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.
Hm. I can't tell if you are serious or being sarcastic, so I will choose sarcastic. Having been around for a long time and have seen how DM'ing has changed mostly due to Youtubers convincing young peole incorrect things, I can honestly tell you that most DM's can't DM. I wouldn't even use "basic" to describe them. I see it on here, on Reddit and on the Youtube comments. The phenomena is just because some Youtuber or Tik Tok'er says it, then it must be true. Trying to debate them is like talking to an NPC.
D&D is a hard game to master. Why? Because it is still Advanced D&D. It is not Basic D&D. At least in Basic, the rules were simplified for new players, especially kids. But the rub back then was, "Why should I play a Basic game, when I can play the Advanced". It was more of a ego thing really. A true fact is D&D 2e did a great job of interpreting the rules into something easier to understand. And then came 3e etc.
Basically my point is that most DM's are bad. My personal feeling is that they should all start with module adventures, instead of outright homebrewing weird things and changing the mechanics because they don't really understand how something works (or just don't like it). Yes I understand all games give DM's the power to scrap everything and do as they please, but that doesn't make them a better DM, IMO.
Don't learn how to be a DM from some Youtuber or Tik Tok'er. Grab a module adventure so you can actually learn to DM. After then you can think about homebrew.
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.
With all due respect:
If WizBro where to implement such measures as the new rules and style, I personally would not give them another dime, and sit back as before and just shake my head.
I’m personally getting ready for the worst, hope they have learned from past failures, and will decide when the time comes what is what.
Can they clean the books up a bit, and consolidate them where needed, all for it.
They want to cut material that I as a DM/GM find useful when helping players develop and define their characters, well IMRHO that’s mental on a stupid scale no one is crazy enough to put themselves in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
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.
There's fundamental reasons for that, and they aren't going away, no matter what lore is or isn't in the books:
GMing is hard in general, and D&D is harder than average. It is simply the nature of the beast; GMs have vastly more to juggle than players do. It's not as hard as it looks, but that's not much help, and there's a big hump to get over at the start.
The rewards of GMing are not the rewards for playing, and lots of people just aren't into that.
Having been around for a long time and have seen how DM'ing has changed mostly due to Youtubers convincing young peole incorrect things, I can honestly tell you that most DM's can't DM. I wouldn't even use "basic" to describe them. I see it on here, on Reddit and on the Youtube comments. The phenomena is just because some Youtuber or Tik Tok'er says it, then it must be true. Trying to debate them is like talking to an NPC.
D&D is a hard game to master. Why? Because it is still Advanced D&D. It is not Basic D&D. At least in Basic, the rules were simplified for new players, especially kids. But the rub back then was, "Why should I play a Basic game, when I can play the Advanced". It was more of a ego thing really. A true fact is D&D 2e did a great job of interpreting the rules into something easier to understand. And then came 3e etc.
Basically my point is that most DM's are bad. My personal feeling is that they should all start with module adventures, instead of outright homebrewing weird things and changing the mechanics because they don't really understand how something works (or just don't like it). Yes I understand all games give DM's the power to scrap everything and do as they please, but that doesn't make them a better DM, IMO.
Don't learn how to be a DM from some Youtuber or Tik Tok'er. Grab a module adventure so you can actually learn to DM. After then you can think about homebrew.
Most DMs are, indeed, not very good at it. This is true, and has always been true, and always will be true. Most players are also not very good at it. Shrug.
Nonetheless, though this is unprovable either way, I'll argue that the average DM is significantly better at it than they used to be.
I have no idea what the YouTubers and tiktokers are saying, nor do I care. There's no advice that's one-size-fits-all for something as personal as GMing. Maybe it's bad, maybe it's just not for you. I'm not going to go digging into the Dragon archives to document how crap the advice back then was.
Nonetheless, the advice out there for how to run a game is both far more accessible and far better than it was back in the day. The advice in the rulebooks is better. The canned adventures are better, though it's still impossible to learn how to handle the dynamics of real play from something fixed in print.
We've been learning how to do this thing we do for fifty years.
Don't learn how to be a DM from some Youtuber or Tik Tok'er.
I am going to heavily and strongly disagree. There is absolutely no book (past, present, nor future) that can rival Matt Colville's "Running the Game" series on YouTube, especially the first dozen or so episodes. Maybe Matt Mercer or another famous GM can make a better educational video series, but there is absolutely no way a dead tree DMG is going to be a better than an actual moving person DMG showing a person how to GM. Like, there is a person being the literal Dungeon Master's Guide holding your hand for free, compared to some dead tree Guide that you paid for that cannot even beat you over the head and remind you if you are running the game wrong. Matt Colville is not going to beat you over the head either, but at least he encourages you to have fun and being a bad GM does not matter, since if you are playing with new players, the new players might not realize you are bad anyways.
If anything, Wizards needs to dispel this "GMing is hard or unfun" nonsense. If you are running a game for money or something, then you may want to step up your game to match what is expected of you. But if you are running a game for your friends and family, who cares if you suck at being GM as long as everyone is having fun. And in my opinion, being the GM is way more fun that being a player. In fact, I would be so bold to claim that the best way for the new DMG to help new GMs is to tell them to watch "Running the Game" on YouTube on the first page of the book, if not the first sentence: "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons, and if you are a new Dungeon Master, before you read any further, go watch the first few episodes of "Running the Game" by Matt Colville on YouTube!" Obviously, Wizards is not going to do that, but if they really want what is best for GMs, Wizards should partner with Colville and mention the series in the Appendix or something.
For new GMs, ignore the DMG for a while in the beginning, and definitely do NOT buy it yet. I do not care how good the DMG is. Go watch Matt Colville's "Running the Game" on YouTube first. It is free and way easier to onboard new GMs that way.
Don't learn how to be a DM from some Youtuber or Tik Tok'er.
I am going to heavily and strongly disagree. There is absolutely no book (past, present, nor future) that can rival Matt Colville's "Running the Game" series on YouTube, especially the first dozen or so episodes. Maybe Matt Mercer or another famous GM can make a better educational video series, but there is absolutely no way a dead tree DMG is going to be a better than an actual moving person DMG showing a person how to GM. Like, there is a person being the literal Dungeon Master's Guide holding your hand for free, compared to some dead tree Guide that you paid for that cannot even beat you over the head and remind you if you are running the game wrong. Matt Colville is not going to beat you over the head either, but at least he encourages you to have fun and being a bad GM does not matter, since if you are playing with new players, the new players might not realize you are bad anyways.
If anything, Wizards needs to dispel this "GMing is hard or unfun" nonsense. If you are running a game for money or something, then you may want to step up your game to match what is expected of you. But if you are running a game for your friends and family, who cares if you suck at being GM as long as everyone is having fun. And in my opinion, being the GM is way more fun that being a player. In fact, I would be so bold to claim that the best way for the new DMG to help new GMs is to tell them to watch "Running the Game" on YouTube on the first page of the book, if not the first sentence: "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons, and if you are a new Dungeon Master, before you read any further, go watch the first few episodes of "Running the Game" by Matt Colville on YouTube!" Obviously, Wizards is not going to do that, but if they really want what is best for GMs, Wizards should partner with Colville and mention the series in the Appendix or something.
For new GMs, ignore the DMG for a while in the beginning, and definitely do NOT buy it yet. I do not care how good the DMG is. Go watch Matt Colville's "Running the Game" on YouTube first. It is free and way easier to onboard new GMs that way.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
While I am not a fan of Matt Colville his series "Running the Game" is very good and I would and do recommend it to any new DM.
Oh I’ve watched several of his videos, meh. Watched several other You-Tube DM’s, again meh.
School of dead wood better teacher, wiser than mortal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
While I am not a fan of Matt Colville his series "Running the Game" is very good and I would and do recommend it to any new DM.
Oh I’ve watched several of his videos, meh. Watched several other You-Tube DM’s, again meh.
School of dead wood better teacher, wiser than mortal.
Different people learn in different ways. I learned to play the game through pen and paper and homebrewing a complete world; others learn by using adventures; others learn by being players first; some from reading supplemental materials (like the Dragon magazine), some by going to their LGS and asking to be taught, still others learn through the internet. With the exception of the internet, every single one of those mechanisms has been around for decades--and all of them were producing great DMs and bad DMs long, long before the internet was really a thing.
The right way to learn how to DM is whichever method works for the person trying to learn to DM. Trying to say that one mechanism is "better" than the others is simply incorrect, and ignores the five-decades-old reality that D&D can be learned in different ways. Frankly, it borders on gatekeeping to insist there is a correct way to learn to DM and that other mechanisms "can't DM."
Especially since most modules do not really teach you everything about DMing--they do not teach you the social aspects, they do not teach you to react to the unknown, etc. We should not be pretending a module is some kind of magical device which creates good DMs--it is a device like any other, capable of creating mediocrity just as easily as it can create skill.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Frankly, between the increase in player count and the low barriers of entry, the amount of D&D advice available today on the internet is orders of magnitudes greater than the amount that was ever published in dead tree form. A lot of it is bad, but plenty of the stuff published in dead tree form was bad too. Honestly, I can't even think of a published book that I would say had excellent DM advice, the internet has been the best source for DM advice since the mid 90s.
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.
No sanctimony, rudeness, or insult intended, sorry you took it that way, as I do have a ton of respect for you.
I just don't see how, if the lore in those books are as troubling as they ended up being for you and your group, it is the fault of the lore in the books.
As for Volo's, I wasn't given the qualifiers of it was for the more experienced players and without that qualifying information, I stand by my statement "Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player".
This only re-enforces my argument of poor or lack of communication is the root cause for the majority of complaints about things like lore et al in the core and other rule books. Your mileage may vary, but many feel as I do.
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?
Again no sleight intended, and my post was addressing Caerwyn's rebuttal to my reply to you and I did not clarify I was speaking to the posts in this thread calling for no lore in the core books.
Again, my apologies.
Hopefully you can see I stated my opinion using the information given to form the opinion. Now with the additional information you have since provided it clears up a couple of things:
1) Volo' was not given to the new players
2) The lore was not the root cause of the issues your group had.
Your follow up post sums it up pretty well new players didn't follow instructions, things got busy, people were disappointed, and this is the fault of the lore in the PHB.
Is that a fair assessment of the argument you made, or am I missing something?
I also stand by my argument that removing lore is far more costly and burdensome for those that use it, than ignoring it is for those that do not to use it.
Apology both accepted and appreciated. Perhaps I took your comments a little too personally. For my part in any misunderstanding I too apologize.
If the lore in the PHB was more generic and less setting specific things would’ve gone a lot smoother despite the chaos. For example, the whole “between two worlds” bit about half-elves… not a thing in my world as half-elves are generally seen as equivalent to humans, as are half-orcs, half-goblinoids, etc. And pretty much most of the lore about hobgoblins doesn’t fit my world either since they are as common as elves and just as well tolerated, not that elves are entirely well tolerated either. Orcs and goblinoids walk metropolitan streets alongside dwarves and elves and gnomes and nobody really bats an eye. Tabaxi, Tieflings, and Dragonborn on the other hand wouldn’t even dare attempt to walk the same streets in many cities, lest they be at best arrested or at worst attacked on sight.
If the lore in the player facing books gave us a little lore about each species but kept any reference to how they fit into the world at large to a minimum, that would have been nice. Leave lore about how they fit into greater society to the DM facing setting books.
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.
They kinda gotta include a li’l sumpinsumpin, a li’l taste, just to whet their appetites and spark off their imaginations. It should just be kept as minimal and generic as possible so it doesn’t step on DMs’ toes.
Two short paragraphs of flavor text about a species without mentioning how that species fits into the world should aught be alright. Mention how graceful and keen of eye the elves are and a little about the trance and leave it at that. Mention how hardy dwarves are and a bit about their connection to the earth and stop there. Mention how the orcs are tough and generally revere martial prowess, but stop there. That’s all generally generic enough that it won’t lorelock anyone, but still provides new players with something to go off of. And it means they can strip all of that away from the features & traits themselves to keep those purely mechanical instead of the blend of flavor text and mechanics that they are now. That would result both in keeping the book neutral in terms of how much space is actually dedicated to flavor text, while simultaneously reducing confusion about what’s RAW and what isn’t.
Don’t tell us anything about how any of those species interact with each other, or how common they are, or how accepted they are by society in the PHB or other player facing books. I agree with you that all of this type of lore doesn’t belong in those spaces. They should leave all that stuff for the setting books. Leave that stuff for DMs to determine for themselves.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby. Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
You-tube DM’s are a dime a dozen, and worth about as much.
As a DM/GM I’d like to see a small section in the current Basic Rules in the DM Tools Section that gave a quick introduction to basic adventure building, something to wet the appetite.
Something like that might make the DMG the second best selling D&D book, who knows. It just my personal opinion.
Anyone can learn the game however they wish, best to learn from several viewpoints and then make up their own mind on how they want to play.
Hell I wonder what the sales numbers would be for a bundle of just the three core 5E books ( PHB, DMG, and MM) for $75?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
To give an example of something they excised that is no loss, consider this paragraph from the description of a Dwarf:
Dwarven skin ranges from deep brown to a paler hue tinged with red, but the most common shades are light brown or deep tan, like certain tones of earth. Their hair, worn long but in simple styles, is usually black, gray, or brown, though paler dwarves often have red hair. Male dwarves value their beards highly and groom them carefully.
I have never, in art or games, seen Dwarven skin color, hair color, or hair style treated as anything but "the same variety as exists in humans" (while video games often allow unnatural colors, they do it for everyone). Beards are a bit more characteristic... but no-one will think twice about a beardless dwarf, and plenty of people have absorbed the concept of the bearded female dwarf. Similar paragraphs exist in the entry for elf, halfling, and gnome, and are equally useless there -- there's a certain tendency towards unnatural hair colors, particularly for elves, but typically if they're allowed at all everyone can use them, even humans.
To give an example of something they excised that is no loss, consider this paragraph from the description of a Dwarf:
Dwarven skin ranges from deep brown to a paler hue tinged with red, but the most common shades are light brown or deep tan, like certain tones of earth. Their hair, worn long but in simple styles, is usually black, gray, or brown, though paler dwarves often have red hair. Male dwarves value their beards highly and groom them carefully.
I have never, in art or games, seen Dwarven skin color, hair color, or hair style treated as anything but "the same variety as exists in humans" (while video games often allow unnatural colors, they do it for everyone). Beards are a bit more characteristic... but no-one will think twice about a beardless dwarf, and plenty of people have absorbed the concept of the bearded female dwarf. Similar paragraphs exist in the entry for elf, halfling, and gnome, and are equally useless there -- there's a certain tendency towards unnatural hair colors, particularly for elves, but typically if they're allowed at all everyone can use them, even humans.
This is another area the UA does a good job with. Dwarves if condenses down to “squat and often bearded”; Teiflings (which are IP specific and not common knowledge) have a bit more in-depth descriptions, though still not much more than the minimums required to convey information about something new players would not intrinsically grasp.
I think it is also notable that we should be getting more art than any other PHB, which further reduces the need for species descriptions. I am personally hoping we get art showing multiple members of the species, instead of the typical “here is one example” art typically used to showcase a species. Additionally, with the expanded subclass art, I hope Wizards does a good job showcasing examples species in non-traditional classes - they have done a better job at showing things like Orc Wizards and the like, but would be nice to see even more.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby.
Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
First and foremost: yes, I feel that there has been a drop in the relative level of content, and when you are only releasing 3-4 books a year having one that underdelivers (even as the price of the books continues to increase; Spelljammer cost me $90 in my native canada and it was not worth it) is going to leave a really bad taste in my mouth and make me seriously question the products being put out after the fact. Like you can go back to see what I wrote about SJ but the short explanation is it had a terrible player's section that lacked any sort of meaningful rules for dealing with boats in space, a poorly balanced railroady module and admittedly a banger monster guide but not one that justified such a high price tag.
Earlier in the thread Caerwyn Talked about how they responded to the desires of the fan base to bring back earlier settings and I feel like this is a misconception as I review the modules and adventures and such; Most of them feel like they're riding on the legacy of the previous titles while doing wierd and/or stupid things with them, Like putting them in places that don't make sense (why is Dragonbait in chult? Also how is he still alive at this point?) radically altering their history (Apparently Jander sunstar is a multiversal entity now? Also D&D has paralel realities? I guess?) or completely rewriting characters (Why is Doctor Mordenheim a woman and apparently a lesbian?).
Theres also what happened with Multiverse which IMHO ruined so many player options by gutting any sort of depth or lore or identity from the various races; if you just remove any reference to physical characteristics they all become completely interchangable.
There original content isn't that much better. Like my Gm tried so damn hard to make Radiant citadel work, he went out of his way to try and gussy up the npc's and the Incarnates and everything else but it became more and more clear that outside of a handful of quests (like the one with the soul shaker; that thing absolutely feels like something that would of been dreamt up in the american south) it just came down to multi-cultural doctor phil with the party just talking down the irate locals and us then heading back to the Radiant citadel. Which is a shame because as a player I'd love to see other cultures being given the opportunity to have a properly developed D&D setting/campaign.
Like... the game is 5 decades old. I have been playing it to varying degrees for 60% of that time. It should have more depth and narrative and lore now then it did at the start of at least this edition, but it just doesn't.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby.
Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
YES! Indoctrinate them in official 'must obey' lore from day one! Again, why does there have to be official lore?
Let’s not forget an even better version of the basic rules, the 5E SRD, a rules set that has more material than the basic rules PDF, and surprisingly it is FREE.
How much “Official Lore”, is in that set? If one where to actually read the SRD, one would find the material generic enough to give the general idea that the only limit is the imagination of the user.
”Official Lore” form previously published material can remain right where it belongs, in the places where it would be most effective and relevant, and separate from “lore” that is broad enough to serve as a foundation to develop and even refine that which is and that which can be.
As a Player/DM the more it cost me to get into the hobby, the less incentive I have to jump on every little thing that serves no value or purpose, that to me personally is nothing more than over explained and overpriced fluff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby.
Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
YES! Indoctrinate them in official 'must obey' lore from day one! Again, why does there have to be official lore?
ouch! jeez, it's like feeding emus. calm down! we're interacting over crumbs, not whether people get to keep their whole hands here.
what the hell is 'must obey' about an optional list of celtic gods in PHB appendix B or the first two barbarian flavor blurbs including the word 'tribe' or leaving enough context that a new player doesn't assume elves make toys all day? i didn't recommend adding setting specific details, just leaving the general stuff that's already there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
In my opinion, the PHB is NOT the best point of entry right now. I did it five years ago, and as a brand spanking new GM, my dumbass bought the PHB, then proceeded to get the Legendary Bundle soon after, and then told my players about all the cool extra options. On top of scheduling conflicts, we already spent two sessions just going through the PHB, and I thought getting the Legendary Bundle in the middle of it was a good idea, so third session zero it is. To me, the best point of entry is the BR/SRD. And if the group wants to get to the action asap, then skip character creation entirely and pick one of the premade characters off Wizards' website. BR/SRD is free and contains everything you need mechanically to run the game. Other important stuff like session zero and strong communication can be learned from other sources.
Maybe it is because I started out digital, but lugging around extra pages I do not need is not fun. If I am going to break my back lugging around the three dead Ents, I rather those dead Ents tell me more about character creation options and other mechanics than blabbering about irrelvant lore here and there. If I want lore, I will bring the dead Ents that talk about lore. Lugging the real thing around, I finally felt like a proper badass carrying the physical burden and responsibility of being a GM, but I think I much rather carry them less physically after experiencing it a few times.
I personally prefer no lore, but I will compromise on minimal universal generic lore for introductory purposes. If people want to enjoy reading cover to cover, there are novels for that. I want D&D game books to be manuals. I do read D&D books for fun too, but I value them as tools more when I actually run the game. I do not care that orcs in the Sword Coast are barbaric when I am running the game, and the adventure book and setting book I am using already tells me some of the orcs are barbaric. I do not need to be told orcs are barbaric multiple times, and I definitely do not want to be told orcs are barbaric if I am running an adventure in a setting where orcs are not.
And on the topic of monsters, the concept of having physical monster BOOKS is a stupid idea without the relevant physical support tools, in this case CARDS (Wizards and Galeforce9 stopped working together to make cards). I run my games mostly digitally, but if I want to go full physical, even with physical bookmarks, it is still a pain in the ass to flip through multiple pages back and forth compared to just looking at the right card behind the GM screen. MM got card support, but FTOD and BP:GOTG do not, and the new MM probably will not have card support either. And lugging around a few cards is way easier than lugging around the MM.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
In my opinion, the PHB is NOT the best point of entry right now. I did it five years ago, and as a brand spanking new GM, my dumbass bought the PHB, then proceeded to get the Legendary Bundle soon after, and then told my players about all the cool extra options. On top of scheduling conflicts, we already spent two sessions just going through the PHB, and I thought getting the Legendary Bundle in the middle of it was a good idea, so third session zero it is. To me, the best point of entry is the BR/SRD. And if the group wants to get to the action asap, then skip character creation entirely and pick one of the premade characters off Wizards' website. BR/SRD is free and contains everything you need mechanically to run the game. Other important stuff like session zero and strong communication can be learned from other sources.
Maybe it is because I started out digital, but lugging around extra pages I do not need is not fun. If I am going to break my back lugging around the three dead Ents, I rather those dead Ents tell me more about character creation options and other mechanics than blabbering about irrelvant lore here and there. If I want lore, I will bring the dead Ents that talk about lore. Lugging the real thing around, I finally felt like a proper badass carrying the physical burden and responsibility of being a GM, but I think I much rather carry them less physically after experiencing it a few times.
I personally prefer no lore, but I will compromise on minimal universal generic lore for introductory purposes. If people want to enjoy reading cover to cover, there are novels for that. I want D&D game books to be manuals. I do read D&D books for fun too, but I value them as tools more when I actually run the game. I do not care that orcs in the Sword Coast are barbaric when I am running the game, and the adventure book and setting book I am using already tells me some of the orcs are barbaric. I do not need to be told orcs are barbaric multiple times, and I definitely do not want to be told orcs are barbaric if I am running an adventure in a setting where orcs are not.
And on the topic of monsters, the concept of having physical monster BOOKS is a stupid idea without the relevant physical support tools, in this case CARDS (Wizards and Galeforce9 stopped working together to make cards). I run my games mostly digitally, but if I want to go full physical, even with physical bookmarks, it is still a pain in the ass to flip through multiple pages back and forth compared to just looking at the right card behind the GM screen. MM got card support, but FTOD and BP:GOTG do not, and the new MM probably will not have card support either. And lugging around a few cards is way easier than lugging around the MM.
if one can easily dip their toes without purchasing, then why decry additional content in the expanded for-pay version of that? especially when the lore/flavor/theme is concentrated around character creation to spark imagination and not around the rules which might be referenced with some frequency.
i'm confused why 11 pages into the "dwindling hope for the future of D&D" thread it seems like "less setting specific lore in the PHB" is the fix when the players' handbook has so little setting specific lore as it is. and that pantheons appendix is great, by the way! great use of space and helpful on many occasions (personal opinion)!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hm. I can't tell if you are serious or being sarcastic, so I will choose sarcastic. Having been around for a long time and have seen how DM'ing has changed mostly due to Youtubers convincing young peole incorrect things, I can honestly tell you that most DM's can't DM. I wouldn't even use "basic" to describe them. I see it on here, on Reddit and on the Youtube comments. The phenomena is just because some Youtuber or Tik Tok'er says it, then it must be true. Trying to debate them is like talking to an NPC.
D&D is a hard game to master. Why? Because it is still Advanced D&D. It is not Basic D&D. At least in Basic, the rules were simplified for new players, especially kids. But the rub back then was, "Why should I play a Basic game, when I can play the Advanced". It was more of a ego thing really. A true fact is D&D 2e did a great job of interpreting the rules into something easier to understand. And then came 3e etc.
Basically my point is that most DM's are bad. My personal feeling is that they should all start with module adventures, instead of outright homebrewing weird things and changing the mechanics because they don't really understand how something works (or just don't like it). Yes I understand all games give DM's the power to scrap everything and do as they please, but that doesn't make them a better DM, IMO.
Don't learn how to be a DM from some Youtuber or Tik Tok'er. Grab a module adventure so you can actually learn to DM. After then you can think about homebrew.
With all due respect:
If WizBro where to implement such measures as the new rules and style, I personally would not give them another dime, and sit back as before and just shake my head.
I’m personally getting ready for the worst, hope they have learned from past failures, and will decide when the time comes what is what.
Can they clean the books up a bit, and consolidate them where needed, all for it.
They want to cut material that I as a DM/GM find useful when helping players develop and define their characters, well IMRHO that’s mental on a stupid scale no one is crazy enough to put themselves in.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
There's fundamental reasons for that, and they aren't going away, no matter what lore is or isn't in the books:
Most DMs are, indeed, not very good at it. This is true, and has always been true, and always will be true. Most players are also not very good at it. Shrug.
Nonetheless, though this is unprovable either way, I'll argue that the average DM is significantly better at it than they used to be.
I have no idea what the YouTubers and tiktokers are saying, nor do I care. There's no advice that's one-size-fits-all for something as personal as GMing. Maybe it's bad, maybe it's just not for you. I'm not going to go digging into the Dragon archives to document how crap the advice back then was.
Nonetheless, the advice out there for how to run a game is both far more accessible and far better than it was back in the day. The advice in the rulebooks is better. The canned adventures are better, though it's still impossible to learn how to handle the dynamics of real play from something fixed in print.
We've been learning how to do this thing we do for fifty years.
I am going to heavily and strongly disagree. There is absolutely no book (past, present, nor future) that can rival Matt Colville's "Running the Game" series on YouTube, especially the first dozen or so episodes. Maybe Matt Mercer or another famous GM can make a better educational video series, but there is absolutely no way a dead tree DMG is going to be a better than an actual moving person DMG showing a person how to GM. Like, there is a person being the literal Dungeon Master's Guide holding your hand for free, compared to some dead tree Guide that you paid for that cannot even beat you over the head and remind you if you are running the game wrong. Matt Colville is not going to beat you over the head either, but at least he encourages you to have fun and being a bad GM does not matter, since if you are playing with new players, the new players might not realize you are bad anyways.
If anything, Wizards needs to dispel this "GMing is hard or unfun" nonsense. If you are running a game for money or something, then you may want to step up your game to match what is expected of you. But if you are running a game for your friends and family, who cares if you suck at being GM as long as everyone is having fun. And in my opinion, being the GM is way more fun that being a player. In fact, I would be so bold to claim that the best way for the new DMG to help new GMs is to tell them to watch "Running the Game" on YouTube on the first page of the book, if not the first sentence:
"Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons, and if you are a new Dungeon Master, before you read any further, go watch the first few episodes of "Running the Game" by Matt Colville on YouTube!"
Obviously, Wizards is not going to do that, but if they really want what is best for GMs, Wizards should partner with Colville and mention the series in the Appendix or something.
For new GMs, ignore the DMG for a while in the beginning, and definitely do NOT buy it yet. I do not care how good the DMG is. Go watch Matt Colville's "Running the Game" on YouTube first. It is free and way easier to onboard new GMs that way.
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 >
Fifty years of old dead trees that have been beating the drum of guidance for those who as DM’s are just as good or bad as the players they game with, is far more worthwhile and valuable than some full of themselves you-tuber(s). ( no offense to Colville, but it’s just his opinion, DM as you wish)
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Oh I’ve watched several of his videos, meh. Watched several other You-Tube DM’s, again meh.
School of dead wood better teacher, wiser than mortal.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
Different people learn in different ways. I learned to play the game through pen and paper and homebrewing a complete world; others learn by using adventures; others learn by being players first; some from reading supplemental materials (like the Dragon magazine), some by going to their LGS and asking to be taught, still others learn through the internet. With the exception of the internet, every single one of those mechanisms has been around for decades--and all of them were producing great DMs and bad DMs long, long before the internet was really a thing.
The right way to learn how to DM is whichever method works for the person trying to learn to DM. Trying to say that one mechanism is "better" than the others is simply incorrect, and ignores the five-decades-old reality that D&D can be learned in different ways. Frankly, it borders on gatekeeping to insist there is a correct way to learn to DM and that other mechanisms "can't DM."
Especially since most modules do not really teach you everything about DMing--they do not teach you the social aspects, they do not teach you to react to the unknown, etc. We should not be pretending a module is some kind of magical device which creates good DMs--it is a device like any other, capable of creating mediocrity just as easily as it can create skill.
Frankly, between the increase in player count and the low barriers of entry, the amount of D&D advice available today on the internet is orders of magnitudes greater than the amount that was ever published in dead tree form. A lot of it is bad, but plenty of the stuff published in dead tree form was bad too. Honestly, I can't even think of a published book that I would say had excellent DM advice, the internet has been the best source for DM advice since the mid 90s.
Apology both accepted and appreciated. Perhaps I took your comments a little too personally. For my part in any misunderstanding I too apologize.
If the lore in the PHB was more generic and less setting specific things would’ve gone a lot smoother despite the chaos. For example, the whole “between two worlds” bit about half-elves… not a thing in my world as half-elves are generally seen as equivalent to humans, as are half-orcs, half-goblinoids, etc. And pretty much most of the lore about hobgoblins doesn’t fit my world either since they are as common as elves and just as well tolerated, not that elves are entirely well tolerated either. Orcs and goblinoids walk metropolitan streets alongside dwarves and elves and gnomes and nobody really bats an eye. Tabaxi, Tieflings, and Dragonborn on the other hand wouldn’t even dare attempt to walk the same streets in many cities, lest they be at best arrested or at worst attacked on sight.
If the lore in the player facing books gave us a little lore about each species but kept any reference to how they fit into the world at large to a minimum, that would have been nice. Leave lore about how they fit into greater society to the DM facing setting books.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They kinda gotta include a li’l sumpinsumpin, a li’l taste, just to whet their appetites and spark off their imaginations. It should just be kept as minimal and generic as possible so it doesn’t step on DMs’ toes.
Two short paragraphs of flavor text about a species without mentioning how that species fits into the world should aught be alright. Mention how graceful and keen of eye the elves are and a little about the trance and leave it at that. Mention how hardy dwarves are and a bit about their connection to the earth and stop there. Mention how the orcs are tough and generally revere martial prowess, but stop there. That’s all generally generic enough that it won’t lorelock anyone, but still provides new players with something to go off of. And it means they can strip all of that away from the features & traits themselves to keep those purely mechanical instead of the blend of flavor text and mechanics that they are now. That would result both in keeping the book neutral in terms of how much space is actually dedicated to flavor text, while simultaneously reducing confusion about what’s RAW and what isn’t.
Don’t tell us anything about how any of those species interact with each other, or how common they are, or how accepted they are by society in the PHB or other player facing books. I agree with you that all of this type of lore doesn’t belong in those spaces. They should leave all that stuff for the setting books. Leave that stuff for DMs to determine for themselves.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Slapping new GMs with a daunting 300+ page textbook that costs as much as a date (or two, or three) will not attract them very much, compared to just telling them to watch a few short videos where the real person DMG is very assuring and enthusiastic. I cannot in good conscience tell new GMs to buy the DMG, when some of the most important stuff is not even in there, and the important stuff that is in there is presented in a far more digestable manner through another source. Even if the new DMG is everything that I ask for and it is perfect, there is no way it can beat free, and there is no way it can beat an actual person talking to you and showing you how to do things. Traditions that are not good should be Fireballed, and that includes dead tree DMGs. As I have said in another thread, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot and promote unnecessary paywalls that discourages people from joining this hobby. Being a GM is already being seen as more work and less fun, we do not need to gatekeep potential GMs by their incomes too. If anything, we should be saying how fun and easy being the GM is. Despite TTRPGs not being for everyone, we keep saying how fun D&D is. Being a GM is not for everyone either, but we should still talk about how fun and easy it is.
For GMs who love to GM but also say it is a lot of work, that is on them. Is it more work and effort than being a player? Yeah, BUT, and that is a big BUT, it is not much more work compared to being a player either. Just as no one asks a player to write a ten page backstory and plan their character out to level 20, no one asks the GM to build a world down to the minute details and design encounters that are perfectly balanced. Just as it is fun for some people to write ten page backstories, world building down to the minute detail is fun too, but they are not requirements for players and GMs respectively.
It is also in Wizards' best interest to lure in as many GMs as possible with free guidance, since we are the ones that contribute to the bulk of their revenue compared to players. If we love to GM, we will naturally fall down the rabbit hole of D&D products. We do not need Wizards to tell us to spend money.
After a brand new GM has run a few games, they know for sure that is what they like to do, they want to further develop that skill, and they want to have some reference material on hand, then sure, by all means buy the DMG then.
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 >
You-tube DM’s are a dime a dozen, and worth about as much.
As a DM/GM I’d like to see a small section in the current Basic Rules in the DM Tools Section that gave a quick introduction to basic adventure building, something to wet the appetite.
Something like that might make the DMG the second best selling D&D book, who knows. It just my personal opinion.
Anyone can learn the game however they wish, best to learn from several viewpoints and then make up their own mind on how they want to play.
Hell I wonder what the sales numbers would be for a bundle of just the three core 5E books ( PHB, DMG, and MM) for $75?
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
To give an example of something they excised that is no loss, consider this paragraph from the description of a Dwarf:
I have never, in art or games, seen Dwarven skin color, hair color, or hair style treated as anything but "the same variety as exists in humans" (while video games often allow unnatural colors, they do it for everyone). Beards are a bit more characteristic... but no-one will think twice about a beardless dwarf, and plenty of people have absorbed the concept of the bearded female dwarf. Similar paragraphs exist in the entry for elf, halfling, and gnome, and are equally useless there -- there's a certain tendency towards unnatural hair colors, particularly for elves, but typically if they're allowed at all everyone can use them, even humans.
This is another area the UA does a good job with. Dwarves if condenses down to “squat and often bearded”; Teiflings (which are IP specific and not common knowledge) have a bit more in-depth descriptions, though still not much more than the minimums required to convey information about something new players would not intrinsically grasp.
I think it is also notable that we should be getting more art than any other PHB, which further reduces the need for species descriptions. I am personally hoping we get art showing multiple members of the species, instead of the typical “here is one example” art typically used to showcase a species. Additionally, with the expanded subclass art, I hope Wizards does a good job showcasing examples species in non-traditional classes - they have done a better job at showing things like Orc Wizards and the like, but would be nice to see even more.
on the topic of paywalls, the free digital basic rules exist. maybe after 50 years the PHB isn't the best point of entry any longer. would it make more sense to excise lore and flavor from the basic rules (causing them to become mostly a dry for-reference device) and leaving the players handbook to be a more cover-to-cover read (which adds detail and context and flavor to support a player's all-important plausibilities)?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
So there's a couple of thoughts I have with this.
First and foremost: yes, I feel that there has been a drop in the relative level of content, and when you are only releasing 3-4 books a year having one that underdelivers (even as the price of the books continues to increase; Spelljammer cost me $90 in my native canada and it was not worth it) is going to leave a really bad taste in my mouth and make me seriously question the products being put out after the fact. Like you can go back to see what I wrote about SJ but the short explanation is it had a terrible player's section that lacked any sort of meaningful rules for dealing with boats in space, a poorly balanced railroady module and admittedly a banger monster guide but not one that justified such a high price tag.
Earlier in the thread Caerwyn Talked about how they responded to the desires of the fan base to bring back earlier settings and I feel like this is a misconception as I review the modules and adventures and such; Most of them feel like they're riding on the legacy of the previous titles while doing wierd and/or stupid things with them, Like putting them in places that don't make sense (why is Dragonbait in chult? Also how is he still alive at this point?) radically altering their history (Apparently Jander sunstar is a multiversal entity now? Also D&D has paralel realities? I guess?) or completely rewriting characters (Why is Doctor Mordenheim a woman and apparently a lesbian?).
Theres also what happened with Multiverse which IMHO ruined so many player options by gutting any sort of depth or lore or identity from the various races; if you just remove any reference to physical characteristics they all become completely interchangable.
There original content isn't that much better. Like my Gm tried so damn hard to make Radiant citadel work, he went out of his way to try and gussy up the npc's and the Incarnates and everything else but it became more and more clear that outside of a handful of quests (like the one with the soul shaker; that thing absolutely feels like something that would of been dreamt up in the american south) it just came down to multi-cultural doctor phil with the party just talking down the irate locals and us then heading back to the Radiant citadel. Which is a shame because as a player I'd love to see other cultures being given the opportunity to have a properly developed D&D setting/campaign.
Like... the game is 5 decades old. I have been playing it to varying degrees for 60% of that time. It should have more depth and narrative and lore now then it did at the start of at least this edition, but it just doesn't.
Let’s not forget an even better version of the basic rules, the 5E SRD, a rules set that has more material than the basic rules PDF, and surprisingly it is FREE.
How much “Official Lore”, is in that set? If one where to actually read the SRD, one would find the material generic enough to give the general idea that the only limit is the imagination of the user.
”Official Lore” form previously published material can remain right where it belongs, in the places where it would be most effective and relevant, and separate from “lore” that is broad enough to serve as a foundation to develop and even refine that which is and that which can be.
As a Player/DM the more it cost me to get into the hobby, the less incentive I have to jump on every little thing that serves no value or purpose, that to me personally is nothing more than over explained and overpriced fluff.
Place dental impression upon the metallic gluteus Maximus.
ouch! jeez, it's like feeding emus. calm down! we're interacting over crumbs, not whether people get to keep their whole hands here.
what the hell is 'must obey' about an optional list of celtic gods in PHB appendix B or the first two barbarian flavor blurbs including the word 'tribe' or leaving enough context that a new player doesn't assume elves make toys all day? i didn't recommend adding setting specific details, just leaving the general stuff that's already there.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
In my opinion, the PHB is NOT the best point of entry right now. I did it five years ago, and as a brand spanking new GM, my dumbass bought the PHB, then proceeded to get the Legendary Bundle soon after, and then told my players about all the cool extra options. On top of scheduling conflicts, we already spent two sessions just going through the PHB, and I thought getting the Legendary Bundle in the middle of it was a good idea, so third session zero it is. To me, the best point of entry is the BR/SRD. And if the group wants to get to the action asap, then skip character creation entirely and pick one of the premade characters off Wizards' website. BR/SRD is free and contains everything you need mechanically to run the game. Other important stuff like session zero and strong communication can be learned from other sources.
Maybe it is because I started out digital, but lugging around extra pages I do not need is not fun. If I am going to break my back lugging around the three dead Ents, I rather those dead Ents tell me more about character creation options and other mechanics than blabbering about irrelvant lore here and there. If I want lore, I will bring the dead Ents that talk about lore. Lugging the real thing around, I finally felt like a proper badass carrying the physical burden and responsibility of being a GM, but I think I much rather carry them less physically after experiencing it a few times.
I personally prefer no lore, but I will compromise on minimal universal generic lore for introductory purposes. If people want to enjoy reading cover to cover, there are novels for that. I want D&D game books to be manuals. I do read D&D books for fun too, but I value them as tools more when I actually run the game. I do not care that orcs in the Sword Coast are barbaric when I am running the game, and the adventure book and setting book I am using already tells me some of the orcs are barbaric. I do not need to be told orcs are barbaric multiple times, and I definitely do not want to be told orcs are barbaric if I am running an adventure in a setting where orcs are not.
And on the topic of monsters, the concept of having physical monster BOOKS is a stupid idea without the relevant physical support tools, in this case CARDS (Wizards and Galeforce9 stopped working together to make cards). I run my games mostly digitally, but if I want to go full physical, even with physical bookmarks, it is still a pain in the ass to flip through multiple pages back and forth compared to just looking at the right card behind the GM screen. MM got card support, but FTOD and BP:GOTG do not, and the new MM probably will not have card support either. And lugging around a few cards is way easier than lugging around the MM.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
if one can easily dip their toes without purchasing, then why decry additional content in the expanded for-pay version of that? especially when the lore/flavor/theme is concentrated around character creation to spark imagination and not around the rules which might be referenced with some frequency.
i'm confused why 11 pages into the "dwindling hope for the future of D&D" thread it seems like "less setting specific lore in the PHB" is the fix when the players' handbook has so little setting specific lore as it is. and that pantheons appendix is great, by the way! great use of space and helpful on many occasions (personal opinion)!
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!