How sanctimonious, rude, and insulting, all in 5 sentences. That’s impressive
I did read it, but with one thing or another and the pizza delivery, and extra helping the absolute noobs, and there being 7 players to help all at the same time it slipped my mind to explain every li’l difference in the lore for each race. And I didn’t have Volo’s to the “new players” I handed it to some of the more experienced players and they weren’t the issue. The issue was with the middling experience players who didn’t read my handout (as opposed to the more experienced players who did, and the noobs I handheald through the process). But had the lore in those books been neutral I wouldn’t have needed half the handout in the first place.
No sanctimony, rudeness, or insult intended, sorry you took it that way, as I do have a ton of respect for you.
I just don't see how, if the lore in those books are as troubling as they ended up being for you and your group, it is the fault of the lore in the books.
As for Volo's, I wasn't given the qualifiers of it was for the more experienced players and without that qualifying information, I stand by my statement "Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player".
This only re-enforces my argument of poor or lack of communication is the root cause for the majority of complaints about things like lore et al in the core and other rule books. Your mileage may vary, but many feel as I do.
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
Again no sleight intended, and my post was addressing Caerwyn's rebuttal to my reply to you and I did not clarify I was speaking to the posts in this thread calling for no lore in the core books.
Again, my apologies.
Hopefully you can see I stated my opinion using the information given to form the opinion. Now with the additional information you have since provided it clears up a couple of things:
1) Volo' was not given to the new players
2) The lore was not the root cause of the issues your group had.
Your follow up post sums it up pretty well new players didn't follow instructions, things got busy, people were disappointed, and this is the fault of the lore in the PHB.
Is that a fair assessment of the argument you made, or am I missing something?
I also stand by my argument that removing lore is far more costly and burdensome for those that use it, than ignoring it is for those that do not to use it.
Apology both accepted and appreciated. Perhaps I took your comments a little too personally. For my part in any misunderstanding I too apologize.
If the lore in the PHB was more generic and less setting specific things would’ve gone a lot smoother despite the chaos. For example, the whole “between two worlds” bit about half-elves… not a thing in my world as half-elves are generally seen as equivalent to humans, as are half-orcs, half-goblinoids, etc. And pretty much most of the lore about hobgoblins doesn’t fit my world either since they are as common as elves and just as well tolerated, not that elves are entirely well tolerated either. Orcs and goblinoids walk metropolitan streets alongside dwarves and elves and gnomes and nobody really bats an eye. Tabaxi, Tieflings, and Dragonborn on the other hand wouldn’t even dare attempt to walk the same streets in many cities, lest they be at best arrested or at worst attacked on sight.
If the lore in the player facing books gave us a little lore about each species but kept any reference to how they fit into the world at large to a minimum, that would have been nice. Leave lore about how they fit into greater society to the DM facing setting books.
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
I want no lore in the core books. In my opinion, core books should be about mechanics. If GMs and players need lore information, they can turn to the appropriate setting book.
They kinda gotta include a li’l sumpinsumpin, a li’l taste, just to whet their appetites and spark off their imaginations. It should just be kept as minimal and generic as possible so it doesn’t step on DMs’ toes.
Two short paragraphs of flavor text about a species without mentioning how that species fits into the world should aught be alright. Mention how graceful and keen of eye the elves are and a little about the trance and leave it at that. Mention how hardy dwarves are and a bit about their connection to the earth and stop there. Mention how the orcs are tough and generally revere martial prowess, but stop there. That’s all generally generic enough that it won’t lorelock anyone, but still provides new players with something to go off of. And it means they can strip all of that away from the features & traits themselves to keep those purely mechanical instead of the blend of flavor text and mechanics that they are now. That would result both in keeping the book neutral in terms of how much space is actually dedicated to flavor text, while simultaneously reducing confusion about what’s RAW and what isn’t.
Don’t tell us anything about how any of those species interact with each other, or how common they are, or how accepted they are by society in the PHB or other player facing books. I agree with you that all of this type of lore doesn’t belong in those spaces. They should leave all that stuff for the setting books. Leave that stuff for DMs to determine for themselves.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby. Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
How sanctimonious, rude, and insulting, all in 5 sentences. That’s impressive
I did read it, but with one thing or another and the pizza delivery, and extra helping the absolute noobs, and there being 7 players to help all at the same time it slipped my mind to explain every li’l difference in the lore for each race. And I didn’t have Volo’s to the “new players” I handed it to some of the more experienced players and they weren’t the issue. The issue was with the middling experience players who didn’t read my handout (as opposed to the more experienced players who did, and the noobs I handheald through the process). But had the lore in those books been neutral I wouldn’t have needed half the handout in the first place.
No sanctimony, rudeness, or insult intended, sorry you took it that way, as I do have a ton of respect for you.
I just don't see how, if the lore in those books are as troubling as they ended up being for you and your group, it is the fault of the lore in the books.
As for Volo's, I wasn't given the qualifiers of it was for the more experienced players and without that qualifying information, I stand by my statement "Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player".
This only re-enforces my argument of poor or lack of communication is the root cause for the majority of complaints about things like lore et al in the core and other rule books. Your mileage may vary, but many feel as I do.
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
Again no sleight intended, and my post was addressing Caerwyn's rebuttal to my reply to you and I did not clarify I was speaking to the posts in this thread calling for no lore in the core books.
Again, my apologies.
Hopefully you can see I stated my opinion using the information given to form the opinion. Now with the additional information you have since provided it clears up a couple of things:
1) Volo' was not given to the new players
2) The lore was not the root cause of the issues your group had.
Your follow up post sums it up pretty well new players didn't follow instructions, things got busy, people were disappointed, and this is the fault of the lore in the PHB.
Is that a fair assessment of the argument you made, or am I missing something?
I also stand by my argument that removing lore is far more costly and burdensome for those that use it, than ignoring it is for those that do not to use it.
Apology both accepted and appreciated. Perhaps I took your comments a little too personally. For my part in any misunderstanding I too apologize.
If the lore in the PHB was more generic and less setting specific things would’ve gone a lot smoother despite the chaos. For example, the whole “between two worlds” bit about half-elves… not a thing in my world as half-elves are generally seen as equivalent to humans, as are half-orcs, half-goblinoids, etc. And pretty much most of the lore about hobgoblins doesn’t fit my world either since they are as common as elves and just as well tolerated, not that elves are entirely well tolerated either. Orcs and goblinoids walk metropolitan streets alongside dwarves and elves and gnomes and nobody really bats an eye. Tabaxi, Tieflings, and Dragonborn on the other hand wouldn’t even dare attempt to walk the same streets in many cities, lest they be at best arrested or at worst attacked on sight.
If the lore in the player facing books gave us a little lore about each species but kept any reference to how they fit into the world at large to a minimum, that would have been nice. Leave lore about how they fit into greater society to the DM facing setting books.
Thank you, and yes no need for the lore to paint things into corners. Detailed lore needs more space than books like the PHB can provide and keep the page count and price reasonable for the target audience.
I limit several things in the games, all published adventures and settings, I DM simply because I am not good enough to deal with them at this point, I do not hide that fact it is just what I do as a stop gap until I can do a better job as a DM.
As a player I am respectful of what the DM says is allowed or not. I do ask why when something pops up that we haven't discussed that goes counter to the published rules, usually during a break or at the end of the session, I guess I am blessed that everyone I play with is easy going in that way. Not to say we don't have drama at the table but nothing like back in the day when a fisticuffs would breakout a few times a year or worse some of the stuff I see posted around the web.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
You-tube DM’s are a dime a dozen, and worth about as much.
As a DM/GM I’d like to see a small section in the current Basic Rules in the DM Tools Section that gave a quick introduction to basic adventure building, something to wet the appetite.
Something like that might make the DMG the second best selling D&D book, who knows. It just my personal opinion.
Anyone can learn the game however they wish, best to learn from several viewpoints and then make up their own mind on how they want to play.
Hell I wonder what the sales numbers would be for a bundle of just the three core 5E books ( PHB, DMG, and MM) for $75?
To give an example of something they excised that is no loss, consider this paragraph from the description of a Dwarf:
Dwarven skin ranges from deep brown to a paler hue tinged with red, but the most common shades are light brown or deep tan, like certain tones of earth. Their hair, worn long but in simple styles, is usually black, gray, or brown, though paler dwarves often have red hair. Male dwarves value their beards highly and groom them carefully.
I have never, in art or games, seen Dwarven skin color, hair color, or hair style treated as anything but "the same variety as exists in humans" (while video games often allow unnatural colors, they do it for everyone). Beards are a bit more characteristic... but no-one will think twice about a beardless dwarf, and plenty of people have absorbed the concept of the bearded female dwarf. Similar paragraphs exist in the entry for elf, halfling, and gnome, and are equally useless there -- there's a certain tendency towards unnatural hair colors, particularly for elves, but typically if they're allowed at all everyone can use them, even humans.
To give an example of something they excised that is no loss, consider this paragraph from the description of a Dwarf:
Dwarven skin ranges from deep brown to a paler hue tinged with red, but the most common shades are light brown or deep tan, like certain tones of earth. Their hair, worn long but in simple styles, is usually black, gray, or brown, though paler dwarves often have red hair. Male dwarves value their beards highly and groom them carefully.
I have never, in art or games, seen Dwarven skin color, hair color, or hair style treated as anything but "the same variety as exists in humans" (while video games often allow unnatural colors, they do it for everyone). Beards are a bit more characteristic... but no-one will think twice about a beardless dwarf, and plenty of people have absorbed the concept of the bearded female dwarf. Similar paragraphs exist in the entry for elf, halfling, and gnome, and are equally useless there -- there's a certain tendency towards unnatural hair colors, particularly for elves, but typically if they're allowed at all everyone can use them, even humans.
This is another area the UA does a good job with. Dwarves if condenses down to “squat and often bearded”; Teiflings (which are IP specific and not common knowledge) have a bit more in-depth descriptions, though still not much more than the minimums required to convey information about something new players would not intrinsically grasp.
I think it is also notable that we should be getting more art than any other PHB, which further reduces the need for species descriptions. I am personally hoping we get art showing multiple members of the species, instead of the typical “here is one example” art typically used to showcase a species. Additionally, with the expanded subclass art, I hope Wizards does a good job showcasing examples species in non-traditional classes - they have done a better job at showing things like Orc Wizards and the like, but would be nice to see even more.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby.
Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
First and foremost: yes, I feel that there has been a drop in the relative level of content, and when you are only releasing 3-4 books a year having one that underdelivers (even as the price of the books continues to increase; Spelljammer cost me $90 in my native canada and it was not worth it) is going to leave a really bad taste in my mouth and make me seriously question the products being put out after the fact. Like you can go back to see what I wrote about SJ but the short explanation is it had a terrible player's section that lacked any sort of meaningful rules for dealing with boats in space, a poorly balanced railroady module and admittedly a banger monster guide but not one that justified such a high price tag.
Earlier in the thread Caerwyn Talked about how they responded to the desires of the fan base to bring back earlier settings and I feel like this is a misconception as I review the modules and adventures and such; Most of them feel like they're riding on the legacy of the previous titles while doing wierd and/or stupid things with them, Like putting them in places that don't make sense (why is Dragonbait in chult? Also how is he still alive at this point?) radically altering their history (Apparently Jander sunstar is a multiversal entity now? Also D&D has paralel realities? I guess?) or completely rewriting characters (Why is Doctor Mordenheim a woman and apparently a lesbian?).
Theres also what happened with Multiverse which IMHO ruined so many player options by gutting any sort of depth or lore or identity from the various races; if you just remove any reference to physical characteristics they all become completely interchangable.
There original content isn't that much better. Like my Gm tried so damn hard to make Radiant citadel work, he went out of his way to try and gussy up the npc's and the Incarnates and everything else but it became more and more clear that outside of a handful of quests (like the one with the soul shaker; that thing absolutely feels like something that would of been dreamt up in the american south) it just came down to multi-cultural doctor phil with the party just talking down the irate locals and us then heading back to the Radiant citadel. Which is a shame because as a player I'd love to see other cultures being given the opportunity to have a properly developed D&D setting/campaign.
Like... the game is 5 decades old. I have been playing it to varying degrees for 60% of that time. It should have more depth and narrative and lore now then it did at the start of at least this edition, but it just doesn't.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby.
Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
YES! Indoctrinate them in official 'must obey' lore from day one! Again, why does there have to be official lore?
Let’s not forget an even better version of the basic rules, the 5E SRD, a rules set that has more material than the basic rules PDF, and surprisingly it is FREE.
How much “Official Lore”, is in that set? If one where to actually read the SRD, one would find the material generic enough to give the general idea that the only limit is the imagination of the user.
”Official Lore” form previously published material can remain right where it belongs, in the places where it would be most effective and relevant, and separate from “lore” that is broad enough to serve as a foundation to develop and even refine that which is and that which can be.
As a Player/DM the more it cost me to get into the hobby, the less incentive I have to jump on every little thing that serves no value or purpose, that to me personally is nothing more than over explained and overpriced fluff.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby.
Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
YES! Indoctrinate them in official 'must obey' lore from day one! Again, why does there have to be official lore?
ouch! jeez, it's like feeding emus. calm down! we're interacting over crumbs, not whether people get to keep their whole hands here.
what the hell is 'must obey' about an optional list of celtic gods in PHB appendix B or the first two barbarian flavor blurbs including the word 'tribe' or leaving enough context that a new player doesn't assume elves make toys all day? i didn't recommend adding setting specific details, just leaving the general stuff that's already there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
In my opinion, the PHB is NOT the best point of entry right now. I did it five years ago, and as a brand spanking new GM, my dumbass bought the PHB, then proceeded to get the Legendary Bundle soon after, and then told my players about all the cool extra options. On top of scheduling conflicts, we already spent two sessions just going through the PHB, and I thought getting the Legendary Bundle in the middle of it was a good idea, so third session zero it is. To me, the best point of entry is the BR/SRD. And if the group wants to get to the action asap, then skip character creation entirely and pick one of the premade characters off Wizards' website. BR/SRD is free and contains everything you need mechanically to run the game. Other important stuff like session zero and strong communication can be learned from other sources.
Maybe it is because I started out digital, but lugging around extra pages I do not need is not fun. If I am going to break my back lugging around the three dead Ents, I rather those dead Ents tell me more about character creation options and other mechanics than blabbering about irrelvant lore here and there. If I want lore, I will bring the dead Ents that talk about lore. Lugging the real thing around, I finally felt like a proper badass carrying the physical burden and responsibility of being a GM, but I think I much rather carry them less physically after experiencing it a few times.
I personally prefer no lore, but I will compromise on minimal universal generic lore for introductory purposes. If people want to enjoy reading cover to cover, there are novels for that. I want D&D game books to be manuals. I do read D&D books for fun too, but I value them as tools more when I actually run the game. I do not care that orcs in the Sword Coast are barbaric when I am running the game, and the adventure book and setting book I am using already tells me some of the orcs are barbaric. I do not need to be told orcs are barbaric multiple times, and I definitely do not want to be told orcs are barbaric if I am running an adventure in a setting where orcs are not.
And on the topic of monsters, the concept of having physical monster BOOKS is a stupid idea without the relevant physical support tools, in this case CARDS (Wizards and Galeforce9 stopped working together to make cards). I run my games mostly digitally, but if I want to go full physical, even with physical bookmarks, it is still a pain in the ass to flip through multiple pages back and forth compared to just looking at the right card behind the GM screen. MM got card support, but FTOD and BP:GOTG do not, and the new MM probably will not have card support either. And lugging around a few cards is way easier than lugging around the MM.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
In my opinion, the PHB is NOT the best point of entry right now. I did it five years ago, and as a brand spanking new GM, my dumbass bought the PHB, then proceeded to get the Legendary Bundle soon after, and then told my players about all the cool extra options. On top of scheduling conflicts, we already spent two sessions just going through the PHB, and I thought getting the Legendary Bundle in the middle of it was a good idea, so third session zero it is. To me, the best point of entry is the BR/SRD. And if the group wants to get to the action asap, then skip character creation entirely and pick one of the premade characters off Wizards' website. BR/SRD is free and contains everything you need mechanically to run the game. Other important stuff like session zero and strong communication can be learned from other sources.
Maybe it is because I started out digital, but lugging around extra pages I do not need is not fun. If I am going to break my back lugging around the three dead Ents, I rather those dead Ents tell me more about character creation options and other mechanics than blabbering about irrelvant lore here and there. If I want lore, I will bring the dead Ents that talk about lore. Lugging the real thing around, I finally felt like a proper badass carrying the physical burden and responsibility of being a GM, but I think I much rather carry them less physically after experiencing it a few times.
I personally prefer no lore, but I will compromise on minimal universal generic lore for introductory purposes. If people want to enjoy reading cover to cover, there are novels for that. I want D&D game books to be manuals. I do read D&D books for fun too, but I value them as tools more when I actually run the game. I do not care that orcs in the Sword Coast are barbaric when I am running the game, and the adventure book and setting book I am using already tells me some of the orcs are barbaric. I do not need to be told orcs are barbaric multiple times, and I definitely do not want to be told orcs are barbaric if I am running an adventure in a setting where orcs are not.
And on the topic of monsters, the concept of having physical monster BOOKS is a stupid idea without the relevant physical support tools, in this case CARDS (Wizards and Galeforce9 stopped working together to make cards). I run my games mostly digitally, but if I want to go full physical, even with physical bookmarks, it is still a pain in the ass to flip through multiple pages back and forth compared to just looking at the right card behind the GM screen. MM got card support, but FTOD and BP:GOTG do not, and the new MM probably will not have card support either. And lugging around a few cards is way easier than lugging around the MM.
if one can easily dip their toes without purchasing, then why decry additional content in the expanded for-pay version of that? especially when the lore/flavor/theme is concentrated around character creation to spark imagination and not around the rules which might be referenced with some frequency.
i'm confused why 11 pages into the "dwindling hope for the future of D&D" thread it seems like "less setting specific lore in the PHB" is the fix when the players' handbook has so little setting specific lore as it is. and that pantheons appendix is great, by the way! great use of space and helpful on many occasions (personal opinion)!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
In my opinion, the PHB is NOT the best point of entry right now. I did it five years ago, and as a brand spanking new GM, my dumbass bought the PHB, then proceeded to get the Legendary Bundle soon after, and then told my players about all the cool extra options. On top of scheduling conflicts, we already spent two sessions just going through the PHB, and I thought getting the Legendary Bundle in the middle of it was a good idea, so third session zero it is. To me, the best point of entry is the BR/SRD. And if the group wants to get to the action asap, then skip character creation entirely and pick one of the premade characters off Wizards' website. BR/SRD is free and contains everything you need mechanically to run the game. Other important stuff like session zero and strong communication can be learned from other sources.
Maybe it is because I started out digital, but lugging around extra pages I do not need is not fun. If I am going to break my back lugging around the three dead Ents, I rather those dead Ents tell me more about character creation options and other mechanics than blabbering about irrelvant lore here and there. If I want lore, I will bring the dead Ents that talk about lore. Lugging the real thing around, I finally felt like a proper badass carrying the physical burden and responsibility of being a GM, but I think I much rather carry them less physically after experiencing it a few times.
I personally prefer no lore, but I will compromise on minimal universal generic lore for introductory purposes. If people want to enjoy reading cover to cover, there are novels for that. I want D&D game books to be manuals. I do read D&D books for fun too, but I value them as tools more when I actually run the game. I do not care that orcs in the Sword Coast are barbaric when I am running the game, and the adventure book and setting book I am using already tells me some of the orcs are barbaric. I do not need to be told orcs are barbaric multiple times, and I definitely do not want to be told orcs are barbaric if I am running an adventure in a setting where orcs are not.
And on the topic of monsters, the concept of having physical monster BOOKS is a stupid idea without the relevant physical support tools, in this case CARDS (Wizards and Galeforce9 stopped working together to make cards). I run my games mostly digitally, but if I want to go full physical, even with physical bookmarks, it is still a pain in the ass to flip through multiple pages back and forth compared to just looking at the right card behind the GM screen. MM got card support, but FTOD and BP:GOTG do not, and the new MM probably will not have card support either. And lugging around a few cards is way easier than lugging around the MM.
I love all of those cards, and wish WotC would make them or license them back to GF9!
I have mixed emotions when it comes to monster books, on one hand i love haveing monsters all grouped together, on the other it is not a good place for the lore for many of the reasons debated in this thread. I feel they are a nesaccary "evil" excuse the pun even though it was intended 😜.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby.
Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
YES! Indoctrinate them in official 'must obey' lore from day one! Again, why does there have to be official lore?
ouch! jeez, it's like feeding emus. calm down! we're interacting over crumbs, not whether people get to keep their whole hands here.
what the hell is 'must obey' about an optional list of celtic gods in PHB appendix B or the first two barbarian flavor blurbs including the word 'tribe' or leaving enough context that a new player doesn't assume elves make toys all day? i didn't recommend adding setting specific details, just leaving the general stuff that's already there.
There are plenty of examples of Elves in film and other media and maybe the Elves of that particular campaign do make toys all day. Who's to judge?
The lists of gods doesn't really describe any of them outside of names and domains.
Me, I will judge. 🤣
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I have mixed emotions when it comes to monster books, on one hand i love haveing monsters all grouped together, on the other it is not a good place for the lore for many of the reasons debated in this thread. I feel they are a nesaccary "evil" excuse the pun even though it was intended 😜.
The core problem is that there are two contradictory objectives when dealing with physical books:
If you're trying to find a creature by name, you want things in alphabetical order -- if you don't actually know the monster already, how are you going to know that to find the dao you need to look under Genies.
If you're trying to find a type of creature to fill a particular role, you want creatures of that type grouped together so you can just browse through them and find the one you want. Also, if you're using multiple creatures, it cuts down on page-flipping by quite a bit if the creatures are physically close to one another.
In actual use I think the first is more valuable than the second, because typically what I really want is creatures that fit a specific theme (in the temple of the evil serpent goddess, I might have mundane snakes, and nagas, and medusae, and yuan-ti, and a marilith), and since a given creature probably falls under multiple themes, it's not really practical to do that with a physical book.
I have mixed emotions when it comes to monster books, on one hand i love haveing monsters all grouped together, on the other it is not a good place for the lore for many of the reasons debated in this thread. I feel they are a nesaccary "evil" excuse the pun even though it was intended 😜.
The core problem is that there are two contradictory objectives when dealing with physical books:
If you're trying to find a creature by name, you want things in alphabetical order -- if you don't actually know the monster already, how are you going to know that to find the dao you need to look under Genies.
If you're trying to find a type of creature to fill a particular role, you want creatures of that type grouped together so you can just browse through them and find the one you want. Also, if you're using multiple creatures, it cuts down on page-flipping by quite a bit if the creatures are physically close to one another.
In actual use I think the first is more valuable than the second, because typically what I really want is creatures that fit a specific theme (in the temple of the evil serpent goddess, I might have mundane snakes, and nagas, and medusae, and yuan-ti, and a marilith), and since a given creature probably falls under multiple themes, it's not really practical to do that with a physical book.
In books at the very end of them, is an old thing called an INDEX.
in this INDEX, listed alphabetically and with page references one can quickly find what they wish. The 5E MM book has such a thing, very useful.
Anything made thereafter, I personally have no idea and don’t care.
To give an example of something they excised that is no loss, consider this paragraph from the description of a Dwarf:
Dwarven skin ranges from deep brown to a paler hue tinged with red, but the most common shades are light brown or deep tan, like certain tones of earth. Their hair, worn long but in simple styles, is usually black, gray, or brown, though paler dwarves often have red hair. Male dwarves value their beards highly and groom them carefully.
I have never, in art or games, seen Dwarven skin color, hair color, or hair style treated as anything but "the same variety as exists in humans" (while video games often allow unnatural colors, they do it for everyone). Beards are a bit more characteristic... but no-one will think twice about a beardless dwarf, and plenty of people have absorbed the concept of the bearded female dwarf. Similar paragraphs exist in the entry for elf, halfling, and gnome, and are equally useless there -- there's a certain tendency towards unnatural hair colors, particularly for elves, but typically if they're allowed at all everyone can use them, even humans.
Maybe I am misreading what you are saying here. Are you saying you have "never" seen pictures of Dwarves that were only homogenous. I would argue that the variety in D&D is a new thing. Even BFG3's trial version didn't have much or any of variation for dwarves. It's been a while since I saw Lord of the Rings, but I don't think any of their humanoids had any variety until recently.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Didn't mean to interrupt the discussion, but that prompted me to investigate.
Maybe I am misreading what you are saying here. Are you saying you have "never" seen pictures of Dwarves that were only homogenous.
I have never seen anything to indicate that being homogeneous, if they were, was more than a coincidence. If they only ever come from one area, sure, they're probably somewhat homogeneous, but no more so than the humans coming from the same area.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
In my opinion, the PHB is NOT the best point of entry right now. I did it five years ago, and as a brand spanking new GM, my dumbass bought the PHB, then proceeded to get the Legendary Bundle soon after, and then told my players about all the cool extra options. On top of scheduling conflicts, we already spent two sessions just going through the PHB, and I thought getting the Legendary Bundle in the middle of it was a good idea, so third session zero it is. To me, the best point of entry is the BR/SRD. And if the group wants to get to the action asap, then skip character creation entirely and pick one of the premade characters off Wizards' website. BR/SRD is free and contains everything you need mechanically to run the game. Other important stuff like session zero and strong communication can be learned from other sources.
Maybe it is because I started out digital, but lugging around extra pages I do not need is not fun. If I am going to break my back lugging around the three dead Ents, I rather those dead Ents tell me more about character creation options and other mechanics than blabbering about irrelvant lore here and there. If I want lore, I will bring the dead Ents that talk about lore. Lugging the real thing around, I finally felt like a proper badass carrying the physical burden and responsibility of being a GM, but I think I much rather carry them less physically after experiencing it a few times.
I personally prefer no lore, but I will compromise on minimal universal generic lore for introductory purposes. If people want to enjoy reading cover to cover, there are novels for that. I want D&D game books to be manuals. I do read D&D books for fun too, but I value them as tools more when I actually run the game. I do not care that orcs in the Sword Coast are barbaric when I am running the game, and the adventure book and setting book I am using already tells me some of the orcs are barbaric. I do not need to be told orcs are barbaric multiple times, and I definitely do not want to be told orcs are barbaric if I am running an adventure in a setting where orcs are not.
And on the topic of monsters, the concept of having physical monster BOOKS is a stupid idea without the relevant physical support tools, in this case CARDS (Wizards and Galeforce9 stopped working together to make cards). I run my games mostly digitally, but if I want to go full physical, even with physical bookmarks, it is still a pain in the ass to flip through multiple pages back and forth compared to just looking at the right card behind the GM screen. MM got card support, but FTOD and BP:GOTG do not, and the new MM probably will not have card support either. And lugging around a few cards is way easier than lugging around the MM.
if one can easily dip their toes without purchasing, then why decry additional content in the expanded for-pay version of that? especially when the lore/flavor/theme is concentrated around character creation to spark imagination and not around the rules which might be referenced with some frequency.
i'm confused why 11 pages into the "dwindling hope for the future of D&D" thread it seems like "less setting specific lore in the PHB" is the fix when the players' handbook has so little setting specific lore as it is. and that pantheons appendix is great, by the way! great use of space and helpful on many occasions (personal opinion)!
My experience with getting potential new players has been having everything they need, and all they have to invest in the game is a little time. Having both physical and digital copies I can share helps immensely with recruiting new players. The PHB and the SCAG are My 2 most loaned books with XGtE a close 3rd and TCoE right there, as the new players gain experience. To me obviously those books have a need for some lore, as the lore is the most often discussed part of the game right along side, which die is called what? It is the lore that sucks them in, at least in my local and anecdotal experience.
I am speaking to officially published lore used in officially published settings and adventures, homebrew well is homebrew and that really comes down to an agreement between those at that particular table.
Apology both accepted and appreciated. Perhaps I took your comments a little too personally. For my part in any misunderstanding I too apologize.
If the lore in the PHB was more generic and less setting specific things would’ve gone a lot smoother despite the chaos. For example, the whole “between two worlds” bit about half-elves… not a thing in my world as half-elves are generally seen as equivalent to humans, as are half-orcs, half-goblinoids, etc. And pretty much most of the lore about hobgoblins doesn’t fit my world either since they are as common as elves and just as well tolerated, not that elves are entirely well tolerated either. Orcs and goblinoids walk metropolitan streets alongside dwarves and elves and gnomes and nobody really bats an eye. Tabaxi, Tieflings, and Dragonborn on the other hand wouldn’t even dare attempt to walk the same streets in many cities, lest they be at best arrested or at worst attacked on sight.
If the lore in the player facing books gave us a little lore about each species but kept any reference to how they fit into the world at large to a minimum, that would have been nice. Leave lore about how they fit into greater society to the DM facing setting books.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They kinda gotta include a li’l sumpinsumpin, a li’l taste, just to whet their appetites and spark off their imaginations. It should just be kept as minimal and generic as possible so it doesn’t step on DMs’ toes.
Two short paragraphs of flavor text about a species without mentioning how that species fits into the world should aught be alright. Mention how graceful and keen of eye the elves are and a little about the trance and leave it at that. Mention how hardy dwarves are and a bit about their connection to the earth and stop there. Mention how the orcs are tough and generally revere martial prowess, but stop there. That’s all generally generic enough that it won’t lorelock anyone, but still provides new players with something to go off of. And it means they can strip all of that away from the features & traits themselves to keep those purely mechanical instead of the blend of flavor text and mechanics that they are now. That would result both in keeping the book neutral in terms of how much space is actually dedicated to flavor text, while simultaneously reducing confusion about what’s RAW and what isn’t.
Don’t tell us anything about how any of those species interact with each other, or how common they are, or how accepted they are by society in the PHB or other player facing books. I agree with you that all of this type of lore doesn’t belong in those spaces. They should leave all that stuff for the setting books. Leave that stuff for DMs to determine for themselves.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby. Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Thank you, and yes no need for the lore to paint things into corners. Detailed lore needs more space than books like the PHB can provide and keep the page count and price reasonable for the target audience.
I limit several things in the games, all published adventures and settings, I DM simply because I am not good enough to deal with them at this point, I do not hide that fact it is just what I do as a stop gap until I can do a better job as a DM.
As a player I am respectful of what the DM says is allowed or not. I do ask why when something pops up that we haven't discussed that goes counter to the published rules, usually during a break or at the end of the session, I guess I am blessed that everyone I play with is easy going in that way. Not to say we don't have drama at the table but nothing like back in the day when a fisticuffs would breakout a few times a year or worse some of the stuff I see posted around the web.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
You-tube DM’s are a dime a dozen, and worth about as much.
As a DM/GM I’d like to see a small section in the current Basic Rules in the DM Tools Section that gave a quick introduction to basic adventure building, something to wet the appetite.
Something like that might make the DMG the second best selling D&D book, who knows. It just my personal opinion.
Anyone can learn the game however they wish, best to learn from several viewpoints and then make up their own mind on how they want to play.
Hell I wonder what the sales numbers would be for a bundle of just the three core 5E books ( PHB, DMG, and MM) for $75?
To give an example of something they excised that is no loss, consider this paragraph from the description of a Dwarf:
I have never, in art or games, seen Dwarven skin color, hair color, or hair style treated as anything but "the same variety as exists in humans" (while video games often allow unnatural colors, they do it for everyone). Beards are a bit more characteristic... but no-one will think twice about a beardless dwarf, and plenty of people have absorbed the concept of the bearded female dwarf. Similar paragraphs exist in the entry for elf, halfling, and gnome, and are equally useless there -- there's a certain tendency towards unnatural hair colors, particularly for elves, but typically if they're allowed at all everyone can use them, even humans.
This is another area the UA does a good job with. Dwarves if condenses down to “squat and often bearded”; Teiflings (which are IP specific and not common knowledge) have a bit more in-depth descriptions, though still not much more than the minimums required to convey information about something new players would not intrinsically grasp.
I think it is also notable that we should be getting more art than any other PHB, which further reduces the need for species descriptions. I am personally hoping we get art showing multiple members of the species, instead of the typical “here is one example” art typically used to showcase a species. Additionally, with the expanded subclass art, I hope Wizards does a good job showcasing examples species in non-traditional classes - they have done a better job at showing things like Orc Wizards and the like, but would be nice to see even more.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
So there's a couple of thoughts I have with this.
First and foremost: yes, I feel that there has been a drop in the relative level of content, and when you are only releasing 3-4 books a year having one that underdelivers (even as the price of the books continues to increase; Spelljammer cost me $90 in my native canada and it was not worth it) is going to leave a really bad taste in my mouth and make me seriously question the products being put out after the fact. Like you can go back to see what I wrote about SJ but the short explanation is it had a terrible player's section that lacked any sort of meaningful rules for dealing with boats in space, a poorly balanced railroady module and admittedly a banger monster guide but not one that justified such a high price tag.
Earlier in the thread Caerwyn Talked about how they responded to the desires of the fan base to bring back earlier settings and I feel like this is a misconception as I review the modules and adventures and such; Most of them feel like they're riding on the legacy of the previous titles while doing wierd and/or stupid things with them, Like putting them in places that don't make sense (why is Dragonbait in chult? Also how is he still alive at this point?) radically altering their history (Apparently Jander sunstar is a multiversal entity now? Also D&D has paralel realities? I guess?) or completely rewriting characters (Why is Doctor Mordenheim a woman and apparently a lesbian?).
Theres also what happened with Multiverse which IMHO ruined so many player options by gutting any sort of depth or lore or identity from the various races; if you just remove any reference to physical characteristics they all become completely interchangable.
There original content isn't that much better. Like my Gm tried so damn hard to make Radiant citadel work, he went out of his way to try and gussy up the npc's and the Incarnates and everything else but it became more and more clear that outside of a handful of quests (like the one with the soul shaker; that thing absolutely feels like something that would of been dreamt up in the american south) it just came down to multi-cultural doctor phil with the party just talking down the irate locals and us then heading back to the Radiant citadel. Which is a shame because as a player I'd love to see other cultures being given the opportunity to have a properly developed D&D setting/campaign.
Like... the game is 5 decades old. I have been playing it to varying degrees for 60% of that time. It should have more depth and narrative and lore now then it did at the start of at least this edition, but it just doesn't.
Let’s not forget an even better version of the basic rules, the 5E SRD, a rules set that has more material than the basic rules PDF, and surprisingly it is FREE.
How much “Official Lore”, is in that set? If one where to actually read the SRD, one would find the material generic enough to give the general idea that the only limit is the imagination of the user.
”Official Lore” form previously published material can remain right where it belongs, in the places where it would be most effective and relevant, and separate from “lore” that is broad enough to serve as a foundation to develop and even refine that which is and that which can be.
As a Player/DM the more it cost me to get into the hobby, the less incentive I have to jump on every little thing that serves no value or purpose, that to me personally is nothing more than over explained and overpriced fluff.
ouch! jeez, it's like feeding emus. calm down! we're interacting over crumbs, not whether people get to keep their whole hands here.
what the hell is 'must obey' about an optional list of celtic gods in PHB appendix B or the first two barbarian flavor blurbs including the word 'tribe' or leaving enough context that a new player doesn't assume elves make toys all day? i didn't recommend adding setting specific details, just leaving the general stuff that's already there.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
In my opinion, the PHB is NOT the best point of entry right now. I did it five years ago, and as a brand spanking new GM, my dumbass bought the PHB, then proceeded to get the Legendary Bundle soon after, and then told my players about all the cool extra options. On top of scheduling conflicts, we already spent two sessions just going through the PHB, and I thought getting the Legendary Bundle in the middle of it was a good idea, so third session zero it is. To me, the best point of entry is the BR/SRD. And if the group wants to get to the action asap, then skip character creation entirely and pick one of the premade characters off Wizards' website. BR/SRD is free and contains everything you need mechanically to run the game. Other important stuff like session zero and strong communication can be learned from other sources.
Maybe it is because I started out digital, but lugging around extra pages I do not need is not fun. If I am going to break my back lugging around the three dead Ents, I rather those dead Ents tell me more about character creation options and other mechanics than blabbering about irrelvant lore here and there. If I want lore, I will bring the dead Ents that talk about lore. Lugging the real thing around, I finally felt like a proper badass carrying the physical burden and responsibility of being a GM, but I think I much rather carry them less physically after experiencing it a few times.
I personally prefer no lore, but I will compromise on minimal universal generic lore for introductory purposes. If people want to enjoy reading cover to cover, there are novels for that. I want D&D game books to be manuals. I do read D&D books for fun too, but I value them as tools more when I actually run the game. I do not care that orcs in the Sword Coast are barbaric when I am running the game, and the adventure book and setting book I am using already tells me some of the orcs are barbaric. I do not need to be told orcs are barbaric multiple times, and I definitely do not want to be told orcs are barbaric if I am running an adventure in a setting where orcs are not.
And on the topic of monsters, the concept of having physical monster BOOKS is a stupid idea without the relevant physical support tools, in this case CARDS (Wizards and Galeforce9 stopped working together to make cards). I run my games mostly digitally, but if I want to go full physical, even with physical bookmarks, it is still a pain in the ass to flip through multiple pages back and forth compared to just looking at the right card behind the GM screen. MM got card support, but FTOD and BP:GOTG do not, and the new MM probably will not have card support either. And lugging around a few cards is way easier than lugging around the MM.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
if one can easily dip their toes without purchasing, then why decry additional content in the expanded for-pay version of that? especially when the lore/flavor/theme is concentrated around character creation to spark imagination and not around the rules which might be referenced with some frequency.
i'm confused why 11 pages into the "dwindling hope for the future of D&D" thread it seems like "less setting specific lore in the PHB" is the fix when the players' handbook has so little setting specific lore as it is. and that pantheons appendix is great, by the way! great use of space and helpful on many occasions (personal opinion)!
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
I love all of those cards, and wish WotC would make them or license them back to GF9!
I have mixed emotions when it comes to monster books, on one hand i love haveing monsters all grouped together, on the other it is not a good place for the lore for many of the reasons debated in this thread. I feel they are a nesaccary "evil" excuse the pun even though it was intended 😜.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Me, I will judge. 🤣
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
The core problem is that there are two contradictory objectives when dealing with physical books:
In actual use I think the first is more valuable than the second, because typically what I really want is creatures that fit a specific theme (in the temple of the evil serpent goddess, I might have mundane snakes, and nagas, and medusae, and yuan-ti, and a marilith), and since a given creature probably falls under multiple themes, it's not really practical to do that with a physical book.
In books at the very end of them, is an old thing called an INDEX.
in this INDEX, listed alphabetically and with page references one can quickly find what they wish.
The 5E MM book has such a thing, very useful.
Anything made thereafter, I personally have no idea and don’t care.
Maybe I am misreading what you are saying here. Are you saying you have "never" seen pictures of Dwarves that were only homogenous. I would argue that the variety in D&D is a new thing. Even BFG3's trial version didn't have much or any of variation for dwarves. It's been a while since I saw Lord of the Rings, but I don't think any of their humanoids had any variety until recently.
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Didn't mean to interrupt the discussion, but that prompted me to investigate.
I have never seen anything to indicate that being homogeneous, if they were, was more than a coincidence. If they only ever come from one area, sure, they're probably somewhat homogeneous, but no more so than the humans coming from the same area.
My experience with getting potential new players has been having everything they need, and all they have to invest in the game is a little time. Having both physical and digital copies I can share helps immensely with recruiting new players. The PHB and the SCAG are My 2 most loaned books with XGtE a close 3rd and TCoE right there, as the new players gain experience. To me obviously those books have a need for some lore, as the lore is the most often discussed part of the game right along side, which die is called what? It is the lore that sucks them in, at least in my local and anecdotal experience.
I am speaking to officially published lore used in officially published settings and adventures, homebrew well is homebrew and that really comes down to an agreement between those at that particular table.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.