I mean, we could speculate that the DMG will make Wildemount the main campaign setting - that was the setting for the most recent adventure published (until next week), could that mean that they are going to set everything in Wildemount moving forward?
(ngl i have actually speculated the possibility of exandria becoming the default setting for a 6e before the 5.5e "evolution" in 2024 was announced)
I don't see that happening because I don't think Darrington Press and Critical Role want to give up creative control of what is a pretty good livelihood to WotC. It's one of the reasons we can't do Wldemont/Exadria content in DMsGuild. The two books WotC put out in that setting was done in cooperation with CR. I don't see CR either becoming the creative engine for D&D since their negotations with Amazon for cartoons and dev deals for live action are presently competing with Hasbro's own efforts. I'm not saying there's animosity, but I just don't see CR relinquishing creative control to WotC of a game world that is still the basis of CR's flagship programming. It's a shame too, I don't see myself as a pro but I do hobby homebrew and try to follow professional standards when I create stuff in my head and paperspace. There's CR content I'd love to incorporate into one of my bigger projects, but it wouldn't fit in terms of the DMsGuild license.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
But what I'm saying is, is this a sign that Acererak will not appear on the cover of the DMG again? He's an important IP now too, I reckon.
Why would he? He was not on the DMG in 4e, 3e, AD&D. Frankly, having him be on the cover of the new version would be a silly choice - if you are selling a new version, you want to use sufficiently new art so folks know it is new and that they should spend money on the newest iteration of the DMG as well.
That, of course, would literally have no effect on Acererak as a character. It would just be a simple, sensible graphical design choice.
Ugh, sorry. Terrible writing on my part. What I should have said was; perhaps anything like Acererak wouldn't even be considered as a core book cover because it's too horrific. And, AND, if he did appear on the DMG cover again, in 2024, his appearance would have the artwork changed to something like the new Vecna art.
Yes, that's complete speculation. One could say it had a whiff of the barn, but, stay with me, but rather like the video I post was about, art in D&D has reflected a lot of changes to it's publishing directions over all the years (I'm old enough to have this hard wired into my D&D brain vault). So, my imagination got the better of me because in watching this video I immediately thought about the new Vecna art. Sorry if I came off as a troll somehow. I never claimed my brain vault was any good at this.
And yea, guys, I'm all about the tea leaves here! I'm not making a big stink. I realize there's lots of "core" book art now that's scary stuff, today. My tea leaves don't know the future, but, and too your other point, making useless speculations on a D&D forum is what the internet is for!!! Except cat vids. And yes, I see what you did there. lol
Like, I never meant to say WoTC are just going to copy the MCU, just emulate that and similar mainsteam methods. How to present the product to a new audience, in particular. I'm not saying this is bad per say, just that it would be a change. And if so, that's a big if, how far should WoTC go?
So, perhaps they republish the new books in 2024, new DMG, MM, and PHB. But even in the MM, there's more "acceptable" depictions of monsters. Perhaps some are deemed too extreem. Maybe the lich doesn't appear in the MM, at all. The DMG and PHB reflect this new mandate too. As perhaps other considered "core" books. Like Tasha's Cauldron? Whatever. So, the scary stuff gets the Ravenloft treatment, as a supplement. Is there something fundamental that shouldn't be shunted off to a supplement? That sorta thing.
So is that a good idea? Maybe some changes are needed. Does it go too far? Or maybe things will continue pretty much as they have. Been damn successful so far, no question, why fix something that's not broken eh?
Ugh, sorry. Terrible writing on my part. I should have said was; perhaps anything like Acererak would even be considered as a core book cover because it's too horrific.
The more you talk, the more convinced I am that you're just pearl-clutching over assumed pearl-clutching.
And, AND, if he did appear on the DMG cover again, in 2024, his appearance would have the artwork changed to something like the new Vecna art.
You mean...the new Vecna art in which he's a desiccated corpse you can see through and has exposed bone everywhere, and a book lodged in his ribcage?
And yea I see that, I'm all about the tea leaves here! I'm not making a big stink. I realize there's lots of "core" book art now that's scary stuff, today. My tea leaves don't know the future, but, and too your other point, making useless speculations on a D&D forum is what the internet is for!!! Except cat vids. And yes, I see what you did there. lol
Like, I never meant to say WoTC are just going to copy the MCU, just emulate that and similar mainsteam methods. How to present the product to a new audience, in particular. I'm not saying this is bad per say, just that it would be a change. And if so, that's a big if, how far should WoTC go?
So, perhaps they republish the new books in 2024, new DMG, MM, and PHB. But even in the MM, there's more "acceptable" depictions of monsters. Perhaps some are deemed too extreem. Maybe the lich doesn't appear in the MM, at all. The DMG and PHB reflect this new mandate too. As perhaps other considered "core" books. Like Tasha's Cauldron? Whatever. So, the scary stuff gets the Ravenloft treatment, as a supplement. Is there something fundamental that shouldn't be shunted off to a supplement? That sorta thing.
So is that a good idea? Maybe some changes are needed. Does it go too far? Or maybe things will continue pretty much as they have. Been damn successful so far, no question, why fix something that's not broken eh?
So basically...this is that kind of "just asking questions" that actually means "I'm going to put forth a hypothetical scenario with no basis in reality, then get upset about to stir up trouble."
Understood. I tried to engage in good faith, should've known better. I'm out.
So is that a good idea? Maybe some changes are needed. Does it go too far? Or maybe things will continue pretty much as they have. Been damn successful so far, no question, why fix something that's not broken eh?
I think you hit the nail on the head here as to why your speculation is fairly off the rails - why would Wizards fix something that is not broken?
The streamlining of monsters into having more straightforward stat blocks (which Vecna’s statblock did) addresses real problem with the game. You need a DM in order to play (while players are a dime a dozen), but being a DM has a high barrier to entry given its complexity. With so many new people interested in D&D, there is a need for a large number of new folks willing to DM - making monsters more straightforward lowers the barrier to entry for a new DM.
What you speculate on (again, which is based on you not liking some objectively creepy art and a few mistakes on the timeline of the underlying monster) would be Wizards changing their creepiness level, despite it being popular and profitable as recently as last year. Wizards does not tend to make changes on a whim, and it is never all that hard to divine what the underlying problems were when changes are made.
If you are asking “why fix something that is not broken?” you can bet Wizards is asking the same. And, the reality is, this is not something that is broken. Including both goofy and gory content in rulebooks has been a feature of the game since its very inception; one of the few features that has survived every single edition so far.
This kind of content survived the bad press D&D got during the Satanic Panic of the 1980s; it’s all but certain to survive when that type of content is popular and mainstream.
With seeing how much D&D has changed in the last year, any speculation on what might come in 2 years is............speculation without preamble or evidence. We got a book about vampires, undead horrors and nightmares walking into your life, followed by a book with giant, talking rabbits. Trying to predict what comes next, with this evidence in sight is......pointless? With such a diverse set of releases in the last couple years, nobody can offer what might be viewed as an "educated" guess, due to the inconsistency on material released.
Click bai or troll bait, not sure which, but it doesn't come off as "imagine this" so much as "Oh No, D&D has gone Playskool!" Wizard will provide some guidelines for rules and some stat blocks for enemies. I, as DM will decide (as we always have) if there will be blood spurting and spraying everywhere or if things die quietly and peacefully, without the entrails flopping to the floor.
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 personally like the new art for that version of Vecna that is being presented. ...SNIP!
You really need to see the vid I posted, I think you'll love it. :)
I appreciate the recommendation, I had started it but he lost me with the opening about early D&D being primarily for adults, and then doubling down with the Eldritch Wizardry art, almost as if it couldn't or shouldn't have been played by kids. I'm sure it was because I was 13 or 14 at the time so I only knew other kids, but I knew a number of kids who played D&D and the majority of people who came into the game shop that I visited nearly every Saturday were kids in their early to late teens (the shop was VERY focused on TTRPGs: D&D, Car Wars, Boothill, etc. They had a game room in the back that was literally painted like a dungeon.) I'm not convinced that the game skews younger now, but admittedly my sample size is anecdotal at best.
Honestly, his kind of conviction to a broad generalization based solely on his own interpretation kind of puts me off, especially if it's a premise for the whole video presenting itself as somehow factual when it's clearly just one guy's opinion.
After all, why does this this new Vecna have his hand and eye? Is there any reason you can tell me why that is? Why not have him without a hand and eye? I'm familiar with all the old modules and history, there's no reason even this "in the before time" Vecna couldn't be missing his hand and eye. Is there???
With respect, you do not appear familiar with the models and history of Vecna. Your question is a bit like watching Star Wars: Episode 1, and asking “why does Darth Vader not have his breathing devices or anything else that makes him look like Darth Vader???”
Vecna lost his hand and his eye after he got blown to pieces fighting his second-in-command, Kas. That has been the story for decades. This version is before Kas betrayed Vecna, and thus before he lost his hand and eye.
Yes, I get your point. What I'm saying is that this will be the only version of Vecna from now on. The old version may only appear in some other supplement outside of core D&D publishing, like Ravenloft was and is. As you pointed out earlier. That's a big change, right?
Or I'm wrong. I'm just speculating on what's to come and how things will look. But if I'm right... how do you feel about that?
Edit - Oh yea, and after Stranger Things, Vecna is now the most well known monster in all of D&D. And that makes any change to him a sign of fundamental change to the core game. Maybe.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the look of the art and the look of Stranger Things “Vecna” we’re in part a collaboration to keep them somewhat similar in appearance and facial features. Then the show fans can look at D&D Vecna and be yeah that looks kind of like him and start playing.
And I doubt art of one NPC, no matter how important, is a sign for how the game is going. Some art is good some not so much. A different artist might have represented him differently. Or just the person or people who choose the art have lame tastes.
Framing your "speculation" around a known YouTube fuddy-duddy's complaint isn't really speculation, it's propagating the complaint that inspired you to post. I don't see how anyone can read the first post of this thread any differently, which is why everyone has interpreted your intent that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
After all, why does this this new Vecna have his hand and eye? Is there any reason you can tell me why that is? Why not have him without a hand and eye? I'm familiar with all the old modules and history, there's no reason even this "in the before time" Vecna couldn't be missing his hand and eye. Is there???
With respect, you do not appear familiar with the models and history of Vecna. Your question is a bit like watching Star Wars: Episode 1, and asking “why does Darth Vader not have his breathing devices or anything else that makes him look like Darth Vader???”
Vecna lost his hand and his eye after he got blown to pieces fighting his second-in-command, Kas. That has been the story for decades. This version is before Kas betrayed Vecna, and thus before he lost his hand and eye.
Yes, I get your point. What I'm saying is that this will be the only version of Vecna from now on. The old version may only appear in some other supplement outside of core D&D publishing, like Ravenloft was and is. As you pointed out earlier. That's a big change, right?
Or I'm wrong. I'm just speculating on what's to come and how things will look. But if I'm right... how do you feel about that?
Edit - Oh yea, and after Stranger Things, Vecna is now the most well known monster in all of D&D. And that makes any change to him a sign of fundamental change to the core game. Maybe.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the look of the art and the look of Stranger Things “Vecna” we’re in part a collaboration to keep them somewhat similar in appearance and facial features. Then the show fans can look at D&D Vecna and be yeah that looks kind of like him and start playing.
And I doubt art of one NPC, no matter how important, is a sign for how the game is going. Some art is good some not so much. A different artist might have represented him differently. Or just the person or people who choose the art have lame tastes.
If you have both resources available, comparing the art of Strahd von Zarovich from Curse of Strahd to the art of him that appears on page 69 of Van Richten's Guide is all the proof you need that not every instance of art of a particular character is a winner. Heck, the bit of Strahd you can see in the background of the alternate cover for Van Richten's Guide is scarier than "purple Strahd"
So yeah. Totally agree. Some art just doesnt always turn out as well as intended. (although I have no issue, personally, with the Vecna art)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Framing your "speculation" around a known YouTube fuddy-duddy's complaint isn't really speculation, it's propagating the complaint that inspired you to post. I don't see how anyone can read the first post of this thread any differently, which is why everyone has interpreted your intent that way.
Yea, i said "that's not Vecna" and asked if anyone was "concerned". Shocking language, yes. Mr. Speaker, I do apologize.
Until the D&D police kick down the door and censor the game at my table, I couldn't care less what default flavor WotC cranks out. Do you really need gore mechanics to have gore in your game? Do you need to use their Vecna image in this glorious age of the internet?
Until the D&D police kick down the door and censor the game at my table, I couldn't care less what default flavor WotC cranks out. Do you really need gore mechanics to have gore in your game? Do you need to use their Vecna image in this glorious age of the internet?
I am really struggling to see a point here. Does one piece of art representing a character who hasn’t been in the line light outside of critical role, at a point prior to a massive shakeup and power up mean that’s there will be a dramatic shift in the design of the game?
it feels like that is the point here and that seems…. A strange and far reaching point. Vecna seemed fine. It was clearly a specific snapshot in the early days. No issues there
Wizards have also just recently released a pretty decent horror themed sourcebook. If gore and horror is your point then this really can’t be looked at as an individual piece without entirely being disingenuous.
Framing your "speculation" around a known YouTube fuddy-duddy's complaint isn't really speculation, it's propagating the complaint that inspired you to post. I don't see how anyone can read the first post of this thread any differently, which is why everyone has interpreted your intent that way.
Yea, i said "that's not Vecna" and asked if anyone was "concerned". Shocking language, yes. Mr. Speaker, I do apologize.
Considering the three pages of responses no one really seems to be concerned.
it feels like that is the point here and that seems…. A strange and far reaching point
Surely, though, this forum has seen... stranger things (insert david caruso csi gif here)
I will always be kind of baffled as to why people voluntarily go onto YouTube to get their buttons pushed, on any subject, but in this case it really doesn't seem as though even OP understands what it is they're supposed to be upset about. WotC released a version of an OG lore character to piggyback off a TV show with some pop culture cache and that's... bad, somehow
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to plotting how to drag my party into the Dark Domains for a Supernatural-inspired monster-hunting arc for our campaign
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I watched his video. A general theme I noticed as he described the different editions and art is that D&D's art, mechanics, and adventure design have followed whatever is pop culture at the time. So, like with many people, as Professor Dungeonmaster grew older, he continued liking what he experienced in childhood and not whatever is currently in fashion. The same thing happens with music all the time.
Gory, horrific pulp is not currently in pop culture, so there would be much less of an addressable market if they went that direction.
That said, they did publish Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, which has some resources about that.
Simple answer; it is Vecna because Wizards of the Coast says it's Vecna ;)
To be fair to the OP, "it is Vecna because WotC says it's Vecna" is the one thing the OP is actually clear on. But largely for reasons that largely seem to come from YouTube, they are troubled by where WotC may be taking its ownership of D&D. It's another iteration of players thinking WotC is somehow denying them "their D&D" because of its present product cycle. It's a take that used to pop up here on this forum until very recently very heatedly and frequently (last summer's Drow posts, etc,); and while this particular OP ultimately seems to be trying to (flatly) rework their intent claiming the post was all about the lulz or whatever, I think the framework behind it isn't too hard to recognize. Maybe/likely the OP wasn't aware of that and was a bit taken aback flat-footed by the tenor of most of the threads responses.
I don't see that happening because I don't think Darrington Press and Critical Role want to give up creative control of what is a pretty good livelihood to WotC. It's one of the reasons we can't do Wldemont/Exadria content in DMsGuild. The two books WotC put out in that setting was done in cooperation with CR. I don't see CR either becoming the creative engine for D&D since their negotations with Amazon for cartoons and dev deals for live action are presently competing with Hasbro's own efforts. I'm not saying there's animosity, but I just don't see CR relinquishing creative control to WotC of a game world that is still the basis of CR's flagship programming. It's a shame too, I don't see myself as a pro but I do hobby homebrew and try to follow professional standards when I create stuff in my head and paperspace. There's CR content I'd love to incorporate into one of my bigger projects, but it wouldn't fit in terms of the DMsGuild license.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Ugh, sorry. Terrible writing on my part. What I should have said was; perhaps anything like Acererak wouldn't even be considered as a core book cover because it's too horrific. And, AND, if he did appear on the DMG cover again, in 2024, his appearance would have the artwork changed to something like the new Vecna art.
Yes, that's complete speculation. One could say it had a whiff of the barn, but, stay with me, but rather like the video I post was about, art in D&D has reflected a lot of changes to it's publishing directions over all the years (I'm old enough to have this hard wired into my D&D brain vault). So, my imagination got the better of me because in watching this video I immediately thought about the new Vecna art. Sorry if I came off as a troll somehow. I never claimed my brain vault was any good at this.
And yea, guys, I'm all about the tea leaves here! I'm not making a big stink. I realize there's lots of "core" book art now that's scary stuff, today. My tea leaves don't know the future, but, and too your other point, making useless speculations on a D&D forum is what the internet is for!!! Except cat vids. And yes, I see what you did there. lol
Like, I never meant to say WoTC are just going to copy the MCU, just emulate that and similar mainsteam methods. How to present the product to a new audience, in particular. I'm not saying this is bad per say, just that it would be a change. And if so, that's a big if, how far should WoTC go?
So, perhaps they republish the new books in 2024, new DMG, MM, and PHB. But even in the MM, there's more "acceptable" depictions of monsters. Perhaps some are deemed too extreem. Maybe the lich doesn't appear in the MM, at all. The DMG and PHB reflect this new mandate too. As perhaps other considered "core" books. Like Tasha's Cauldron? Whatever. So, the scary stuff gets the Ravenloft treatment, as a supplement. Is there something fundamental that shouldn't be shunted off to a supplement? That sorta thing.
So is that a good idea? Maybe some changes are needed. Does it go too far? Or maybe things will continue pretty much as they have. Been damn successful so far, no question, why fix something that's not broken eh?
The more you talk, the more convinced I am that you're just pearl-clutching over assumed pearl-clutching.
You mean...the new Vecna art in which he's a desiccated corpse you can see through and has exposed bone everywhere, and a book lodged in his ribcage?
So basically...this is that kind of "just asking questions" that actually means "I'm going to put forth a hypothetical scenario with no basis in reality, then get upset about to stir up trouble."
Understood. I tried to engage in good faith, should've known better. I'm out.
*shrug*, sorry. I thought asking speculative questions about what's too come in D&D would be fun on a forum of peeps who are very well versed in it.
Guess my imagination did get away with me.
I think you hit the nail on the head here as to why your speculation is fairly off the rails - why would Wizards fix something that is not broken?
The streamlining of monsters into having more straightforward stat blocks (which Vecna’s statblock did) addresses real problem with the game. You need a DM in order to play (while players are a dime a dozen), but being a DM has a high barrier to entry given its complexity. With so many new people interested in D&D, there is a need for a large number of new folks willing to DM - making monsters more straightforward lowers the barrier to entry for a new DM.
What you speculate on (again, which is based on you not liking some objectively creepy art and a few mistakes on the timeline of the underlying monster) would be Wizards changing their creepiness level, despite it being popular and profitable as recently as last year. Wizards does not tend to make changes on a whim, and it is never all that hard to divine what the underlying problems were when changes are made.
If you are asking “why fix something that is not broken?” you can bet Wizards is asking the same. And, the reality is, this is not something that is broken. Including both goofy and gory content in rulebooks has been a feature of the game since its very inception; one of the few features that has survived every single edition so far.
This kind of content survived the bad press D&D got during the Satanic Panic of the 1980s; it’s all but certain to survive when that type of content is popular and mainstream.
With seeing how much D&D has changed in the last year, any speculation on what might come in 2 years is............speculation without preamble or evidence. We got a book about vampires, undead horrors and nightmares walking into your life, followed by a book with giant, talking rabbits. Trying to predict what comes next, with this evidence in sight is......pointless? With such a diverse set of releases in the last couple years, nobody can offer what might be viewed as an "educated" guess, due to the inconsistency on material released.
Click bai or troll bait, not sure which, but it doesn't come off as "imagine this" so much as "Oh No, D&D has gone Playskool!" Wizard will provide some guidelines for rules and some stat blocks for enemies. I, as DM will decide (as we always have) if there will be blood spurting and spraying everywhere or if things die quietly and peacefully, without the entrails flopping to the floor.
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 appreciate the recommendation, I had started it but he lost me with the opening about early D&D being primarily for adults, and then doubling down with the Eldritch Wizardry art, almost as if it couldn't or shouldn't have been played by kids. I'm sure it was because I was 13 or 14 at the time so I only knew other kids, but I knew a number of kids who played D&D and the majority of people who came into the game shop that I visited nearly every Saturday were kids in their early to late teens (the shop was VERY focused on TTRPGs: D&D, Car Wars, Boothill, etc. They had a game room in the back that was literally painted like a dungeon.) I'm not convinced that the game skews younger now, but admittedly my sample size is anecdotal at best.
Honestly, his kind of conviction to a broad generalization based solely on his own interpretation kind of puts me off, especially if it's a premise for the whole video presenting itself as somehow factual when it's clearly just one guy's opinion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the look of the art and the look of Stranger Things “Vecna” we’re in part a collaboration to keep them somewhat similar in appearance and facial features. Then the show fans can look at D&D Vecna and be yeah that looks kind of like him and start playing.
And I doubt art of one NPC, no matter how important, is a sign for how the game is going. Some art is good some not so much. A different artist might have represented him differently. Or just the person or people who choose the art have lame tastes.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Framing your "speculation" around a known YouTube fuddy-duddy's complaint isn't really speculation, it's propagating the complaint that inspired you to post. I don't see how anyone can read the first post of this thread any differently, which is why everyone has interpreted your intent that way.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Frankly I just don't think it's good art, but I feel that way a lot of the time with character design in dnd books.
If you have both resources available, comparing the art of Strahd von Zarovich from Curse of Strahd to the art of him that appears on page 69 of Van Richten's Guide is all the proof you need that not every instance of art of a particular character is a winner. Heck, the bit of Strahd you can see in the background of the alternate cover for Van Richten's Guide is scarier than "purple Strahd"
So yeah. Totally agree. Some art just doesnt always turn out as well as intended. (although I have no issue, personally, with the Vecna art)
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Yea, i said "that's not Vecna" and asked if anyone was "concerned". Shocking language, yes. Mr. Speaker, I do apologize.
Until the D&D police kick down the door and censor the game at my table, I couldn't care less what default flavor WotC cranks out. Do you really need gore mechanics to have gore in your game? Do you need to use their Vecna image in this glorious age of the internet?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Roll 1d20 to see how far the artery squirts.😂
I am really struggling to see a point here. Does one piece of art representing a character who hasn’t been in the line light outside of critical role, at a point prior to a massive shakeup and power up mean that’s there will be a dramatic shift in the design of the game?
it feels like that is the point here and that seems…. A strange and far reaching point. Vecna seemed fine. It was clearly a specific snapshot in the early days. No issues there
Wizards have also just recently released a pretty decent horror themed sourcebook. If gore and horror is your point then this really can’t be looked at as an individual piece without entirely being disingenuous.
Considering the three pages of responses no one really seems to be concerned.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Simple answer; it is Vecna because Wizards of the Coast says it's Vecna ;)
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Surely, though, this forum has seen... stranger things (insert david caruso csi gif here)
I will always be kind of baffled as to why people voluntarily go onto YouTube to get their buttons pushed, on any subject, but in this case it really doesn't seem as though even OP understands what it is they're supposed to be upset about. WotC released a version of an OG lore character to piggyback off a TV show with some pop culture cache and that's... bad, somehow
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to plotting how to drag my party into the Dark Domains for a Supernatural-inspired monster-hunting arc for our campaign
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I watched his video. A general theme I noticed as he described the different editions and art is that D&D's art, mechanics, and adventure design have followed whatever is pop culture at the time. So, like with many people, as Professor Dungeonmaster grew older, he continued liking what he experienced in childhood and not whatever is currently in fashion. The same thing happens with music all the time.
Gory, horrific pulp is not currently in pop culture, so there would be much less of an addressable market if they went that direction.
That said, they did publish Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, which has some resources about that.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
To be fair to the OP, "it is Vecna because WotC says it's Vecna" is the one thing the OP is actually clear on. But largely for reasons that largely seem to come from YouTube, they are troubled by where WotC may be taking its ownership of D&D. It's another iteration of players thinking WotC is somehow denying them "their D&D" because of its present product cycle. It's a take that used to pop up here on this forum until very recently very heatedly and frequently (last summer's Drow posts, etc,); and while this particular OP ultimately seems to be trying to (flatly) rework their intent claiming the post was all about the lulz or whatever, I think the framework behind it isn't too hard to recognize. Maybe/likely the OP wasn't aware of that and was a bit taken aback flat-footed by the tenor of most of the threads responses.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.