The issue is less "people being superior based on what they want" and more "Fans of the Forgotten Realms get tons...of lore delivered just for them..."
No, it really isn't. You want to argue that Eberron et al should get more representation? No argument from me. The OP of that thread was derisive towards people asking for lore (note: nothing about FR in particular there) because they want to be "spoon fed". That in and of itself is eyebrow raising, but when you consider that's all of what D&D basically is... it's just silly.
You want lore? You want different lore? You want less lore and more statblocks? As I've already said, they're all valid. There's no need to be anything other than empathetic and realise that no one's opinion is worth more than any one else's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Great, you've paid to be "spoon fed" more content than the average for D&D (the amount I've heard is four books). The point is that being derisive and dismissive of other people's preferences is just being hypocritical - we're all asking for content, and your preferences as to which content is provided doesn't mean another's is any less valid or that it's more lazy than yours. We're all paying to suck from D&D's teat - even if the only book we ever purchase is the PHB.
If the only valid position is not being spoon fed content, then none of us would be playing D&D.
I never said that the path of the lazy DM is less valid i am saying that homebrewing and world building are useful tools for any dm to have in their toolbox.
That's a very different tone and a very different message to what you said where I quoted you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No, it really isn't. You want to argue that Eberron et al should get more representation? No argument from me. The OP of that thread was derisive towards people asking for lore (note: nothing about FR in particular there) because they want to be "spoon fed". That in and of itself is eyebrow raising, but when you consider that's all of what D&D basically is... it's just silly.
You want lore? You want different lore? You want less lore and more statblocks? As I've already said, they're all valid. There's no need to be anything other than empathetic and realise that no one's opinion is worth more than any one else's.
It may not be Xeresia's issue, but it is MY issue. I get very tired of the endless complaints from Forgotten Realms people that lore was stripped from two of their multiple dozens of books and they deserve to get all that lore back when fans of literally any other currently existing setting get exactly ONE BOOK, if that. The ONLY setting in R5e that has more than one book that isn't Forgotten Realms is Exandria, which gets one setting book and one adventure. Otherwise every other adventure book in the game is written for the Realms, most of them explicitly and exclusively (good luck running Avernus or Frostmaiden in any other setting) and all the crunchy expansion books used to also be written for the Realms. It's annoying and obnoxious, and fans of the Realms constantly complaining they don't get enough lore when they get dozens of times the lore and worldbuilding of any other published setting is not cool.
I will say, D&D Beyond gives Wizards a pretty substantial ability to give folks the best of both worlds. It would be awesome to see some consolidation of the different sources to a single place. When you look at the class page, you don’t need to go to a hundred different tabs to look at all the subclasses—every time you buy a new subclass, you get that subclass added to the master list.
Something similar for races or monsters would be neat. Maybe we don’t have to go as far as a Forgotten Realms Lore, Exandria Lore, etc. subtab, but some links would be nice. For example, Duergar could have a “further reading” link that brings you to the chapter in Out of the Abyss dealing with their city. Or monsters could have links to every place they are listed in an adventure so you could get ideas of how they are used.
There’s a lot of great functionality that would probably be a bit difficult to set up, but would really make Beyond stand out even further as the foremost tool for online D&D.
...I'm gonna try womanfully to contain my incredulity at the phrase "Coherent and carefully crafted world" being applied to The Forgotten Realms. We shall simply agree to disagree there.
That said, yes. SCAG was a mess and is insufficient to the needs of being The Forgotten Realms Sourcebook. The FR Sourcebook should've been one of the first books published for this game. But the idea that only FR fans pay for their D&D is incorrect and also deeply irritating. I've repeatedly heard references to Wizards' own surveys saying that over half of all surveyed DMs prefer/run games in their own homebrew worlds that aren't the Realms, and Exandria is also extremely popular given its status of "A classic high fantasy setting that's actually open, approachable, and easy to run games in rather than being mired in fifty years of incomprehensible baggage." Plus, y'know, being the Critical Role setting.
Either way. Telling fans of homebrew and/or other settings that we don't pay for the game so we don't deserve any books is just rude. Entitlement much?
No, it really isn't. You want to argue that Eberron et al should get more representation? No argument from me. The OP of that thread was derisive towards people asking for lore (note: nothing about FR in particular there) because they want to be "spoon fed". That in and of itself is eyebrow raising, but when you consider that's all of what D&D basically is... it's just silly.
You want lore? You want different lore? You want less lore and more statblocks? As I've already said, they're all valid. There's no need to be anything other than empathetic and realise that no one's opinion is worth more than any one else's.
It may not be Xeresia's issue, but it is MY issue. I get very tired of the endless complaints from Forgotten Realms people that lore was stripped from two of their multiple dozens of books and they deserve to get all that lore back when fans of literally any other currently existing setting get exactly ONE BOOK, if that. The ONLY setting in R5e that has more than one book that isn't Forgotten Realms is Exandria, which gets one setting book and one adventure. Otherwise every other adventure book in the game is written for the Realms, most of them explicitly and exclusively (good luck running Avernus or Frostmaiden in any other setting) and all the crunchy expansion books used to also be written for the Realms. It's annoying and obnoxious, and fans of the Realms constantly complaining they don't get enough lore when they get dozens of times the lore and worldbuilding of any other published setting is not cool.
My main issue is not so much than WotC has walked back the lore going forward as that they’ve stopped selling the books on Beyond. It’s just frustrating that people who would like the option to use the lore for whatever it’s worth can’t get at the books unless they already paid, can find a physical copy, or know someone who did with a Master subscription
See, that's reasonably valid. I could see making the stuff available as Compendium content, basically as just a readable reference with no ability to be used in the builder, but I also understand Wizards wanting to unify the game some and not have dissimilar "Legacy" stuff floating around freely. It's a bit of a sticky wicket.
without ever explaining why they get to be super special and get half the pagecount of every single D&D book ever released devoted to their lore while everybody else gets to buy a book for the same price but get half the value at best.
The FR is the most popular Setting in tabletop, computer games and movies. Most people buy D&D (and not Pathfinder or other TTRPG) because they want specifically FR. Such a coherent and carefully crafted world is only attainable because of a fact that other books (like Master Manual and PHB) support it. That means most money that Wotc earns is from people who are pro-FR. Since FR fans finance the bulk of D&D they should be represented accordingly and get FR that they payed for. Btw, Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide was weak and thin compared to other settings books.
Actually, I’m pretty sure Wizards own surveys said homebrew is the most popular, something like 60% of games. Which was one of the driving factors in stripping out the FR lore. Most people don’t use it.
The FR is the most popular Setting in tabletop, computer games and movies. Most people buy D&D (and not Pathfinder or other TTRPG) because they want specifically FR. Such a coherent and carefully crafted world is only attainable because of a fact that other books (like Master Manual and PHB) support it. That means most money that Wotc earns is from people who are pro-FR. Since FR fans finance the bulk of D&D they should be represented accordingly and get FR that they payed for. Btw, Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide was weak and thin compared to other settings books.
It's the most popular setting in novels, computer games, and movies because it's the one they use for all those things. Which is fine; they have to set them somewhere, and most of the other settings are more distinctive in flavor, and many of the stories they want to publish don't work there.
But most people don't buy D&D for the FR. People buy D&D because they want D&D. Sure, FR is a setting that is very D&D, but that makes it convenient, not important. An awful lot of people don't really play D&D in any setting; they play in the adventure they bought, which happens to be set in the FR, but could just as easily be set in Greyhawk, Mystara, or nowhere in particular.If they then bring the characters into another published adventure in a different setting, they won't notice. Or they play in the adventures they made up, which almost certainly haven't got any coherent worldbuilding, because it isn't needed for what they want.
There's nothing wrong with being into the FR, but it's a mistake to project your interest in it to the people who are just playing there because it's the default. IMO, being the default D&D setting for so long hasn't done the FR any good; whatever flavor it has gets diluted by the need for all the things they want to put into D&D to be there in the Realms. (Also their weird need to accompany every edition transition with a world-changing apocalypse to explain why the rules have changed.)
The lore in the core rules (DMG, PHB, MM) and the supplemental rules (VGtM, XGtE, MToF, TCoE, and FToD) isn't lore for the Forgotten Realms.
In fact, a lot of the lore contradicts lore for the Forgotten Realms.
The only place where the Forgotten Realms is overemphasized is adventures, but the adventures aren't being republished and excised of content (content that was already setting agnostic) like, say, MToM and VGtM.
Most websites refer to FR as most popular or one of the most popular setting. I did not say you deserve no book, I just explained why you are getting proportionally less content. Not entitlement - the rules of free market. But if FR is not that popular, then my argument does not hold anyways.
If you believe that, then the fact that Wizards has been steadily decreasing the amount of Forgotten Realms lore in its books means by default that the Realms are proving less popular than Wizards had thought. They're not doing this on a whim - they have all kinds of data on hand that says people aren't using the extensive lore write-ups for the Realms in their games and are looking for different material in their books. They want their expansion material to be compatible with the settings they're playing in, compatible with their homebrew, and placing less value on lore. If that wasn't the case, Wizards wouldn't be pulling lore out of their books in exchange for, as others have said, art and mechanics that's compatible with everybody.
I run a modified FR campaign. I do so because after a number of years of homebrewing everything it was taking too much of my time so I moved over to a setting where much of that was done for me ( thank you Ed G. And WotC). That said, when I started we mostly played adventures and didn’t worry about what setting they were from. We also tended to hold onto our (surviving) characters moving them from campaign to campaign so they did a lot of “worldwalking” and lore wasn’t always that important. Over time real campaigns started to develop where characters were more or less settled into specific+ settings and didn’t move ( normally) and lore for those settings started to be important as characters became embedded in a world. As an FR devotee I would love to see something come out with some regularity that updated the timeline, added some lore for different regions, etc. I’m sure those who use other settings would love that too (for their own setting). I would be satisfied to have the adventures go back to being pretty much setting agnostic (rather like Saltmarsh is) with a section on how to fit it it into a decent number of published settings. The problem I see there is that we now have sooooo many settings that at one a year you would only get (at best) a single book for each setting for each edition of D&D. If WotC want to “monetize” DDB putting out purchasable lore “pamphlets” for the settings each year might be a way to do it rather than actually publishing physical books. I ( at least) don’t have a problem with loreless core books and adventure books/modules if something with updating timelines is coming out with some regularity.
As for the changes in “core lore” if you look closely it was starting to happen well before the furor started ( a least in FR where I know some of the lore) Greenwood early on reworked the “all Drow are evil/cursed” by including Elistraee and rewriting the starting points and crown wars to have non evil dark elves and drow. I think WOtC actually messed up in writing that out to some extent in 5e. He tried to create a non evil orc kingdom with many arrows which really aught to be brought back. In the far south several human countries are now allied with a neutral ( more or less) goblinoid nation to hold off being overrun by a monster controlled evil region. If you look close it is and has been for some time a fairly nouanced change to make it less objectionable without loosing lore or flavor. Yes more could (and should) be done and we as DMs can and should lead the way.
If WotC want to “monetize” DDB putting out purchasable lore “pamphlets” for the settings each year might be a way to do it rather than actually publishing physical books. I ( at least) don’t have a problem with loreless core books and adventure books/modules if something with updating timelines is coming out with some regularity.
I do wonder if we're going to see something like a 2e model, with expanded info on classes, species, settings etc packaged together -- even if only as an online format -- the way the Handbooks were
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)
The strength of a published setting is that players can plug in easily. I've run both. I enjoy my own original settings and, with the right players, nothing is better. However, bringing in new players is more challenging. If you run a published setting, especially FR, the "new guy" often already is familiar with it or will quickly study up on it on their own. If it's homebrew, they have to learn on the go unless you provide them with a homemade setting guide and that's a lot of time to put in and some players are resistant to the effort. After all, if they decide they don't like your game or group, that effort won't help them with the next group they play with.
No, it really isn't. You want to argue that Eberron et al should get more representation? No argument from me. The OP of that thread was derisive towards people asking for lore (note: nothing about FR in particular there) because they want to be "spoon fed". That in and of itself is eyebrow raising, but when you consider that's all of what D&D basically is... it's just silly.
You want lore? You want different lore? You want less lore and more statblocks? As I've already said, they're all valid. There's no need to be anything other than empathetic and realise that no one's opinion is worth more than any one else's.
It may not be Xeresia's issue, but it is MY issue. I get very tired of the endless complaints from Forgotten Realms people that lore was stripped from two of their multiple dozens of books and they deserve to get all that lore back when fans of literally any other currently existing setting get exactly ONE BOOK, if that. The ONLY setting in R5e that has more than one book that isn't Forgotten Realms is Exandria, which gets one setting book and one adventure. Otherwise every other adventure book in the game is written for the Realms, most of them explicitly and exclusively (good luck running Avernus or Frostmaiden in any other setting) and all the crunchy expansion books used to also be written for the Realms. It's annoying and obnoxious, and fans of the Realms constantly complaining they don't get enough lore when they get dozens of times the lore and worldbuilding of any other published setting is not cool.
I hope you don't mean me here. I don't much care for the Realms as I dislike the lack of large kingdoms on the Sword Coast. I'd be very happy with ANY lore, but would not be happy with NO lore going forward (6e).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Great, you've paid to be "spoon fed" more content than the average for D&D (the amount I've heard is four books). The point is that being derisive and dismissive of other people's preferences is just being hypocritical - we're all asking for content, and your preferences as to which content is provided doesn't mean another's is any less valid or that it's more lazy than yours. We're all paying to suck from D&D's teat - even if the only book we ever purchase is the PHB.
If the only valid position is not being spoon fed content, then none of us would be playing D&D.
I never said that the path of the lazy DM is less valid i am saying that homebrewing and world building are useful tools for any dm to have in their toolbox.
That's a very different tone and a very different message to what you said where I quoted you.
Since the release of 3.5 and Pathfinder I have noticed that DM's have depended more on content offered by by wizards which was not as good as previously written tsr products and later when Paizo began printing superior content in the form of their Adventure Paths. During this time the lazy DM Community grew and split as there is a subsection of lazy DM's who only skimmed so we would have to stop in session for the gm to read what was supposed to be going on and i know it did not just happen here i got friends all over the country they were running into the same thing. I am fine with a lazy dm who at least takes the time to read the material... But when i deal with a DM whose sole excuse is "I don't have time to do that" I get miffed I have a full time + job, I have child who is completely handicapped and wheel chair bound, and i still find time to prep for my games making maps, creating encounters, making npc's and thinking about how what is going on in the game for the next session will change the world. I also help the other DMs between the three groups i am involved with their maps and their story development. So, I am more than a little derisive of Lazy dm 's.
Now something you said earlier sparked something I use 7 books: Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, Monster Manual, Moredenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and Sword Coast Adventures Guide. All seven texts fall under the category of source material for both Character and Monster development. the adventures that i create using the monsters and Characters i create. Simply put there is a difference between Source Material and Content.
On the note of Lore, I have not looked for Lore from a d&d Sourcebook or adventure since the very end of second edition.... Lore was thin in 3rd ed and the lore that came out in fourth is unappealing. So, i would really rather not have to read any more than i absolutely have to.
Linklite i am aware that i cannot expect every dungeon master to have the same level of investment as myself. That is never going to stop me from telling DMs to try.
Ps a note about my son Not looking for pity. My son is a beautiful boy who brings alot of joy to both my spouse and I but also to all three of my gaming groups
Great, you've paid to be "spoon fed" more content than the average for D&D (the amount I've heard is four books). The point is that being derisive and dismissive of other people's preferences is just being hypocritical - we're all asking for content, and your preferences as to which content is provided doesn't mean another's is any less valid or that it's more lazy than yours. We're all paying to suck from D&D's teat - even if the only book we ever purchase is the PHB.
If the only valid position is not being spoon fed content, then none of us would be playing D&D.
I never said that the path of the lazy DM is less valid i am saying that homebrewing and world building are useful tools for any dm to have in their toolbox.
That's a very different tone and a very different message to what you said where I quoted you.
Since the release of 3.5 and Pathfinder I have noticed that DM's have depended more on content offered by by wizards which was not as good as previously written tsr products and later when Paizo began printing superior content in the form of their Adventure Paths. During this time the lazy DM Community grew and split as there is a subsection of lazy DM's who only skimmed so we would have to stop in session for the gm to read what was supposed to be going on and i know it did not just happen here i got friends all over the country they were running into the same thing. I am fine with a lazy dm who at least takes the time to read the material... But when i deal with a DM whose sole excuse is "I don't have time to do that" I get miffed I have a full time + job, I have child who is completely handicapped and wheel chair bound, and i still find time to prep for my games making maps, creating encounters, making npc's and thinking about how what is going on in the game for the next session will change the world. I also help the other DMs between the three groups i am involved with their maps and their story development. So, I am more than a little derisive of Lazy dm 's.
Now something you said earlier sparked something I use 7 books: Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, Monster Manual, Moredenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and Sword Coast Adventures Guide. All seven texts fall under the category of source material for both Character and Monster development. the adventures that i create using the monsters and Characters i create. Simply put there is a difference between Source Material and Content.
On the note of Lore, I have not looked for Lore from a d&d Sourcebook or adventure since the very end of second edition.... Lore was thin in 3rd ed and the lore that came out in fourth is unappealing. So, i would really rather not have to read any more than i absolutely have to.
Linklite i am aware that i cannot expect every dungeon master to have the same level of investment as myself. That is never going to stop me from telling DMs to try.
Ps a note about my son Not looking for pity. My son is a beautiful boy who brings alot of joy to both my spouse and I but also to all three of my gaming groups
Do you understand that you are basically saying that you DM the correct way, and people who do it differently from you are wrong? You don’t get to decide which way of playing, or DMing is best for anyone but you.
It's a travesty that we don't have a lot of the lore from the two books available any more. I understand wanting to deliver more content in setting books, but not everyone uses premade settings, and it's helpful for them to have some lore - or at least ideas for possible lore - to use as a basis or standard in case they didn't have time to explore a particular part of their world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
No, it really isn't. You want to argue that Eberron et al should get more representation? No argument from me. The OP of that thread was derisive towards people asking for lore (note: nothing about FR in particular there) because they want to be "spoon fed". That in and of itself is eyebrow raising, but when you consider that's all of what D&D basically is... it's just silly.
You want lore? You want different lore? You want less lore and more statblocks? As I've already said, they're all valid. There's no need to be anything other than empathetic and realise that no one's opinion is worth more than any one else's.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That's a very different tone and a very different message to what you said where I quoted you.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It may not be Xeresia's issue, but it is MY issue. I get very tired of the endless complaints from Forgotten Realms people that lore was stripped from two of their multiple dozens of books and they deserve to get all that lore back when fans of literally any other currently existing setting get exactly ONE BOOK, if that. The ONLY setting in R5e that has more than one book that isn't Forgotten Realms is Exandria, which gets one setting book and one adventure. Otherwise every other adventure book in the game is written for the Realms, most of them explicitly and exclusively (good luck running Avernus or Frostmaiden in any other setting) and all the crunchy expansion books used to also be written for the Realms. It's annoying and obnoxious, and fans of the Realms constantly complaining they don't get enough lore when they get dozens of times the lore and worldbuilding of any other published setting is not cool.
Please do not contact or message me.
I will say, D&D Beyond gives Wizards a pretty substantial ability to give folks the best of both worlds. It would be awesome to see some consolidation of the different sources to a single place. When you look at the class page, you don’t need to go to a hundred different tabs to look at all the subclasses—every time you buy a new subclass, you get that subclass added to the master list.
Something similar for races or monsters would be neat. Maybe we don’t have to go as far as a Forgotten Realms Lore, Exandria Lore, etc. subtab, but some links would be nice. For example, Duergar could have a “further reading” link that brings you to the chapter in Out of the Abyss dealing with their city. Or monsters could have links to every place they are listed in an adventure so you could get ideas of how they are used.
There’s a lot of great functionality that would probably be a bit difficult to set up, but would really make Beyond stand out even further as the foremost tool for online D&D.
...I'm gonna try womanfully to contain my incredulity at the phrase "Coherent and carefully crafted world" being applied to The Forgotten Realms. We shall simply agree to disagree there.
That said, yes. SCAG was a mess and is insufficient to the needs of being The Forgotten Realms Sourcebook. The FR Sourcebook should've been one of the first books published for this game. But the idea that only FR fans pay for their D&D is incorrect and also deeply irritating. I've repeatedly heard references to Wizards' own surveys saying that over half of all surveyed DMs prefer/run games in their own homebrew worlds that aren't the Realms, and Exandria is also extremely popular given its status of "A classic high fantasy setting that's actually open, approachable, and easy to run games in rather than being mired in fifty years of incomprehensible baggage." Plus, y'know, being the Critical Role setting.
Either way. Telling fans of homebrew and/or other settings that we don't pay for the game so we don't deserve any books is just rude. Entitlement much?
Please do not contact or message me.
My main issue is not so much than WotC has walked back the lore going forward as that they’ve stopped selling the books on Beyond. It’s just frustrating that people who would like the option to use the lore for whatever it’s worth can’t get at the books unless they already paid, can find a physical copy, or know someone who did with a Master subscription
See, that's reasonably valid. I could see making the stuff available as Compendium content, basically as just a readable reference with no ability to be used in the builder, but I also understand Wizards wanting to unify the game some and not have dissimilar "Legacy" stuff floating around freely. It's a bit of a sticky wicket.
Please do not contact or message me.
Actually, I’m pretty sure Wizards own surveys said homebrew is the most popular, something like 60% of games. Which was one of the driving factors in stripping out the FR lore. Most people don’t use it.
It's the most popular setting in novels, computer games, and movies because it's the one they use for all those things. Which is fine; they have to set them somewhere, and most of the other settings are more distinctive in flavor, and many of the stories they want to publish don't work there.
But most people don't buy D&D for the FR. People buy D&D because they want D&D. Sure, FR is a setting that is very D&D, but that makes it convenient, not important. An awful lot of people don't really play D&D in any setting; they play in the adventure they bought, which happens to be set in the FR, but could just as easily be set in Greyhawk, Mystara, or nowhere in particular.If they then bring the characters into another published adventure in a different setting, they won't notice. Or they play in the adventures they made up, which almost certainly haven't got any coherent worldbuilding, because it isn't needed for what they want.
There's nothing wrong with being into the FR, but it's a mistake to project your interest in it to the people who are just playing there because it's the default. IMO, being the default D&D setting for so long hasn't done the FR any good; whatever flavor it has gets diluted by the need for all the things they want to put into D&D to be there in the Realms. (Also their weird need to accompany every edition transition with a world-changing apocalypse to explain why the rules have changed.)
The lore in the core rules (DMG, PHB, MM) and the supplemental rules (VGtM, XGtE, MToF, TCoE, and FToD) isn't lore for the Forgotten Realms.
In fact, a lot of the lore contradicts lore for the Forgotten Realms.
The only place where the Forgotten Realms is overemphasized is adventures, but the adventures aren't being republished and excised of content (content that was already setting agnostic) like, say, MToM and VGtM.
If you believe that, then the fact that Wizards has been steadily decreasing the amount of Forgotten Realms lore in its books means by default that the Realms are proving less popular than Wizards had thought. They're not doing this on a whim - they have all kinds of data on hand that says people aren't using the extensive lore write-ups for the Realms in their games and are looking for different material in their books. They want their expansion material to be compatible with the settings they're playing in, compatible with their homebrew, and placing less value on lore. If that wasn't the case, Wizards wouldn't be pulling lore out of their books in exchange for, as others have said, art and mechanics that's compatible with everybody.
Please do not contact or message me.
I buy books for lore more than anything else, which must make me an outlier.
I love to read the different takes on gods, magic, races, culture etc. that vary from campaign setting to campaign setting.
That inspires my own worldbuilding.
I will be sad to see that continue to be deemphasized in the last year of 5e, with fewer third party creators to fill that gap for One D&D.
I run a modified FR campaign. I do so because after a number of years of homebrewing everything it was taking too much of my time so I moved over to a setting where much of that was done for me ( thank you Ed G. And WotC). That said, when I started we mostly played adventures and didn’t worry about what setting they were from. We also tended to hold onto our (surviving) characters moving them from campaign to campaign so they did a lot of “worldwalking” and lore wasn’t always that important. Over time real campaigns started to develop where characters were more or less settled into specific+ settings and didn’t move ( normally) and lore for those settings started to be important as characters became embedded in a world. As an FR devotee I would love to see something come out with some regularity that updated the timeline, added some lore for different regions, etc. I’m sure those who use other settings would love that too (for their own setting). I would be satisfied to have the adventures go back to being pretty much setting agnostic (rather like Saltmarsh is) with a section on how to fit it it into a decent number of published settings. The problem I see there is that we now have sooooo many settings that at one a year you would only get (at best) a single book for each setting for each edition of D&D. If WotC want to “monetize” DDB putting out purchasable lore “pamphlets” for the settings each year might be a way to do it rather than actually publishing physical books. I ( at least) don’t have a problem with loreless core books and adventure books/modules if something with updating timelines is coming out with some regularity.
As for the changes in “core lore” if you look closely it was starting to happen well before the furor started ( a least in FR where I know some of the lore) Greenwood early on reworked the “all Drow are evil/cursed” by including Elistraee and rewriting the starting points and crown wars to have non evil dark elves and drow. I think WOtC actually messed up in writing that out to some extent in 5e. He tried to create a non evil orc kingdom with many arrows which really aught to be brought back. In the far south several human countries are now allied with a neutral ( more or less) goblinoid nation to hold off being overrun by a monster controlled evil region. If you look close it is and has been for some time a fairly nouanced change to make it less objectionable without loosing lore or flavor. Yes more could (and should) be done and we as DMs can and should lead the way.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I do wonder if we're going to see something like a 2e model, with expanded info on classes, species, settings etc packaged together -- even if only as an online format -- the way the Handbooks were
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)
The strength of a published setting is that players can plug in easily. I've run both. I enjoy my own original settings and, with the right players, nothing is better. However, bringing in new players is more challenging. If you run a published setting, especially FR, the "new guy" often already is familiar with it or will quickly study up on it on their own. If it's homebrew, they have to learn on the go unless you provide them with a homemade setting guide and that's a lot of time to put in and some players are resistant to the effort. After all, if they decide they don't like your game or group, that effort won't help them with the next group they play with.
I hope you don't mean me here. I don't much care for the Realms as I dislike the lack of large kingdoms on the Sword Coast. I'd be very happy with ANY lore, but would not be happy with NO lore going forward (6e).
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Since the release of 3.5 and Pathfinder I have noticed that DM's have depended more on content offered by by wizards which was not as good as previously written tsr products and later when Paizo began printing superior content in the form of their Adventure Paths. During this time the lazy DM Community grew and split as there is a subsection of lazy DM's who only skimmed so we would have to stop in session for the gm to read what was supposed to be going on and i know it did not just happen here i got friends all over the country they were running into the same thing. I am fine with a lazy dm who at least takes the time to read the material... But when i deal with a DM whose sole excuse is "I don't have time to do that" I get miffed I have a full time + job, I have child who is completely handicapped and wheel chair bound, and i still find time to prep for my games making maps, creating encounters, making npc's and thinking about how what is going on in the game for the next session will change the world. I also help the other DMs between the three groups i am involved with their maps and their story development. So, I am more than a little derisive of Lazy dm 's.
Now something you said earlier sparked something I use 7 books: Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, Monster Manual, Moredenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and Sword Coast Adventures Guide. All seven texts fall under the category of source material for both Character and Monster development. the adventures that i create using the monsters and Characters i create. Simply put there is a difference between Source Material and Content.
On the note of Lore, I have not looked for Lore from a d&d Sourcebook or adventure since the very end of second edition.... Lore was thin in 3rd ed and the lore that came out in fourth is unappealing. So, i would really rather not have to read any more than i absolutely have to.
Linklite i am aware that i cannot expect every dungeon master to have the same level of investment as myself. That is never going to stop me from telling DMs to try.
Ps a note about my son Not looking for pity. My son is a beautiful boy who brings alot of joy to both my spouse and I but also to all three of my gaming groups
Do you understand that you are basically saying that you DM the correct way, and people who do it differently from you are wrong? You don’t get to decide which way of playing, or DMing is best for anyone but you.
It's a travesty that we don't have a lot of the lore from the two books available any more. I understand wanting to deliver more content in setting books, but not everyone uses premade settings, and it's helpful for them to have some lore - or at least ideas for possible lore - to use as a basis or standard in case they didn't have time to explore a particular part of their world.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Yeah, I don’t care if they want to file it under “Legacy”, but did they really have to stop offering the online copies of the books?