Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
IMHO what has been in the three core books known as “lore” should remain as is, and a disclaimer added such that it is the discretion of the DM to alter said “lore” in whatever way they wish to.
Meanwhile, Accessory “lore” could be created for various versions of different Material Planes.
That just my 2 gold for the weekend.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore.
What lore is needed that isn't already there? Those are recent books, presumably they reflect WotC's current design philosophy.
The issue with the lore in the core books is that, even where it isn't actively problematic, it's a colossal waste of space you have to wade through to reach the content of value. Rule books should be structured as reference books, and that means clear and concise.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore.
What lore is needed that isn't already there? Those are recent books, presumably they reflect WotC's current design philosophy.
The issue with the lore in the core books is that, even where it isn't actively problematic, it's a colossal waste of space you have to wade through to reach the content of value. Rule books should be structured as reference books, and that means clear and concise.
I'm not saying they were short, I'm saying that they shouldn't be shriven of the lore content we got in the current versions.
And in a manual for a roleplaying game, content that provides inspiration for how one can play a role is not intrinsically a waste of space just because a certain segment of the players don't wish to use it. D&D is about more than just the rules, and the core books should reflect that.
For those who are claiming the lore in the PHB is oh so very important... how recently have you actually read it? Half of it gets ignored even for published characters in the FR.
Which rather disproves the idea that somehow it's poisoning the well simply by existing, doesn't it? Seriously, barring arguments about things like page count that we really don't know enough to make any informed calls on, how does it hurt the people who want to disregard lore for there to be things like "Elves can live well over 700 years, giving them a broad perspective on events that might trouble the shorter-lived races more deeply. They are more often amused than excited, and more likely to be curious than greedy. They tend to remain aloof and unfazed by petty happenstance" or "Lacking a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. They are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life"? If the concern is about it coming across as absolute instructions (setting aside the fact you intend to actively ignore them), then it's just a matter of brushing up the language with a few qualifiers: "Lacking a homeland, many tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. Such individuals are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once such a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life. Other tieflings might never grow so jaded, and instead simply viewing their appearance as the way of things and remain open to others unless given reason to do otherwise, refusing to let the bigotry and ignorance darken their own worldview". And with a few edits and one additional sentence, the description now outlines a spectrum of possible outlooks.
At the end of the day, a manual for a roleplaying game does need some form of roleplay prompts.
And in a manual for a roleplaying game, content that provides inspiration for how one can play a role is not intrinsically a waste of space just because a certain segment of the players don't wish to use it. D&D is about more than just the rules, and the core books should reflect that.
It's a waste of space for the people who don't read it, or who read it and don't use it. Which is almost everyone.
And in a manual for a roleplaying game, content that provides inspiration for how one can play a role is not intrinsically a waste of space just because a certain segment of the players don't wish to use it. D&D is about more than just the rules, and the core books should reflect that.
It's a waste of space for the people who don't read it, or who read it and don't use it. Which is almost everyone.
As determined by your extensive study of the subject? And, again, how does it actively hurt you for portions of the book to exist that you won't use? Past PHB's never seem to have suffered from some critical and detrimental shortage of space due to this content, so why can't you just live and let live with content that you're not interested in, and instead insist on absolute segregation?
And in a manual for a roleplaying game, content that provides inspiration for how one can play a role is not intrinsically a waste of space just because a certain segment of the players don't wish to use it. D&D is about more than just the rules, and the core books should reflect that.
It's a waste of space for the people who don't read it, or who read it and don't use it. Which is almost everyone.
So if that would be the case, would I still have to pay the same for less, or would the less I get cost equally less?
Almost is if one where the same as the other, huh?!
Anagrams are not synonyms. 'Love' and 'Vole' are very different things, at least to most people. No one is obligated to only tow pairs, despite two and two being anagrams. Securing does not always mean rescuing.
How much you get from any given book and its value to you will vary by individual. Similar number of pages would be expected to cost similar amounts, but that does not equate to less of one thing within those pages meaning lower cost, since if the number of pages is similar, then other content is presumably filling that space.
And yet people wonder why the community is so heavily player based and so few DM/GM’s are available, or willing to transition from to jump directly into the role.
why pay more for something that that as a Dm/Gm wouldn’t help make better use of what is already available, but further compound the work that is needed just to get ready to use the material?
IMHO, D&D is not a pay to play system. The game shouldn’t adopt a strategy of let’s cut what is useful to someone who isn’t a PC, and who is trying to adapt to the rapidly evolving and expanding material, so we can turn that sandbox open universe's system into a lootbox, you get what you get despite what it cost type system.
To me it just comes off as back-assward way of thinking, and a waste of untapped potential.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Almost is if one where the same as the other, huh?!
Anagrams are not synonyms. 'Love' and 'Vole' are very different things, at least to most people. No one is obligated to only tow pairs, despite two and two being anagrams. Securing does not always mean rescuing.
How much you get from any given book and its value to you will vary by individual. Similar number of pages would be expected to cost similar amounts, but that does not equate to less of one thing within those pages meaning lower cost, since if the number of pages is similar, then other content is presumably filling that space.
And yet people wonder why the community is so heavily player based and so few DM/GM’s are available, or willing to transition from to jump directly into the role.
why pay more for something that that as a Dm/Gm wouldn’t help make better use of what is already available, but further compound the work that is needed just to get ready to use the material?
IMHO, D&D is not a pay to play system. The game shouldn’t adopt a strategy of let’s cut what is useful to someone who isn’t a PC, and who is trying to adapt to the rapidly evolving and expanding material, so we can turn that sandbox open universe's system into a lootbox, you get what you get despite what it cost type system.
To me it just comes off as back-assward way of thinking, and a waste of untapped potential.
The reality of the DM player dynamic does not support your conjecture. TSR and Wizards have tried a whole bunch of different tactics to increase the number of DMs. The numbers never change - they have been at about 20% of players being willing to DM for the past five decades.
Streamlining the lore in the Core Books is not going to have an impact on the DM percentages. We know this because Wizards already tried it in 4e. 4e did a lot of what 5e is now trying to do in the core books - streamlined lore that was useful to everyone, generally applicable (it was officially a new plane, but that plane was intentionally limited so it did not create many conflict of lore issues).
Despite the more streamlined approach to lore and removal of some of the lore bloat which is inherent with well-developed settings, the percentage of DMs remained at that 20% level.
That is not to say the DM/Player disparity is not a problem - but it is pretty clear that “amount of lore” is not a factor which moves the needle in a critical way. The solution to that problem lies elsewhere, elusive despite five decades of questing to find it.
Almost is if one where the same as the other, huh?!
Anagrams are not synonyms. 'Love' and 'Vole' are very different things, at least to most people. No one is obligated to only tow pairs, despite two and two being anagrams. Securing does not always mean rescuing.
How much you get from any given book and its value to you will vary by individual. Similar number of pages would be expected to cost similar amounts, but that does not equate to less of one thing within those pages meaning lower cost, since if the number of pages is similar, then other content is presumably filling that space.
And yet people wonder why the community is so heavily player based and so few DM/GM’s are available, or willing to transition from to jump directly into the role.
why pay more for something that that as a Dm/Gm wouldn’t help make better use of what is already available, but further compound the work that is needed just to get ready to use the material?
IMHO, D&D is not a pay to play system. The game shouldn’t adopt a strategy of let’s cut what is useful to someone who isn’t a PC, and who is trying to adapt to the rapidly evolving and expanding material, so we can turn that sandbox open universe's system into a lootbox, you get what you get despite what it cost type system.
To me it just comes off as back-assward way of thinking, and a waste of untapped potential.
The reality of the DM player dynamic does not support your conjecture. TSR and Wizards have tried a whole bunch of different tactics to increase the number of DMs. The numbers never change - they have been at about 20% of players being willing to DM for the past five decades.
Streamlining the lore in the Core Books is not going to have an impact on the DM percentages. We know this because Wizards already tried it in 4e. 4e did a lot of what 5e is now trying to do in the core books - streamlined lore that was useful to everyone, generally applicable (it was officially a new plane, but that plane was intentionally limited so it did not create many conflict of lore issues).
Despite the more streamlined approach to lore and removal of some of the lore bloat which is inherent with well-developed settings, the percentage of DMs remained at that 20% level.
That is not to say the DM/Player disparity is not a problem - but it is pretty clear that “amount of lore” is not a factor which moves the needle in a critical way. The solution to that problem lies elsewhere, elusive despite five decades of questing to find it.
And over the years, the former systems created still remain played and some adapted to the more streamlined modern versions.
and the core “lore” which is based off a questionable time in history, and based on various different viewpoints of what a fantasy universe might look like given the existence of such extraordinary means of altering such universe in ways that are unique, shouldn’t be just tossed aside because it cost precious space and time to explain, and further restrict the creative possibilities of what is already available.
Im all for cleaner, better defined and organized material I would find interesting both as a player and a DM/GM, but I also would like to see more material from a beginners perspective on ways to turn the general material given into more useful means of utilizing the openness of the system.
personally, all I need is the core three and TCoE and XGtE to cover IMO enough to not care for anything other then a generic setting, and anything else just overpriced fluff that serves no value other than to make more headaches than is worth.
As for the constant percentages of player to game master, it always took time to learn the rules as a player enough to comfortably play, from the game master side a factor of 4 in time needed to effectively use such rules will always be the case.
But if the mentality is to ether,
1) extend the measure of time needed to learn the system to an extent that it discourages player to master transitions, and eases the transition to a DM-less game
or
2) maintain and even expand on a model of nickel and dime material that has been found to be lacking or inconsistent, overpriced and poorly thought though
well, IMHO that’s back-assward, and currently shows that till we get a clearer understanding of what’s to come, the lessons of the past have yet to be learned.
September is 8 months away, and I’m sure bits and pieces will come to light and picked apart and discussed, and ultimately the community will decide if what’s to be will be another 4e miss, or a smash, or about the same.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
It addresses the scenario given, and " a lot of folks" do play this way.
Some anecdotal data, I personally play at least monthly with ~ 30 different people, less than 5 of them own nothing more than a single set of dice (one won't even buy a set of dice). I loan out physical books all of the time, but not without a reminder that every DM can limit or change what they choose. I have several copies of the PHB, XGtE, TCoE for this reason. It may not be the norm, but it has worked well to garner more interest in playing and help with finding players in my area, and lore is what hooks many into playing their first game.
The lore problem is an "expectation" problem that is caused by poor/no communication from the very person (DM) creating the world being played in that leads to disappointment for both the DM and the player. The game is 95% talking, so just have a conversation about things like lore, rules and other things the DM is gonna change or omit from their game. It isn't hard very often, and the rare times it is hard it is time well spent.
Players like lore too, having some in the best selling book is not a bad thing. There are plenty of other things that many DM's choose not to use in the PHB, and it is handled simply by having a discussion; the way a little lore in a core book can and has been done for decades. It simply is not a problem unless someone wants it to be a problem.
But, again, it is not like there is going to be “no lore” in the PHB. The UA very clearly contains a decent amount of Lore - two or three generic paragraphs then a paragraph or two rapid firing some plane-specific lore. It is very clear Wizards has put a lot of thought into balancing the lore to make sure those who want it for character creation still have a foundation, while not also providing so much information that it (a) recreates a decades-old problem of “but the official lore in the PHB says X!” and (b) does not waste space on plane-specific lore which is not relevant to many players,
We are getting the best of both worlds - a compromise which should actually work for players and DMs alike.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
How sanctimonious, rude, and insulting, all in 5 sentences. That’s impressive
I did read it, but with one thing or another and the pizza delivery, and extra helping the absolute noobs, and there being 7 players to help all at the same time it slipped my mind to explain every li’l difference in the lore for each race. And I didn’t have Volo’s to the “new players” I handed it to some of the more experienced players and they weren’t the issue. The issue was with the middling experience players who didn’t read my handout (as opposed to the more experienced players who did, and the noobs I handheald through the process). But had the lore in those books been neutral I wouldn’t have needed half the handout in the first place.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
It addresses the scenario given, and " a lot of folks" do play this way.
Some anecdotal data, I personally play at least monthly with ~ 30 different people, less than 5 of them own nothing more than a single set of dice (one won't even buy a set of dice). I loan out physical books all of the time, but not without a reminder that every DM can limit or change what they choose. I have several copies of the PHB, XGtE, TCoE for this reason. It may not be the norm, but it has worked well to garner more interest in playing and help with finding players in my area, and lore is what hooks many into playing their first game.
The lore problem is an "expectation" problem that is caused by poor/no communication from the very person (DM) creating the world being played in that leads to disappointment for both the DM and the player. The game is 95% talking, so just have a conversation about things like lore, rules and other things the DM is gonna change or omit from their game. It isn't hard very often, and the rare times it is hard it is time well spent.
Players like lore too, having some in the best selling book is not a bad thing. There are plenty of other things that many DM's choose not to use in the PHB, and it is handled simply by having a discussion; the way a little lore in a core book can and has been done for decades. It simply is not a problem unless someone wants it to be a problem.
But, again, it is not like there is going to be “no lore” in the PHB. The UA very clearly contains a decent amount of Lore - two or three generic paragraphs then a paragraph or two rapid firing some plane-specific lore. It is very clear Wizards has put a lot of thought into balancing the lore to make sure those who want it for character creation still have a foundation, while not also providing so much information that it (a) recreates a decades-old problem of “but the official lore in the PHB says X!” and (b) does not waste space on plane-specific lore which is not relevant to many players,
We are getting the best of both worlds - a compromise which should actually work for players and DMs alike.
Agreed, but not the argument I was addressing which is: those for "no lore in the core".
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
I want no lore in the core books. In my opinion, core books should be about mechanics. If GMs and players need lore information, they can turn to the appropriate setting book.
From the current PHB, I would like Appendix B and C to be cut, and I would want the race section to be slimmed down by removing their social and cultural information, as that is setting specific. With extra pages freed up, I want that to be dedicated to more character creation options.
Ideally, I would like the new PHB to compile all the PC options from the old PHB, XGTE, TCOE, and MP:MOTM, so players will only need to go through only two or three books at most (PHB, setting book, and maybe adventure book or second setting book) to create a character. Currently, a player that wants to play as an Eladrin bladesinger who wants to make people's head explode, they will need to go through the PHB for the basic class, TCOE for the subclass, XGTE for the spell, and MP:MOTM for the species. Going through four books on top of the setting and/or adventure book for character creation is not very user friendly.
Realistically, I think the new PHB will only compile some of the most popular options from those four books to keep costs low, and I think Wizards still wants to keep the other three books in circulation for profit.
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
I want no lore in the core books. In my opinion, core books should be about mechanics. If GMs and players need lore information, they can turn to the appropriate setting book.
From the current PHB, I would like Appendix B and C to be cut, and I would want the race section to be slimmed down by removing their social and cultural information, as that is setting specific. With extra pages freed up, I want that to be dedicated to more character creation options.
Ideally, I would like the new PHB to compile all the PC options from the old PHB, XGTE, TCOE, and MP:MOTM, so players will only need to go through only two or three books at most (PHB, setting book, and maybe adventure book or second setting book) to create a character. Currently, a player that wants to play as an Eladrin bladesinger who wants to make people's head explode, they will need to go through the PHB for the basic class, TCOE for the subclass, XGTE for the spell, and MP:MOTM for the species. Going through four books on top of the setting and/or adventure book for character creation is not very user friendly.
Realistically, I think the new PHB will only compile some of the most popular options from those four books to keep costs low, and I think Wizards still wants to keep the other three books in circulation for profit.
I think there is utility to both those Appendixes, but they could each be improved upon. Much like some basic universal lore (stripped of things like culture and society information) helps players conceptualize what the nonsense word "Tiefling" might mean, I think you need to have some very basic, universal (or rapid-fire from different settings) information to ensure the DM does not have to do all the heavy lifting of instructing their players on even very elementary things.
For Appendix B, choosing a deity is an important part of character creation for multiple classes and thus there needs to be some kind of player-facing information about what deities they can choose from. I think the way the current PHB does things is probably the best way to convey this information--keeping the information in an Appendix gives the information a bit less weight and, by rapid-fire listing a bunch of gods, they can provide a whole list of options at very little space investment.
I would make two changes to this section--first would be starting off with a paragraph on homebrew and talking with your DM about the pantheon before picking a god. Second, I think they could cut the tables of Greek, Norse, Celtic, and Egyptian gods in their entirety. The DMG could have a paragraph that says "If you want a familiar pantheon, you could check out real world pantheons" and leave it at that--the PHB does not really need to discuss that possibility.
I think Appendix C could probably be replaced with an Appendix on "the world you play in" and give a short primer on Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Homebrew. Just enough to let players know "hey, here are some of the worlds that your DM might use." This would serve two purposes--it would give the Players just enough information to better understand the game worlds and how the game works (which is kind of the point of the PHB) and it would give the players a starting off point so they know what they want to research when purchasing supplemental products.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
IMHO what has been in the three core books known as “lore” should remain as is, and a disclaimer added such that it is the discretion of the DM to alter said “lore” in whatever way they wish to.
Meanwhile, Accessory “lore” could be created for various versions of different Material Planes.
That just my 2 gold for the weekend.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
What lore is needed that isn't already there? Those are recent books, presumably they reflect WotC's current design philosophy.
The issue with the lore in the core books is that, even where it isn't actively problematic, it's a colossal waste of space you have to wade through to reach the content of value. Rule books should be structured as reference books, and that means clear and concise.
I'm not saying they were short, I'm saying that they shouldn't be shriven of the lore content we got in the current versions.
And in a manual for a roleplaying game, content that provides inspiration for how one can play a role is not intrinsically a waste of space just because a certain segment of the players don't wish to use it. D&D is about more than just the rules, and the core books should reflect that.
Which rather disproves the idea that somehow it's poisoning the well simply by existing, doesn't it? Seriously, barring arguments about things like page count that we really don't know enough to make any informed calls on, how does it hurt the people who want to disregard lore for there to be things like "Elves can live well over 700 years, giving them a broad perspective on events that might trouble the shorter-lived races more deeply. They are more often amused than excited, and more likely to be curious than greedy. They tend to remain aloof and unfazed by petty happenstance" or "Lacking a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. They are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life"? If the concern is about it coming across as absolute instructions (setting aside the fact you intend to actively ignore them), then it's just a matter of brushing up the language with a few qualifiers: "Lacking a homeland, many tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. Such individuals are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once such a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life. Other tieflings might never grow so jaded, and instead simply viewing their appearance as the way of things and remain open to others unless given reason to do otherwise, refusing to let the bigotry and ignorance darken their own worldview". And with a few edits and one additional sentence, the description now outlines a spectrum of possible outlooks.
At the end of the day, a manual for a roleplaying game does need some form of roleplay prompts.
It's a waste of space for the people who don't read it, or who read it and don't use it. Which is almost everyone.
As determined by your extensive study of the subject? And, again, how does it actively hurt you for portions of the book to exist that you won't use? Past PHB's never seem to have suffered from some critical and detrimental shortage of space due to this content, so why can't you just live and let live with content that you're not interested in, and instead insist on absolute segregation?
So if that would be the case, would I still have to pay the same for less, or would the less I get cost equally less?
Form a theory standpoint.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Oh and another two copper for the pot,
lore is an anagram of role.
Almost is if one where the same as the other, huh?!
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
And yet people wonder why the community is so heavily player based and so few DM/GM’s are available, or willing to transition from to jump directly into the role.
why pay more for something that that as a Dm/Gm wouldn’t help make better use of what is already available, but further compound the work that is needed just to get ready to use the material?
IMHO, D&D is not a pay to play system. The game shouldn’t adopt a strategy of let’s cut what is useful to someone who isn’t a PC, and who is trying to adapt to the rapidly evolving and expanding material, so we can turn that sandbox open universe's system into a lootbox, you get what you get despite what it cost type system.
To me it just comes off as back-assward way of thinking, and a waste of untapped potential.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
The reality of the DM player dynamic does not support your conjecture. TSR and Wizards have tried a whole bunch of different tactics to increase the number of DMs. The numbers never change - they have been at about 20% of players being willing to DM for the past five decades.
Streamlining the lore in the Core Books is not going to have an impact on the DM percentages. We know this because Wizards already tried it in 4e. 4e did a lot of what 5e is now trying to do in the core books - streamlined lore that was useful to everyone, generally applicable (it was officially a new plane, but that plane was intentionally limited so it did not create many conflict of lore issues).
Despite the more streamlined approach to lore and removal of some of the lore bloat which is inherent with well-developed settings, the percentage of DMs remained at that 20% level.
That is not to say the DM/Player disparity is not a problem - but it is pretty clear that “amount of lore” is not a factor which moves the needle in a critical way. The solution to that problem lies elsewhere, elusive despite five decades of questing to find it.
And over the years, the former systems created still remain played and some adapted to the more streamlined modern versions.
and the core “lore” which is based off a questionable time in history, and based on various different viewpoints of what a fantasy universe might look like given the existence of such extraordinary means of altering such universe in ways that are unique, shouldn’t be just tossed aside because it cost precious space and time to explain, and further restrict the creative possibilities of what is already available.
Im all for cleaner, better defined and organized material I would find interesting both as a player and a DM/GM, but I also would like to see more material from a beginners perspective on ways to turn the general material given into more useful means of utilizing the openness of the system.
personally, all I need is the core three and TCoE and XGtE to cover IMO enough to not care for anything other then a generic setting, and anything else just overpriced fluff that serves no value other than to make more headaches than is worth.
As for the constant percentages of player to game master, it always took time to learn the rules as a player enough to comfortably play, from the game master side a factor of 4 in time needed to effectively use such rules will always be the case.
But if the mentality is to ether,
1) extend the measure of time needed to learn the system to an extent that it discourages player to master transitions, and eases the transition to a DM-less game
or
2) maintain and even expand on a model of nickel and dime material that has been found to be lacking or inconsistent, overpriced and poorly thought though
well, IMHO that’s back-assward, and currently shows that till we get a clearer understanding of what’s to come, the lessons of the past have yet to be learned.
September is 8 months away, and I’m sure bits and pieces will come to light and picked apart and discussed, and ultimately the community will decide if what’s to be will be another 4e miss, or a smash, or about the same.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well said.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
But, again, it is not like there is going to be “no lore” in the PHB. The UA very clearly contains a decent amount of Lore - two or three generic paragraphs then a paragraph or two rapid firing some plane-specific lore. It is very clear Wizards has put a lot of thought into balancing the lore to make sure those who want it for character creation still have a foundation, while not also providing so much information that it (a) recreates a decades-old problem of “but the official lore in the PHB says X!” and (b) does not waste space on plane-specific lore which is not relevant to many players,
We are getting the best of both worlds - a compromise which should actually work for players and DMs alike.
How sanctimonious, rude, and insulting, all in 5 sentences. That’s impressive
I did read it, but with one thing or another and the pizza delivery, and extra helping the absolute noobs, and there being 7 players to help all at the same time it slipped my mind to explain every li’l difference in the lore for each race. And I didn’t have Volo’s to the “new players” I handed it to some of the more experienced players and they weren’t the issue. The issue was with the middling experience players who didn’t read my handout (as opposed to the more experienced players who did, and the noobs I handheald through the process). But had the lore in those books been neutral I wouldn’t have needed half the handout in the first place.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I want no lore in the core books. In my opinion, core books should be about mechanics. If GMs and players need lore information, they can turn to the appropriate setting book.
From the current PHB, I would like Appendix B and C to be cut, and I would want the race section to be slimmed down by removing their social and cultural information, as that is setting specific. With extra pages freed up, I want that to be dedicated to more character creation options.
Ideally, I would like the new PHB to compile all the PC options from the old PHB, XGTE, TCOE, and MP:MOTM, so players will only need to go through only two or three books at most (PHB, setting book, and maybe adventure book or second setting book) to create a character. Currently, a player that wants to play as an Eladrin bladesinger who wants to make people's head explode, they will need to go through the PHB for the basic class, TCOE for the subclass, XGTE for the spell, and MP:MOTM for the species. Going through four books on top of the setting and/or adventure book for character creation is not very user friendly.
Realistically, I think the new PHB will only compile some of the most popular options from those four books to keep costs low, and I think Wizards still wants to keep the other three books in circulation for profit.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I think there is utility to both those Appendixes, but they could each be improved upon. Much like some basic universal lore (stripped of things like culture and society information) helps players conceptualize what the nonsense word "Tiefling" might mean, I think you need to have some very basic, universal (or rapid-fire from different settings) information to ensure the DM does not have to do all the heavy lifting of instructing their players on even very elementary things.
For Appendix B, choosing a deity is an important part of character creation for multiple classes and thus there needs to be some kind of player-facing information about what deities they can choose from. I think the way the current PHB does things is probably the best way to convey this information--keeping the information in an Appendix gives the information a bit less weight and, by rapid-fire listing a bunch of gods, they can provide a whole list of options at very little space investment.
I would make two changes to this section--first would be starting off with a paragraph on homebrew and talking with your DM about the pantheon before picking a god. Second, I think they could cut the tables of Greek, Norse, Celtic, and Egyptian gods in their entirety. The DMG could have a paragraph that says "If you want a familiar pantheon, you could check out real world pantheons" and leave it at that--the PHB does not really need to discuss that possibility.
I think Appendix C could probably be replaced with an Appendix on "the world you play in" and give a short primer on Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Homebrew. Just enough to let players know "hey, here are some of the worlds that your DM might use." This would serve two purposes--it would give the Players just enough information to better understand the game worlds and how the game works (which is kind of the point of the PHB) and it would give the players a starting off point so they know what they want to research when purchasing supplemental products.