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. )
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.
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?
For the PHB, I want more subclasses, species, backgrounds, and feats. I do not want the PHB to have lore that is specific to campaigns and settings.
For the DMG, I want an actual guide on how to be a GM. I do not think the top down approach in the DMG is a good idea (world building > campaign > multiverse > adventure > various aspects of encounter design). I think the layout makes more sense the other way around, talking about running an encounter first and with world building stuff last (and preferably no multiverse stuff since that is literally what Planescape setting book is for). I also want more real world tips and tricks (ignoring dice rolls, no D&D better than bad D&D, session zero, emphasis on communication) and introduce physical tools (GM screens, cards, maps and minis, digital vs physical, etc.). I would also get rid of the magic item section and spin that off into its own book, like monsters having MM.
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.
this makes me wonder, what is a 'lore agnostic dwarf,' anyway? tough, not very tall, and beard enthusiast? what's a 'lore agnostic elf,' then? skinny, tall, pointy ears, long-lived? ...this could be describing humans with different parents.
seems like there needs to be some lore involved, even if it is very basic. dwarves often have a strong connection to stone and mines. elves are formerly of the feywild and split into groups that have a connection to either nature or magic (or spiders in the dark or astral space stuff or under the sea prom theme or more shadows). maybe at the minimum each species/race/lineage/etc could have a bulletpoint list of settings and how they fit there (or don't)?
Tiefling: description yatta-yatta-yatta... Greyhawk - "survivors of Iuz's invasion, tainted by the touch of evil" Eberron - "an unfortunate human mutated by aftermath of The Mourning" Planescape - "planetouched outer-realms native with some fraction of otherworldly heritage" F.Realms - "just sexy people with horns (unless you lived in Elturel where things got a little heated)."
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.
Maybe a little more on some personality or cultural trends. Nothing too specific, but something about a reputation for patience, deliberation, and stoicism gives people something to explore either by playing into or contrasting.
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.
Maybe a little more on some personality or cultural trends. Nothing too specific, but something about a reputation for patience, deliberation, and stoicism gives people something to explore either by playing into or contrasting.
The fact you did not realize that my entire “compromise” was just copied word-for-word from the UA, with no additions or modifications, really goes to show that the UA content is probably fine. Particularly since you predicated your sole addition with “maybe” - a word which means “perhaps this would be nice, but is not really necessary.”
Well, I wouldn't mind if they added linebreaks to turn the same number of words into more paragraphs... but actually increasing the word count meaningfully would in fact be that much more onerous. If you want people to actually read the text, it has to be the literary equivalent of an elevator pitch.
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.
this makes me wonder, what is a 'lore agnostic dwarf,' anyway? tough, not very tall, and beard enthusiast? what's a 'lore agnostic elf,' then? skinny, tall, pointy ears, long-lived? ...this could be describing humans with different parents.
seems like there needs to be some lore involved, even if it is very basic. dwarves often have a strong connection to stone and mines. elves are formerly of the feywild and split into groups that have a connection to either nature or magic (or spiders in the dark or astral space stuff or under the sea prom theme or more shadows). maybe at the minimum each species/race/lineage/etc could have a bulletpoint list of settings and how they fit there (or don't)?
Tiefling: description yatta-yatta-yatta... Greyhawk - "survivors of Iuz's invasion, tainted by the touch of evil" Eberron - "an unfortunate human mutated by aftermath of The Mourning" Planescape - "planetouched outer-realms native with some fraction of otherworldly heritage" F.Realms - "sexy people with horns. bloodline isn't the decedent's fault so don't even bring it up."
I think it needs a little more, but it’s not hard to make it open-ended: “Whatever world they dwell on, Tieflings tend to attract attention wherever they go and often develop a means of dealing with it. Some strive to make a good showing of themselves, revel in their audience, or become belligerent at unwanted attention, or cultivate a sense of indifference, or find some other method suited to their nature.” Certainly nothing proscriptive about it, just gets the player thinking about the question of what having features like horns, a tail, and cloven hooves means for their character and their day-to-day interactions in a setting where the baseline appearance weighs much more heavily towards the human standard.
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.
Maybe a little more on some personality or cultural trends. Nothing too specific, but something about a reputation for patience, deliberation, and stoicism gives people something to explore either by playing into or contrasting.
The fact you did not realize that my entire “compromise” was just copied word-for-word from the UA, with no additions or modifications, really goes to show that the UA content is probably fine. Particularly since you predicated your sole addition with “maybe” - a word which means “perhaps this would be nice, but is not really necessary.”
Frankly, since you brought attention to it, I said “maybe” in an attempt to put off the people who pounce on any suggestion that discussion of culture should exist outside of setting books, if at all in terms of race. Personally I strongly believe that a paragraph or two of some broad cultural/personality trends gives people looking for that starting point something to consider and explore in relation to their character, either by playing into, contrasting, or deliberately setting aside. The UA isn’t in a bad place, but it needs a little more in the way of roleplay prompts if it’s supposed to be a standalone reference point for designing a character who is a dwarf, not just a stocky bearded individual with a vague connection to earth and stone.
Well, I wouldn't mind if they added linebreaks to turn the same number of words into more paragraphs... but actually increasing the word count meaningfully would in fact be that much more onerous. If you want people to actually read the text, it has to be the literary equivalent of an elevator pitch.
I’m sorry, but this position just comes across as too reductive to be believable. No, at this point I don’t think the entire breadth of the D&D community needs to be told what a dwarf is, but suggesting the population at large has the attention span of goldfish? Sorry, I just don’t buy that unless you have some serious objective evidence.
I’m sorry, but this position just comes across as too reductive to be believable. No, at this point I don’t think the entire breadth of the D&D community needs to be told what a dwarf is, but suggesting the population at large has the attention span of goldfish? Sorry, I just don’t buy that unless you have some serious objective evidence.
It's not the attention span of a goldfish, it's pretty average for humans. For example, this study suggests that the threshold for reading more than half of an article is 111 words.
For the PHB, I want more subclasses, species, backgrounds, and feats. I do not want the PHB to have lore that is specific to campaigns and settings.
For the DMG, I want an actual guide on how to be a GM. I do not think the top down approach in the DMG is a good idea (world building > campaign > multiverse > adventure > various aspects of encounter design). I think the layout makes more sense the other way around, talking about running an encounter first and with world building stuff last (and preferably no multiverse stuff since that is literally what Planescape setting book is for). I also want more real world tips and tricks (ignoring dice rolls, no D&D better than bad D&D, session zero, emphasis on communication) and introduce physical tools (GM screens, cards, maps and minis, digital vs physical, etc.). I would also get rid of the magic item section and spin that off into its own book, like monsters having MM.
You're in luck, they've been very specific about the changes they plan to make to the DMG and almost everything you're asking for is on their list.
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?
You said you wanted Dragonlance in the PHB because buying a separate book for it wasn't reasonable. If you've changed your stance on that, that's fine.
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.
10 years ago, Basic was released alongside the PHB and contained enough to run full games. I'm hopeful that they do something similar here.
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?
Have you seen the sample pages of the background section. It’s quite beautiful and not pruned (4 backgrounds took 2 pages) Big art. That could be a sample and it’s smaller in the rest of the section, I suppose. Time stamp about 1:03
For the PHB, I want more subclasses, species, backgrounds, and feats. I do not want the PHB to have lore that is specific to campaigns and settings.
For the DMG, I want an actual guide on how to be a GM. I do not think the top down approach in the DMG is a good idea (world building > campaign > multiverse > adventure > various aspects of encounter design). I think the layout makes more sense the other way around, talking about running an encounter first and with world building stuff last (and preferably no multiverse stuff since that is literally what Planescape setting book is for). I also want more real world tips and tricks (ignoring dice rolls, no D&D better than bad D&D, session zero, emphasis on communication) and introduce physical tools (GM screens, cards, maps and minis, digital vs physical, etc.). I would also get rid of the magic item section and spin that off into its own book, like monsters having MM.
You're in luck, they've been very specific about the changes they plan to make to the DMG and almost everything you're asking for is on their list.
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?
You said you wanted Dragonlance in the PHB because buying a separate book for it wasn't reasonable. If you've changed your stance on that, that's fine.
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.
10 years ago, Basic was released alongside the PHB and contained enough to run full games. I'm hopeful that they do something similar here.
I never said I wanted anything regarding Dragonlance in the PHB. Off the top of my head I don’t recall bringing Dragonlance into this discussion at all. You are the one who brought it up in terms of “if people want any lore at all, they should buy another book”. All I said in response was that some form of general lore should be presented in the PHB so it is available to people who want the roleplay prompts to get the ball rolling without having to pay extra or hunt them down.
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.
I'm all for "general roleplaying prompts in the PHB" but if they want setting-specific lore, then yes, they should either be willing to shell out for a setting-specific book, or rely on free sources like wikis and articles for that setting.(with the risk of deprecation those sources entail.)
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?
Have you seen the sample pages of the background section. It’s quite beautiful and not pruned (4 backgrounds took 2 pages) Big art. That could be a sample and it’s smaller in the rest of the section, I suppose. Time stamp about 1:03
There’s no way their new system or sample backgrounds will take up as much space as all the tables in the old one, and I honestly doubt they’re devoting that much art to backgrounds, and really between a few pages of art or roleplay supporting lore, the lore is much better use of the space imo. Not saying backgrounds don’t need any, but they don’t need big art for every example, particularly when the system itself has gone fully modular, and thus doesn’t need nearly as much space outlining everything for a dozen or so options. And is also part of the reason why I think they need a bit more in the way of roleplay support elsewhere.
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.
I'm all for "general roleplaying prompts in the PHB" but if they want setting-specific lore, then yes, they should either be willing to shell out for a setting-specific book, or rely on free sources like wikis and articles for that setting.(with the risk of deprecation those sources entail.)
I’ve been calling for general prompts, unless one cannot possibly acknowledge some of the tropes associated with the various races and accept them as general prompts. There is a spectrum to work with between “the rich history of elves hearkens back to the ancient land of…” and “pointy ears, on the slender side, live for centuries, minor magic, trance, and charm resistance”.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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. )
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.
For the PHB, I want more subclasses, species, backgrounds, and feats. I do not want the PHB to have lore that is specific to campaigns and settings.
For the DMG, I want an actual guide on how to be a GM. I do not think the top down approach in the DMG is a good idea (world building > campaign > multiverse > adventure > various aspects of encounter design). I think the layout makes more sense the other way around, talking about running an encounter first and with world building stuff last (and preferably no multiverse stuff since that is literally what Planescape setting book is for). I also want more real world tips and tricks (ignoring dice rolls, no D&D better than bad D&D, session zero, emphasis on communication) and introduce physical tools (GM screens, cards, maps and minis, digital vs physical, etc.). I would also get rid of the magic item section and spin that off into its own book, like monsters having 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 >
this makes me wonder, what is a 'lore agnostic dwarf,' anyway? tough, not very tall, and beard enthusiast? what's a 'lore agnostic elf,' then? skinny, tall, pointy ears, long-lived? ...this could be describing humans with different parents.
seems like there needs to be some lore involved, even if it is very basic. dwarves often have a strong connection to stone and mines. elves are formerly of the feywild and split into groups that have a connection to either nature or magic (or spiders in the dark or astral space stuff or under the sea prom theme or more shadows). maybe at the minimum each species/race/lineage/etc could have a bulletpoint list of settings and how they fit there (or don't)?
Tiefling:
description yatta-yatta-yatta...
Greyhawk - "survivors of Iuz's invasion, tainted by the touch of evil"
Eberron - "an unfortunate human mutated by aftermath of The Mourning"
Planescape - "planetouched outer-realms native with some fraction of otherworldly heritage"
F.Realms - "just sexy people with horns (unless you lived in Elturel where things got a little heated)."
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!
Maybe a little more on some personality or cultural trends. Nothing too specific, but something about a reputation for patience, deliberation, and stoicism gives people something to explore either by playing into or contrasting.
The fact you did not realize that my entire “compromise” was just copied word-for-word from the UA, with no additions or modifications, really goes to show that the UA content is probably fine. Particularly since you predicated your sole addition with “maybe” - a word which means “perhaps this would be nice, but is not really necessary.”
Well, I wouldn't mind if they added linebreaks to turn the same number of words into more paragraphs... but actually increasing the word count meaningfully would in fact be that much more onerous. If you want people to actually read the text, it has to be the literary equivalent of an elevator pitch.
I think it needs a little more, but it’s not hard to make it open-ended: “Whatever world they dwell on, Tieflings tend to attract attention wherever they go and often develop a means of dealing with it. Some strive to make a good showing of themselves, revel in their audience, or become belligerent at unwanted attention, or cultivate a sense of indifference, or find some other method suited to their nature.” Certainly nothing proscriptive about it, just gets the player thinking about the question of what having features like horns, a tail, and cloven hooves means for their character and their day-to-day interactions in a setting where the baseline appearance weighs much more heavily towards the human standard.
Frankly, since you brought attention to it, I said “maybe” in an attempt to put off the people who pounce on any suggestion that discussion of culture should exist outside of setting books, if at all in terms of race. Personally I strongly believe that a paragraph or two of some broad cultural/personality trends gives people looking for that starting point something to consider and explore in relation to their character, either by playing into, contrasting, or deliberately setting aside. The UA isn’t in a bad place, but it needs a little more in the way of roleplay prompts if it’s supposed to be a standalone reference point for designing a character who is a dwarf, not just a stocky bearded individual with a vague connection to earth and stone.
I’m sorry, but this position just comes across as too reductive to be believable. No, at this point I don’t think the entire breadth of the D&D community needs to be told what a dwarf is, but suggesting the population at large has the attention span of goldfish? Sorry, I just don’t buy that unless you have some serious objective evidence.
It's not the attention span of a goldfish, it's pretty average for humans. For example, this study suggests that the threshold for reading more than half of an article is 111 words.
You're in luck, they've been very specific about the changes they plan to make to the DMG and almost everything you're asking for is on their list.
You said you wanted Dragonlance in the PHB because buying a separate book for it wasn't reasonable. If you've changed your stance on that, that's fine.
10 years ago, Basic was released alongside the PHB and contained enough to run full games. I'm hopeful that they do something similar here.
Have you seen the sample pages of the background section. It’s quite beautiful and not pruned (4 backgrounds took 2 pages) Big art. That could be a sample and it’s smaller in the rest of the section, I suppose. Time stamp about 1:03
https://www.youtube.com/live/4ln78tTLGdU?si=UoTVl8IuGLbE8RRs
I never said I wanted anything regarding Dragonlance in the PHB. Off the top of my head I don’t recall bringing Dragonlance into this discussion at all. You are the one who brought it up in terms of “if people want any lore at all, they should buy another book”. All I said in response was that some form of general lore should be presented in the PHB so it is available to people who want the roleplay prompts to get the ball rolling without having to pay extra or hunt them down.
I'm all for "general roleplaying prompts in the PHB" but if they want setting-specific lore, then yes, they should either be willing to shell out for a setting-specific book, or rely on free sources like wikis and articles for that setting.(with the risk of deprecation those sources entail.)
There’s no way their new system or sample backgrounds will take up as much space as all the tables in the old one, and I honestly doubt they’re devoting that much art to backgrounds, and really between a few pages of art or roleplay supporting lore, the lore is much better use of the space imo. Not saying backgrounds don’t need any, but they don’t need big art for every example, particularly when the system itself has gone fully modular, and thus doesn’t need nearly as much space outlining everything for a dozen or so options. And is also part of the reason why I think they need a bit more in the way of roleplay support elsewhere.
I’ve been calling for general prompts, unless one cannot possibly acknowledge some of the tropes associated with the various races and accept them as general prompts. There is a spectrum to work with between “the rich history of elves hearkens back to the ancient land of…” and “pointy ears, on the slender side, live for centuries, minor magic, trance, and charm resistance”.