What might be a good (and, better, legally feasible) compromise should DDB care to do so is allowing older versions of errata'd books to be viewable as compendium-only, read-only documents. You still have access to the original text, but the tools are all aligned with the latest update and the older documents are explicitly called out as archived, no-longer-current documents and cannot be confused by any reasonable person as The Way Stuff Be. If you own the book you can read any version of it you like, but the website's services and the searchable database refers to the up-to-date text. Everyone works off the same books, but you can read the older text for all the lore bitsies the Old Guard is crowing about.
Why wouldn't it be legally feasible to have a toggle for older options in the tools? Players will still make homebrew out of it and even DMs would ban the new changes which would make dnd beyond buggy for games using older text
Unless there is something I am missing that it would be illegal for ddb to allow the use of old mechanic.
Also don't DMs control the content and nothing stops them from using the "older version" the only thing this would do is limit the usefulness of any dev tool unless wotc will make it illegal to use old content in campaigns
DDB (and other online platforms) can only provide support for the most recent versions of D&D 5e. While I do not have insight into their contract with WotC, the mods and staff have communicated this countless times whenever a change resulted in angry users. I hope this information helps.
I asked one of the mods to go on record as an official statement that it was a contractually legal requirement to not allow access to older options and that this is purely wotc doing and they have no room to renegotiate the contract to have the option. But I don't they will bite and make such a statement.
I asked one of the mods to go on record as an official statement that it was a contractually legal requirement to not allow access to older options and that this is purely wotc doing and they have no room to renegotiate the contract to have the option. But I don't they will bite and make such a statement.
Why would they feel compelled to negotiate these terms at all when those who want them are those who threaten and harass them? That does not make any sense to me. Not that you necessarily have done that but in the other thread I am watching over recent changes, users have outright threatened DDB. Likely those who have no intention to make purchases anyway. It does not seem like there is much incentive. All the digital hosts of this content make changes to be in keeping with WotC’s wishes because that is what they need to do in order to continue hosting the content.
As a more technical minded person, I would say because it gives the company more room to build a flexible and modular service that can grow to more easily encapsulate other systems as well be the best solution instead of just good enough. By negotiating the terms they can build the tools before they are needed since they can prove they work in a complex system like 5e
Now granted my bias on that is due to being focused and even in my work where the best solution is shot down since it either does way more than needed at the time, or costs too much because I'm insistent on doing it right over getting it done. (Say using NFC/mag stripes for player check in for a tournament instead of manually building a list or using a barcode scanner or using docker and a central server to handle the tournament software with a shared player database instead of a locally ran app on the judge/TOs PC)
I would disagree with you, Orthusaku, on the grounds that you cannot request something to receive something else. That is a unidirectional form of negotiation that I am entirely unfamiliar with and conceivably could only come from a malicious entity that holds all the power in the negotiation… which DDB most certainly does not have. Negotiation implies compromise. If DDB were to go to the mat for the customers that harass them, then they must give up something to get that. What is the benefit from having this ability to host archived content other than to appease someone who will not purchase new content because they only prefer old content?
It is also unlikely that they could gain the ability to host other systems when that is specifically one of the thing that WotC has strongly pushed back against. DDB once had other content on the site. My understanding is that WotC was displeased and there has been no third-party content since. DDB does not get to make demands to use someone else’s content. They can ask, but again, I see no benefit from this ask. It is likely that they do not see the benefit either, especially if this is a hard line in the sand for WotC.
Erriku, what I meant is that dndbeyond or more accurately should have said fandom could expand the capabilities of dndbeyond and create say pathfinderbeyond with the same back-end.
Now correct me if I am wrong but where does wanting to use older versions of released content for 5e mean one would not buy new books for 5e. But as one that wants the ability to use older content in the tools of dndbeyond, I try not to harass dndbeyond other than just try and get for the record information as why they can not do so, so I can at least try and figure out a suggestion that works around the limitations. Like by them specifying what the legal obligations they are under, it would be possible that a crowd sourced work around could be figured out.
How would it not be a benefit to be able to pick and choose which revision you wish to use, or say you are the game master and using content sharing, you could specify the books that are allowed in the campaign, the revision, any sage advice, etc and when shared with players and as they create characters and play in the campgain they are referencing the same info the game master is using for the campaign.
I would like to note that not all negotiations or requests require giving something up for the most part sure they do but sometimes you just need to ask. Like one work contract I had, I was able to double my compensation just by bringing up the topic while at the same time also reducing my responsibilities to be more focused.
I can't think of a single game where the company printing it was remotely interested in keeping pre-errata changes available to customers, especially not in electronic distribution. I can't come up with a reason why WotC would agree to such an offer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I can't think of a single game where the company printing it was remotely interested in keeping pre-errata changes available to customers, especially not in electronic distribution. I can't come up with a reason why WotC would agree to such an offer.
I can't think of a reason why not at least let people see. Hell companies have public githubs and pubic access to the diffs and commits
Why does it seem people here are against this idea? Like you don't lose anything for my to use an older book version in the tool set
I can't think of a single game where the company printing it was remotely interested in keeping pre-errata changes available to customers, especially not in electronic distribution. I can't come up with a reason why WotC would agree to such an offer.
I can't think of a reason why not at least let people see. Hell companies have public githubs and pubic access to the diffs and commits
Why does it seem people here are against this idea? Like you don't lose anything for my to use an older book version in the tool set
Because this is a change that's being made not because they needed to clarify a rule, rebalance a class power, or fix a contradiction with prexisting canon. It's happening because Wizards of the Coast has decided that they don't like the stuff that's being removed, they no longer wish to have it as part of their brand. There is not a scenario where, having made that decision, they would then turn around at leave that content available from any official source.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I can't think of a single game where the company printing it was remotely interested in keeping pre-errata changes available to customers, especially not in electronic distribution. I can't come up with a reason why WotC would agree to such an offer.
I can't think of a reason why not at least let people see. Hell companies have public githubs and pubic access to the diffs and commits
Why does it seem people here are against this idea? Like you don't lose anything for my to use an older book version in the tool set
Because this is a change that's being made not because they needed to clarify a rule, rebalance a class power, or fix a contradiction with prexisting canon. It's happening because Wizards of the Coast has decided that they don't like the stuff that's being removed, they no longer wish to have it as part of their brand. There is not a scenario where, having made that decision, they would then turn around at leave that content available from any official source.
So then as they do not like this stuff ever, that means we're not going to get any kind of setting specific lore for races, monsters, etc. Even though that is exactly the reason to rationality gave for the removal which means any kind of settings book moving forward are going to bland and not really give a full in-depth information about the setting for DM/ GM to work off of as inspiration as this information is being removed from 5th edition onward?
I can't think of a single game where the company printing it was remotely interested in keeping pre-errata changes available to customers, especially not in electronic distribution. I can't come up with a reason why WotC would agree to such an offer.
I can't think of a reason why not at least let people see. Hell companies have public githubs and pubic access to the diffs and commits
Why does it seem people here are against this idea? Like you don't lose anything for my to use an older book version in the tool set
Because this is a change that's being made not because they needed to clarify a rule, rebalance a class power, or fix a contradiction with prexisting canon. It's happening because Wizards of the Coast has decided that they don't like the stuff that's being removed, they no longer wish to have it as part of their brand. There is not a scenario where, having made that decision, they would then turn around at leave that content available from any official source.
So then as they do not like this stuff ever, that means we're not going to get any kind of setting specific lore for races, monsters, etc. Even though that is exactly the reason to rationality gave for the removal which means any kind of settings book moving forward are going to bland and not really give a full in-depth information about the setting for DM/ GM to work off of as inspiration as this information is being removed from 5th edition onward?
I feel like thats a pretty big leap. All they changed were monster/npc alignments and race generalizations. That's hardly going to make "setting books going forward, bland".
Is the only important part of a setting to you which races are evil or not?
I can't think of a single game where the company printing it was remotely interested in keeping pre-errata changes available to customers, especially not in electronic distribution. I can't come up with a reason why WotC would agree to such an offer.
I can't think of a reason why not at least let people see. Hell companies have public githubs and pubic access to the diffs and commits
Why does it seem people here are against this idea? Like you don't lose anything for my to use an older book version in the tool set
Because this is a change that's being made not because they needed to clarify a rule, rebalance a class power, or fix a contradiction with prexisting canon. It's happening because Wizards of the Coast has decided that they don't like the stuff that's being removed, they no longer wish to have it as part of their brand. There is not a scenario where, having made that decision, they would then turn around at leave that content available from any official source.
So then as they do not like this stuff ever, that means we're not going to get any kind of setting specific lore for races, monsters, etc. Even though that is exactly the reason to rationality gave for the removal which means any kind of settings book moving forward are going to bland and not really give a full in-depth information about the setting for DM/ GM to work off of as inspiration as this information is being removed from 5th edition onward?
To clarify, they don't want setting-specific lore in supposedly setting-agnostic books like the MM or I suppose Volo's (even if Volothamp Geddarm is a Realms personality himself). Setting sourcebooks can have all the setting-specific lore the devs come up with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The only part that grates on my nerves about the lore changes (here and anywhere that is a fictional setting) is that there is NO valid reason to CHANGE existing lore. Adding a new region, with these previously unknown communities of creatures whose lifestyle ad beliefs are entirely different to what has been know to date makes MUCH more sense and allows a world to actually BE a proper world and not some whitewashed figment where everything is and always has been wonderful, inclusive and lovely. Erasing the background and history that might not be so cuddly and warm is a great way yo try and eliminate any lessons learned from previous mistakes and to try and sweep under the rug the FACT that any society has faced "growing pains" as it evolved.
I just feel it a half-assed, cowardly way of bowing down to a small collective of folks who can't accept that life (real or fantasy) isn't and wasn't always as open, accepting and welcoming as it is today. To try and deny the truth of evolving, improving societies and cultures is to try and hide that truth and, in time, open the door to repeating such mistakes and such. I just get tired of everyone wanting to delete anything from the past that is/was hurtful, as opposed to simply showing how much better things are (and should be) going forward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I just get tired of everyone wanting to delete anything from the past that is/was hurtful, as opposed to simply showing how much better things are (and should be) going forward.
1) D&D isn't "the past;" it's a fantasy world. It's a game, not a museum.
2) People want to play in the fantasy world, and WotC wants to sell it, so they have many reasons to continually improve it and broaden its appeal. The changes are literally things getting better by going forward.
I mean, Golaryn posted Wizards' answer. Currently, all the supposed 'core' books talk about nothing but the Forgotten Realms versions of all this crap. If you're playing in Eberron, or Exandria, or Greyhawk, or Athas, or your own homebrew world? You have to go through all three core books and strip out all the Forgotten Realms crap to get at the core numbers and material you need. Makes the core books less useful and less accessible. When Volo's Guide to DM Headaches is packed to the brim with Forgotten Realms lore that is 124% worthless to anyone not in the Realms, one wonders why they need the book in the first place. Letting resource books be setting-agnostic and leaving those details to adventures or settings books means the resource books are more useful to a much wider variety of players, rather than being particularly useful for Forgotten Realms people and absolutely pointless for anyone else.
I can't think of a single game where the company printing it was remotely interested in keeping pre-errata changes available to customers, especially not in electronic distribution. I can't come up with a reason why WotC would agree to such an offer.
I can't think of a reason why not at least let people see. Hell companies have public githubs and pubic access to the diffs and commits
Why does it seem people here are against this idea? Like you don't lose anything for my to use an older book version in the tool set
Because this is a change that's being made not because they needed to clarify a rule, rebalance a class power, or fix a contradiction with prexisting canon. It's happening because Wizards of the Coast has decided that they don't like the stuff that's being removed, they no longer wish to have it as part of their brand. There is not a scenario where, having made that decision, they would then turn around at leave that content available from any official source.
So then as they do not like this stuff ever, that means we're not going to get any kind of setting specific lore for races, monsters, etc. Even though that is exactly the reason to rationality gave for the removal which means any kind of settings book moving forward are going to bland and not really give a full in-depth information about the setting for DM/ GM to work off of as inspiration as this information is being removed from 5th edition onward?
To clarify, they don't want setting-specific lore in supposedly setting-agnostic books like the MM or I suppose Volo's (even if Volothamp Geddarm is a Realms personality himself). Setting sourcebooks can have all the setting-specific lore the devs come up with.
The issue I have is they didn't move the content to setting books, they just removed it. That is my major complaint of setting books is they give the backdrop and some details but leave a lot of work for the DM. Like I wouldn't be upset if things were at least laid out like these are the default things about the races, places, cultures but feel free to change as you see fit.
I mean, Golaryn posted Wizards' answer. Currently, all the supposed 'core' books talk about nothing but the Forgotten Realms versions of all this crap. If you're playing in Eberron, or Exandria, or Greyhawk, or Athas, or your own homebrew world? You have to go through all three core books and strip out all the Forgotten Realms crap to get at the core numbers and material you need. Makes the core books less useful and less accessible. When Volo's Guide to DM Headaches is packed to the brim with Forgotten Realms lore that is 124% worthless to anyone not in the Realms, one wonders why they need the book in the first place. Letting resource books be setting-agnostic and leaving those details to adventures or settings books means the resource books are more useful to a much wider variety of players, rather than being particularly useful for Forgotten Realms people and absolutely pointless for anyone else.
I actually agree with Yurei1453 here. At the beginning of 5e WotC made a decision to make FR the default world of 5e, and that was perhaps the mistake. I agree that core books should be setting agnostic. Instead of a Volo's Guide to Monsters, we could have had Volo's Guide to the Realms that talked about how these creatures/societies were in FR specifically, and maybe a small Bestiary section at the back for FR-specific monsters. BUT if they had given us such a book, and then ret-conned those things in that book it would be a problem.
I would be 100% for a new FR setting book to update SCAG that gives us this lore for FR with the evil orcs created by Gruumsh, much as the great Wildemount book, and the Eberron books gave us those societies specific takes on different species.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
These last couple posts kind of hit on what I was trying to get at. As a fantasy world, where imagination controls the rules and lore, ADDING lore is a better method than rewriting it. Adding truths, alternate ideas and experiences is what enhances and opens the world, not rewriting every little bit that someone wants to relate to. An entire source book, with all the variants of races and cultures would have been a better rollout than the rewriting of the history the realm has evolved with.
The Drow from Menzo are the MAIN source of Dark Elves and they are obsidian black, with their shocking white hair and are MOSTLY evil, due to the twisted culture they are brought into. Smaller communities are found, with Drow who are not as dark skinned, due to more time spent on the surface and their beliefs aren't so jaded against ALL other races, their superiority complex having faded in time, as they came to recognize what the other races offer. Same for Orcs, Goblins or any other "evil" race we want to "enlighten" and bring forward as an evolutionary step.
The folks stating that it's an imaginary world, so rewriting it to be less "triggering" are trying to play both sides of a card. 1. It is an imaginary world, with no correlation to RL. 2. It is an harmful representation of RL. I just can't buy an argument that tries to milk both sides. It IS a fantasy world, and as we, RL society, get to be more aware of social situations, so too, does the fantasy world evolve and new communities are discovered, living a more tolerant and open lifestyle. The evil communities and so forth are still there, but we are learning that not ALL of that race are evil. In fiction, IMO, it is always a better idea to ADD to your lore, to allow today's values and ideals to be represented, while maintaining the "old" beliefs and showing that they are old, outdated and restrictive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DDB (and other online platforms) can only provide support for the most recent versions of D&D 5e. While I do not have insight into their contract with WotC, the mods and staff have communicated this countless times whenever a change resulted in angry users. I hope this information helps.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I asked one of the mods to go on record as an official statement that it was a contractually legal requirement to not allow access to older options and that this is purely wotc doing and they have no room to renegotiate the contract to have the option. But I don't they will bite and make such a statement.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Why would they feel compelled to negotiate these terms at all when those who want them are those who threaten and harass them? That does not make any sense to me. Not that you necessarily have done that but in the other thread I am watching over recent changes, users have outright threatened DDB. Likely those who have no intention to make purchases anyway. It does not seem like there is much incentive. All the digital hosts of this content make changes to be in keeping with WotC’s wishes because that is what they need to do in order to continue hosting the content.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
As a more technical minded person, I would say because it gives the company more room to build a flexible and modular service that can grow to more easily encapsulate other systems as well be the best solution instead of just good enough. By negotiating the terms they can build the tools before they are needed since they can prove they work in a complex system like 5e
Now granted my bias on that is due to being focused and even in my work where the best solution is shot down since it either does way more than needed at the time, or costs too much because I'm insistent on doing it right over getting it done. (Say using NFC/mag stripes for player check in for a tournament instead of manually building a list or using a barcode scanner or using docker and a central server to handle the tournament software with a shared player database instead of a locally ran app on the judge/TOs PC)
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
I would disagree with you, Orthusaku, on the grounds that you cannot request something to receive something else. That is a unidirectional form of negotiation that I am entirely unfamiliar with and conceivably could only come from a malicious entity that holds all the power in the negotiation… which DDB most certainly does not have. Negotiation implies compromise. If DDB were to go to the mat for the customers that harass them, then they must give up something to get that. What is the benefit from having this ability to host archived content other than to appease someone who will not purchase new content because they only prefer old content?
It is also unlikely that they could gain the ability to host other systems when that is specifically one of the thing that WotC has strongly pushed back against. DDB once had other content on the site. My understanding is that WotC was displeased and there has been no third-party content since. DDB does not get to make demands to use someone else’s content. They can ask, but again, I see no benefit from this ask. It is likely that they do not see the benefit either, especially if this is a hard line in the sand for WotC.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Erriku, what I meant is that dndbeyond or more accurately should have said fandom could expand the capabilities of dndbeyond and create say pathfinderbeyond with the same back-end.
Now correct me if I am wrong but where does wanting to use older versions of released content for 5e mean one would not buy new books for 5e. But as one that wants the ability to use older content in the tools of dndbeyond, I try not to harass dndbeyond other than just try and get for the record information as why they can not do so, so I can at least try and figure out a suggestion that works around the limitations. Like by them specifying what the legal obligations they are under, it would be possible that a crowd sourced work around could be figured out.
How would it not be a benefit to be able to pick and choose which revision you wish to use, or say you are the game master and using content sharing, you could specify the books that are allowed in the campaign, the revision, any sage advice, etc and when shared with players and as they create characters and play in the campgain they are referencing the same info the game master is using for the campaign.
I would like to note that not all negotiations or requests require giving something up for the most part sure they do but sometimes you just need to ask. Like one work contract I had, I was able to double my compensation just by bringing up the topic while at the same time also reducing my responsibilities to be more focused.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
I can't think of a single game where the company printing it was remotely interested in keeping pre-errata changes available to customers, especially not in electronic distribution. I can't come up with a reason why WotC would agree to such an offer.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I can't think of a reason why not at least let people see. Hell companies have public githubs and pubic access to the diffs and commits
Why does it seem people here are against this idea? Like you don't lose anything for my to use an older book version in the tool set
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Use git and diffs? Like git commits or version history that kinda of stuff has been solved in programming for decades example: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/commits/main
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Because this is a change that's being made not because they needed to clarify a rule, rebalance a class power, or fix a contradiction with prexisting canon. It's happening because Wizards of the Coast has decided that they don't like the stuff that's being removed, they no longer wish to have it as part of their brand. There is not a scenario where, having made that decision, they would then turn around at leave that content available from any official source.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
So then as they do not like this stuff ever, that means we're not going to get any kind of setting specific lore for races, monsters, etc. Even though that is exactly the reason to rationality gave for the removal which means any kind of settings book moving forward are going to bland and not really give a full in-depth information about the setting for DM/ GM to work off of as inspiration as this information is being removed from 5th edition onward?
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
I feel like thats a pretty big leap. All they changed were monster/npc alignments and race generalizations. That's hardly going to make "setting books going forward, bland".
Is the only important part of a setting to you which races are evil or not?
To clarify, they don't want setting-specific lore in supposedly setting-agnostic books like the MM or I suppose Volo's (even if Volothamp Geddarm is a Realms personality himself). Setting sourcebooks can have all the setting-specific lore the devs come up with.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The only part that grates on my nerves about the lore changes (here and anywhere that is a fictional setting) is that there is NO valid reason to CHANGE existing lore. Adding a new region, with these previously unknown communities of creatures whose lifestyle ad beliefs are entirely different to what has been know to date makes MUCH more sense and allows a world to actually BE a proper world and not some whitewashed figment where everything is and always has been wonderful, inclusive and lovely. Erasing the background and history that might not be so cuddly and warm is a great way yo try and eliminate any lessons learned from previous mistakes and to try and sweep under the rug the FACT that any society has faced "growing pains" as it evolved.
I just feel it a half-assed, cowardly way of bowing down to a small collective of folks who can't accept that life (real or fantasy) isn't and wasn't always as open, accepting and welcoming as it is today. To try and deny the truth of evolving, improving societies and cultures is to try and hide that truth and, in time, open the door to repeating such mistakes and such. I just get tired of everyone wanting to delete anything from the past that is/was hurtful, as opposed to simply showing how much better things are (and should be) going forward.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
SKU bloat, basically. It's confusing for customers, lots of effort for the company, and more effort for retailers (digital or otherwise).
1) D&D isn't "the past;" it's a fantasy world. It's a game, not a museum.
2) People want to play in the fantasy world, and WotC wants to sell it, so they have many reasons to continually improve it and broaden its appeal. The changes are literally things getting better by going forward.
I mean, Golaryn posted Wizards' answer. Currently, all the supposed 'core' books talk about nothing but the Forgotten Realms versions of all this crap. If you're playing in Eberron, or Exandria, or Greyhawk, or Athas, or your own homebrew world? You have to go through all three core books and strip out all the Forgotten Realms crap to get at the core numbers and material you need. Makes the core books less useful and less accessible. When Volo's Guide to DM Headaches is packed to the brim with Forgotten Realms lore that is 124% worthless to anyone not in the Realms, one wonders why they need the book in the first place. Letting resource books be setting-agnostic and leaving those details to adventures or settings books means the resource books are more useful to a much wider variety of players, rather than being particularly useful for Forgotten Realms people and absolutely pointless for anyone else.
Please do not contact or message me.
The issue I have is they didn't move the content to setting books, they just removed it. That is my major complaint of setting books is they give the backdrop and some details but leave a lot of work for the DM. Like I wouldn't be upset if things were at least laid out like these are the default things about the races, places, cultures but feel free to change as you see fit.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
I actually agree with Yurei1453 here. At the beginning of 5e WotC made a decision to make FR the default world of 5e, and that was perhaps the mistake. I agree that core books should be setting agnostic. Instead of a Volo's Guide to Monsters, we could have had Volo's Guide to the Realms that talked about how these creatures/societies were in FR specifically, and maybe a small Bestiary section at the back for FR-specific monsters. BUT if they had given us such a book, and then ret-conned those things in that book it would be a problem.
I would be 100% for a new FR setting book to update SCAG that gives us this lore for FR with the evil orcs created by Gruumsh, much as the great Wildemount book, and the Eberron books gave us those societies specific takes on different species.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
These last couple posts kind of hit on what I was trying to get at. As a fantasy world, where imagination controls the rules and lore, ADDING lore is a better method than rewriting it. Adding truths, alternate ideas and experiences is what enhances and opens the world, not rewriting every little bit that someone wants to relate to. An entire source book, with all the variants of races and cultures would have been a better rollout than the rewriting of the history the realm has evolved with.
The Drow from Menzo are the MAIN source of Dark Elves and they are obsidian black, with their shocking white hair and are MOSTLY evil, due to the twisted culture they are brought into. Smaller communities are found, with Drow who are not as dark skinned, due to more time spent on the surface and their beliefs aren't so jaded against ALL other races, their superiority complex having faded in time, as they came to recognize what the other races offer. Same for Orcs, Goblins or any other "evil" race we want to "enlighten" and bring forward as an evolutionary step.
The folks stating that it's an imaginary world, so rewriting it to be less "triggering" are trying to play both sides of a card.
1. It is an imaginary world, with no correlation to RL.
2. It is an harmful representation of RL.
I just can't buy an argument that tries to milk both sides. It IS a fantasy world, and as we, RL society, get to be more aware of social situations, so too, does the fantasy world evolve and new communities are discovered, living a more tolerant and open lifestyle. The evil communities and so forth are still there, but we are learning that not ALL of that race are evil. In fiction, IMO, it is always a better idea to ADD to your lore, to allow today's values and ideals to be represented, while maintaining the "old" beliefs and showing that they are old, outdated and restrictive.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.