orcs in certain iterations of the lore.  Why does an Orc desrve to be considered a player race now rather than a monster race moreso than a Fire-Giant?  Is it just because of mechanical issues associated with their size? - cause size notwithstanding, Giants have already been culturally disney-fied over the last few decades too; and presumably alignment affiliations are being removed from them too along with most other ones. 

I think gnolls were mentioned as one that they're not doing it to; and that makes even less sense.  Even in the core setting lore, gnolls weren't made by their god and therefore presumably have even more free will than orcs do - and there are half-gnolls too.

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard >>

Quote from Golaryn >>

 You already stated that this doesn't apply to Orcs, Kobolds, and the like. Which specific player races does this apply to?  If none of them, then I would have to say that it is hardly relative to the discussion.  The errata didn't make Beholders, Fire Giants or Devils any less evil for example, it just affects player races. You still have a whole Monsters Manual (plus many many more) monsters that are the embodiment of evil to fight without any issues of morality to get in the way.

 This isn't necessarily so.  The reason many of us are all riled up is because they specifically did say changes being made included mindflayers and beholders as an example.  Similarly, you are even stating formerly monster races as player races in your question.  What makes an Orc or Kobold any more 'human' than a fire giant?  Fire Giants have a culture and society too and an INT score of 6 or above; i.e. they are sapient/sentient 'free willed' entities; perhaps even more so than orcs in certain iterations of the lore.  Why does an Orc desrve to be considered a player race now rather than a monster race moreso than a Fire-Giant?  Is it just because of mechanical issues associated with their size? - cause size notwithstanding, Giants have already been culturally disney-fied over the last few decades too; and presumably alignment affiliations are being removed from them too along with most other ones. 

I think gnolls were mentioned as one that they're not doing it to; and that makes even less sense.  Even in the core setting lore, gnolls weren't made by their god and therefore presumably have even more free will than orcs do - and there are half-gnolls too.

 Did you read the post that I quoted?  THEY said that Orcs and Kobolds are too human to count. Also, WotC says that Orcs are a player race and Fire Giants aren't.

Secondly, the Errata does not change the alignment of Mind Flayers or Beholders or any other monster it only removed redundant information and descriptions of specific acts of violence. Have you read the errata?

Edit: Orcs as a playable race isn't even new to D&D and as been a thing since at least 2nd edition..

Quote from Shepherd_Hubbard>>

Quote from Golaryn>>

 You already stated that this doesn't apply to Orcs, Kobolds, and the like. Which specific player races does this apply to?  If none of them, then I would have to say that it is hardly relative to the discussion.  The errata didn't make Beholders, Fire Giants or Devils any less evil for example, it just affects player races. You still have a whole Monsters Manual (plus many many more) monsters that are the embodiment of evil to fight without any issues of morality to get in the way.

 This isn't necessarily so.  The reason many of us are all riled up is because they specifically did say changes being made included mindflayers and beholders as an example. 

No it didn't. Sure, it made some small changes to the text, but it was mostly to get rid of redundant material, not to make Mind Flayers and Beholders good guys now. 

And if they are . . . so what? Large Luigi from Spelljammer is a Beholder Barkeep, and he's been a part of the game for about 30 years. There have been good Mind Flayers for decades, too. They're not the majority, and their existence is still morally questionable, but they've existed, and I haven't seen anyone yelling/whining about those NPCs when they came out. 

Similarly, you are even stating formerly monster races as player races in your question.  What makes an Orc or Kobold any more 'human' than a fire giant?  Fire Giants have a culture and society too and an INT score of 6 or above; i.e. they are sapient/sentient 'free willed' entities; perhaps even more so than orcs in certain iterations of the lore.  Why does an Orc desrve to be considered a player race now rather than a monster race moreso than a Fire-Giant?  Is it just because of mechanical issues associated with their size? - cause size notwithstanding, Giants have already been culturally disney-fied over the last few decades too; and presumably alignment affiliations are being removed from them too along with most other ones. 

I think gnolls were mentioned as one that they're not doing it to; and that makes even less sense.  Even in the core setting lore, gnolls weren't made by their god and therefore presumably have even more free will than orcs do - and there are half-gnolls too.

Your logical fallacy is "whataboutism", and it isn't even an accurate one. 

There have been good giants in D&D's history. Harshnag the Good Frost Giant plays a major role in Storm King's Thunder, when Frost Giants in the Monster Manual are listed as being Neutral Evil (that whole adventure has a ton of examples of "My Species Doth Protest Too Much" NPCs, where it's clear that giants are "People" and not just "Monsters"). 

So, by all means, the next Monster Manual should absolutely treat Giants, Orcs, Kobolds, and the lot as "people", if they are people. If they aren't people (beasts, oozes, most undead, most constructs, most aberrations, etc), don't treat them like they are. 

(As a side note, I absolutely hate this edition's treatment of Gnolls. Gnolls have traditionally been playable in many D&D settings, but for some reason D&D 5e decided to roll back the clock and make them Demons in All But Name. If they're demons, just call them demons. If they aren't, let them be playable! Goddammit Wizards!)