Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
They do. People do not need that fluff. In fact, the vast majority of the time it's completely irrelevant because the PCs aren't from some ancestral lands from which the species originated, they're from the local culture and they'll be like people from that culture.
And the thing about your copy of Dragonlance is that's an extra $30+ bucks new to get at the material, which again is going to be a bit off-putting for a group that's just starting to dip a toe in the waters.
If you want to dip your toes in the water... adventure books include the amount of background you need to run the adventure. If you want to get a new player interested in a PC species, the main things you need are (a) a description of the cool things you can do, and (b) a cool picture.
Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
i feel like dipping one's toes comes before purchase of core books. anyone dropping a hundred dollars on a new hobby before "dipping their toes in" had better hope they remembered to take their cellphone out of their pocket before the metaphor gets rowdy.
the PHB gives you race and class, then session zero gives you a chance to ask questions that help you integrate (or make a change). that's plenty to start with, isn't it? the dragonlance book isn't an additional cost to everyone any more than is spelljammer, ravinca, or the tortle package. it's optional on a sliding scale of relevancy that can dip into negative territory. would it be nice to have a campaign-adjacent setting book so your character knows all the best most appropriate ways to swear? yes. do you need to know what size gap a plasmoid can squeeze though before you accost your first caravan guard, goblin, or giant rat? by Tymora's itchy nose, no you do not.
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!
And the thing about your copy of Dragonlance is that's an extra $30+ bucks new to get at the material, which again is going to be a bit off-putting for a group that's just starting to dip a toe in the waters. A few paragraphs of simple lore in the PHB is unlikely to displace any other content you would find particularly crucial, especially with all the background tables being pulled, and make it much more accessible for people who want to pick up the core 3 and try out the game. There's a reason it's called role-playing, and the core books should provide a simple but solid foundation for that, not just tell them to figure it out for themselves or buy more products.
Are you suggesting they should include lore on every setting in the PHB? I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous; they own like a dozen of the things not even counting the plethora of MTG settings. Some Forgotten Realms information I can understand, maybe with a nod towards how Eberron is drastically different, and it sounds like Planescape might even end up being their "backstage of the Multiverse" going forward - but they shouldn't branch out from there to covering Krynn and Greyhawk and Ravenloft and Athas and Mystara and Blackmoor and Al'Qadim and Rokugan and Spelljammer etc etc all in the PHB. Expecting players to buy a setting book or module to get information on those settings is reasonable, and the ones who don't want to do that can simply hit up the nearest wiki for free as a starting point.
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread so I'll say this as my 2cp worth......For whatever it is worth, It could be worse, it could be the Games Workshop model of revamping editions and rules with increasing regularity, for context; Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader/1st edition was release in 1987, Warhammer 40k 2nd edition was released 1993, 3rd edition was 1998, 4th edition was 2004, 5th edition 2008, 6th edition 2012, 7th edition 2014, 8th edition 2017, 9th edition 2020 and finally 10th edition just last year 2023.
Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
They do. People do not need that fluff. In fact, the vast majority of the time it's completely irrelevant because the PCs aren't from some ancestral lands from which the species originated, they're from the local culture and they'll be like people from that culture.
Building off the above, let's, for fun, look at what "fluff" players get during character creation under the 2024 model.
MMM provides players a couple paragraphs description for each species, including where they came from, some of their core personality traits, and a bit about their abilities. The types of ability the species have, as well as the flavor of their names, also provides information about what the species is like. In Unearthed Arcana 1, which had species options, we got even more information (about a paragraph more content per species) than was provided for the species in MMM, so it looks like Wizards has decided they will be expanding on MMM's model with the core books. MMM is sufficient on its own to allow a player to figure out what a species' schtick is; the new Core Books seem like they will be sufficient as well.
We have not seen any 2024 classes (in the way MMM provided 2024 monsters and species), so we have to look at the UA to see what information someone is getting about their chosen class. Again, here we have several paragraphs of information about what makes up the class--where their power is drawn from, some suggestions on how the powers manifest, some suggestions of what types of character might fit with that class.
I really, really do not see a problem with there not being enough information to make up a character. With years of teaching new players under my belt, I can say most of them do not read more than the introductory paragraphs anyway, and many do not look beyond the art for species selection or the (generally self-explanatory) names of classes. Frankly, less is sometimes more--I think we all know that new players often are turned off by those big walls of text, and a bite sized chunk of the basics might be more palatable to them.
Frankly, a lot of the issues folks have here could be accomplished through D&D Beyond’s articles… if the articles were in any way organized and useful to read.
Consider earlier editions of D&D - a lot of the best lore did not come from the adventures or sourcebooks, but from Dragon or Dungeon magazine. These supplements were often lore-heavy, mechanically light, providing plenty of information without taking up space in an actual book.
Beyond could fill that role very easily—it already is increasingly running “here is how to run aspects of the game” articles; lore dumps would not be that much harder—especially since a lot of it already has been written and could just be repackaged into a modern article form.
But, for that to be helpful as a tool, Beyond would need to get a whole lot better in its search tools and organization. The site is a bit of a mess, vastly outclassed in a lot of regards by the 4e digital tools.
writing a whole magazine must be tough, but i feel like shutting down had just as much to do corporation stuff: wanting either more control over frequent content or else saving up the best ideas for the hardback books. or both. so they've ceded that space to 3rd party vendors rather than compete with them. but for many of us that just devalues the ocean of 'unofficial' lore on offer. there's so much to sift through and no guarantee of quality or continued relevancy. DBB could meliorate some of this by offering articles that recommend "additional reading material" like novels and certain highlighted dmsguild supplements. of course we'd be skeptical about whether this was secretly paid-for advertising... so they could just be up-front about it.
additionally, they might offer subscribed members more frequent deep-dive lore content and bring back encounters of the week. it wouldn't hurt to have a reason to land on the front page occasionally instead of... let's see... four blurbs selling humblewood, two blurbs selling vecna pre-order, something about that MAPS thing i don't pay enough to use yet, a "turning 50" blurb about upcoming book sales, and a reminder that there's a dnd video game you can buy. somebody get ed greenwood over here to talk about how the Second Sundering affected church attendance in Cormyr or how the Spellplague changed caravan insurance coverage in Yartar! most players might never go to those places but the fleshing out of the world gives it life and gives me ideas that carry over into my campaign. also, it doesn't require hiring programmers like creating new (or fixing existing) digital tools would. there's lots of room for d&d to grow.
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!
And the thing about your copy of Dragonlance is that's an extra $30+ bucks new to get at the material, which again is going to be a bit off-putting for a group that's just starting to dip a toe in the waters.
If you want to dip your toes in the water... adventure books include the amount of background you need to run the adventure. If you want to get a new player interested in a PC species, the main things you need are (a) a description of the cool things you can do, and (b) a cool picture.
Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
Isn’t that kind of thing available for free in the basic rules? Or is it not? I realize I’ve never actually read them over.
And the thing about your copy of Dragonlance is that's an extra $30+ bucks new to get at the material, which again is going to be a bit off-putting for a group that's just starting to dip a toe in the waters.
If you want to dip your toes in the water... adventure books include the amount of background you need to run the adventure. If you want to get a new player interested in a PC species, the main things you need are (a) a description of the cool things you can do, and (b) a cool picture.
Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
Isn’t that kind of thing available for free in the basic rules? Or is it not? I realize I’ve never actually read them over.
At the moment, yes, that portion of the PHB is also in the Basic Rules, and should remain in both sources imo. These are not two separately designed documents; the entries in the Basic Rules are lifted straight from the PHB, and I expect the current set to be replaced alongside the current PHB in September. Ergo it seems logical to conclude that if material is going to remain in the BR, it needs to be in the PHB as well.
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread so I'll say this as my 2cp worth......For whatever it is worth, It could be worse, it could be the Games Workshop model of revamping editions and rules with increasing regularity, for context; Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader/1st edition was release in 1987, Warhammer 40k 2nd edition was released 1993, 3rd edition was 1998, 4th edition was 2004, 5th edition 2008, 6th edition 2012, 7th edition 2014, 8th edition 2017, 9th edition 2020 and finally 10th edition just last year 2023.
Yeah, but to be fair the supplements and army books from one edition are forwards compatible and the main rules are backwards compatible for the most part. So, like, for example the Eldar codex was still relevant and useable through several editions of the game. That’s the equivalent of all the Warlock subclasses we currently have available being useable across 3 editions of the game.
Hell I would be curious as to how hard a basic DMG and MM would be to develop?
They wouldn’t hand over all that is in the full text of such documents, but enough to spark the fire that might just push one to consider the cost of going for the full package.
The basic rules are but a sample of the whole, and IMHO wonder at how it probably entices people to seek out the whole.
Wizbro has means to rectify the situation they have. It just feels or looks like other factors are distracting from what, to a segment of the community's perception, poor choices of decisions that were made that could have been better handled in the public eye.
We have no idea what the new update will bring, how it will impact the community and game as a whole, and what the response will be.
but that’s my two coppers worth of ranting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Building off the above, let's, for fun, look at what "fluff" players get during character creation under the 2024 model.
For comparison, here's what the 1e PHB had to say about the culture of dwarves
The race of dwarves typically dwells in hilly or mountainous regions.
That's it. If you want more detail, check the monster manual -- which didn't actually have meaningfully more about the culture, but did give things like physical description.
Hell I would be curious as to how hard a basic DMG and MM would be to develop?
Zero effort, since it's already done. Chapter 12 of the basic rules is a selected set of creatures from the monster manual, chapters 13-15 are from the DMG.
Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
They do. People do not need that fluff. In fact, the vast majority of the time it's completely irrelevant because the PCs aren't from some ancestral lands from which the species originated, they're from the local culture and they'll be like people from that culture.
Building off the above, let's, for fun, look at what "fluff" players get during character creation under the 2024 model.
MMM provides players a couple paragraphs description for each species, including where they came from, some of their core personality traits, and a bit about their abilities. The types of ability the species have, as well as the flavor of their names, also provides information about what the species is like. In Unearthed Arcana 1, which had species options, we got even more information (about a paragraph more content per species) than was provided for the species in MMM, so it looks like Wizards has decided they will be expanding on MMM's model with the core books. MMM is sufficient on its own to allow a player to figure out what a species' schtick is; the new Core Books seem like they will be sufficient as well.
We have not seen any 2024 classes (in the way MMM provided 2024 monsters and species), so we have to look at the UA to see what information someone is getting about their chosen class. Again, here we have several paragraphs of information about what makes up the class--where their power is drawn from, some suggestions on how the powers manifest, some suggestions of what types of character might fit with that class.
I really, really do not see a problem with there not being enough information to make up a character. With years of teaching new players under my belt, I can say most of them do not read more than the introductory paragraphs anyway, and many do not look beyond the art for species selection or the (generally self-explanatory) names of classes. Frankly, less is sometimes more--I think we all know that new players often are turned off by those big walls of text, and a bite sized chunk of the basics might be more palatable to them.
As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not pushing for “walls of text” like in MToF or VGtM for the races in the PHB. Would prefer a little more body than MotM, but something between that and the entries in the current PHB should provide some good inspiration for the people who want it without using up too many all-important pages that could otherwise go towards… what exactly are people saying we need to preserve page count for?
Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
They do. People do not need that fluff. In fact, the vast majority of the time it's completely irrelevant because the PCs aren't from some ancestral lands from which the species originated, they're from the local culture and they'll be like people from that culture.
Building off the above, let's, for fun, look at what "fluff" players get during character creation under the 2024 model.
MMM provides players a couple paragraphs description for each species, including where they came from, some of their core personality traits, and a bit about their abilities. The types of ability the species have, as well as the flavor of their names, also provides information about what the species is like. In Unearthed Arcana 1, which had species options, we got even more information (about a paragraph more content per species) than was provided for the species in MMM, so it looks like Wizards has decided they will be expanding on MMM's model with the core books. MMM is sufficient on its own to allow a player to figure out what a species' schtick is; the new Core Books seem like they will be sufficient as well.
We have not seen any 2024 classes (in the way MMM provided 2024 monsters and species), so we have to look at the UA to see what information someone is getting about their chosen class. Again, here we have several paragraphs of information about what makes up the class--where their power is drawn from, some suggestions on how the powers manifest, some suggestions of what types of character might fit with that class.
I really, really do not see a problem with there not being enough information to make up a character. With years of teaching new players under my belt, I can say most of them do not read more than the introductory paragraphs anyway, and many do not look beyond the art for species selection or the (generally self-explanatory) names of classes. Frankly, less is sometimes more--I think we all know that new players often are turned off by those big walls of text, and a bite sized chunk of the basics might be more palatable to them.
As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not pushing for “walls of text” like in MToF or VGtM for the races in the PHB. Would prefer a little more body than MotM, but something between that and the entries in the current PHB should provide some good inspiration for the people who want it without using up too many all-important pages that could otherwise go towards… what exactly are people saying we need to preserve page count for?
If you have followed the development of the 2024 release, you would know the answer to that--more subclasses than the original PHB held and art (which is probably more important to the majority of players for getting the feel of things than text alone--picture is worth a thousand words and all that). Likely also fleshing out some of the other aspects of the PHB as well, since I think there has been some discussion about clearing up some of the more ambiguous aspects of the 2014 rules.
And, again, maybe you want more body about your species. If that is the case, here you go. But, the reality? MMM and the UA content already contain about the same level of useful information as the 2014 PHB does--there is not really any "in between". Sure, the 2014 PHB also contains setting specific lore for those species in Forgotten Realms (but only another couple of paragraphs)--but that information remains redundant with other sources, irrelevant to the largest setting (homebrew), only semi-relevant to the second largest setting (homebrew based on an official campaign setting.
Fortunately, as I stated in my first post on this thread, Wizards understands their players and what their players actually need. They are not going to give us filler when they can give us content--and when the people (like you) who apparently need the filler can easily get it elsewhere.
Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
They do. People do not need that fluff. In fact, the vast majority of the time it's completely irrelevant because the PCs aren't from some ancestral lands from which the species originated, they're from the local culture and they'll be like people from that culture.
Building off the above, let's, for fun, look at what "fluff" players get during character creation under the 2024 model.
MMM provides players a couple paragraphs description for each species, including where they came from, some of their core personality traits, and a bit about their abilities. The types of ability the species have, as well as the flavor of their names, also provides information about what the species is like. In Unearthed Arcana 1, which had species options, we got even more information (about a paragraph more content per species) than was provided for the species in MMM, so it looks like Wizards has decided they will be expanding on MMM's model with the core books. MMM is sufficient on its own to allow a player to figure out what a species' schtick is; the new Core Books seem like they will be sufficient as well.
We have not seen any 2024 classes (in the way MMM provided 2024 monsters and species), so we have to look at the UA to see what information someone is getting about their chosen class. Again, here we have several paragraphs of information about what makes up the class--where their power is drawn from, some suggestions on how the powers manifest, some suggestions of what types of character might fit with that class.
I really, really do not see a problem with there not being enough information to make up a character. With years of teaching new players under my belt, I can say most of them do not read more than the introductory paragraphs anyway, and many do not look beyond the art for species selection or the (generally self-explanatory) names of classes. Frankly, less is sometimes more--I think we all know that new players often are turned off by those big walls of text, and a bite sized chunk of the basics might be more palatable to them.
As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not pushing for “walls of text” like in MToF or VGtM for the races in the PHB. Would prefer a little more body than MotM, but something between that and the entries in the current PHB should provide some good inspiration for the people who want it without using up too many all-important pages that could otherwise go towards… what exactly are people saying we need to preserve page count for?
If you have followed the development of the 2024 release, you would know the answer to that--more subclasses than the original PHB held and art (which is probably more important to the majority of players for getting the feel of things than text alone--picture is worth a thousand words and all that). Likely also fleshing out some of the other aspects of the PHB as well, since I think there has been some discussion about clearing up some of the more ambiguous aspects of the 2014 rules.
And, again, maybe you want more body about your species. If that is the case, here you go. But, the reality? MMM and the UA content already contain about the same level of useful information as the 2014 PHB does--there is not really any "in between". Sure, the 2014 PHB also contains setting specific lore for those species in Forgotten Realms (but only another couple of paragraphs)--but that information remains redundant with other sources, irrelevant to the largest setting (homebrew), only semi-relevant to the second largest setting (homebrew based on an official campaign setting.
Fortunately, as I stated in my first post on this thread, Wizards understands their players and what their players actually need. They are not going to give us filler when they can give us content--and when the people (like you) who apparently need the filler can easily get it elsewhere.
There’s 8 more subclasses than there were in 2014, once you redistribute the excess from Cleric and Wizard. At a guess, I’d predict the pruning of almost the entire background section covers that page count. Where exactly are they hurting for space to the point they can’t write a few paragraphs more than the UA on race info?
Hell I would be curious as to how hard a basic DMG and MM would be to develop?
Zero effort, since it's already done. Chapter 12 of the basic rules is a selected set of creatures from the monster manual, chapters 13-15 are from the DMG.
But is it enough? Personally I find them more heavily weighted to players than those who take up the mantle of the role as a DM/GM.
Monster section is comprehensive enough to be left as is, or expand on how creative a person can be on creating original creature types based on material presented, but the sections for DM workshop could use IMHO use a bit more on the usage of previous defined material in the basic rules and still not give the whole of what the core DMG offers, and maybe add things like simple town, dungeon, and wilderness building to help round out a simple core set of rules that would entice further material exploration.
but as it stands, it just appears IMO a wasted opportunity to fire up the base into getting more heavily invested in what is available, and a potential waste of return on investment that might serve to improve the game as a whole.( and possibly even the financials, depending on how one looks at it. )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Where exactly are they hurting for space to the point they can’t write a few paragraphs more than the UA on race info?
It's always possible to use more space, you just have to decide what's the most valuable. Frankly, the two paragraphs in the UA is about right, it's small enough that people might actually read it, while the blob in the PHB is an easy TL;DR.
Where exactly are they hurting for space to the point they can’t write a few paragraphs more than the UA on race info?
It's always possible to use more space, you just have to decide what's the most valuable. Frankly, the two paragraphs in the UA is about right, it's small enough that people might actually read it, while the blob in the PHB is an easy TL;DR.
And six paragraphs is that much more onerous? I specifically said “something between the PHB and the UA”; I acknowledge that there’s a bloc that feels the current write up is too extensive, but “less is more” only takes you so far when you’re trying to give some foundation people can build a roleplay on before you’re essentially back to “figure it out yourself”, which just seems needlessly reductive and more likely to put people off who are looking for support than a segment of text would be for those who don’t want the support and so won’t glance at it in the first place.
Except you still need to buy the core books on top of that, which is my point. The core books should provide enough material to build a character from scratch and give you some direction on playing into your major character creation points without needing an additional $40 purchase.
They do. People do not need that fluff. In fact, the vast majority of the time it's completely irrelevant because the PCs aren't from some ancestral lands from which the species originated, they're from the local culture and they'll be like people from that culture.
Building off the above, let's, for fun, look at what "fluff" players get during character creation under the 2024 model.
MMM provides players a couple paragraphs description for each species, including where they came from, some of their core personality traits, and a bit about their abilities. The types of ability the species have, as well as the flavor of their names, also provides information about what the species is like. In Unearthed Arcana 1, which had species options, we got even more information (about a paragraph more content per species) than was provided for the species in MMM, so it looks like Wizards has decided they will be expanding on MMM's model with the core books. MMM is sufficient on its own to allow a player to figure out what a species' schtick is; the new Core Books seem like they will be sufficient as well.
We have not seen any 2024 classes (in the way MMM provided 2024 monsters and species), so we have to look at the UA to see what information someone is getting about their chosen class. Again, here we have several paragraphs of information about what makes up the class--where their power is drawn from, some suggestions on how the powers manifest, some suggestions of what types of character might fit with that class.
I really, really do not see a problem with there not being enough information to make up a character. With years of teaching new players under my belt, I can say most of them do not read more than the introductory paragraphs anyway, and many do not look beyond the art for species selection or the (generally self-explanatory) names of classes. Frankly, less is sometimes more--I think we all know that new players often are turned off by those big walls of text, and a bite sized chunk of the basics might be more palatable to them.
As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not pushing for “walls of text” like in MToF or VGtM for the races in the PHB. Would prefer a little more body than MotM, but something between that and the entries in the current PHB should provide some good inspiration for the people who want it without using up too many all-important pages that could otherwise go towards… what exactly are people saying we need to preserve page count for?
If you have followed the development of the 2024 release, you would know the answer to that--more subclasses than the original PHB held and art (which is probably more important to the majority of players for getting the feel of things than text alone--picture is worth a thousand words and all that). Likely also fleshing out some of the other aspects of the PHB as well, since I think there has been some discussion about clearing up some of the more ambiguous aspects of the 2014 rules.
And, again, maybe you want more body about your species. If that is the case, here you go. But, the reality? MMM and the UA content already contain about the same level of useful information as the 2014 PHB does--there is not really any "in between". Sure, the 2014 PHB also contains setting specific lore for those species in Forgotten Realms (but only another couple of paragraphs)--but that information remains redundant with other sources, irrelevant to the largest setting (homebrew), only semi-relevant to the second largest setting (homebrew based on an official campaign setting.
Fortunately, as I stated in my first post on this thread, Wizards understands their players and what their players actually need. They are not going to give us filler when they can give us content--and when the people (like you) who apparently need the filler can easily get it elsewhere.
There’s 8 more subclasses than there were in 2014, once you redistribute the excess from Cleric and Wizard. At a guess, I’d predict the pruning of almost the entire background section covers that page count. Where exactly are they hurting for space to the point they can’t write a few paragraphs more than the UA on race info?
Folks already provided plenty of reasons why it should not be in, from most players not actually needing it, rendering it dead space, to the reality that many players will not read walls of text, to the fact longer texts are a long-known barrier to entry for the game, to the decades-long “but the official lore says X!!!” arguments which can occur, to the fact that the people who need this information can get it elsewhere.
You are the one stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that this is a decision based on ten years of data collection within 5e, and fifty years of a common sense understanding of how folks play the game. The side supporting cutting it has decades of knowledge behind it - the only reason I have seen you give is “But I want it and will ignore the existence of the internet since that would undermine my point.”
The reality? We are getting more subclasses and the most illustrated PHB of all time (illustrations also take up precious space), and there are far, far more important things for the 2024 PHB to flesh out (like mechanics and rules) than something a quick google search can also get you.
Out of curiosity, The_Ace_of_Rogues, would something like this satisfy you as a compromise? Gave a look at a couple different places Wizards released dwarf lore and synthesized the below:
Dwarf:
Resilient like the mountains, dwarves were raised up from the earth in the elder days by a deity of the forge. Called by various names on different worlds—Moradin, Reorx, and others—that god gave dwarves an affinity for stone and metal and for living underground.
Squat and often bearded, the original dwarves carved cities and strongholds into mountainsides and under the earth. Their oldest legends tell of conflicts with the monsters of mountaintops and the Underdark, whether those monsters were towering giants or subterranean horrors. Inspired by those tales, dwarves of any culture often sing of valorous deeds—especially of the little overcoming the mighty.
On some worlds in the multiverse, the first dwarven settlements were built in hills or mountains, and the dwarven families who trace their ancestry to those settlements call themselves hill dwarves or mountain dwarves, respectively. Oerth and Krynn (the worlds of the Greyhawk and Dragonlance settings, respectively) are examples of worlds that have such dwarven communities.
In other worlds, dwarves have given themselves other cultural designations. For example, on the continent of Faerûn in the Forgotten Realms, the dwarves of the south call themselves gold dwarves, and the dwarves of the north are shield dwarves.
---
I think that probably would be a good way to do it. It covers the basics for character creation (where they tend to live, their origins, their affinity for stone). It provides a physical description of them, as well as some lore which might form the basis for a character's goals or quest. It then adds some additional information about different planes, which can serve as inspiration for starting off points for folks using those settings and homebrewers who want to consider different ways they might handle a dwarf culture. It also gives a bit of their personality--a strong oral tradition via song and a belief that one can overcome threats that seem much larger than them.
I think those four paragraphs should provide a happy medium between the UA content and the 2014 Forgotten Realms-only content and would represent a good way to do the 2024 PHB.
They do. People do not need that fluff. In fact, the vast majority of the time it's completely irrelevant because the PCs aren't from some ancestral lands from which the species originated, they're from the local culture and they'll be like people from that culture.
i feel like dipping one's toes comes before purchase of core books. anyone dropping a hundred dollars on a new hobby before "dipping their toes in" had better hope they remembered to take their cellphone out of their pocket before the metaphor gets rowdy.
the PHB gives you race and class, then session zero gives you a chance to ask questions that help you integrate (or make a change). that's plenty to start with, isn't it? the dragonlance book isn't an additional cost to everyone any more than is spelljammer, ravinca, or the tortle package. it's optional on a sliding scale of relevancy that can dip into negative territory. would it be nice to have a campaign-adjacent setting book so your character knows all the best most appropriate ways to swear? yes. do you need to know what size gap a plasmoid can squeeze though before you accost your first caravan guard, goblin, or giant rat? by Tymora's itchy nose, no you do not.
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!
Are you suggesting they should include lore on every setting in the PHB? I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous; they own like a dozen of the things not even counting the plethora of MTG settings. Some Forgotten Realms information I can understand, maybe with a nod towards how Eberron is drastically different, and it sounds like Planescape might even end up being their "backstage of the Multiverse" going forward - but they shouldn't branch out from there to covering Krynn and Greyhawk and Ravenloft and Athas and Mystara and Blackmoor and Al'Qadim and Rokugan and Spelljammer etc etc all in the PHB. Expecting players to buy a setting book or module to get information on those settings is reasonable, and the ones who don't want to do that can simply hit up the nearest wiki for free as a starting point.
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread so I'll say this as my 2cp worth......For whatever it is worth, It could be worse, it could be the Games Workshop model of revamping editions and rules with increasing regularity, for context; Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader/1st edition was release in 1987, Warhammer 40k 2nd edition was released 1993, 3rd edition was 1998, 4th edition was 2004, 5th edition 2008, 6th edition 2012, 7th edition 2014, 8th edition 2017, 9th edition 2020 and finally 10th edition just last year 2023.
Building off the above, let's, for fun, look at what "fluff" players get during character creation under the 2024 model.
MMM provides players a couple paragraphs description for each species, including where they came from, some of their core personality traits, and a bit about their abilities. The types of ability the species have, as well as the flavor of their names, also provides information about what the species is like. In Unearthed Arcana 1, which had species options, we got even more information (about a paragraph more content per species) than was provided for the species in MMM, so it looks like Wizards has decided they will be expanding on MMM's model with the core books. MMM is sufficient on its own to allow a player to figure out what a species' schtick is; the new Core Books seem like they will be sufficient as well.
We have not seen any 2024 classes (in the way MMM provided 2024 monsters and species), so we have to look at the UA to see what information someone is getting about their chosen class. Again, here we have several paragraphs of information about what makes up the class--where their power is drawn from, some suggestions on how the powers manifest, some suggestions of what types of character might fit with that class.
I really, really do not see a problem with there not being enough information to make up a character. With years of teaching new players under my belt, I can say most of them do not read more than the introductory paragraphs anyway, and many do not look beyond the art for species selection or the (generally self-explanatory) names of classes. Frankly, less is sometimes more--I think we all know that new players often are turned off by those big walls of text, and a bite sized chunk of the basics might be more palatable to them.
writing a whole magazine must be tough, but i feel like shutting down had just as much to do corporation stuff: wanting either more control over frequent content or else saving up the best ideas for the hardback books. or both. so they've ceded that space to 3rd party vendors rather than compete with them. but for many of us that just devalues the ocean of 'unofficial' lore on offer. there's so much to sift through and no guarantee of quality or continued relevancy. DBB could meliorate some of this by offering articles that recommend "additional reading material" like novels and certain highlighted dmsguild supplements. of course we'd be skeptical about whether this was secretly paid-for advertising... so they could just be up-front about it.
additionally, they might offer subscribed members more frequent deep-dive lore content and bring back encounters of the week. it wouldn't hurt to have a reason to land on the front page occasionally instead of... let's see... four blurbs selling humblewood, two blurbs selling vecna pre-order, something about that MAPS thing i don't pay enough to use yet, a "turning 50" blurb about upcoming book sales, and a reminder that there's a dnd video game you can buy. somebody get ed greenwood over here to talk about how the Second Sundering affected church attendance in Cormyr or how the Spellplague changed caravan insurance coverage in Yartar! most players might never go to those places but the fleshing out of the world gives it life and gives me ideas that carry over into my campaign. also, it doesn't require hiring programmers like creating new (or fixing existing) digital tools would. there's lots of room for d&d to grow.
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!
Isn’t that kind of thing available for free in the basic rules? Or is it not? I realize I’ve never actually read them over.
At the moment, yes, that portion of the PHB is also in the Basic Rules, and should remain in both sources imo. These are not two separately designed documents; the entries in the Basic Rules are lifted straight from the PHB, and I expect the current set to be replaced alongside the current PHB in September. Ergo it seems logical to conclude that if material is going to remain in the BR, it needs to be in the PHB as well.
Yeah, but to be fair the supplements and army books from one edition are forwards compatible and the main rules are backwards compatible for the most part. So, like, for example the Eldar codex was still relevant and useable through several editions of the game. That’s the equivalent of all the Warlock subclasses we currently have available being useable across 3 editions of the game.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hell I would be curious as to how hard a basic DMG and MM would be to develop?
They wouldn’t hand over all that is in the full text of such documents, but enough to spark the fire that might just push one to consider the cost of going for the full package.
The basic rules are but a sample of the whole, and IMHO wonder at how it probably entices people to seek out the whole.
Wizbro has means to rectify the situation they have. It just feels or looks like other factors are distracting from what, to a segment of the community's perception, poor choices of decisions that were made that could have been better handled in the public eye.
We have no idea what the new update will bring, how it will impact the community and game as a whole, and what the response will be.
but that’s my two coppers worth of ranting.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
For comparison, here's what the 1e PHB had to say about the culture of dwarves
That's it. If you want more detail, check the monster manual -- which didn't actually have meaningfully more about the culture, but did give things like physical description.
Zero effort, since it's already done. Chapter 12 of the basic rules is a selected set of creatures from the monster manual, chapters 13-15 are from the DMG.
As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not pushing for “walls of text” like in MToF or VGtM for the races in the PHB. Would prefer a little more body than MotM, but something between that and the entries in the current PHB should provide some good inspiration for the people who want it without using up too many all-important pages that could otherwise go towards… what exactly are people saying we need to preserve page count for?
If you have followed the development of the 2024 release, you would know the answer to that--more subclasses than the original PHB held and art (which is probably more important to the majority of players for getting the feel of things than text alone--picture is worth a thousand words and all that). Likely also fleshing out some of the other aspects of the PHB as well, since I think there has been some discussion about clearing up some of the more ambiguous aspects of the 2014 rules.
And, again, maybe you want more body about your species. If that is the case, here you go. But, the reality? MMM and the UA content already contain about the same level of useful information as the 2014 PHB does--there is not really any "in between". Sure, the 2014 PHB also contains setting specific lore for those species in Forgotten Realms (but only another couple of paragraphs)--but that information remains redundant with other sources, irrelevant to the largest setting (homebrew), only semi-relevant to the second largest setting (homebrew based on an official campaign setting.
Fortunately, as I stated in my first post on this thread, Wizards understands their players and what their players actually need. They are not going to give us filler when they can give us content--and when the people (like you) who apparently need the filler can easily get it elsewhere.
There’s 8 more subclasses than there were in 2014, once you redistribute the excess from Cleric and Wizard. At a guess, I’d predict the pruning of almost the entire background section covers that page count. Where exactly are they hurting for space to the point they can’t write a few paragraphs more than the UA on race info?
But is it enough? Personally I find them more heavily weighted to players than those who take up the mantle of the role as a DM/GM.
Monster section is comprehensive enough to be left as is, or expand on how creative a person can be on creating original creature types based on material presented, but the sections for DM workshop could use IMHO use a bit more on the usage of previous defined material in the basic rules and still not give the whole of what the core DMG offers, and maybe add things like simple town, dungeon, and wilderness building to help round out a simple core set of rules that would entice further material exploration.
but as it stands, it just appears IMO a wasted opportunity to fire up the base into getting more heavily invested in what is available, and a potential waste of return on investment that might serve to improve the game as a whole.( and possibly even the financials, depending on how one looks at it. )
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
It's always possible to use more space, you just have to decide what's the most valuable. Frankly, the two paragraphs in the UA is about right, it's small enough that people might actually read it, while the blob in the PHB is an easy TL;DR.
And six paragraphs is that much more onerous? I specifically said “something between the PHB and the UA”; I acknowledge that there’s a bloc that feels the current write up is too extensive, but “less is more” only takes you so far when you’re trying to give some foundation people can build a roleplay on before you’re essentially back to “figure it out yourself”, which just seems needlessly reductive and more likely to put people off who are looking for support than a segment of text would be for those who don’t want the support and so won’t glance at it in the first place.
Folks already provided plenty of reasons why it should not be in, from most players not actually needing it, rendering it dead space, to the reality that many players will not read walls of text, to the fact longer texts are a long-known barrier to entry for the game, to the decades-long “but the official lore says X!!!” arguments which can occur, to the fact that the people who need this information can get it elsewhere.
You are the one stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that this is a decision based on ten years of data collection within 5e, and fifty years of a common sense understanding of how folks play the game. The side supporting cutting it has decades of knowledge behind it - the only reason I have seen you give is “But I want it and will ignore the existence of the internet since that would undermine my point.”
The reality? We are getting more subclasses and the most illustrated PHB of all time (illustrations also take up precious space), and there are far, far more important things for the 2024 PHB to flesh out (like mechanics and rules) than something a quick google search can also get you.
Out of curiosity, The_Ace_of_Rogues, would something like this satisfy you as a compromise? Gave a look at a couple different places Wizards released dwarf lore and synthesized the below:
Dwarf:
Resilient like the mountains, dwarves were raised up from the earth in the elder days by a deity of the forge. Called by various names on different worlds—Moradin, Reorx, and others—that god gave dwarves an affinity for stone and metal and for living underground.
Squat and often bearded, the original dwarves carved cities and strongholds into mountainsides and under the earth. Their oldest legends tell of conflicts with the monsters of mountaintops and the Underdark, whether those monsters were towering giants or subterranean horrors. Inspired by those tales, dwarves of any culture often sing of valorous deeds—especially of the little overcoming the mighty.
On some worlds in the multiverse, the first dwarven settlements were built in hills or mountains, and the dwarven families who trace their ancestry to those settlements call themselves hill dwarves or mountain dwarves, respectively. Oerth and Krynn (the worlds of the Greyhawk and Dragonlance settings, respectively) are examples of worlds that have such dwarven communities.
In other worlds, dwarves have given themselves other cultural designations. For example, on the continent of Faerûn in the Forgotten Realms, the dwarves of the south call themselves gold dwarves, and the dwarves of the north are shield dwarves.
---
I think that probably would be a good way to do it. It covers the basics for character creation (where they tend to live, their origins, their affinity for stone). It provides a physical description of them, as well as some lore which might form the basis for a character's goals or quest. It then adds some additional information about different planes, which can serve as inspiration for starting off points for folks using those settings and homebrewers who want to consider different ways they might handle a dwarf culture. It also gives a bit of their personality--a strong oral tradition via song and a belief that one can overcome threats that seem much larger than them.
I think those four paragraphs should provide a happy medium between the UA content and the 2014 Forgotten Realms-only content and would represent a good way to do the 2024 PHB.