Removing the lore, I reiterate, is the lazy man's way out. Expanding and segregating lore to different settings is a far better option, as it retains what has always been in setting A, while showing that this race is very different in setting B.
Good thing this is exactly what Wizards is doing—despite what the rest of your post seems to imply.
Moving forward, the core books will provide some default lore—if you actually look at MMM, the first in this new mechanism for core books, there actually is plenty of lore in there to provide a basis for DMs to expand on. This default lore will be somewhat streamlined, but contains everything you need to use the species and monsters in any game. They also will be releasing setting specific books—books like Explorer’s Guide to Eberron, adventures, setting bundles like Planescape, lore dumps like Fizban’s and Bigby’s, etc. These books will have more in-depth lore specific to the worlds they are set on.
This new bifold release mechanism for lore is the best of both worlds. It provides a mechanism for Wizards to release new lore for the lore hounds out there, while also reducing long-standing problems which arise when one plane’s setting is considered the default.
Let's not forget that the in switch between MPMM and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, they not only excised much of the lore re: Demons and Devils, they also got rid of several spells as well. This falls under the Mechanics category, but it is still content, and useful content. A Demon lord shouldn't just be a sack of hit points and special abilities. Nobody retains that level of power without a significant guile and planning. But in their infinitely vast wisdom, the devs for MPMM actually got rid of several out-of-combat spells for these monsters. This just turns what are supposed to be highly intelligent, lethally cunning creatures into just another collection of hit points and features for PCs to whomp on. IOW, boring, quickly forgotten backdrop Bad Guy (or Gal) of the Week instead of centerpiece scenery chewing VILLAINY that your players will want to keep talking about. They "streamlined" to the point of making D&D epic encounters more dull. And we're supposed to celebrate that?
Let's not forget that the in switch between MPMM and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, they not only excised much of the lore re: Demons and Devils, they also got rid of several spells as well. This falls under the Mechanics category, but it is still content, and useful content. A Demon lord shouldn't just be a sack of hit points and special abilities. Nobody retains that level of power without a significant guile and planning. But in their infinitely vast wisdom, the devs for MPMM actually got rid of several out-of-combat spells for these monsters. This just turns what are supposed to be highly intelligent, lethally cunning creatures into just another collection of hit points and features for PCs to whomp on. IOW, boring, quickly forgotten backdrop Bad Guy (or Gal) of the Week instead of centerpiece scenery chewing VILLAINY that your players will want to keep talking about. They "streamlined" to the point of making D&D epic encounters more dull. And we're supposed to celebrate that?
wotc is just targeting the largest segment of the customer base. I can't possibly count the amount of people that tell me "5e is the best because it is the simplest to play." Why make things complicated with BBEG's having spells and multiple options, and then DM's and players alike have to think more about combat, when so many say "simpler is better".
edit: Oh, and I have to edit every single supposed BBEG stat block because they are typically ridiculous in capabilities. There is always at least one spell, or ability, that will never be used in an encounter.
It is interesting how not being bothered by problematic lore being removed is being equated to saying WotC should not have lore at all. Setting agnostic does not mean 'no lore' and setting specific books do have lore. If not having lore does not sit well with you, then you will be pleased to learn that there is plenty of lore now and likely going forward too.
I never said that problematic lore should or should not be removed in this post. It seems to me you are suggesting something not actually stated by me. That is rude and erroneous.
Also, keep in mind that when lore gets removed from a playable species/lineage that of course has will have implications for how that species/lineage will appear in the Monster Manual that they plan on publishing in 2024 (or 2025). They didn't just get rid of the "problematic" elements of Bugbears, Goblins and Hobgoblins. They made them into effectively fey humanoids. That suggests a major change to lore, which I hope they will actually provide details about rather than just hand-wave as "it happened, we have nothing else to say about it because reasons."
I did nothing of the sort. I said I have no problem with offensive lore being removed and you said:
… the idea that we should only get mechanics, with no lore attached doesn't sit well wiith me
Seems lIke my comment that you have conflated my position that offensive lore should be removed with no lore should be attached at all. I am sorry you are offended but if you are, perhaps you should stop making straw men out of other user’s posts, which other people find just as offensive. I didn’t say that there should be no lore ever.
I am not sure why changing goblinoids into fey humanoids is a problem. Why should anyone care? Why should I care that goblins lost their species descriptor as slavers? Why should every RAW adjacent game be required to make goblins, as a species, mostly awful? That’s dumb. The setting agnostic lore is enough to start and anyone who wants a setting specific understanding of them can reference setting specific books or more narrow, local descriptions in settings like PBSO, WBW, SKT and others.
They did, in fact, cut out lore on Illithids, Demons, and Devils in MMPM. These are thematic and intelligent potential enemies (or temporary allies??) for the PCs that are very likely to appear over the span of a campaign or even multiple campaigns. If the PCs are epic heroes, questing in dangerous lands, slaying da Evilz, they need to have a set of memorable villains. The purpose of lore should not be to completely replace the DM's or the players' imaginations but to jump start it. Having some lore provides a trunk and a few branches for the DM (and maybe players) to draw in their own leaves and additional branches. We cannot assume that everybody has a bunch of disposable time and income to buy a bunch of books or spend hours surfing the Internet to cobble lore together from multiple, sometimes contradictory, sources.
If the DM is playing in an official setting, there is lore available all over the internet, as stated numerous times already. Creatures and playable species that are meant to be available in all D&D games need to be setting agnostic in their lore. Setting specific can have very specific lore that may not fit every setting. Your trunk, branches, and leaves of lore are all over the place in official publications, third party content, freely available homebrew, AND archived information for past works. All available to you to use or don’t use as you wish. I have no idea why you are trying to make the case that you shouldn’t have to buy lore when there is not a single WotC book that you can get away with legally owning without buying it. I see nothing happening here other than people who are extremely resistant to change showing poor adaptability to the world we live in. The old official lore sucked. It’s not going to be the ‘face’ of D&D anymore even if we see it in the future. That’s not changing.
I had no knowledge on what lore was established then lost, prior to learning it here. The specifics of those discussions are beyond me.
Regarding the importance of lore as part of an RP game's structure, I believe that game-established lore has an important place in the game, even among those who home-brew the sessions that they run. It acts as a starting point for those new to the game; a reference that is easily pointed to, followed by "I run my Orcs this way, except/plus they do this/have this," or something of that nature.
Recent personal experience: Was invited to play in a game, and asked about what world we would be playing in. The answer, "Forgotten Realms". For someone like me, who is both newly returning to RP gaming, and who enjoys the story building part of the game, this was great.
I poked around the net and found some interesting video presentations, one which referenced "The Grand History of the Realms", among others. Delving just a little deeper, I decided to play a character race/species/folk type that I had never played before, except as NPCs, a kobold. Not only that, but I went full-tribal with this character, one who is steeped in the lore of her people, and with a strong sense of purpose based on the tribal values found in that lore. I now had challenging character to play, and immediately felt a connection to world that my character lived in. The DM bought into the concept, with a smile.
Not everyone cares about the story that much, but it is nice to have something cohesive to draw from, should players and GMs want to make use of that information.
Yeah, I do see a worrisome trend toward homogenization of the player races/species/folk type. Attempts to please most of the people most of the time can backfire, though not as surely as trying to please all of the people all of the time.
They did, in fact, cut out lore on Illithids, Demons, and Devils in MMPM. These are thematic and intelligent potential enemies (or temporary allies??) for the PCs that are very likely to appear over the span of a campaign or even multiple campaigns. If the PCs are epic heroes, questing in dangerous lands, slaying da Evilz, they need to have a set of memorable villains. The purpose of lore should not be to completely replace the DM's or the players' imaginations but to jump start it. Having some lore provides a trunk and a few branches for the DM (and maybe players) to draw in their own leaves and additional branches. We cannot assume that everybody has a bunch of disposable time and income to buy a bunch of books or spend hours surfing the Internet to cobble lore together from multiple, sometimes contradictory, sources.
If the DM is playing in an official setting, there is lore available all over the internet, as stated numerous times already. Creatures and playable species that are meant to be available in all D&D games need to be setting agnostic in their lore. Setting specific can have very specific lore that may not fit every setting. Your trunk, branches, and leaves of lore are all over the place in official publications, third party content, freely available homebrew, AND archived information for past works. All available to you to use or don’t use as you wish. I have no idea why you are trying to make the case that you shouldn’t have to buy lore when there is not a single WotC book that you can get away with legally owning without buying it. I see nothing happening here other than people who are extremely resistant to change showing poor adaptability to the world we live in. The old official lore sucked. It’s not going to be the ‘face’ of D&D anymore even if we see it in the future. That’s not changing.
Actually, most of the lore was excellent. And it is incredibly presumptuous to believe that a DM, especially an inexperienced DM has the time and resources to cast about through multiple sources to find lore, that once existed in a single location. There was no logical reason to gut Volo's or the original Mord's, and simply erase from "official" history years and years of lore.
I had no knowledge on what lore was established then lost, prior to learning it here. The specifics of those discussions are beyond me.
Regarding the importance of lore as part of an RP game's structure, I believe that game-established lore has an important place in the game, even among those who home-brew the sessions that they run. It acts as a starting point for those new to the game; a reference that is easily pointed to, followed by "I run my Orcs this way, except/plus they do this/have this," or something of that nature.
Recent personal experience: Was invited to play in a game, and asked about what world we would be playing in. The answer, "Forgotten Realms". For someone like me, who is both newly returning to RP gaming, and who enjoys the story building part of the game, this was great.
I poked around the net and found some interesting video presentations, one which referenced "The Grand History of the Realms", among others. Delving just a little deeper, I decided to play a character race/species/folk type that I had never played before, except as NPCs, a kobold. Not only that, but I went full-tribal with this character, one who is steeped in the lore of her people, and with a strong sense of purpose based on the tribal values found in that lore. I now had challenging character to play, and immediately felt a connection to world that my character lived in. The DM bought into the concept, with a smile.
Not everyone cares about the story that much, but it is nice to have something cohesive to draw from, should players and GMs want to make use of that information.
And that's all Forgotten Realms lore, and belongs in FR sourcebooks. If it were in the main rulebooks, you might draw upon it when joining my spelljammer game, and come to me with a kobold that knows nothing of their history of enslavement by the beholder empire, the successful rebellion and subsequent war, or the dark age and fragmented civilization that followed.
[Edit: Forgive my misunderstanding in what I now think you mean through your explanation.
Speaking only for myself, if I build a character with a preconceived notion of where that character came from and what they're all about, based on the Basic/Standard/Generic rules, then learn from the GM that the lore as I know it is invalid in this world, and this character is/will be from this world of theirs, I simply ask something like, "Then please fill me in," and take it from there, adjusting or revising as appropriate. This may even include a total character re-think. Not a big deal. This is something that I have done before, many times.]
Actually, most of the lore was excellent. And it is incredibly presumptuous to believe that a DM, especially an inexperienced DM has the time and resources to cast about through multiple sources to find lore, that once existed in a single location. There was no logical reason to gut Volo's or the original Mord's, and simply erase from "official" history years and years of lore.
Nah. And it is hilarious that your argument is essentially that a DM, especially a new DM has not the time or resources to look through multiple sources to find lore that once existed in a single location, but also that they cannot use a FREE and MORE complete resource of the lore you prefer. You don't even need to have powerful Google-Fu to find it. Literally typing in any Forgotten Realms topic will pull it up in the first to third result.
Also, two books you cite are not a single location. The FR wiki is.
Speaking only for myself, if I build a character with a preconceived notion of where that character came from and what they're all about, based on the Basic/Standard/Generic rules, then learn from the GM that the lore as I know it is invalid in this world, and this character is/will be from this world of theirs, I simply ask something like, "Then please fill me in," and take it from there, adjusting or revising as appropriate. This may even include a total character re-think. Not a big deal. This is something that I have done before, many times.]
Well, of course. But it's work you put in that you didn't need to, and it's probably disappointing to have to toss it out.
The lore in the main rulebooks defaults to being true in both DMs' and players' heads. If the books tell them "kobolds are like this", they're now working against their reflexes if they don't want kobolds, or their particular kobold, to be like that. It won't even occur to many players that kobolds might not be like that, so they don't ask the DM in advance.
This is why it's better to keep the significant lore out of the core books, and in setting books.
Actually, most of the lore was excellent. And it is incredibly presumptuous to believe that a DM, especially an inexperienced DM has the time and resources to cast about through multiple sources to find lore, that once existed in a single location. There was no logical reason to gut Volo's or the original Mord's, and simply erase from "official" history years and years of lore.
Nah. And it is hilarious that your argument is essentially that a DM, especially a new DM has not the time or resources to look through multiple sources to find lore that once existed in a single location, but also that they cannot use a FREE and MORE complete resource of the lore you prefer. You don't even need to have powerful Google-Fu to find it. Literally typing in any Forgotten Realms topic will pull it up in the first to third result.
Also, two books you cite are not a single location. The FR wiki is.
Also worth mentioning - hyper link cross-referencing. If I am on Beyond or in a physical book, the book might reference a name or location I do not know or want to know more about. That means I have to go dig up more information, possibly in a completely different book. On a wiki, I can click their name and suddenly I have their entire page at my disposal. Far easier than trying to dig through my multiple books from multiple editions, or, worse, using the untenably bad search system on D&D Beyond.
I had no knowledge on what lore was established then lost, prior to learning it here. The specifics of those discussions are beyond me.
Regarding the importance of lore as part of an RP game's structure, I believe that game-established lore has an important place in the game, even among those who home-brew the sessions that they run. It acts as a starting point for those new to the game; a reference that is easily pointed to, followed by "I run my Orcs this way, except/plus they do this/have this," or something of that nature.
Recent personal experience: Was invited to play in a game, and asked about what world we would be playing in. The answer, "Forgotten Realms". For someone like me, who is both newly returning to RP gaming, and who enjoys the story building part of the game, this was great.
I poked around the net and found some interesting video presentations, one which referenced "The Grand History of the Realms", among others. Delving just a little deeper, I decided to play a character race/species/folk type that I had never played before, except as NPCs, a kobold. Not only that, but I went full-tribal with this character, one who is steeped in the lore of her people, and with a strong sense of purpose based on the tribal values found in that lore. I now had challenging character to play, and immediately felt a connection to world that my character lived in. The DM bought into the concept, with a smile.
Not everyone cares about the story that much, but it is nice to have something cohesive to draw from, should players and GMs want to make use of that information.
And that's all Forgotten Realms lore, and belongs in FR sourcebooks.
Which would be fine and dandy if they hadn't taken the two biggest sources of relevant FR lore down and not put up any replacements. That's my issue at present; for all the people are handwaving "you can still find it online somewhere", the objective fact is that they made FR lore significantly less accessible and have yet to provide anything to stand in for it. If they provide a sourcebook that contains even a respectable portion of the lore, I'd be a lot less irritated by this issue, but they haven't. I don't object to the idea of trimming the material down and breaking it up into different sources, but so far the majority of the lore has simply been lopped off and left on the cutting room floor, which isn't giving me much confidence that they'll improve their lore products going forward.
What I don’t understand is why people are so upset about how Volo’s and Mordy’s were “gutted” and “redacted” when WotC is still selling them almost entirely unchanged. Even now, almost two years after M3 released, Wizards is still selling all the books containing the missing lore, at least physically. The Blood War, Illithids, Dwarves and Duergar — they’re all on the official WotC website.
And as for Beyond, anyone that previously owned Volo’s and Mordy’s can still view their purchased content, right? For example, if you wanted to read about the Blood War and you already owned MToF on DDB, you could still view it on the DDB site? Likewise, Master tier subscribers can still share legacy content with anyone they want, right?
So what’s the issue? If you didn’t pay for the legacy books on Beyond, which were both years old at the time of M3’s release, why are you complaining about “cut content” that you don’t own? Especially since the legacy books are still being sold through almost every major retailer. If you owned the content, it wouldn’t have been “cut.”
While not all of the removed lore was inherently offensive, it’s all still easily accessible. Am I missing something?
What I don’t understand is why people are so upset about how Volo’s and Mordy’s were “gutted” and “redacted” when WotC is still selling them almost entirely unchanged. Even now, almost two years after M3 released, Wizards is still selling all the books containing the missing lore, at least physically. The Blood War, Illithids, Dwarves and Duergar — they’re all on the official WotC website.
And as for Beyond, anyone that previously owned Volo’s and Mordy’s can still view their purchased content, right? For example, if you wanted to read about the Blood War and you already owned MToF on DDB, you could still view it on the DDB site? Likewise, Master tier subscribers can still share legacy content with anyone they want, right?
So what’s the issue? If you didn’t pay for the legacy books on Beyond, which were both years old at the time of M3’s release, why are you complaining about “cut content” that you don’t own? Especially since the legacy books are still being sold through almost every major retailer. If you owned the content, it wouldn’t have been “cut.”
While not all of the removed lore was inherently offensive, it’s all still easily accessible. Am I missing something?
I don't know if they're still publishing new copies of the books or just selling off the remaining inventory, so I can't speak to the state of the physical copies, but the fact that they stopped selling the books on D&DB and haven't put up any other source for the lore is a significant impediment for people like me who pretty much only play online and didn't know we had a deadline to purchase them before MotM dropped. I've been fortunate that I have a friend in an online campaign who had them, so I've got Master Tier to share books in our campaign, but the fundamental issue is they have made a massive body of lore significantly less accessible. I can't quote any exact numbers, but the simple fact that WotC acquired D&DB speaks to how much traffic it's getting, which translates into a lot of people who, if they didn't buy the books before they got taken off the market, are left either scouring the internet or hoping they can find someone else with the books who will join a content-sharing campaign if they want access to them here. It's not the end of the world, but as someone who likes using pre-existing lore as a resource, it's extremely frustrating to have so much of it pulled away.
I don't know if they're still publishing new copies of the books or just selling off the remaining inventory, so I can't speak to the state of the physical copies, but the fact that they stopped selling the books on D&DB and haven't put up any other source for the lore is a significant impediment for people like me who pretty much only play online and didn't know we had a deadline to purchase them before MotM dropped. I've been fortunate that I have a friend in an online campaign who had them, so I've got Master Tier to share books in our campaign, but the fundamental issue is they have made a massive body of lore significantly less accessible. I can't quote any exact numbers, but the simple fact that WotC acquired D&DB speaks to how much traffic it's getting, which translates into a lot of people who, if they didn't buy the books before they got taken off the market, are left either scouring the internet or hoping they can find someone else with the books who will join a content-sharing campaign if they want access to them here. It's not the end of the world, but as someone who likes using pre-existing lore as a resource, it's extremely frustrating to have so much of it pulled away.
When they inevitably do drop updated FR lore, will you buy it?
What I don’t understand is why people are so upset about how Volo’s and Mordy’s were “gutted” and “redacted” when WotC is still selling them almost entirely unchanged. Even now, almost two years after M3 released, Wizards is still selling all the books containing the missing lore, at least physically. The Blood War, Illithids, Dwarves and Duergar — they’re all on the official WotC website.
They're listed, but if you follow the links, they're not actually available, or at least Volo's isn't. (I didn't bother to check the other one.)
I expect there to be a new FR sourcebook after the revised edition releases, but it's not easily available officially ATM. (I also don't think that's that big a deal.)
What I don’t understand is why people are so upset about how Volo’s and Mordy’s were “gutted” and “redacted” when WotC is still selling them almost entirely unchanged. Even now, almost two years after M3 released, Wizards is still selling all the books containing the missing lore, at least physically. The Blood War, Illithids, Dwarves and Duergar — they’re all on the official WotC website.
They're listed, but if you follow the links, they're not actually available, or at least Volo's isn't. (I didn't bother to check the other one.)
I expect there to be a new FR sourcebook after the revised edition releases, but it's not easily available officially ATM. (I also don't think that's that big a deal.)
I don't know if they're still publishing new copies of the books or just selling off the remaining inventory, so I can't speak to the state of the physical copies, but the fact that they stopped selling the books on D&DB and haven't put up any other source for the lore is a significant impediment for people like me who pretty much only play online and didn't know we had a deadline to purchase them before MotM dropped. I've been fortunate that I have a friend in an online campaign who had them, so I've got Master Tier to share books in our campaign, but the fundamental issue is they have made a massive body of lore significantly less accessible. I can't quote any exact numbers, but the simple fact that WotC acquired D&DB speaks to how much traffic it's getting, which translates into a lot of people who, if they didn't buy the books before they got taken off the market, are left either scouring the internet or hoping they can find someone else with the books who will join a content-sharing campaign if they want access to them here. It's not the end of the world, but as someone who likes using pre-existing lore as a resource, it's extremely frustrating to have so much of it pulled away.
When they inevitably do drop updated FR lore, will you buy it?
If they put something together, sure most likely. But pulling the books down when the "replacement" is seriously lacking in the lore area is just a major pet peeve of mine atm, and sometimes it feels like there's a lot of people who push back on published lore simply because they only do homebrew campaigns that wouldn't use it or just bash it on the principle that "real" roleplay means you actively reject the published stuff (I swear I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, it's just a vibe I get a lot when the value of lore like this is discussed).
I don't know if they're still publishing new copies of the books or just selling off the remaining inventory, so I can't speak to the state of the physical copies, but the fact that they stopped selling the books on D&DB and haven't put up any other source for the lore is a significant impediment for people like me who pretty much only play online and didn't know we had a deadline to purchase them before MotM dropped. I've been fortunate that I have a friend in an online campaign who had them, so I've got Master Tier to share books in our campaign, but the fundamental issue is they have made a massive body of lore significantly less accessible. I can't quote any exact numbers, but the simple fact that WotC acquired D&DB speaks to how much traffic it's getting, which translates into a lot of people who, if they didn't buy the books before they got taken off the market, are left either scouring the internet or hoping they can find someone else with the books who will join a content-sharing campaign if they want access to them here. It's not the end of the world, but as someone who likes using pre-existing lore as a resource, it's extremely frustrating to have so much of it pulled away.
When they inevitably do drop updated FR lore, will you buy it?
If they put something together, sure most likely. But pulling the books down when the "replacement" is seriously lacking in the lore area is just a major pet peeve of mine atm, and sometimes it feels like there's a lot of people who push back on published lore simply because they only do homebrew campaigns that wouldn't use it or just bash it on the principle that "real" roleplay means you actively reject the published stuff (I swear I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, it's just a vibe I get a lot when the value of lore like this is discussed).
I often think about conversations I have with those whose opinions I generally value and this post hung with me a bit and made me ask myself some questions. After mulling it over, I really don’t think there is anything wrong with your ask. Having replacement lore for whatever was removed is a fair ask for those who are wanting FR lore. Sure the wiki is still there, but asking for current, official FR lore is perfectly valid.
I think I get so hung up on the problems that the old lore had, that I overlook that some of it was good for some players and that it had value for them. I also overlook how a wholesale removal of that lore might disrupt the game for some, which does suck. I apologize for not seeing that beforehand.
I expect there to be a new FR sourcebook after the revised edition releases...
The thing is, I expect there not to be. The logical time to drop one would have been alongside MotM. It would have avoided the "lost content" upset and it's just logical. It didn't. There's also the issue of repeated content. If they come up with lore or whatever for, say, Orcs, then there'll be the expectation of containing the statblocks for those Orcs...which will largely be repeats or close to them. In fact, much of the book would just be repeats...but with the lore put back in again. That's not really going to go down well, especially since it wasn't even hinted at when they sold MotM.
They could go down the Spelljammer route...but the fact that I mentioned Spelljammer probably communicated effectively why I haven't investigated Planescape particularly closely...and why people probably wouldn't be keen on an FR edition, and wouldn't be very good if they did, in all probability.
The direction they seem to be headed is to mostly provide statblocks and rules, with minimal lore, rather than a "sanitised" mother book then various versions for different settings.
The nearest we'll get is what we've already been getting - books like Fizban's Treasury of Dragons and Bigby's Glory of the Giants. Deep dives into classes of creatures, rather than into settings. I really like those books, but the lack of deep dives into settings probably has the opposite effect to me - I'm actually less likely to go into Eberron etc, if they're not releasing books for them. I'll stick with FR, until (and if) I decide to go full homebrew.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good thing this is exactly what Wizards is doing—despite what the rest of your post seems to imply.
Moving forward, the core books will provide some default lore—if you actually look at MMM, the first in this new mechanism for core books, there actually is plenty of lore in there to provide a basis for DMs to expand on. This default lore will be somewhat streamlined, but contains everything you need to use the species and monsters in any game. They also will be releasing setting specific books—books like Explorer’s Guide to Eberron, adventures, setting bundles like Planescape, lore dumps like Fizban’s and Bigby’s, etc. These books will have more in-depth lore specific to the worlds they are set on.
This new bifold release mechanism for lore is the best of both worlds. It provides a mechanism for Wizards to release new lore for the lore hounds out there, while also reducing long-standing problems which arise when one plane’s setting is considered the default.
Let's not forget that the in switch between MPMM and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, they not only excised much of the lore re: Demons and Devils, they also got rid of several spells as well. This falls under the Mechanics category, but it is still content, and useful content. A Demon lord shouldn't just be a sack of hit points and special abilities. Nobody retains that level of power without a significant guile and planning. But in their infinitely vast wisdom, the devs for MPMM actually got rid of several out-of-combat spells for these monsters. This just turns what are supposed to be highly intelligent, lethally cunning creatures into just another collection of hit points and features for PCs to whomp on. IOW, boring, quickly forgotten backdrop Bad Guy (or Gal) of the Week instead of centerpiece scenery chewing VILLAINY that your players will want to keep talking about. They "streamlined" to the point of making D&D epic encounters more dull. And we're supposed to celebrate that?
wotc is just targeting the largest segment of the customer base. I can't possibly count the amount of people that tell me "5e is the best because it is the simplest to play." Why make things complicated with BBEG's having spells and multiple options, and then DM's and players alike have to think more about combat, when so many say "simpler is better".
edit: Oh, and I have to edit every single supposed BBEG stat block because they are typically ridiculous in capabilities. There is always at least one spell, or ability, that will never be used in an encounter.
I did nothing of the sort. I said I have no problem with offensive lore being removed and you said:
Seems lIke my comment that you have conflated my position that offensive lore should be removed with no lore should be attached at all. I am sorry you are offended but if you are, perhaps you should stop making straw men out of other user’s posts, which other people find just as offensive. I didn’t say that there should be no lore ever.
I am not sure why changing goblinoids into fey humanoids is a problem. Why should anyone care? Why should I care that goblins lost their species descriptor as slavers? Why should every RAW adjacent game be required to make goblins, as a species, mostly awful? That’s dumb. The setting agnostic lore is enough to start and anyone who wants a setting specific understanding of them can reference setting specific books or more narrow, local descriptions in settings like PBSO, WBW, SKT and others.
If the DM is playing in an official setting, there is lore available all over the internet, as stated numerous times already. Creatures and playable species that are meant to be available in all D&D games need to be setting agnostic in their lore. Setting specific can have very specific lore that may not fit every setting. Your trunk, branches, and leaves of lore are all over the place in official publications, third party content, freely available homebrew, AND archived information for past works. All available to you to use or don’t use as you wish. I have no idea why you are trying to make the case that you shouldn’t have to buy lore when there is not a single WotC book that you can get away with legally owning without buying it. I see nothing happening here other than people who are extremely resistant to change showing poor adaptability to the world we live in. The old official lore sucked. It’s not going to be the ‘face’ of D&D anymore even if we see it in the future. That’s not changing.
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 had no knowledge on what lore was established then lost, prior to learning it here. The specifics of those discussions are beyond me.
Regarding the importance of lore as part of an RP game's structure, I believe that game-established lore has an important place in the game, even among those who home-brew the sessions that they run. It acts as a starting point for those new to the game; a reference that is easily pointed to, followed by "I run my Orcs this way, except/plus they do this/have this," or something of that nature.
Recent personal experience: Was invited to play in a game, and asked about what world we would be playing in. The answer, "Forgotten Realms". For someone like me, who is both newly returning to RP gaming, and who enjoys the story building part of the game, this was great.
I poked around the net and found some interesting video presentations, one which referenced "The Grand History of the Realms", among others. Delving just a little deeper, I decided to play a character race/species/folk type that I had never played before, except as NPCs, a kobold. Not only that, but I went full-tribal with this character, one who is steeped in the lore of her people, and with a strong sense of purpose based on the tribal values found in that lore. I now had challenging character to play, and immediately felt a connection to world that my character lived in. The DM bought into the concept, with a smile.
Not everyone cares about the story that much, but it is nice to have something cohesive to draw from, should players and GMs want to make use of that information.
Yeah, I do see a worrisome trend toward homogenization of the player races/species/folk type. Attempts to please most of the people most of the time can backfire, though not as surely as trying to please all of the people all of the time.
They did, in fact, cut out lore on Illithids, Demons, and Devils in MMPM. These are thematic and intelligent potential enemies (or temporary allies??) for the PCs that are very likely to appear over the span of a campaign or even multiple campaigns. If the PCs are epic heroes, questing in dangerous lands, slaying da Evilz, they need to have a set of memorable villains. The purpose of lore should not be to completely replace the DM's or the players' imaginations but to jump start it. Having some lore provides a trunk and a few branches for the DM (and maybe players) to draw in their own leaves and additional branches. We cannot assume that everybody has a bunch of disposable time and income to buy a bunch of books or spend hours surfing the Internet to cobble lore together from multiple, sometimes contradictory, sources.
Actually, most of the lore was excellent. And it is incredibly presumptuous to believe that a DM, especially an inexperienced DM has the time and resources to cast about through multiple sources to find lore, that once existed in a single location. There was no logical reason to gut Volo's or the original Mord's, and simply erase from "official" history years and years of lore.
And that's all Forgotten Realms lore, and belongs in FR sourcebooks. If it were in the main rulebooks, you might draw upon it when joining my spelljammer game, and come to me with a kobold that knows nothing of their history of enslavement by the beholder empire, the successful rebellion and subsequent war, or the dark age and fragmented civilization that followed.
Stranger in a strange land, but with roots. Yep.
[Edit: Forgive my misunderstanding in what I now think you mean through your explanation.
Speaking only for myself, if I build a character with a preconceived notion of where that character came from and what they're all about, based on the Basic/Standard/Generic rules, then learn from the GM that the lore as I know it is invalid in this world, and this character is/will be from this world of theirs, I simply ask something like, "Then please fill me in," and take it from there, adjusting or revising as appropriate. This may even include a total character re-think. Not a big deal. This is something that I have done before, many times.]
Nah. And it is hilarious that your argument is essentially that a DM, especially a new DM has not the time or resources to look through multiple sources to find lore that once existed in a single location, but also that they cannot use a FREE and MORE complete resource of the lore you prefer. You don't even need to have powerful Google-Fu to find it. Literally typing in any Forgotten Realms topic will pull it up in the first to third result.
Also, two books you cite are not a single location. The FR wiki is.
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
Well, of course. But it's work you put in that you didn't need to, and it's probably disappointing to have to toss it out.
The lore in the main rulebooks defaults to being true in both DMs' and players' heads. If the books tell them "kobolds are like this", they're now working against their reflexes if they don't want kobolds, or their particular kobold, to be like that. It won't even occur to many players that kobolds might not be like that, so they don't ask the DM in advance.
This is why it's better to keep the significant lore out of the core books, and in setting books.
Also worth mentioning - hyper link cross-referencing. If I am on Beyond or in a physical book, the book might reference a name or location I do not know or want to know more about. That means I have to go dig up more information, possibly in a completely different book. On a wiki, I can click their name and suddenly I have their entire page at my disposal. Far easier than trying to dig through my multiple books from multiple editions, or, worse, using the untenably bad search system on D&D Beyond.
Which would be fine and dandy if they hadn't taken the two biggest sources of relevant FR lore down and not put up any replacements. That's my issue at present; for all the people are handwaving "you can still find it online somewhere", the objective fact is that they made FR lore significantly less accessible and have yet to provide anything to stand in for it. If they provide a sourcebook that contains even a respectable portion of the lore, I'd be a lot less irritated by this issue, but they haven't. I don't object to the idea of trimming the material down and breaking it up into different sources, but so far the majority of the lore has simply been lopped off and left on the cutting room floor, which isn't giving me much confidence that they'll improve their lore products going forward.
What I don’t understand is why people are so upset about how Volo’s and Mordy’s were “gutted” and “redacted” when WotC is still selling them almost entirely unchanged. Even now, almost two years after M3 released, Wizards is still selling all the books containing the missing lore, at least physically. The Blood War, Illithids, Dwarves and Duergar — they’re all on the official WotC website.
And as for Beyond, anyone that previously owned Volo’s and Mordy’s can still view their purchased content, right? For example, if you wanted to read about the Blood War and you already owned MToF on DDB, you could still view it on the DDB site? Likewise, Master tier subscribers can still share legacy content with anyone they want, right?
So what’s the issue? If you didn’t pay for the legacy books on Beyond, which were both years old at the time of M3’s release, why are you complaining about “cut content” that you don’t own? Especially since the legacy books are still being sold through almost every major retailer. If you owned the content, it wouldn’t have been “cut.”
While not all of the removed lore was inherently offensive, it’s all still easily accessible. Am I missing something?
Terra Lubridia archive:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Gut | The Athene Crusader | The Jewel of Atlantis
I don't know if they're still publishing new copies of the books or just selling off the remaining inventory, so I can't speak to the state of the physical copies, but the fact that they stopped selling the books on D&DB and haven't put up any other source for the lore is a significant impediment for people like me who pretty much only play online and didn't know we had a deadline to purchase them before MotM dropped. I've been fortunate that I have a friend in an online campaign who had them, so I've got Master Tier to share books in our campaign, but the fundamental issue is they have made a massive body of lore significantly less accessible. I can't quote any exact numbers, but the simple fact that WotC acquired D&DB speaks to how much traffic it's getting, which translates into a lot of people who, if they didn't buy the books before they got taken off the market, are left either scouring the internet or hoping they can find someone else with the books who will join a content-sharing campaign if they want access to them here. It's not the end of the world, but as someone who likes using pre-existing lore as a resource, it's extremely frustrating to have so much of it pulled away.
When they inevitably do drop updated FR lore, will you buy it?
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
They're listed, but if you follow the links, they're not actually available, or at least Volo's isn't. (I didn't bother to check the other one.)
I expect there to be a new FR sourcebook after the revised edition releases, but it's not easily available officially ATM. (I also don't think that's that big a deal.)
Ah. That changes things a bit. Thanks.
Terra Lubridia archive:
The Bloody Barnacle | The Gut | The Athene Crusader | The Jewel of Atlantis
If they put something together, sure most likely. But pulling the books down when the "replacement" is seriously lacking in the lore area is just a major pet peeve of mine atm, and sometimes it feels like there's a lot of people who push back on published lore simply because they only do homebrew campaigns that wouldn't use it or just bash it on the principle that "real" roleplay means you actively reject the published stuff (I swear I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, it's just a vibe I get a lot when the value of lore like this is discussed).
I often think about conversations I have with those whose opinions I generally value and this post hung with me a bit and made me ask myself some questions. After mulling it over, I really don’t think there is anything wrong with your ask. Having replacement lore for whatever was removed is a fair ask for those who are wanting FR lore. Sure the wiki is still there, but asking for current, official FR lore is perfectly valid.
I think I get so hung up on the problems that the old lore had, that I overlook that some of it was good for some players and that it had value for them. I also overlook how a wholesale removal of that lore might disrupt the game for some, which does suck. I apologize for not seeing that beforehand.
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
The thing is, I expect there not to be. The logical time to drop one would have been alongside MotM. It would have avoided the "lost content" upset and it's just logical. It didn't. There's also the issue of repeated content. If they come up with lore or whatever for, say, Orcs, then there'll be the expectation of containing the statblocks for those Orcs...which will largely be repeats or close to them. In fact, much of the book would just be repeats...but with the lore put back in again. That's not really going to go down well, especially since it wasn't even hinted at when they sold MotM.
They could go down the Spelljammer route...but the fact that I mentioned Spelljammer probably communicated effectively why I haven't investigated Planescape particularly closely...and why people probably wouldn't be keen on an FR edition, and wouldn't be very good if they did, in all probability.
The direction they seem to be headed is to mostly provide statblocks and rules, with minimal lore, rather than a "sanitised" mother book then various versions for different settings.
The nearest we'll get is what we've already been getting - books like Fizban's Treasury of Dragons and Bigby's Glory of the Giants. Deep dives into classes of creatures, rather than into settings. I really like those books, but the lack of deep dives into settings probably has the opposite effect to me - I'm actually less likely to go into Eberron etc, if they're not releasing books for them. I'll stick with FR, until (and if) I decide to go full homebrew.
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.