Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
It addresses the scenario given, and " a lot of folks" do play this way.
Some anecdotal data, I personally play at least monthly with ~ 30 different people, less than 5 of them own nothing more than a single set of dice (one won't even buy a set of dice). I loan out physical books all of the time, but not without a reminder that every DM can limit or change what they choose. I have several copies of the PHB, XGtE, TCoE for this reason. It may not be the norm, but it has worked well to garner more interest in playing and help with finding players in my area, and lore is what hooks many into playing their first game.
The lore problem is an "expectation" problem that is caused by poor/no communication from the very person (DM) creating the world being played in that leads to disappointment for both the DM and the player. The game is 95% talking, so just have a conversation about things like lore, rules and other things the DM is gonna change or omit from their game. It isn't hard very often, and the rare times it is hard it is time well spent.
Players like lore too, having some in the best selling book is not a bad thing. There are plenty of other things that many DM's choose not to use in the PHB, and it is handled simply by having a discussion; the way a little lore in a core book can and has been done for decades. It simply is not a problem unless someone wants it to be a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
It addresses the scenario given, and " a lot of folks" do play this way.
Some anecdotal data, I personally play at least monthly with ~ 30 different people, less than 5 of them own nothing more than a single set of dice (one won't even buy a set of dice). I loan out physical books all of the time, but not without a reminder that every DM can limit or change what they choose. I have several copies of the PHB, XGtE, TCoE for this reason. It may not be the norm, but it has worked well to garner more interest in playing and help with finding players in my area, and lore is what hooks many into playing their first game.
The lore problem is an "expectation" problem that is caused by poor/no communication from the very person (DM) creating the world being played in that leads to disappointment for both the DM and the player. The game is 95% talking, so just have a conversation about things like lore, rules and other things the DM is gonna change or omit from their game. It isn't hard very often, and the rare times it is hard it is time well spent.
Players like lore too, having some in the best selling book is not a bad thing. There are plenty of other things that many DM's choose not to use in the PHB, and it is handled simply by having a discussion; the way a little lore in a core book can and has been done for decades. It simply is not a problem unless someone wants it to be a problem.
But, again, it is not like there is going to be “no lore” in the PHB. The UA very clearly contains a decent amount of Lore - two or three generic paragraphs then a paragraph or two rapid firing some plane-specific lore. It is very clear Wizards has put a lot of thought into balancing the lore to make sure those who want it for character creation still have a foundation, while not also providing so much information that it (a) recreates a decades-old problem of “but the official lore in the PHB says X!” and (b) does not waste space on plane-specific lore which is not relevant to many players,
We are getting the best of both worlds - a compromise which should actually work for players and DMs alike.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
It addresses the scenario given, and " a lot of folks" do play this way.
Some anecdotal data, I personally play at least monthly with ~ 30 different people, less than 5 of them own nothing more than a single set of dice (one won't even buy a set of dice). I loan out physical books all of the time, but not without a reminder that every DM can limit or change what they choose. I have several copies of the PHB, XGtE, TCoE for this reason. It may not be the norm, but it has worked well to garner more interest in playing and help with finding players in my area, and lore is what hooks many into playing their first game.
The lore problem is an "expectation" problem that is caused by poor/no communication from the very person (DM) creating the world being played in that leads to disappointment for both the DM and the player. The game is 95% talking, so just have a conversation about things like lore, rules and other things the DM is gonna change or omit from their game. It isn't hard very often, and the rare times it is hard it is time well spent.
Players like lore too, having some in the best selling book is not a bad thing. There are plenty of other things that many DM's choose not to use in the PHB, and it is handled simply by having a discussion; the way a little lore in a core book can and has been done for decades. It simply is not a problem unless someone wants it to be a problem.
But, again, it is not like there is going to be “no lore” in the PHB. The UA very clearly contains a decent amount of Lore - two or three generic paragraphs then a paragraph or two rapid firing some plane-specific lore. It is very clear Wizards has put a lot of thought into balancing the lore to make sure those who want it for character creation still have a foundation, while not also providing so much information that it (a) recreates a decades-old problem of “but the official lore in the PHB says X!” and (b) does not waste space on plane-specific lore which is not relevant to many players,
We are getting the best of both worlds - a compromise which should actually work for players and DMs alike.
Agreed, but not the argument I was addressing which is: those for "no lore in the core".
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
How sanctimonious, rude, and insulting, all in 5 sentences. That’s impressive
I did read it, but with one thing or another and the pizza delivery, and extra helping the absolute noobs, and there being 7 players to help all at the same time it slipped my mind to explain every li’l difference in the lore for each race. And I didn’t have Volo’s to the “new players” I handed it to some of the more experienced players and they weren’t the issue. The issue was with the middling experience players who didn’t read my handout (as opposed to the more experienced players who did, and the noobs I handheald through the process). But had the lore in those books been neutral I wouldn’t have needed half the handout in the first place.
Setting aside the issue of lore in core books, stuff like FToD and BP:GotG does indeed need lore. A substantial part of the purpose of those books is provide prompts on how to play dragons and giants as beings separate from humanoids with different perspectives and culture. This calls for things like history, social trends, and pantheons with defined personalities and interactions. Also, again, how does the existence of text you can easily disregard make it "difficult" to slot something into a homebrew campaign? If you've communicated that it's homebrew from the outset, then people should already know that you're going to be making up your own stuff. That doesn't mean people won't still carry over some assumptions, but you just civilly tell them "that's not how X works in this setting" and ideally the game carries on.
Yeah, but books like FToD, BP-GotG, and other books aimed at DMs are books I would consider roughly on par with setting books when it comes to the amount of lore I expect to see in them. If it’s a book all about dragons or giants, I would expect it to be chock full of information about dragons or giants, both mechanics and lore/narrative stuff. I can always cherry pick what I want out of those books and ignore the rest, that’s fine.
Lore in the PHB and other books aimed at players is different. A couple of campaigns ago I was trying to get my players onboarded during Session 0 and passed around the PHB, Xanathar’s, and Volo’s guide so people could create their characters and was utterly taken aback when a few of my friends created characters based on the lore and were subsequently very disappointed when I had to inform them that the lore in my world was different. It made me feel shitty.
That’s the difference. If a resource is DM aimed then it’s either up to the DM to distribute that lore, or if the players do read them it’s up to those players to realize that material is subject to change as per their DM. If a resource is Player aimed, then it’s perfectly reasonable for players to expect whatever lore is contained within to be universal so they can count on it when creating their characters. So keeping the lore minimal, concise, and universal in Player facing books makes sense, just as including specific lore in DM facing books makes sense. It’s not that anyone thinks all the lore should go away, just that we think it should be the right lore, both in terms of quantity and specificity, in the right resources.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
It addresses the scenario given, and " a lot of folks" do play this way.
Some anecdotal data, I personally play at least monthly with ~ 30 different people, less than 5 of them own nothing more than a single set of dice (one won't even buy a set of dice). I loan out physical books all of the time, but not without a reminder that every DM can limit or change what they choose. I have several copies of the PHB, XGtE, TCoE for this reason. It may not be the norm, but it has worked well to garner more interest in playing and help with finding players in my area, and lore is what hooks many into playing their first game.
The lore problem is an "expectation" problem that is caused by poor/no communication from the very person (DM) creating the world being played in that leads to disappointment for both the DM and the player. The game is 95% talking, so just have a conversation about things like lore, rules and other things the DM is gonna change or omit from their game. It isn't hard very often, and the rare times it is hard it is time well spent.
Players like lore too, having some in the best selling book is not a bad thing. There are plenty of other things that many DM's choose not to use in the PHB, and it is handled simply by having a discussion; the way a little lore in a core book can and has been done for decades. It simply is not a problem unless someone wants it to be a problem.
But, again, it is not like there is going to be “no lore” in the PHB. The UA very clearly contains a decent amount of Lore - two or three generic paragraphs then a paragraph or two rapid firing some plane-specific lore. It is very clear Wizards has put a lot of thought into balancing the lore to make sure those who want it for character creation still have a foundation, while not also providing so much information that it (a) recreates a decades-old problem of “but the official lore in the PHB says X!” and (b) does not waste space on plane-specific lore which is not relevant to many players,
We are getting the best of both worlds - a compromise which should actually work for players and DMs alike.
Agreed, but not the argument I was addressing which is: those for "no lore in the core".
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
I want no lore in the core books. In my opinion, core books should be about mechanics. If GMs and players need lore information, they can turn to the appropriate setting book.
From the current PHB, I would like Appendix B and C to be cut, and I would want the race section to be slimmed down by removing their social and cultural information, as that is setting specific. With extra pages freed up, I want that to be dedicated to more character creation options.
Ideally, I would like the new PHB to compile all the PC options from the old PHB, XGTE, TCOE, and MP:MOTM, so players will only need to go through only two or three books at most (PHB, setting book, and maybe adventure book or second setting book) to create a character. Currently, a player that wants to play as an Eladrin bladesinger who wants to make people's head explode, they will need to go through the PHB for the basic class, TCOE for the subclass, XGTE for the spell, and MP:MOTM for the species. Going through four books on top of the setting and/or adventure book for character creation is not very user friendly.
Realistically, I think the new PHB will only compile some of the most popular options from those four books to keep costs low, and I think Wizards still wants to keep the other three books in circulation for profit.
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
I want no lore in the core books. In my opinion, core books should be about mechanics. If GMs and players need lore information, they can turn to the appropriate setting book.
From the current PHB, I would like Appendix B and C to be cut, and I would want the race section to be slimmed down by removing their social and cultural information, as that is setting specific. With extra pages freed up, I want that to be dedicated to more character creation options.
Ideally, I would like the new PHB to compile all the PC options from the old PHB, XGTE, TCOE, and MP:MOTM, so players will only need to go through only two or three books at most (PHB, setting book, and maybe adventure book or second setting book) to create a character. Currently, a player that wants to play as an Eladrin bladesinger who wants to make people's head explode, they will need to go through the PHB for the basic class, TCOE for the subclass, XGTE for the spell, and MP:MOTM for the species. Going through four books on top of the setting and/or adventure book for character creation is not very user friendly.
Realistically, I think the new PHB will only compile some of the most popular options from those four books to keep costs low, and I think Wizards still wants to keep the other three books in circulation for profit.
I think there is utility to both those Appendixes, but they could each be improved upon. Much like some basic universal lore (stripped of things like culture and society information) helps players conceptualize what the nonsense word "Tiefling" might mean, I think you need to have some very basic, universal (or rapid-fire from different settings) information to ensure the DM does not have to do all the heavy lifting of instructing their players on even very elementary things.
For Appendix B, choosing a deity is an important part of character creation for multiple classes and thus there needs to be some kind of player-facing information about what deities they can choose from. I think the way the current PHB does things is probably the best way to convey this information--keeping the information in an Appendix gives the information a bit less weight and, by rapid-fire listing a bunch of gods, they can provide a whole list of options at very little space investment.
I would make two changes to this section--first would be starting off with a paragraph on homebrew and talking with your DM about the pantheon before picking a god. Second, I think they could cut the tables of Greek, Norse, Celtic, and Egyptian gods in their entirety. The DMG could have a paragraph that says "If you want a familiar pantheon, you could check out real world pantheons" and leave it at that--the PHB does not really need to discuss that possibility.
I think Appendix C could probably be replaced with an Appendix on "the world you play in" and give a short primer on Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Homebrew. Just enough to let players know "hey, here are some of the worlds that your DM might use." This would serve two purposes--it would give the Players just enough information to better understand the game worlds and how the game works (which is kind of the point of the PHB) and it would give the players a starting off point so they know what they want to research when purchasing supplemental products.
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.
I get where you are coming from, and I do like what you have presented.
I do feel there is a place/need for some lore in the PHB specifically and the DMG/MM to a lesser degree. Simply because it is, for many, their first and only purchase(s) when they decide to play more D&D or become a DM.
Your recommendation would be very streamlined for players and DM's alike that is for sure, however I think with the path WotC is on it would be tough to implement and keep the compatibility with the older 5e stuff without creating more angst and confusion than we have now. They have to many books out that are trying to do everything in one book to make a switch like that. I do think if they went with a "new" edition it would be a lot easier to implement a change that big, but they have dug in quite deep in on it's going to remain 5e, and all of your old settings and adventures "will just work", to steal some marketing from apple.
The platform supporting me and my argument comes from the number of new players I either play with, or visit with in my area. We all play face to face at a physical table and there are books on those tables. An all online game with a VTT and people you may or may not know changes things a lot, so much for me I would rather not play than play online. I do play with people that have ongoing online games and we talk about the differences, I am still not interested, but they seem to be enjoying the games they play online.
I would be a lot more interested in the new stuff if it was a new edition planned out and implemented as you have laid out, but to "legacy, replace and try to make it work" leaves me not even a little interest in the new rule books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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)
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As the DM, I would read the books I planed to hand any player for character creation and let them know what lore was appropriate for my published/homebrew setting while helping them with lore among many other things for their character creation. Especially if I was using this time for onboarding as well as character creation and a session 0.
Even an experienced player, could have this issue in this scenario without guidance on lore, or anything else the DM chose not to allow in their game from those books be it homebrew or a published official adventure/setting. Did you allow everything except the lore from those books? (Volo's is an interesting choice to hand a new player)
In my opinion this is a DM issue, not a book, lore, or player issue. It is not any better of a reason to remove rather than leave lore in the core.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I think this ignores how a lot of folks play. It is not uncommon for someone to buy the PHB when they intend to be a player, long before they have a DM or game to play in. That is part of the reason the PHB is consistently the best seller for any iteration of D&D - lots of players get it and use it, independent of what their DM does or says.
It addresses the scenario given, and " a lot of folks" do play this way.
Some anecdotal data, I personally play at least monthly with ~ 30 different people, less than 5 of them own nothing more than a single set of dice (one won't even buy a set of dice). I loan out physical books all of the time, but not without a reminder that every DM can limit or change what they choose. I have several copies of the PHB, XGtE, TCoE for this reason. It may not be the norm, but it has worked well to garner more interest in playing and help with finding players in my area, and lore is what hooks many into playing their first game.
The lore problem is an "expectation" problem that is caused by poor/no communication from the very person (DM) creating the world being played in that leads to disappointment for both the DM and the player. The game is 95% talking, so just have a conversation about things like lore, rules and other things the DM is gonna change or omit from their game. It isn't hard very often, and the rare times it is hard it is time well spent.
Players like lore too, having some in the best selling book is not a bad thing. There are plenty of other things that many DM's choose not to use in the PHB, and it is handled simply by having a discussion; the way a little lore in a core book can and has been done for decades. It simply is not a problem unless someone wants it to be a problem.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
But, again, it is not like there is going to be “no lore” in the PHB. The UA very clearly contains a decent amount of Lore - two or three generic paragraphs then a paragraph or two rapid firing some plane-specific lore. It is very clear Wizards has put a lot of thought into balancing the lore to make sure those who want it for character creation still have a foundation, while not also providing so much information that it (a) recreates a decades-old problem of “but the official lore in the PHB says X!” and (b) does not waste space on plane-specific lore which is not relevant to many players,
We are getting the best of both worlds - a compromise which should actually work for players and DMs alike.
Agreed, but not the argument I was addressing which is: those for "no lore in the core".
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
How sanctimonious, rude, and insulting, all in 5 sentences. That’s impressive
I did read it, but with one thing or another and the pizza delivery, and extra helping the absolute noobs, and there being 7 players to help all at the same time it slipped my mind to explain every li’l difference in the lore for each race. And I didn’t have Volo’s to the “new players” I handed it to some of the more experienced players and they weren’t the issue. The issue was with the middling experience players who didn’t read my handout (as opposed to the more experienced players who did, and the noobs I handheald through the process). But had the lore in those books been neutral I wouldn’t have needed half the handout in the first place.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Who said “no lore in the core?!?” Re-read my post and you’ll see I specifically called for “universal lore” in the core. Or were you too busy telling me what a bad DM I am to actually read it the first time?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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.
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.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I want no lore in the core books. In my opinion, core books should be about mechanics. If GMs and players need lore information, they can turn to the appropriate setting book.
From the current PHB, I would like Appendix B and C to be cut, and I would want the race section to be slimmed down by removing their social and cultural information, as that is setting specific. With extra pages freed up, I want that to be dedicated to more character creation options.
Ideally, I would like the new PHB to compile all the PC options from the old PHB, XGTE, TCOE, and MP:MOTM, so players will only need to go through only two or three books at most (PHB, setting book, and maybe adventure book or second setting book) to create a character. Currently, a player that wants to play as an Eladrin bladesinger who wants to make people's head explode, they will need to go through the PHB for the basic class, TCOE for the subclass, XGTE for the spell, and MP:MOTM for the species. Going through four books on top of the setting and/or adventure book for character creation is not very user friendly.
Realistically, I think the new PHB will only compile some of the most popular options from those four books to keep costs low, and I think Wizards still wants to keep the other three books in circulation for profit.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I think there is utility to both those Appendixes, but they could each be improved upon. Much like some basic universal lore (stripped of things like culture and society information) helps players conceptualize what the nonsense word "Tiefling" might mean, I think you need to have some very basic, universal (or rapid-fire from different settings) information to ensure the DM does not have to do all the heavy lifting of instructing their players on even very elementary things.
For Appendix B, choosing a deity is an important part of character creation for multiple classes and thus there needs to be some kind of player-facing information about what deities they can choose from. I think the way the current PHB does things is probably the best way to convey this information--keeping the information in an Appendix gives the information a bit less weight and, by rapid-fire listing a bunch of gods, they can provide a whole list of options at very little space investment.
I would make two changes to this section--first would be starting off with a paragraph on homebrew and talking with your DM about the pantheon before picking a god. Second, I think they could cut the tables of Greek, Norse, Celtic, and Egyptian gods in their entirety. The DMG could have a paragraph that says "If you want a familiar pantheon, you could check out real world pantheons" and leave it at that--the PHB does not really need to discuss that possibility.
I think Appendix C could probably be replaced with an Appendix on "the world you play in" and give a short primer on Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Homebrew. Just enough to let players know "hey, here are some of the worlds that your DM might use." This would serve two purposes--it would give the Players just enough information to better understand the game worlds and how the game works (which is kind of the point of the PHB) and it would give the players a starting off point so they know what they want to research when purchasing supplemental products.
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.
I get where you are coming from, and I do like what you have presented.
I do feel there is a place/need for some lore in the PHB specifically and the DMG/MM to a lesser degree. Simply because it is, for many, their first and only purchase(s) when they decide to play more D&D or become a DM.
Your recommendation would be very streamlined for players and DM's alike that is for sure, however I think with the path WotC is on it would be tough to implement and keep the compatibility with the older 5e stuff without creating more angst and confusion than we have now. They have to many books out that are trying to do everything in one book to make a switch like that. I do think if they went with a "new" edition it would be a lot easier to implement a change that big, but they have dug in quite deep in on it's going to remain 5e, and all of your old settings and adventures "will just work", to steal some marketing from apple.
The platform supporting me and my argument comes from the number of new players I either play with, or visit with in my area. We all play face to face at a physical table and there are books on those tables. An all online game with a VTT and people you may or may not know changes things a lot, so much for me I would rather not play than play online. I do play with people that have ongoing online games and we talk about the differences, I am still not interested, but they seem to be enjoying the games they play online.
I would be a lot more interested in the new stuff if it was a new edition planned out and implemented as you have laid out, but to "legacy, replace and try to make it work" leaves me not even a little interest in the new rule books.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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)
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.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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.