been reading this thread every few days and have a few questions :)
if the average players handbook is around 320pages (based of the last few editions and its been said that the new players handbook will have more then that) so why does information and lore need to be cut - just like a condom wouldnt it be better to "have it and not need it rather then needing it and not having it"?? how does changing the contents change how much people have to read?? keep in mind there is still atleast 320+ pages to fill with text (and the occasional picture) is the "wall of text" comments made mainly by people playing of their mobiles (screen size/display issues) or do people who physically play have the same opinions when it comes to the "dreaded wall of text"?? how does pulling information/lore from elsewhere internet, drivethru, wikis, other official/non-official books, etc. benefit/effect d&d?? why have any d&d books if all information/lore comes from elsewhere?? wouldnt the majority count as homebrew and be potentially incompatible with d&d or up to your DMs decision. what information does a d&d player need compared to a d&d dungeon master??
based of skimming through the youtube video above - and mainly just personal opinion (feel free to ignore) the layout for backgrounds seems similar to those (in the past) little art books you get when purchasing collector editions of console video games, which does seem to streamline information (while leaving some out - features, suggested characteristics, traits, ideals, bond, flaw - may be found elsewhere on a different page, who knows) but also leaves alot of empty space on pages - will be interesting to see the final designs, personally think they need to cut or rescale the image in half to free up space for more information.
The layout for the classes seem similar to a card game (based of the fighters initial page) - now if that takes up a whole A4 page, i would be disappointed - personally would be happy with between 1/2 and 2/3s of the page being used to free up a some space but thats just my personal preference, curious to see what the following pages contain text wise.
The layout for subclasses (based of the champion page) seems to be enough to get across the general concepts and liking the addition of each one having its own picture to reference.
and as for all Items getting some artwork - love the idea, curious if its split between the new PHB and the DMG, interested in seeing how it all is implemented.
personally think that the OneD&D approach to species is strange could just be my interpretation, with each species being the same with a slightly different appearance (since ability scores move to background, size is optional, speed seems set to 30 or determined by size, life span generally 100yrs - or you get is if you have dark vision or not and a skill/attack??) to me it seems like a tipping point towards turning the game completely digital (console game logic), similar to the average RPG on PC - since your species means very little if anything and it all comes down to your background (basically where you came from - guess nurture wins in the nature vs nurture debate when it comes to dnd species)
all in all looking forward to what the final results will be species, content, lore and design wise
been reading this thread every few days and have a few questions :)
if the average players handbook is around 320pages (based of the last few editions and its been said that the new players handbook will have more then that) so why does information and lore need to be cut - just like a condom wouldnt it be better to "have it and not need it rather then needing it and not having it"?? how does changing the contents change how much people have to read?? keep in mind there is still atleast 320+ pages to fill with text (and the occasional picture) is the "wall of text" comments made mainly by people playing of their mobiles (screen size/display issues) or do people who physically play have the same opinions when it comes to the "dreaded wall of text"?? how does pulling information/lore from elsewhere internet, drivethru, wikis, other official/non-official books, etc. benefit/effect d&d?? why have any d&d books if all information/lore comes from elsewhere?? wouldnt the majority count as homebrew and be potentially incompatible with d&d or up to your DMs decision. what information does a d&d player need compared to a d&d dungeon master??
based of skimming through the youtube video above - and mainly just personal opinion (feel free to ignore) the layout for backgrounds seems similar to those (in the past) little art books you get when purchasing collector editions of console video games, which does seem to streamline information (while leaving some out - features, suggested characteristics, traits, ideals, bond, flaw - may be found elsewhere on a different page, who knows) but also leaves alot of empty space on pages - will be interesting to see the final designs, personally think they need to cut or rescale the image in half to free up space for more information.
The layout for the classes seem similar to a card game (based of the fighters initial page) - now if that takes up a whole A4 page, i would be disappointed - personally would be happy with between 1/2 and 2/3s of the page being used to free up a some space but thats just my personal preference, curious to see what the following pages contain text wise.
The layout for subclasses (based of the champion page) seems to be enough to get across the general concepts and liking the addition of each one having its own picture to reference.
and as for all Items getting some artwork - love the idea, curious if its split between the new PHB and the DMG, interested in seeing how it all is implemented.
personally think that the OneD&D approach to species is strange could just be my interpretation, with each species being the same with a slightly different appearance (since ability scores move to background, size is optional, speed seems set to 30 or determined by size, life span generally 100yrs - or you get is if you have dark vision or not and a skill/attack??) to me it seems like a tipping point towards turning the game completely digital (console game logic), similar to the average RPG on PC - since your species means very little if anything and it all comes down to your background (basically where you came from - guess nurture wins in the nature vs nurture debate when it comes to dnd species)
all in all looking forward to what the final results will be species, content, lore and design wise
I think you fundamentally have not understood a single post you have read. Let me clear up your misconceptions and help you better understand why some changes are made.
First, the total length of the physical PHB is exactly why superfluous information needs to be cut. In digital, they can add as much information as they want—the additional cost of text is fairly negligible in terms of data storage. But in physical, every single page has a cost—and the more pages you have, the higher that cost is for each additional page (harder to print larger books; harder to warehouse; more expensive to ship; harder for stores to find shelf space for; etc.).
Second, the total length of the PHB is not the “wall of text” folks are discussing. The overwhelming majority of players are not going to read the entire PHB - they are going to read the information related to their choices (and, even then, often do not even read that). Keeping information in species selection down to a concise set of necessary info increases the chance that (a) people might read a few different species to “shop around” and (b) that people will at least read the information related to their species. Five decades have shown that, if they see too much information, they’ll probably just assume “eh, I know what a dwarf is, I’ll just do that and assume nothing all that useful is in the six paragraphs of text.”
Pulling information from other D&D sources reflects a reality of how people play and how the 21st century works. For starters, the overwhelming majority of games are homebrew - official lore might inspire home brewers, but it is not dispositive, and decades have shown putting too much “official” lore in the PHB can lead to “but you are playing dwarves in this homebrew world wrong; the official lore says X!” problems.
Wizards is striking a balance where they are giving just enough lore for the most popular setting, while still providing information for those looking to use official settings. Part of that is acknowledging that folks who want to use official settings can get official lore from places other than the PHB. That could be published 5e sources (adventures; setting-specific books), that could be earlier edition sourcebooks Wizards sells on places like DriveThruRPG or that players can get on the secondary market, or it could be places like wikis, which conglomerate decades of lore into a convenient, hyperlinked format.
In earlier editions, you could not really assume folks would be able to find lore—which meant putting lore in the base books was important, even if it led to the decades-known “but the PHB say….!!!” problems. In the modern era, you can pretty much assume that people who want lore can and will be able to get it - which means you can solve a particular type of “bad player” problem and free up space for mechanics and rules.
Those mechanics and rules are why you still have books. The lore is not what makes D&D - the mechanics are (again, most campaigns are homebrewed, so for most campaigns, the players, not Wizards, are making the lore). Less lore means more room for mechanics. It means more room for art to inspire players and give them something to look at. It means a more universally useful and efficient use of the limited pages the PHB holds.
I also think you might need to look at the Playtest and MMM species again - they are hardly “the same with a different appearance.” Species mechanics are not going anywhere - Dragonborn are still getting breath attacks, halflings are still getting Luck, etc. Each species is decidedly different in how they play, so I do not think your concerns here have any merit.
As for your concerns about the game moving to digital - I could tell you that Wizards’ staff have been pretty clear that they are paper players also and that they think paper is a necessary part of the game. But I do not have to—as should be pretty obvious from this entire conversation, paper is D&D is the very reason we are talking about what should or should not make the cut. The very reason Wizards has limited space and needs to make hard decisions is because they are focused on a paper product and the limitations of such a product.
been reading this thread every few days and have a few questions :)
if the average players handbook is around 320pages (based of the last few editions and its been said that the new players handbook will have more then that) so why does information and lore need to be cut - just like a condom wouldnt it be better to "have it and not need it rather then needing it and not having it"?? how does changing the contents change how much people have to read?? keep in mind there is still atleast 320+ pages to fill with text (and the occasional picture) is the "wall of text" comments made mainly by people playing of their mobiles (screen size/display issues) or do people who physically play have the same opinions when it comes to the "dreaded wall of text"?? how does pulling information/lore from elsewhere internet, drivethru, wikis, other official/non-official books, etc. benefit/effect d&d?? why have any d&d books if all information/lore comes from elsewhere?? wouldnt the majority count as homebrew and be potentially incompatible with d&d or up to your DMs decision. what information does a d&d player need compared to a d&d dungeon master??
based of skimming through the youtube video above - and mainly just personal opinion (feel free to ignore) the layout for backgrounds seems similar to those (in the past) little art books you get when purchasing collector editions of console video games, which does seem to streamline information (while leaving some out - features, suggested characteristics, traits, ideals, bond, flaw - may be found elsewhere on a different page, who knows) but also leaves alot of empty space on pages - will be interesting to see the final designs, personally think they need to cut or rescale the image in half to free up space for more information.
The layout for the classes seem similar to a card game (based of the fighters initial page) - now if that takes up a whole A4 page, i would be disappointed - personally would be happy with between 1/2 and 2/3s of the page being used to free up a some space but thats just my personal preference, curious to see what the following pages contain text wise.
The layout for subclasses (based of the champion page) seems to be enough to get across the general concepts and liking the addition of each one having its own picture to reference.
and as for all Items getting some artwork - love the idea, curious if its split between the new PHB and the DMG, interested in seeing how it all is implemented.
personally think that the OneD&D approach to species is strange could just be my interpretation, with each species being the same with a slightly different appearance (since ability scores move to background, size is optional, speed seems set to 30 or determined by size, life span generally 100yrs - or you get is if you have dark vision or not and a skill/attack??) to me it seems like a tipping point towards turning the game completely digital (console game logic), similar to the average RPG on PC - since your species means very little if anything and it all comes down to your background (basically where you came from - guess nurture wins in the nature vs nurture debate when it comes to dnd species)
all in all looking forward to what the final results will be species, content, lore and design wise
I think you fundamentally have not understood a single post you have read. Let me clear up your misconceptions and help you better understand why some changes are made.
First, the total length of the physical PHB is exactly why superfluous information needs to be cut. In digital, they can add as much information as they want—the additional cost of text is fairly negligible in terms of data storage. But in physical, every single page has a cost—and the more pages you have, the higher that cost is for each additional page (harder to print larger books; harder to warehouse; more expensive to ship; harder for stores to find shelf space for; etc.).
Second, the total length of the PHB is not the “wall of text” folks are discussing. The overwhelming majority of players are not going to read the entire PHB - they are going to read the information related to their choices (and, even then, often do not even read that). Keeping information in species selection down to a concise set of necessary info increases the chance that (a) people might read a few different species to “shop around” and (b) that people will at least read the information related to their species. Five decades have shown that, if they see too much information, they’ll probably just assume “eh, I know what a dwarf is, I’ll just do that and assume nothing all that useful is in the six paragraphs of text.”
Pulling information from other D&D sources reflects a reality of how people play and how the 21st century works. For starters, the overwhelming majority of games are homebrew - official lore might inspire home brewers, but it is not dispositive, and decades have shown putting too much “official” lore in the PHB can lead to “but you are playing dwarves in this homebrew world wrong; the official lore says X!” problems.
Wizards is striking a balance where they are giving just enough lore for the most popular setting, while still providing information for those looking to use official settings. Part of that is acknowledging that folks who want to use official settings can get official lore from places other than the PHB. That could be published 5e sources (adventures; setting-specific books), that could be earlier edition sourcebooks Wizards sells on places like DriveThruRPG or that players can get on the secondary market, or it could be places like wikis, which conglomerate decades of lore into a convenient, hyperlinked format.
In earlier editions, you could not really assume folks would be able to find lore—which meant putting lore in the base books was important, even if it led to the decades-known “but the PHB say….!!!” problems. In the modern era, you can pretty much assume that people who want lore can and will be able to get it - which means you can solve a particular type of “bad player” problem and free up space for mechanics and rules.
Those mechanics and rules are why you still have books. The lore is not what makes D&D - the mechanics are (again, most campaigns are homebrewed, so for most campaigns, the players, not Wizards, are making the lore). Less lore means more room for mechanics. It means more room for art to inspire players and give them something to look at. It means a more universally useful and efficient use of the limited pages the PHB holds.
I also think you might need to look at the Playtest and MMM species again - they are hardly “the same with a different appearance.” Species mechanics are not going anywhere - Dragonborn are still getting breath attacks, halflings are still getting Luck, etc. Each species is decidedly different in how they play, so I do not think your concerns here have any merit.
As for your concerns about the game moving to digital - I could tell you that Wizards’ staff have been pretty clear that they are paper players also and that they think paper is a necessary part of the game. But I do not have to—as should be pretty obvious from this entire conversation, paper is D&D is the very reason we are talking about what should or should not make the cut. The very reason Wizards has limited space and needs to make hard decisions is because they are focused on a paper product and the limitations of such a product.
again they have already mentioned the book has more pages then the last, so 320+ pages - why cut information and lore if it already fits within the 320 pages, especially when you have more pages/space beyond that to use?? also whether its digital or physical shouldnt change the amount of content/text, and considering you mentioned the "Wizards’ staff have been pretty clear that they are paper players" dont you think they would get annoyed having to pull out a phone or computer disrupting things to look up lore or information or rely on memory for stuff previously contained in the PHB??
you mention that some people might not read the entire PHB, since that may be the case for some, wouldnt it be wise to make sure that they found the information or lore they were after, instead of making them go through another step of tracking down that information and potentially deter some from playing?? personally i find having that lore helps spark my imagination just as much as the art and have no issues with homebrew however see homebrew as secondary to lore, as in homebrew is an optional exception to the rule or potentially an update to pre-existing information
referenced the following racial traits/features "Dragonborn are still getting breath attacks, halflings are still getting Luck, etc." as skiils/attacks - its a lingo thing. since they havent affected much in my experience or choices, perhaps your process and interpretation is different then mine, "each to their own" as they say.
i just think theres enough room in the 320+ page PHB for the same amount of lore/information (possibly even more) along with the extra art work considering the book is larger in the amount of pages then the current one, so they already are willing to take on the cost (as a business) of those extra pages so it confuses me why there is now apparently "limited space" since theres essentially more space to work with...
again they have already mentioned the book has more pages then the last, so 320+ pages - why cut information and lore if it already fits within the 320 pages, especially when you have more pages/space beyond that to use?? also whether its digital or physical shouldnt change the amount of content/text, and considering you mentioned the "Wizards’ staff have been pretty clear that they are paper players" dont you think they would get annoyed having to pull out a phone or computer disrupting things to look up lore or information or rely on memory for stuff previously contained in the PHB??
you mention that some people might not read the entire PHB, since that may be the case for some, wouldnt it be wise to make sure that they found the information or lore they were after, instead of making them go through another step of tracking down that information and potentially deter some from playing?? personally i find having that lore helps spark my imagination just as much as the art and have no issues with homebrew however see homebrew as secondary to lore, as in homebrew is an optional exception to the rule or potentially an update to pre-existing information
referenced the following racial traits/features "Dragonborn are still getting breath attacks, halflings are still getting Luck, etc." as skiils/attacks - its a lingo thing. since they havent affected much in my experience or choices, perhaps your process and interpretation is different then mine, "each to their own" as they say.
i just think theres enough room in the 320+ page PHB for the same amount of lore/information (possibly even more) along with the extra art work considering the book is larger in the amount of pages then the current one, so they already are willing to take on the cost (as a business) of those extra pages so it confuses me why there is now apparently "limited space" since theres essentially more space to work with...
First: The lore does not fit in the current 320 pages. There are a number of aspects of the PHB where they sacrificed mechanical clarity for the sake of fitting additional lore. That is nothing new to D&D - this fame has a long history of ambiguous or poorly-written rules,
Second: Those players who want physical lore can still get if - the secondary market is an easy place to get older physical books. And they probably will do that anyway - the amount of lore being taken from the PHB is negligible - a paragraph of background on each race. The folks who really need additional lore need more than the PHB offers—so they already were going to have to seek outside lore. No skin off their nose, since, regardless of whether the PHB has a dozen or so extra paragraphs, they will still be taking the same course of action.
Third: You fundamentally do not understand how most players operate. The folks who do not want to read the PHB are also not going to want to track down additional lore. They are the kind of player who will be satisfied with a picture and the rather information-dense set of information the UA content provides.
Fourth: You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion—but your opinion seems rather unsupported by evidence; so unsupported I suspect you are actively looking for reasons to dislike the rules changes, rather than trying to actually learn about the content and make an informed, fact-driven decision. After all, there are substantial lore differences and mechanical differences between the UA races (and rhe MMM races). Saying “but they all seem the same to me” is a pretty silly thing in light of the myriad differences built into 2024-style rules.
Fifth: You might think that - but Wizards clearly wants to change things up, and they understand their players and the publishing industry better than we ever could. Wizards collects a whole bunch of data—multiple long polls per year and other mechanisms for learning about their players. They have collected tens of thousands of responses on this UA content, including the amount of lore in it. They know far better than we ever could what players want. Perhaps they will add the lore back in based on their data; perhaps not. But they are not going to do so because folks offer conclusively statements of “well, I think it would be easy to add back in”—they are going to do it if it truly is what players want.
First: The lore does not fit in the current 320 pages. There are a number of aspects of the PHB where they sacrificed mechanical clarity for the sake of fitting additional lore. That is nothing new to D&D - this fame has a long history of ambiguous or poorly-written rules,
Second: Those players who want physical lore can still get if - the secondary market is an easy place to get older physical books. And they probably will do that anyway - the amount of lore being taken from the PHB is negligible - a paragraph of background on each race. The folks who really need additional lore need more than the PHB offers—so they already were going to have to seek outside lore. No skin off their nose, since, regardless of whether the PHB has a dozen or so extra paragraphs, they will still be taking the same course of action.
Third: You fundamentally do not understand how most players operate. The folks who do not want to read the PHB are also not going to want to track down additional lore. They are the kind of player who will be satisfied with a picture and the rather information-dense set of information the UA content provides.
Fourth: You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion—but your opinion seems rather unsupported by evidence; so unsupported I suspect you are actively looking for reasons to dislike the rules changes, rather than trying to actually learn about the content and make an informed, fact-driven decision. After all, there are substantial lore differences and mechanical differences between the UA races (and rhe MMM races). Saying “but they all seem the same to me” is a pretty silly thing in light of the myriad differences built into 2024-style rules.
Fifth: You might think that - but Wizards clearly wants to change things up, and they understand their players and the publishing industry better than we ever could. Wizards collects a whole bunch of data—multiple long polls per year and other mechanisms for learning about their players. They have collected tens of thousands of responses on this UA content, including the amount of lore in it. They know far better than we ever could what players want. Perhaps they will add the lore back in based on their data; perhaps not. But they are not going to do so because folks offer conclusively statements of “well, I think it would be easy to add back in”—they are going to do it if it truly is what players want.
first - were talking PHB to PHB, im not including lore and information found in say eberron and the like, unless that species or what not becomes apart of the PHB. currently each race (in the PHB) has 2-3 pages of species information for the player races with 1/3 to 1/2 of each of those pages taken up by images, keep in mind due to the "parents form different species" part of the playtest stuff theres the potential of freeing up some space. each class/subclass has around 5 pages (split between them) each of information with a potential of +1 page for each new subclass depending on artwork (seems they might go for a 50/50 split for the subclass pages) and each background currently has roughly 1 to 2 pages of information yet based of the youtube vid posted earlier in the thread seems to be leaning towards 2 backgrounds worth of information per page, potentially cutting that whole sections page count in half unless more backgrounds are added
second - im saying theres potentially plenty of room to the point of having room for any extra lore and information depending on layout and what they choose to add, alter or even remove if obsolete or no longer compatible
third - some players are different from others, some like lore others like images - there is a middle ground without instructing people to look elsewhere or limiting one in place of the other, people can just as easily find art online as they can more in depth or setting specific lore and information
forth - i actually look forward to seeing how they put it all together and the official additions they may make, especially in the player race, background, feats and all the subclasses
fifth - i couldnt agree more but since its up to speculation i cant help but ask myself PHB to PHB "has anything been removed" and if something has been removed "what are they replacing it with "
Rather than rely on whatever conjecture you are basing your thoughts on, why don’t you a daily read the UA 1 playtest materials. Here is a link. Lore is not going away - and the lore that is provided is extremely content-dense, with every single sentence designed to convey a meaningful part of the species’ identity.
The original PHB wasted space on a bunch of Forgotten Realms-specific lore—that is lore which belongs in a Forgotten Realms book, not the core book which should be equally useful to every single campaign setting, official or not. The new system - a quick paragraph with a few “and here is a quick summary for a few different official worlds, but also you can make your own lore” sentences is a clearly superior option given the fact most players do not play in the Forgotten Realms, and thus should not be subjected to Wizards disproportionately focusing on that minority setting.
Rather than rely on whatever conjecture you are basing your thoughts on, why don’t you a daily read the UA 1 playtest materials. Here is a link. Lore is not going away - and the lore that is provided is extremely content-dense, with every single sentence designed to convey a meaningful part of the species’ identity.
The original PHB wasted space on a bunch of Forgotten Realms-specific lore—that is lore which belongs in a Forgotten Realms book, not the core book which should be equally useful to every single campaign setting, official or not. The new system - a quick paragraph with a few “and here is a quick summary for a few different official worlds, but also you can make your own lore” sentences is a clearly superior option given the fact most players do not play in the Forgotten Realms, and thus should not be subjected to Wizards disproportionately focusing on that minority setting.
i have actually read it a few times, the ardling peaked my interest along with how backgrounds seemed to become more important also never said anything about lore being removed or what lore from the PHB would be included in the new one but instead mentioned looking forwarded to the potential for more lore, artwork included. im especially looking forward to the DMG and MM but thats a different matter
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.)
^^ 100%
There should be no 'default setting' for 5e. That was something that I didn't appreciate about 4e when it first came out, but their 'Nentir Vale' really left a lot of room available for DMs to do what they wanted, and it didn't crap all over existing lore that people were already invested in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
been reading this thread every few days and have a few questions :)
if the average players handbook is around 320pages (based of the last few editions and its been said that the new players handbook will have more then that) so why does information and lore need to be cut - just like a condom wouldnt it be better to "have it and not need it rather then needing it and not having it"?? how does changing the contents change how much people have to read?? keep in mind there is still atleast 320+ pages to fill with text (and the occasional picture) is the "wall of text" comments made mainly by people playing of their mobiles (screen size/display issues) or do people who physically play have the same opinions when it comes to the "dreaded wall of text"?? how does pulling information/lore from elsewhere internet, drivethru, wikis, other official/non-official books, etc. benefit/effect d&d?? why have any d&d books if all information/lore comes from elsewhere?? wouldnt the majority count as homebrew and be potentially incompatible with d&d or up to your DMs decision. what information does a d&d player need compared to a d&d dungeon master??
based of skimming through the youtube video above - and mainly just personal opinion (feel free to ignore) the layout for backgrounds seems similar to those (in the past) little art books you get when purchasing collector editions of console video games, which does seem to streamline information (while leaving some out - features, suggested characteristics, traits, ideals, bond, flaw - may be found elsewhere on a different page, who knows) but also leaves alot of empty space on pages - will be interesting to see the final designs, personally think they need to cut or rescale the image in half to free up space for more information.
The layout for the classes seem similar to a card game (based of the fighters initial page) - now if that takes up a whole A4 page, i would be disappointed - personally would be happy with between 1/2 and 2/3s of the page being used to free up a some space but thats just my personal preference, curious to see what the following pages contain text wise.
The layout for subclasses (based of the champion page) seems to be enough to get across the general concepts and liking the addition of each one having its own picture to reference.
and as for all Items getting some artwork - love the idea, curious if its split between the new PHB and the DMG, interested in seeing how it all is implemented.
personally think that the OneD&D approach to species is strange could just be my interpretation, with each species being the same with a slightly different appearance (since ability scores move to background, size is optional, speed seems set to 30 or determined by size, life span generally 100yrs - or you get is if you have dark vision or not and a skill/attack??) to me it seems like a tipping point towards turning the game completely digital (console game logic), similar to the average RPG on PC - since your species means very little if anything and it all comes down to your background (basically where you came from - guess nurture wins in the nature vs nurture debate when it comes to dnd species)
all in all looking forward to what the final results will be species, content, lore and design wise
I think you fundamentally have not understood a single post you have read. Let me clear up your misconceptions and help you better understand why some changes are made.
First, the total length of the physical PHB is exactly why superfluous information needs to be cut. In digital, they can add as much information as they want—the additional cost of text is fairly negligible in terms of data storage. But in physical, every single page has a cost—and the more pages you have, the higher that cost is for each additional page (harder to print larger books; harder to warehouse; more expensive to ship; harder for stores to find shelf space for; etc.).
Second, the total length of the PHB is not the “wall of text” folks are discussing. The overwhelming majority of players are not going to read the entire PHB - they are going to read the information related to their choices (and, even then, often do not even read that). Keeping information in species selection down to a concise set of necessary info increases the chance that (a) people might read a few different species to “shop around” and (b) that people will at least read the information related to their species. Five decades have shown that, if they see too much information, they’ll probably just assume “eh, I know what a dwarf is, I’ll just do that and assume nothing all that useful is in the six paragraphs of text.”
Pulling information from other D&D sources reflects a reality of how people play and how the 21st century works. For starters, the overwhelming majority of games are homebrew - official lore might inspire home brewers, but it is not dispositive, and decades have shown putting too much “official” lore in the PHB can lead to “but you are playing dwarves in this homebrew world wrong; the official lore says X!” problems.
Wizards is striking a balance where they are giving just enough lore for the most popular setting, while still providing information for those looking to use official settings. Part of that is acknowledging that folks who want to use official settings can get official lore from places other than the PHB. That could be published 5e sources (adventures; setting-specific books), that could be earlier edition sourcebooks Wizards sells on places like DriveThruRPG or that players can get on the secondary market, or it could be places like wikis, which conglomerate decades of lore into a convenient, hyperlinked format.
In earlier editions, you could not really assume folks would be able to find lore—which meant putting lore in the base books was important, even if it led to the decades-known “but the PHB say….!!!” problems. In the modern era, you can pretty much assume that people who want lore can and will be able to get it - which means you can solve a particular type of “bad player” problem and free up space for mechanics and rules.
Those mechanics and rules are why you still have books. The lore is not what makes D&D - the mechanics are (again, most campaigns are homebrewed, so for most campaigns, the players, not Wizards, are making the lore). Less lore means more room for mechanics. It means more room for art to inspire players and give them something to look at. It means a more universally useful and efficient use of the limited pages the PHB holds.
I also think you might need to look at the Playtest and MMM species again - they are hardly “the same with a different appearance.” Species mechanics are not going anywhere - Dragonborn are still getting breath attacks, halflings are still getting Luck, etc. Each species is decidedly different in how they play, so I do not think your concerns here have any merit.
As for your concerns about the game moving to digital - I could tell you that Wizards’ staff have been pretty clear that they are paper players also and that they think paper is a necessary part of the game. But I do not have to—as should be pretty obvious from this entire conversation, paper is D&D is the very reason we are talking about what should or should not make the cut. The very reason Wizards has limited space and needs to make hard decisions is because they are focused on a paper product and the limitations of such a product.
again they have already mentioned the book has more pages then the last, so 320+ pages - why cut information and lore if it already fits within the 320 pages, especially when you have more pages/space beyond that to use?? also whether its digital or physical shouldnt change the amount of content/text, and considering you mentioned the "Wizards’ staff have been pretty clear that they are paper players" dont you think they would get annoyed having to pull out a phone or computer disrupting things to look up lore or information or rely on memory for stuff previously contained in the PHB??
you mention that some people might not read the entire PHB, since that may be the case for some, wouldnt it be wise to make sure that they found the information or lore they were after, instead of making them go through another step of tracking down that information and potentially deter some from playing?? personally i find having that lore helps spark my imagination just as much as the art and have no issues with homebrew however see homebrew as secondary to lore, as in homebrew is an optional exception to the rule or potentially an update to pre-existing information
referenced the following racial traits/features "Dragonborn are still getting breath attacks, halflings are still getting Luck, etc." as skiils/attacks - its a lingo thing. since they havent affected much in my experience or choices, perhaps your process and interpretation is different then mine, "each to their own" as they say.
i just think theres enough room in the 320+ page PHB for the same amount of lore/information (possibly even more) along with the extra art work considering the book is larger in the amount of pages then the current one, so they already are willing to take on the cost (as a business) of those extra pages so it confuses me why there is now apparently "limited space" since theres essentially more space to work with...
I believe they already said the PHB will be 400 pages and they will need to be careful to make that limitation despite lack of lore. So your 320+ argument for lore is not what WotC is seeing.
Edit: oops, I think I was thinking of MCDM’s RPG. Nevermind what I said. Although some of us think lore should be in the settings books not the player’s handbook
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.)
^^ 100%
There should be no 'default setting' for 5e. That was something that I didn't appreciate about 4e when it first came out, but their 'Nentir Vale' really left a lot of room available for DMs to do what they wanted, and it didn't crap all over existing lore that people were already invested in.
when was the last time anyone saw the phrase 'forgotten realms' by itself in a book? the SCAG preface? i'd argue that the Sword Coast has been lifted wholesale from FR and quietly elevated to 'generic fantasy example' status. the SCAG itself repeatedly calls the area 'The Realms' and makes a big show of recommending you disregard the history of the few towns whose history it summarizes. they fall all over themselves to not stifle anyone's imagination. a huge, giant continent (and planet!) yet somehow this one coast has the only three fleshed out [[edit: 5e!]] cities (two of which being famous for video game settings) and space for every PHB race [[edit: the movie's parole board included an aarakocra and a dragonborn at the very least. such a diverse bureaucracy!]]. detailed though it appears to be, The Realms of the coast are an intentionally incomplete example in a bubble. when someone in this thread has come in to discuss 'the lore' in a PHB context i'd assert that one must to ask some probing questions to discern whether that poster is thinking about FR as a setting or just the generic coastal 'The Realms' example lore. it's causing some arguing past each other here, i feel.
personally, i'm annoyed that the greater Forgotten Realms world doesn't get a 5e setting book and it's entirely the fault of The Realms.
Players: "How dare you do anything that could, even theoretically stifle the ability of third parties to publish supplements (such as settings, lore, etc)! You are a horrible company!!!
Also players: "How dare you not publish all lore, in house, officially, so that everyone knows what is official and no one can even suggest lore could or should be different! You are a horrible company!!!
And people are surprised they might be struggling, given those kinds of mixed messages to them?
so much this ^^^ ...it's great that people are free to make new products but it's overwhelming. i almost want to see a 'blue checkmark' system so i know who to pay attention to, but that's asking for trouble isn't it?
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.)
^^ 100%
There should be no 'default setting' for 5e. That was something that I didn't appreciate about 4e when it first came out, but their 'Nentir Vale' really left a lot of room available for DMs to do what they wanted, and it didn't crap all over existing lore that people were already invested in.
when was the last time anyone saw the phrase 'forgotten realms' by itself in a book? the SCAG preface? i'd argue that the Sword Coast has been lifted wholesale from FR and quietly elevated to 'generic fantasy example' status. the SCAG itself repeatedly calls the area 'The Realms' and makes a big show of recommending you disregard the history of the few towns whose history it summarizes. they fall all over themselves to not stifle anyone's imagination. a huge, giant continent (and planet!) yet somehow this one coast has the only three fleshed out [[edit: 5e!]] cities (two of which being famous for video game settings) and space for every PHB race [[edit: the movie's parole board included an aarakocra and a dragonborn at the very least. such a diverse bureaucracy!]]. detailed though it appears to be, The Realms of the coast are an intentionally incomplete example in a bubble. when someone in this thread has come in to discuss 'the lore' in a PHB context i'd assert that one must to ask some probing questions to discern whether that poster is thinking about FR as a setting or just the generic coastal 'The Realms' example lore. it's causing some arguing past each other here, i feel.
personally, i'm annoyed that the greater Forgotten Realms world doesn't get a 5e setting book and it's entirely the fault of The Realms.
This is a complaint folks have been making since before 5e, it is a complaint they will be making for years to come. I do not expect this complaint will bear any more fruit in 5e than it did in 4e and prior editions.
The Sword Coast has always dominated the release of Forgotten Realms lore. It is where the sourcebooks tend to be, where the novels tend to be, where the games tend to be. Sometimes, including in 5e, they venture beyond the Sword Coast to Icewind Dale in the north, and perhaps a very limited number of other releases have gone beyond that—but, for multiple editions, “The Forgotten Realms” and “Sword Coast” have been effectively synonyms.
I think your two pieces of data supporting your theory are misreadings of the situation.
First, the language telling people they can ignore lore for small towns exists to provide DMs protection from two specific types of problematic player—the Metagamer and the Lore Nazi. The Metagamer might use knowledge they have obtained from video games or books about a small town to their advantage, using knowledge the Player has to influence Character actions. Allowing the DM to make changes undercuts the effectiveness of metagaming, as their meta-information need not be accurate. The Lore Nazi is the kind of player with an obsessive knowledge about small elements of the game—perhaps even more than the DM. Perhaps the DM never played a certain video game, but they saw the town on a map and decided to use it with little additional info. The Lore Nazi might correct the DM or just generally be a jerk about “incorrect” information—this language gives the DM cover from how much knowledge players might have amassed from the readily available FR multimedia content.
Recall, after homebrew, the most popular setting is “homebrew based on Forgotten Realms.” This kind of language provides some cover for the DM who is homebrewing in the game against those who might have a strong knowledge of this popular setting.
Regarding calling it simply “the Realms” - I expect that is to save space and acknowledge that it has, for multiple editions been a joke in the D&D community that the plane should be called “the Remembered Realms” (it is not a good joke, just a common one). Folks know what you mean when you say “the Realms”—no need to overly complicate their abbreviations.
All that said, I would love to see a Ravenloft-style book for other areas of the Realms—just like the Ravenloft book rapid fire established lore for various Domains of Dread, I think a setting book fleshing out other areas of the Forgotten Realms is a bit overdue for 5e.
I’m about certain they’ve said the default setting for 5e is “The Multiverse.” Personally, I think that’s a bit of a retcon, as I don’t remember them saying anything of the sort in 2014. I’m even pretty sure it was at least quietly, the FR, as that’s where all the early adventurers are set.
Either way, The Multiverse where we are going forward. And as many people have said whenever this lore in the PHB conversation comes up, when the setting is the multiverse, it makes it next to impossible to include cultural lore in the PHB. Look at orcs in eberron, wildemount and the FR, to choose one example. And do orcs even exist in Theros?
Keeping species setting neutral in the PHB and putting bits about them in various setting books is by far the best answer.
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.)
^^ 100%
There should be no 'default setting' for 5e. That was something that I didn't appreciate about 4e when it first came out, but their 'Nentir Vale' really left a lot of room available for DMs to do what they wanted, and it didn't crap all over existing lore that people were already invested in.
when was the last time anyone saw the phrase 'forgotten realms' by itself in a book? the SCAG preface? i'd argue that the Sword Coast has been lifted wholesale from FR and quietly elevated to 'generic fantasy example' status. the SCAG itself repeatedly calls the area 'The Realms' and makes a big show of recommending you disregard the history of the few towns whose history it summarizes. they fall all over themselves to not stifle anyone's imagination. a huge, giant continent (and planet!) yet somehow this one coast has the only three fleshed out [[edit: 5e!]] cities (two of which being famous for video game settings) and space for every PHB race [[edit: the movie's parole board included an aarakocra and a dragonborn at the very least. such a diverse bureaucracy!]]. detailed though it appears to be, The Realms of the coast are an intentionally incomplete example in a bubble. when someone in this thread has come in to discuss 'the lore' in a PHB context i'd assert that one must to ask some probing questions to discern whether that poster is thinking about FR as a setting or just the generic coastal 'The Realms' example lore. it's causing some arguing past each other here, i feel.
personally, i'm annoyed that the greater Forgotten Realms world doesn't get a 5e setting book and it's entirely the fault of The Realms.
This is a complaint folks have been making since before 5e, it is a complaint they will be making for years to come. I do not expect this complaint will bear any more fruit in 5e than it did in 4e.
The Sword Coast has always dominated the release of Forgotten Realms lore. It is where the sourcebooks tend to be, where the novels tend to be, where the games tend to be. Sometimes, including in 5e, they venture beyond the Sword Coast to Icewind Dale in the north, and perhaps a very limited number of other releases have gone beyond that—but, for multiple editions, “The Forgotten Realms” and “Sword Coast” have been effectively synonyms.
I think your two pieces of data supporting your theory are misreadings of the situation.
First, the language telling people they can ignore lore for small towns exists to provide DMs protection from two specific types of problematic player—the Metagamer and the Lore Nazi. The Metagamer might use knowledge they have obtained from video games or books about a small town to their advantage, using knowledge the Player has to influence Character actions. Allowing the DM to make changes undercuts the effectiveness of metagaming, as their meta-information need not be accurate. The Lore Nazi is the kind of player with an obsessive knowledge about small elements of the game—perhaps even more than the DM. Perhaps the DM never played a certain video game, but they saw the town on a map and decided to use it with little additional info. The Lore Nazi might correct the DM or just generally be a jerk about “incorrect” information—this language gives the DM cover from how much knowledge players might have amassed from the readily available FR multimedia content.
Recall, after homebrew, the most popular setting is “homebrew based on Forgotten Realms.” This kind of language provides some cover for the DM who is homebrewing in the game against those who might have a strong knowledge of this popular setting.
Regarding calling it simply “the Realms” - I expect that is to save space and acknowledge that it has, for multiple editions been a joke in the D&D community that the plane should be called “the Remembered Realms” (it is not a good joke, just a common one). Folks know what you mean when you say “the Realms”—no need to overly complicate their abbreviations.
All that said, I would love to see a Ravenloft-style book for other areas of the Realms—just like the Ravenloft book rapid fire established lore for various Domains of Dread, I think a setting book fleshing out other areas of the Forgotten Realms is a bit overdue for 5e.
4e had a forgotten realms campaign guide (2008). i haven't read it, so i won't comment. as for metagamers, at least they show engagement with the campaign. i can work with that.
my entry to the game was ad&d 2e and lately i've been hoovering up info about all the nations in the adventures i couldn't afford as a kid: the Silver Marches of Luruar, distant Thay, less-distant Cormyr (home of the SCAG's purple dragon knight), and everyone around the Sea of Fallen Stars. there's so much that happened there a hundred years ago and then it all just fell off the map. fell outside the bubble. additionally, i'll point at The Book of Many Things for including 4e's Gardmore Abbey (and many spelljammer/astral/planar locations) which definitely is not of forgotten realms origin. also Tasha, Bigby, Mordenkainen, etc are all characters from Greyhawk (or before). none of which much addresses the original aim of this thread (except to maybe say "hey, look at the way d&d is continuing to expand and be interesting"), but does perhaps push back on the convenience of assuming forgotten realms is a burden on 'default setting' lore. forgotten realms is an accepted shorthand so broad as to be worthless except to express when something is not Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, etc. the sword coast (and savage frontier and silver marches combined) boasts <10% of the continent of Faerun. it's like every other 90s sitcom being set in new york and assuming their experiences are sufficiently relatable to the rest of the nation, let alone the rest of the world.
...but i'm not here to advocate for big change, just expressing a thought that might resonate with others. devs could do worse than describing a species/race/etc in the context of The (sword coast) Realms as a starting point. notes about that peoples' place in a less default setting (alongside avoiding antiquated stereotypes of 'violent tendencies'/'noble savages'/'surly drunks'/etc) can fit in the DMG under a new 'what to talk about in session zero' heading.
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!
I’m about certain they’ve said the default setting for 5e is “The Multiverse.” Personally, I think that’s a bit of a retcon, as I don’t remember them saying anything of the sort in 2014. I’m even pretty sure it was at least quietly, the FR, as that’s where all the early adventurers are set.
Either way, The Multiverse where we are going forward. And as many people have said whenever this lore in the PHB conversation comes up, when the setting is the multiverse, it makes it next to impossible to include cultural lore in the PHB. Look at orcs in eberron, wildemount and the FR, to choose one example. And do orcs even exist in Theros?
Keeping species setting neutral in the PHB and putting bits about them in various setting books is by far the best answer.
Frankly, defaulting to “the Multiverse” comes across as a bit of a cop-out/obfuscation. If the “default” is “whatever people want to include”, then by definition there is no default, and everything that follows describing this position might as well be word salad. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice I’m still not convinced this and the corresponding “setting neutral” core will improve dynamics instead of just spreading worldbuilding resources out over a larger area. It seems self-evident that the previous arrangement has not stifled people who want to write their own material, so I have trouble seeing how this boost is more than nominal for them. And they’re clearly still committing to overarching lore existing in sources like BP:GotG and FToD, so it’s not even a paradigm shift in their large scale writing. I dunno, whenever I look at this it just seems like some kind of empty and performative gesture rather than a meaningful action. Doesn’t seriously affect my opinion of D&D or inclination to buy the products that interest me, I just don’t understand what it is that people who already have clearly been doing just fine homebrewing for years before this are promoting/gaining from this change.
I’m about certain they’ve said the default setting for 5e is “The Multiverse.” Personally, I think that’s a bit of a retcon, as I don’t remember them saying anything of the sort in 2014. I’m even pretty sure it was at least quietly, the FR, as that’s where all the early adventurers are set.
Either way, The Multiverse where we are going forward. And as many people have said whenever this lore in the PHB conversation comes up, when the setting is the multiverse, it makes it next to impossible to include cultural lore in the PHB. Look at orcs in eberron, wildemount and the FR, to choose one example. And do orcs even exist in Theros?
Keeping species setting neutral in the PHB and putting bits about them in various setting books is by far the best answer.
Frankly, defaulting to “the Multiverse” comes across as a bit of a cop-out/obfuscation. If the “default” is “whatever people want to include”, then by definition there is no default, and everything that follows describing this position might as well be word salad. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice I’m still not convinced this and the corresponding “setting neutral” core will improve dynamics instead of just spreading worldbuilding resources out over a larger area. It seems self-evident that the previous arrangement has not stifled people who want to write their own material, so I have trouble seeing how this boost is more than nominal for them. And they’re clearly still committing to overarching lore existing in sources like BP:GotG and FToD, so it’s not even a paradigm shift in their large scale writing. I dunno, whenever I look at this it just seems like some kind of empty and performative gesture rather than a meaningful action. Doesn’t seriously affect my opinion of D&D or inclination to buy the products that interest me, I just don’t understand what it is that people who already have clearly been doing just fine homebrewing for years before this are promoting/gaining from this change.
[REDACTED]
Making the default the endless multiverse makes every possible iteration of the game “official.” It is Wizards’ way of recognizing that the folks who would use “official” as a term to justify their gatekeeping are wrong.
"the multiverse" just means that when someone like Bigby describes the giants and the ordning, they're doing it 'within the multiverse' rather than within, for example, forgotten realms. however, then the devs go and include a useful per-setting section to say "here's how that looks in FR," and "mostly doesn't apply" for the rest of the settings on down the list. i don't want to call this a bait and switch, but in that book they're aiming for multiverse but facing The Realms. this layout suggests many things are still going to be targeted for a 'default setting' that is more specific than setting-agnostic or multiverse. i'm interested to see how that works for the PHB.
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!
I’m about certain they’ve said the default setting for 5e is “The Multiverse.” Personally, I think that’s a bit of a retcon, as I don’t remember them saying anything of the sort in 2014. I’m even pretty sure it was at least quietly, the FR, as that’s where all the early adventurers are set.
Either way, The Multiverse where we are going forward. And as many people have said whenever this lore in the PHB conversation comes up, when the setting is the multiverse, it makes it next to impossible to include cultural lore in the PHB. Look at orcs in eberron, wildemount and the FR, to choose one example. And do orcs even exist in Theros?
Keeping species setting neutral in the PHB and putting bits about them in various setting books is by far the best answer.
It also is easy to write, there doesn't have to be any lore of culture. Essentially turning the races and creatures into numeric numbers to fight or talk to. It really looks to be an interesting take. I'd love to see how far 6E goes with it. It will be very helpful for new DM's to have no lore to go off on, they just make it themselves up on the fly, it will so encourage creativity and make the load on new DM's so much easier.
I’m about certain they’ve said the default setting for 5e is “The Multiverse.” Personally, I think that’s a bit of a retcon, as I don’t remember them saying anything of the sort in 2014. I’m even pretty sure it was at least quietly, the FR, as that’s where all the early adventurers are set.
Either way, The Multiverse where we are going forward. And as many people have said whenever this lore in the PHB conversation comes up, when the setting is the multiverse, it makes it next to impossible to include cultural lore in the PHB. Look at orcs in eberron, wildemount and the FR, to choose one example. And do orcs even exist in Theros?
Keeping species setting neutral in the PHB and putting bits about them in various setting books is by far the best answer.
It also is easy to write, there doesn't have to be any lore of culture. Essentially turning the races and creatures into numeric numbers to fight or talk to. It really looks to be an interesting take. I'd love to see how far 6E goes with it. It will be very helpful for new DM's to have no lore to go off on, they just make it themselves up on the fly, it will so encourage creativity and make the load on new DM's so much easier.
The people who are good at making stuff up on the fly already do that just fine. Imo all this does is create more legwork for the people who can’t or don’t want to do that, since useful reference points are going to be more dispersed if they’ve truly committed to excising lore from core content.
I’m about certain they’ve said the default setting for 5e is “The Multiverse.” Personally, I think that’s a bit of a retcon, as I don’t remember them saying anything of the sort in 2014. I’m even pretty sure it was at least quietly, the FR, as that’s where all the early adventurers are set.
Either way, The Multiverse where we are going forward. And as many people have said whenever this lore in the PHB conversation comes up, when the setting is the multiverse, it makes it next to impossible to include cultural lore in the PHB. Look at orcs in eberron, wildemount and the FR, to choose one example. And do orcs even exist in Theros?
Keeping species setting neutral in the PHB and putting bits about them in various setting books is by far the best answer.
Frankly, defaulting to “the Multiverse” comes across as a bit of a cop-out/obfuscation. If the “default” is “whatever people want to include”, then by definition there is no default, and everything that follows describing this position might as well be word salad. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice I’m still not convinced this and the corresponding “setting neutral” core will improve dynamics instead of just spreading worldbuilding resources out over a larger area. It seems self-evident that the previous arrangement has not stifled people who want to write their own material, so I have trouble seeing how this boost is more than nominal for them. And they’re clearly still committing to overarching lore existing in sources like BP:GotG and FToD, so it’s not even a paradigm shift in their large scale writing. I dunno, whenever I look at this it just seems like some kind of empty and performative gesture rather than a meaningful action. Doesn’t seriously affect my opinion of D&D or inclination to buy the products that interest me, I just don’t understand what it is that people who already have clearly been doing just fine homebrewing for years before this are promoting/gaining from this change.
The most popular setting, according to WotC is homebrew. I tried to source it, but I can't seem to track it down, but I know they've said it. Besides homebrew, there's currently 10 published settings. (That number is actually tough to pin down. Do you count Greyhawk because its where saltmarsh is? What do you do with Radiant Citadel which arguably introduced something like dozen settings? For the 10, I did count Greyhawk, and did not count RC at all. If you only want to go with full-on setting books, we're down to 9. And that includes Spelljammer and Planescape which to my mind serve at least partly as ways to transit between settings than settings in their own right. Like I said, tough to pin down.) Certainly, there are more people playing in the FR than there are in, say Ravinca. But no matter how you slice it, the vast majority of people are not playing in the FR. If it's say, 20 percent, heck, even 30, why should they spend their resources (not only page count that everyone is so focused on, but also staff time which is going to be the more expensive part) developing lore that only a fraction of the players will use?
And your examples of Fizbans and Bigby's are actually good ones. They are specialty books which include lore in them, and that's what many of us are sying is how it should be. If you want it, you can use it, and if you don't, its way, way easier to ignore the Elegy for the First World and the Ordning than it is to ignore the PHB saying elves act like X while orcs act like Y. And then you pick up Wildemount, and find out, all that stuff about orcs in the PHB, that's not true, here's how orcs are. Putting lore in the PHB sets up contradictions.
The people who are good at making stuff up on the fly already do that just fine. Imo all this does is create more legwork for the people who can’t or don’t want to do that, since useful reference points are going to be more dispersed if they’ve truly committed to excising lore from core content.
"The information exists in a book I haven't read" is less useful than "the information doesn't exist at all", because either way as a DM you have to come up with something on the fly, the only difference is that in the first case you might be wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
been reading this thread every few days and have a few questions :)
if the average players handbook is around 320pages (based of the last few editions and its been said that the new players handbook will have more then that)
so why does information and lore need to be cut - just like a condom wouldnt it be better to "have it and not need it rather then needing it and not having it"??
how does changing the contents change how much people have to read?? keep in mind there is still atleast 320+ pages to fill with text (and the occasional picture)
is the "wall of text" comments made mainly by people playing of their mobiles (screen size/display issues) or do people who physically play have the same opinions when it comes to the "dreaded wall of text"??
how does pulling information/lore from elsewhere internet, drivethru, wikis, other official/non-official books, etc. benefit/effect d&d?? why have any d&d books if all information/lore comes from elsewhere?? wouldnt the majority count as homebrew and be potentially incompatible with d&d or up to your DMs decision.
what information does a d&d player need compared to a d&d dungeon master??
based of skimming through the youtube video above - and mainly just personal opinion (feel free to ignore)
the layout for backgrounds seems similar to those (in the past) little art books you get when purchasing collector editions of console video games,
which does seem to streamline information (while leaving some out - features, suggested characteristics, traits, ideals, bond, flaw - may be found elsewhere on a different page, who knows) but also leaves alot of empty space on pages - will be interesting to see the final designs, personally think they need to cut or rescale the image in half to free up space for more information.
The layout for the classes seem similar to a card game (based of the fighters initial page) - now if that takes up a whole A4 page, i would be disappointed - personally would be happy with between 1/2 and 2/3s of the page being used to free up a some space but thats just my personal preference, curious to see what the following pages contain text wise.
The layout for subclasses (based of the champion page) seems to be enough to get across the general concepts and liking the addition of each one having its own picture to reference.
and as for all Items getting some artwork - love the idea, curious if its split between the new PHB and the DMG, interested in seeing how it all is implemented.
personally think that the OneD&D approach to species is strange could just be my interpretation, with each species being the same with a slightly different appearance (since ability scores move to background, size is optional, speed seems set to 30 or determined by size, life span generally 100yrs - or you get is if you have dark vision or not and a skill/attack??)
to me it seems like a tipping point towards turning the game completely digital (console game logic), similar to the average RPG on PC - since your species means very little if anything and it all comes down to your background (basically where you came from - guess nurture wins in the nature vs nurture debate when it comes to dnd species)
all in all looking forward to what the final results will be species, content, lore and design wise
I think you fundamentally have not understood a single post you have read. Let me clear up your misconceptions and help you better understand why some changes are made.
First, the total length of the physical PHB is exactly why superfluous information needs to be cut. In digital, they can add as much information as they want—the additional cost of text is fairly negligible in terms of data storage. But in physical, every single page has a cost—and the more pages you have, the higher that cost is for each additional page (harder to print larger books; harder to warehouse; more expensive to ship; harder for stores to find shelf space for; etc.).
Second, the total length of the PHB is not the “wall of text” folks are discussing. The overwhelming majority of players are not going to read the entire PHB - they are going to read the information related to their choices (and, even then, often do not even read that). Keeping information in species selection down to a concise set of necessary info increases the chance that (a) people might read a few different species to “shop around” and (b) that people will at least read the information related to their species. Five decades have shown that, if they see too much information, they’ll probably just assume “eh, I know what a dwarf is, I’ll just do that and assume nothing all that useful is in the six paragraphs of text.”
Pulling information from other D&D sources reflects a reality of how people play and how the 21st century works. For starters, the overwhelming majority of games are homebrew - official lore might inspire home brewers, but it is not dispositive, and decades have shown putting too much “official” lore in the PHB can lead to “but you are playing dwarves in this homebrew world wrong; the official lore says X!” problems.
Wizards is striking a balance where they are giving just enough lore for the most popular setting, while still providing information for those looking to use official settings. Part of that is acknowledging that folks who want to use official settings can get official lore from places other than the PHB. That could be published 5e sources (adventures; setting-specific books), that could be earlier edition sourcebooks Wizards sells on places like DriveThruRPG or that players can get on the secondary market, or it could be places like wikis, which conglomerate decades of lore into a convenient, hyperlinked format.
In earlier editions, you could not really assume folks would be able to find lore—which meant putting lore in the base books was important, even if it led to the decades-known “but the PHB say….!!!” problems. In the modern era, you can pretty much assume that people who want lore can and will be able to get it - which means you can solve a particular type of “bad player” problem and free up space for mechanics and rules.
Those mechanics and rules are why you still have books. The lore is not what makes D&D - the mechanics are (again, most campaigns are homebrewed, so for most campaigns, the players, not Wizards, are making the lore). Less lore means more room for mechanics. It means more room for art to inspire players and give them something to look at. It means a more universally useful and efficient use of the limited pages the PHB holds.
I also think you might need to look at the Playtest and MMM species again - they are hardly “the same with a different appearance.” Species mechanics are not going anywhere - Dragonborn are still getting breath attacks, halflings are still getting Luck, etc. Each species is decidedly different in how they play, so I do not think your concerns here have any merit.
As for your concerns about the game moving to digital - I could tell you that Wizards’ staff have been pretty clear that they are paper players also and that they think paper is a necessary part of the game. But I do not have to—as should be pretty obvious from this entire conversation, paper is D&D is the very reason we are talking about what should or should not make the cut. The very reason Wizards has limited space and needs to make hard decisions is because they are focused on a paper product and the limitations of such a product.
again they have already mentioned the book has more pages then the last, so 320+ pages - why cut information and lore if it already fits within the 320 pages, especially when you have more pages/space beyond that to use??
also whether its digital or physical shouldnt change the amount of content/text, and considering you mentioned the "Wizards’ staff have been pretty clear that they are paper players" dont you think they would get annoyed having to pull out a phone or computer disrupting things to look up lore or information or rely on memory for stuff previously contained in the PHB??
you mention that some people might not read the entire PHB, since that may be the case for some, wouldnt it be wise to make sure that they found the information or lore they were after, instead of making them go through another step of tracking down that information and potentially deter some from playing?? personally i find having that lore helps spark my imagination just as much as the art and have no issues with homebrew however see homebrew as secondary to lore, as in homebrew is an optional exception to the rule or potentially an update to pre-existing information
referenced the following racial traits/features "Dragonborn are still getting breath attacks, halflings are still getting Luck, etc." as skiils/attacks - its a lingo thing. since they havent affected much in my experience or choices, perhaps your process and interpretation is different then mine, "each to their own" as they say.
i just think theres enough room in the 320+ page PHB for the same amount of lore/information (possibly even more) along with the extra art work considering the book is larger in the amount of pages then the current one, so they already are willing to take on the cost (as a business) of those extra pages so it confuses me why there is now apparently "limited space" since theres essentially more space to work with...
First: The lore does not fit in the current 320 pages. There are a number of aspects of the PHB where they sacrificed mechanical clarity for the sake of fitting additional lore. That is nothing new to D&D - this fame has a long history of ambiguous or poorly-written rules,
Second: Those players who want physical lore can still get if - the secondary market is an easy place to get older physical books. And they probably will do that anyway - the amount of lore being taken from the PHB is negligible - a paragraph of background on each race. The folks who really need additional lore need more than the PHB offers—so they already were going to have to seek outside lore. No skin off their nose, since, regardless of whether the PHB has a dozen or so extra paragraphs, they will still be taking the same course of action.
Third: You fundamentally do not understand how most players operate. The folks who do not want to read the PHB are also not going to want to track down additional lore. They are the kind of player who will be satisfied with a picture and the rather information-dense set of information the UA content provides.
Fourth: You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion—but your opinion seems rather unsupported by evidence; so unsupported I suspect you are actively looking for reasons to dislike the rules changes, rather than trying to actually learn about the content and make an informed, fact-driven decision. After all, there are substantial lore differences and mechanical differences between the UA races (and rhe MMM races). Saying “but they all seem the same to me” is a pretty silly thing in light of the myriad differences built into 2024-style rules.
Fifth: You might think that - but Wizards clearly wants to change things up, and they understand their players and the publishing industry better than we ever could. Wizards collects a whole bunch of data—multiple long polls per year and other mechanisms for learning about their players. They have collected tens of thousands of responses on this UA content, including the amount of lore in it. They know far better than we ever could what players want. Perhaps they will add the lore back in based on their data; perhaps not. But they are not going to do so because folks offer conclusively statements of “well, I think it would be easy to add back in”—they are going to do it if it truly is what players want.
first - were talking PHB to PHB, im not including lore and information found in say eberron and the like, unless that species or what not becomes apart of the PHB.
currently each race (in the PHB) has 2-3 pages of species information for the player races with 1/3 to 1/2 of each of those pages taken up by images, keep in mind due to the "parents form different species" part of the playtest stuff theres the potential of freeing up some space.
each class/subclass has around 5 pages (split between them) each of information with a potential of +1 page for each new subclass depending on artwork (seems they might go for a 50/50 split for the subclass pages)
and each background currently has roughly 1 to 2 pages of information yet based of the youtube vid posted earlier in the thread seems to be leaning towards 2 backgrounds worth of information per page, potentially cutting that whole sections page count in half unless more backgrounds are added
second - im saying theres potentially plenty of room to the point of having room for any extra lore and information depending on layout and what they choose to add, alter or even remove if obsolete or no longer compatible
third - some players are different from others, some like lore others like images - there is a middle ground without instructing people to look elsewhere or limiting one in place of the other, people can just as easily find art online as they can more in depth or setting specific lore and information
forth - i actually look forward to seeing how they put it all together and the official additions they may make, especially in the player race, background, feats and all the subclasses
fifth - i couldnt agree more but since its up to speculation i cant help but ask myself PHB to PHB "has anything been removed" and if something has been removed "what are they replacing it with "
Rather than rely on whatever conjecture you are basing your thoughts on, why don’t you a daily read the UA 1 playtest materials. Here is a link. Lore is not going away - and the lore that is provided is extremely content-dense, with every single sentence designed to convey a meaningful part of the species’ identity.
The original PHB wasted space on a bunch of Forgotten Realms-specific lore—that is lore which belongs in a Forgotten Realms book, not the core book which should be equally useful to every single campaign setting, official or not. The new system - a quick paragraph with a few “and here is a quick summary for a few different official worlds, but also you can make your own lore” sentences is a clearly superior option given the fact most players do not play in the Forgotten Realms, and thus should not be subjected to Wizards disproportionately focusing on that minority setting.
i have actually read it a few times, the ardling peaked my interest along with how backgrounds seemed to become more important
also never said anything about lore being removed or what lore from the PHB would be included in the new one but instead mentioned looking forwarded to the potential for more lore, artwork included. im especially looking forward to the DMG and MM but thats a different matter
^^ 100%
There should be no 'default setting' for 5e. That was something that I didn't appreciate about 4e when it first came out, but their 'Nentir Vale' really left a lot of room available for DMs to do what they wanted, and it didn't crap all over existing lore that people were already invested in.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I believe they already said the PHB will be 400 pages and they will need to be careful to make that limitation despite lack of lore. So your 320+ argument for lore is not what WotC is seeing.
Edit: oops, I think I was thinking of MCDM’s RPG. Nevermind what I said. Although some of us think lore should be in the settings books not the player’s handbook
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
when was the last time anyone saw the phrase 'forgotten realms' by itself in a book? the SCAG preface? i'd argue that the Sword Coast has been lifted wholesale from FR and quietly elevated to 'generic fantasy example' status. the SCAG itself repeatedly calls the area 'The Realms' and makes a big show of recommending you disregard the history of the few towns whose history it summarizes. they fall all over themselves to not stifle anyone's imagination. a huge, giant continent (and planet!) yet somehow this one coast has the only three fleshed out [[edit: 5e!]] cities (two of which being famous for video game settings) and space for every PHB race [[edit: the movie's parole board included an aarakocra and a dragonborn at the very least. such a diverse bureaucracy!]]. detailed though it appears to be, The Realms of the coast are an intentionally incomplete example in a bubble. when someone in this thread has come in to discuss 'the lore' in a PHB context i'd assert that one must to ask some probing questions to discern whether that poster is thinking about FR as a setting or just the generic coastal 'The Realms' example lore. it's causing some arguing past each other here, i feel.
personally, i'm annoyed that the greater Forgotten Realms world doesn't get a 5e setting book and it's entirely the fault of The Realms.
so much this ^^^ ...it's great that people are free to make new products but it's overwhelming. i almost want to see a 'blue checkmark' system so i know who to pay attention to, but that's asking for trouble isn't it?
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!
This is a complaint folks have been making since before 5e, it is a complaint they will be making for years to come. I do not expect this complaint will bear any more fruit in 5e than it did in 4e and prior editions.
The Sword Coast has always dominated the release of Forgotten Realms lore. It is where the sourcebooks tend to be, where the novels tend to be, where the games tend to be. Sometimes, including in 5e, they venture beyond the Sword Coast to Icewind Dale in the north, and perhaps a very limited number of other releases have gone beyond that—but, for multiple editions, “The Forgotten Realms” and “Sword Coast” have been effectively synonyms.
I think your two pieces of data supporting your theory are misreadings of the situation.
First, the language telling people they can ignore lore for small towns exists to provide DMs protection from two specific types of problematic player—the Metagamer and the Lore Nazi. The Metagamer might use knowledge they have obtained from video games or books about a small town to their advantage, using knowledge the Player has to influence Character actions. Allowing the DM to make changes undercuts the effectiveness of metagaming, as their meta-information need not be accurate. The Lore Nazi is the kind of player with an obsessive knowledge about small elements of the game—perhaps even more than the DM. Perhaps the DM never played a certain video game, but they saw the town on a map and decided to use it with little additional info. The Lore Nazi might correct the DM or just generally be a jerk about “incorrect” information—this language gives the DM cover from how much knowledge players might have amassed from the readily available FR multimedia content.
Recall, after homebrew, the most popular setting is “homebrew based on Forgotten Realms.” This kind of language provides some cover for the DM who is homebrewing in the game against those who might have a strong knowledge of this popular setting.
Regarding calling it simply “the Realms” - I expect that is to save space and acknowledge that it has, for multiple editions been a joke in the D&D community that the plane should be called “the Remembered Realms” (it is not a good joke, just a common one). Folks know what you mean when you say “the Realms”—no need to overly complicate their abbreviations.
All that said, I would love to see a Ravenloft-style book for other areas of the Realms—just like the Ravenloft book rapid fire established lore for various Domains of Dread, I think a setting book fleshing out other areas of the Forgotten Realms is a bit overdue for 5e.
I’m about certain they’ve said the default setting for 5e is “The Multiverse.” Personally, I think that’s a bit of a retcon, as I don’t remember them saying anything of the sort in 2014. I’m even pretty sure it was at least quietly, the FR, as that’s where all the early adventurers are set.
Either way, The Multiverse where we are going forward. And as many people have said whenever this lore in the PHB conversation comes up, when the setting is the multiverse, it makes it next to impossible to include cultural lore in the PHB. Look at orcs in eberron, wildemount and the FR, to choose one example. And do orcs even exist in Theros?
Keeping species setting neutral in the PHB and putting bits about them in various setting books is by far the best answer.
4e had a forgotten realms campaign guide (2008). i haven't read it, so i won't comment. as for metagamers, at least they show engagement with the campaign. i can work with that.
my entry to the game was ad&d 2e and lately i've been hoovering up info about all the nations in the adventures i couldn't afford as a kid: the Silver Marches of Luruar, distant Thay, less-distant Cormyr (home of the SCAG's purple dragon knight), and everyone around the Sea of Fallen Stars. there's so much that happened there a hundred years ago and then it all just fell off the map. fell outside the bubble. additionally, i'll point at The Book of Many Things for including 4e's Gardmore Abbey (and many spelljammer/astral/planar locations) which definitely is not of forgotten realms origin. also Tasha, Bigby, Mordenkainen, etc are all characters from Greyhawk (or before). none of which much addresses the original aim of this thread (except to maybe say "hey, look at the way d&d is continuing to expand and be interesting"), but does perhaps push back on the convenience of assuming forgotten realms is a burden on 'default setting' lore. forgotten realms is an accepted shorthand so broad as to be worthless except to express when something is not Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, etc. the sword coast (and savage frontier and silver marches combined) boasts <10% of the continent of Faerun. it's like every other 90s sitcom being set in new york and assuming their experiences are sufficiently relatable to the rest of the nation, let alone the rest of the world.
...but i'm not here to advocate for big change, just expressing a thought that might resonate with others. devs could do worse than describing a species/race/etc in the context of The (sword coast) Realms as a starting point. notes about that peoples' place in a less default setting (alongside avoiding antiquated stereotypes of 'violent tendencies'/'noble savages'/'surly drunks'/etc) can fit in the DMG under a new 'what to talk about in session zero' heading.
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!
Frankly, defaulting to “the Multiverse” comes across as a bit of a cop-out/obfuscation. If the “default” is “whatever people want to include”, then by definition there is no default, and everything that follows describing this position might as well be word salad. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice I’m still not convinced this and the corresponding “setting neutral” core will improve dynamics instead of just spreading worldbuilding resources out over a larger area. It seems self-evident that the previous arrangement has not stifled people who want to write their own material, so I have trouble seeing how this boost is more than nominal for them. And they’re clearly still committing to overarching lore existing in sources like BP:GotG and FToD, so it’s not even a paradigm shift in their large scale writing. I dunno, whenever I look at this it just seems like some kind of empty and performative gesture rather than a meaningful action. Doesn’t seriously affect my opinion of D&D or inclination to buy the products that interest me, I just don’t understand what it is that people who already have clearly been doing just fine homebrewing for years before this are promoting/gaining from this change.
[REDACTED]
Making the default the endless multiverse makes every possible iteration of the game “official.” It is Wizards’ way of recognizing that the folks who would use “official” as a term to justify their gatekeeping are wrong.
[REDACTED]
"the multiverse" just means that when someone like Bigby describes the giants and the ordning, they're doing it 'within the multiverse' rather than within, for example, forgotten realms. however, then the devs go and include a useful per-setting section to say "here's how that looks in FR," and "mostly doesn't apply" for the rest of the settings on down the list. i don't want to call this a bait and switch, but in that book they're aiming for multiverse but facing The Realms. this layout suggests many things are still going to be targeted for a 'default setting' that is more specific than setting-agnostic or multiverse. i'm interested to see how that works for the PHB.
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!
It also is easy to write, there doesn't have to be any lore of culture. Essentially turning the races and creatures into numeric numbers to fight or talk to. It really looks to be an interesting take. I'd love to see how far 6E goes with it. It will be very helpful for new DM's to have no lore to go off on, they just make it themselves up on the fly, it will so encourage creativity and make the load on new DM's so much easier.
The people who are good at making stuff up on the fly already do that just fine. Imo all this does is create more legwork for the people who can’t or don’t want to do that, since useful reference points are going to be more dispersed if they’ve truly committed to excising lore from core content.
The most popular setting, according to WotC is homebrew. I tried to source it, but I can't seem to track it down, but I know they've said it. Besides homebrew, there's currently 10 published settings. (That number is actually tough to pin down. Do you count Greyhawk because its where saltmarsh is? What do you do with Radiant Citadel which arguably introduced something like dozen settings? For the 10, I did count Greyhawk, and did not count RC at all. If you only want to go with full-on setting books, we're down to 9. And that includes Spelljammer and Planescape which to my mind serve at least partly as ways to transit between settings than settings in their own right. Like I said, tough to pin down.) Certainly, there are more people playing in the FR than there are in, say Ravinca. But no matter how you slice it, the vast majority of people are not playing in the FR. If it's say, 20 percent, heck, even 30, why should they spend their resources (not only page count that everyone is so focused on, but also staff time which is going to be the more expensive part) developing lore that only a fraction of the players will use?
And your examples of Fizbans and Bigby's are actually good ones. They are specialty books which include lore in them, and that's what many of us are sying is how it should be. If you want it, you can use it, and if you don't, its way, way easier to ignore the Elegy for the First World and the Ordning than it is to ignore the PHB saying elves act like X while orcs act like Y. And then you pick up Wildemount, and find out, all that stuff about orcs in the PHB, that's not true, here's how orcs are. Putting lore in the PHB sets up contradictions.
"The information exists in a book I haven't read" is less useful than "the information doesn't exist at all", because either way as a DM you have to come up with something on the fly, the only difference is that in the first case you might be wrong.