If someone is struggling to come up with an interesting and immersive world, again, handing them a world is going to be of limited benefit. Unless the players in that campaign are into heavily scripted (and thus restrictive) play, that DM will have to be able to deviate from anything written, likely within the first two sessions.
Non sequitur. The ability to improvise interactions or consequences of players' actions is not the same as the ability to create a rich and meaningful world with plenty of history. I know a DM who is absolutely fantastic at the table...his world building is absolute crap though. I hold the record for the longest running campaign ever in my FLGS (touch wood)...using a module that is apparently the worst thing invented since the Spanish Inquisition according to several posters here that can't hear it's name.without going on a rant about how bad it is. But it's still going strong because while my world building may not be very good...I can tweak things very easily and ad lib encounters and run combat very well, as well as arbitrate the rules.
Could I learn to world build and do it well? Probably. With time. As a father of several young children, studying part time, have a volunteering responsibility, working, playing D&D and other hobbies...I don't have that time. I'd rather spend my time printing and painting minis and outsource world building.
The world building in most homebrew games is not "a rich and meaningful world with plenty of history". It's "you meet in a tavern, and there's a mysterious cloaked stranger". Perhaps not that specifically, but most people nowadays have a general idea of what generic fantasy 101 looks like, and the DM wings it enough to get the players to the adventure they planned or acquired elsewhere. If you poke at it at all, it's inconsistent and makes no sense.
But that's fine. It's fit for purpose.
And those DMs need support, but that support is not "more lore for a specific fantasy world". It's "better advice in the DMG for building out as you need it".
If nothing else I think this thread shows why the question “do you think WotC are making the right decisions” can never be answered as a question. Half the people here don’t want any lore at all in any releases so that everything is setting agnostic and the other half are demanding lore with everything until you can barely move without checking a wiki. No matter what WotC release they’ll end up pissing off one group or the other and if the internet teaches us anything the result will always be the group that are happy will be too busy using what they’ve been given to make a noise while the group that are pissed off will complain so loudly that you’re left with the impression the entire fan base is unhappy. This means WotC are left with a hopeless situation that feels like no matter what they do the response will be negative
I reject the bolded "setting-agnostic = don't want any lore at all" framing; setting-agnostic lore is still lore. For example, elves being known for their capability to metaphysically align themselves to their environment, which is what gives us Sea Elves/Wood Elves/Astral Elves/Drow/Shadar-Kai etc - that's lore, and the core books don't have to go into the specific differences between Sea Elves in Faerun and Sea Elves in Krynn to relay it.
... technically, we don't actually know that most tables homebrew. we only know that the kind of game participant who would notice a survey and then take the time to contribute to a survey and then finishes contributing to a survey is the sort of person who at that time identified as a homebrew participant. and that's without digging into what homebrew means to each person.
also, if i recall correctly, the failure of the TSR business model was in the costs and debts (something about dumping money into buck rodgers). a brief glance at google says sales were brisk. whatever monetary downside to being prolific at printing splat books in 1990 seems like it would be offset present-day by a larger/wider audience, access to digital sales, and innovations like print on demand.
It's worth pointing out that surveys are not their only, and may not even be their primary, source of actual play data - they have access to all the campaign information flowing through DnDBeyond as well. So not all of their information has the self-selection bias you're alluding to here, they have the ability to see people using homebrew settings alongside printed ones directly.
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.
And they cannot just watch the LotR trilogy ? Or read any number of fantasy novels, of which there are a great many really well written examples? Or watch fantasy Anime?
And if they really cannot make anything up themselves, they are going to struggle running any sort of a campaign.
Oh a yeah, D&D should really keep with the year zero approach and get rid of lore. Lore isn't needed to play DnD. It will totes make it easier for DM's and Players to enjoy a world created just by the DM. Just imagine all the time saved when the DM can create Glorbozo and Gonzolos. It will really spur on GM creativity and make them want to play 6E. D&D should totally go with the approach they started and just make whatever lore their creative little minions come up with. Oh just look at all the money they've made since that, its totally going to make D&D a lot of money. Why buy any stanky D&D modules set in some world when the DM can create it themselves. And why even bother with the PHB or DM or even MM, make it all up in your head. Seriously D&D will spur so much creativity and make so much money with their current approach to game design. I loved Radiant Citadel and even though it was their worse selling module and I didn't pay for it it totally followed those principles and its still a great module, and we need more of that. It doesn't matter if D&D content doesn't sell and makes a profit and costs D&D money, its all about the messaging and creativity D&D can spread in the world.
Half the people here don’t want any lore at all in any releases so that everything is setting agnostic and the other half are demanding lore with everything until you can barely move without checking a wiki
I think you are SEVERELY MISREPRESENTING what people want. Nobody here has said that they do not want any lore at all in any release.
I want lore. I want lots of lore. I want lots of lore in the right places. I do not want lore scattered everywhere like a mess, and all those bits and pieces of lore here and there is next to useless in a homebrew campaign. P:AITM as is feels pretty bare bones, and Wizards easily could have padded out some extra pages on lore if it just copied the information about the planes in the DMG. There is no reason for that info to be in the DMG as not every campaign is going to use that information.
To be specific, I DO NOTWANT ANY LORE in books focused on the mechanics of the game like the DMG and PHB. I WANT LOTS OF LORE in setting books (SCAG, E:RFTLW) and campaign books (COS, TOD). I WANT LITTLE TO NO LORE in thematic books (FTOD, TBOMT) and anthology books (CM, JTTRC); a little internal lore for stuff to make sense is fine, but I do not want any additional lore that makes it difficult to slot into a homebrew campaign.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The world building in most homebrew games is not "a rich and meaningful world with plenty of history". It's "you meet in a tavern, and there's a mysterious cloaked stranger". Perhaps not that specifically, but most people nowadays have a general idea of what generic fantasy 101 looks like, and the DM wings it enough to get the players to the adventure they planned or acquired elsewhere. If you poke at it at all, it's inconsistent and makes no sense.
But that's fine. It's fit for purpose.
And those DMs need support, but that support is not "more lore for a specific fantasy world". It's "better advice in the DMG for building out as you need it".
I reject the bolded "setting-agnostic = don't want any lore at all" framing; setting-agnostic lore is still lore. For example, elves being known for their capability to metaphysically align themselves to their environment, which is what gives us Sea Elves/Wood Elves/Astral Elves/Drow/Shadar-Kai etc - that's lore, and the core books don't have to go into the specific differences between Sea Elves in Faerun and Sea Elves in Krynn to relay it.
It's worth pointing out that surveys are not their only, and may not even be their primary, source of actual play data - they have access to all the campaign information flowing through DnDBeyond as well. So not all of their information has the self-selection bias you're alluding to here, they have the ability to see people using homebrew settings alongside printed ones directly.
Oh a yeah, D&D should really keep with the year zero approach and get rid of lore. Lore isn't needed to play DnD. It will totes make it easier for DM's and Players to enjoy a world created just by the DM. Just imagine all the time saved when the DM can create Glorbozo and Gonzolos. It will really spur on GM creativity and make them want to play 6E. D&D should totally go with the approach they started and just make whatever lore their creative little minions come up with. Oh just look at all the money they've made since that, its totally going to make D&D a lot of money. Why buy any stanky D&D modules set in some world when the DM can create it themselves. And why even bother with the PHB or DM or even MM, make it all up in your head. Seriously D&D will spur so much creativity and make so much money with their current approach to game design. I loved Radiant Citadel and even though it was their worse selling module and I didn't pay for it it totally followed those principles and its still a great module, and we need more of that. It doesn't matter if D&D content doesn't sell and makes a profit and costs D&D money, its all about the messaging and creativity D&D can spread in the world.
They're still making sourcebooks set in worlds. Planescape is a campaign world, and that came out less than 6 months ago.
I assume you have a source for this?
I think you are SEVERELY MISREPRESENTING what people want. Nobody here has said that they do not want any lore at all in any release.
I want lore. I want lots of lore. I want lots of lore in the right places. I do not want lore scattered everywhere like a mess, and all those bits and pieces of lore here and there is next to useless in a homebrew campaign. P:AITM as is feels pretty bare bones, and Wizards easily could have padded out some extra pages on lore if it just copied the information about the planes in the DMG. There is no reason for that info to be in the DMG as not every campaign is going to use that information.
To be specific, I DO NOT WANT ANY LORE in books focused on the mechanics of the game like the DMG and PHB. I WANT LOTS OF LORE in setting books (SCAG, E:RFTLW) and campaign books (COS, TOD). I WANT LITTLE TO NO LORE in thematic books (FTOD, TBOMT) and anthology books (CM, JTTRC); a little internal lore for stuff to make sense is fine, but I do not want any additional lore that makes it difficult to slot into a homebrew campaign.
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 >
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.
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.
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.
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?!
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.
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?