Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

So 60% of who knows what from a survey designed to find out what, from a group of people that represent what? 

The 60% is a number that has little to no use in this discussion other than consensus and confirmation bias.

 
That is certainly an opinion.

However, when discussing the “why did they leave the lore out of the descriptions”, it certainly has use in the discussion in relation to the possible reason: it is what the majority of their user base indicates.

As to why it makes sense to leave the lore out, the same thing applies.

It isn’t an argument, either: it is a statement of what is a probable reason, and one supported by their own statements and actions (including that they just posted a position for a worldbuilding role).

As I said to the other person, I don’t care if you believe me. I don’t care if you change your mind or not. I am not arguing with you, I am pointing out different points. One can do that without arguing. A disagreement is not inherently an argument — arguments generally exist to change another persons’ mind. Not being able to have your mind changed and disagreeing, and not caring to change someone’s mind while disagreeing are still just disagreements.

I have followed the popularity of published worlds since the mid 80’s. It is one of those things that I find fascinating. So, whenever data has been released by the companies that have owned the game, I have paid attention. I could tell you how they differ from the results of assorted academic studies (where the results are even worse for published worlds) and more, but that isn’t the point of the thread nor germane. 

If you want to look it up, go for it. It not, don’t. No skin off my nose either way -- it isn’t secret hidden information that only i have access to, I have no need to prove anything to you, and the basis of my disagreement is the idea that it is unwise to include the lore.

I like the new MM -- I bought it as a physical book, which is more than I can say for the 2014 version, which I did not buy because it was too packed with annoying lore i already had to spend  hours removing and rewriting from the PHB so that things would work with my setting.

and the reason i liked it was that it is much easier to use — and, for the most part, is going to save me a ton of time when it comes to designing encounters and setting up adventures and random encounters. Because it doesn't have lore that has to be stripped out.

 Edit: typos

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Oh yes, because if there's one thing we know about large corporations producing disposable income products it's that they have absolutely no reason to invest in effective market research of how consumers are using their existing products. If you don't care to acknowledge the number, fine you do whatever, but let's not pretend that market research is not an extensive field of study where companies have a vested interest in getting accurate results.

 Without knowing where the number comes from and being able to evaluate how and why it was arrived at,  it is hearsay and essentially useless in this discussion other than consensus and confirmation bias. 

Just saying "consensus and confirmation bias" doesn't automatically make your argument strong. WotC announced the results of their market study. We can attempt to come up with some nonsensical Machiavellian reason for them to lie about the results, we can come up with excuses to disregard the data because it doesn't fit our personal narratives, or we can accept that maybe, just maybe, the people who have a vested interest in getting accurate market data hired people who know what they're doing to construct and carry out the survey, and as such it's the most accurate data we're likely to have.

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

Looking to use one in a game, without knowing about them the 5e description is magnitudes better and comes far closer to the simplified description you used.

How is someone with out knowledge of Barbed devils supposed to take away they "scour the planes for treasure" frome the 5.5e description? 

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/mm-2024/monsters-b#BarbedDevil

Literally the first sentence: "Infernal collectors, barbed devils fanatically protect troves of treasure and scour the planes of existence for additions to their hoards."

And yes, the 2014 description is a lot more bloated to get the same point across. That's a bad thing. I'd rather have that unnecessary text repurposed for more monsters and better art, which is exactly what they did.

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

Guess I need new glasses.

You call it bloat, many myself do not see it as such, maybe after a few years it becomes bloat?

New DM'S buying this book are far worse off than if they bought the 5e, so are their players when you are relying on the new books to get started.

 
One should have one's eyes checked and update a prescription every year. 

"Bloat" would be describing something in more words than necessary. Much like most of my responses; I am verbose.

New DM's buying the new MM are much better off than those buying the 2014 MM -- they not only get better designed monsters with less horseshit lore, they get more effectively designed and easier to run monsters that retain their effective risk level regardless of the approach the new DM uses to run them.

This means their players are getting a better overall play experience regardless of inexperience of their DM, and the game offers greater enjoyment as a result.

But, opinions vary, and it is normal during an edition change for folks to find any manner of argument to argue against the change that is leaving them behind.

Edit: blank space

Looking to use one in a game, without knowing about them the 5e description is magnitudes better and comes far closer to the simplified description you used.

How is someone with out knowledge of Barbed devils supposed to take away they "scour the planes for treasure" frome the 5.5e description?

well, if they aren't using a published world, however the hell they want.

My setting has none of the planes. So, that entire concept is useless. It has dimensions, though -- and the Dimension of Hell is a place where barbed devils serve as the enforcers for the more powerful beings. They are not seeking treasure at all -- they aren't even about greed. They serve the role of being the servants of more powerful devils, the collectors of the corrupted, the ones that drag them into the dimension to be eaten and feasted a upon.

One high ranking devil says they are the best butchers -- they know the best way to fillet and maximize the best cuts.

Oh, I'm sorry, does that not sound right to you?

• How useful is that lore to you now?
• How useful is it to a new player in my games? 
• How useful is it to a new player in 60% of games, when they don't use the same setting lore?

They might use the cosmological lore, but that's not a given (and hasn't been asked about to my knowledge), and can be assumed as easily as not. Now, even by just keeping that little bit in there, they create a potential for conflict in different games if the players assume that the world they are adventuring uses the same basic standards of a published world, even though it is not.

But without that information, they aren't distracted by what the monster is supposed to be/do, and the DM can more easily and more readily reveal that to them, making the game more fun. because a lot of folks forget that Everything In The Book is a Suggestion and an Example. THe more lore you add, he less it comes across as a suggestion and example, and more like a fixed and "proper" way to do things.

Now, that's my regular campaigns. In my Dungeon Crawl, they love to collect odd things like the hearts of the brave, the largest number of things -- they are devils of greed and obsession, and by itself, tht tell me tons about how they think. So they will gather, will hoard, and if I am going to use one, what they hoard is important because it determines the size of the space and the amount of whatever it is they have collected.

Since they are residents of the Plane of Hell (an afterlife), and they are not there at the time they are encountered in a dungeon, well, that means they are doing so across the planes, does it not?

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

Guess I need new glasses.

You call it bloat, many myself do not see it as such, maybe after a few years it becomes bloat?

New DM'S buying this book are far worse off than if they bought the 5e, so are their players when you are relying on the new books to get started.

 
One should have one's eyes checked and update a prescription every year. 

"Bloat" would be describing something in more words than necessary. Much like most of my responses; I am verbose.

New DM's buying the new MM are much better off than those buying the 2014 MM -- they not only get better designed monsters with less horseshit lore, they get more effectively designed and easier to run monsters that retain their effective risk level regardless of the approach the new DM uses to run them.

This means their players are getting a better overall play experience regardless of inexperience of their DM, and the game offers greater enjoyment as a result.

But, opinions vary, and it is normal during an edition change for folks to find any manner of argument to argue against the change that is leaving them behind.

 How inclusive for the new players. Who gets to lable the lore? 

The DM, of course.

It is their setting, after all. Even if they use a published setting (1st or 3rd party).

I just wana say without the new MM I would of never thought of a farmer Medusa who raises flocks of cockatrices

Who asked about your homebrew?

no one.

Do you think a group new to D&D is gonna be homebrewing and buying the core books? 

Yes. Frequently and often.

Gatekeep much?

Not at all.

I buy the books to play the published game...

Having both sets of books, at my level the 14 books are far easier for me to use.

... from people that can't accept that some people play with the published stuff and have a different set of views and expectations and don't like what they have done with the new stuff.

A lot of people buy the books to play the game as published. If the 2014 books are easier for you to use, then use them -- the familiar is always easier. There is nothing wrong with doing so. I don't recall anyone saying that no one plays with the established stuff. Just that they are not in the larger number of people who play the game.

The thread asks if people don't like the new MM -- people are sharing their feelings about that.

You noted that without knowing about them (barbed devils) the lore makes them better.

I offered my homebrew setting as a counter to that assertion -- it does not make them better in such a circumstance. I asked questions in relation to it. I then discussed other circumstances.

None of which changes anything about you enjoying using the books and the information as they are presented, and is entirely about the way that the presumption that it is worse is entirely subjective and not applicable to all circumstances.

WotC cannot (and should not) bend to all circumstances, but they can and have bent towards the folks according to their needs. The core books reflect that for 2024 -- and the upcoming Forgotten Realms books and Eberron book will reflect that as well. The core books have no lore because lore is not setting neutral. The new books will be crammed with lore, because they are about those settings.

D&D is about bringing the imagination of the people playing it to life -- always has been. So there are always going to be a ton of people who homebrew their own everything. Creating your own world is a core feature -- and a major draw for new people, who want to play in the world of Arcane or do pokemon or Dragonball or Jojo or Frieren or Gladiator or even (imma say iit) Krull into their rooms for a night about a table.

That is not better than playing it by the stuff they have written as a company, and it is not worse than do so. It is just different.

And WotC wants to do things for both those types of people -- hence the absence of lore in the core books and the presence of it in the supplementary books.

And they even put extra effort in so that you could, mostly, use the old books along side the newer ones.

I still tell folks to use both DMGs -- especially the brand new DMs who want to do worldbuilding. They run the game from 2024 rules, but the use the 2014 DMG because it has better info about world building from scratch, has more options, and some tools that are missing from the 2024 DMG. Here and on other social media platforms.

I only became interested to the game in 1979 because I saw that I could build my own worlds.

If I couldn't, I wouldn't play it.

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

How is someone with out knowledge of Barbed devils supposed to take away they "scour the planes for treasure" frome the 5.5e description?

 You know, I've been playing D&D for decades and that little detail has never been relevant (it's a CR 5 monster, it's gonna have CR 5 treasure; if greed is actually an important plot point, an adventure can point it out there). However... go look at the illustration for the barbed devil in 2014 vs 2024. The 2014 version is a weird spiky thing against a white background. The 2024 version is a weird spiky thing against a backdrop of a mound of treasure.

Quote from The_Buzzard_is_Circling >>

 

 

 Who asked about your homebrew? Do you think a group new to D&D is gonna be homebrewing and buying the core books? 

I buy the books to play the published game, how dare I not have the creative abilities the older more experienced people here do. Having both sets of books, at my level the 14 books are far easier for me to use. It is quite un welcoming to have the backhanded name calling and put downs from people that can't accept that some people play with the published stuff and have a different set of views and expectations and don't like what they have done with the new stuff. I am done talking with you as I am tired of being talked down to and ridiculed by you. Enjoy your homebrew, and the warm welcome. 

 

Gatekeep much?

Pretty sure it is not gatekeeping to insist that there has to be 'One True Lore' or else you are somehow shutting out the uncreative. Insisting that if we are not all told the 'right way monsters should act' might technically mean our freedom to conform to that is being taken away, but that would be like saying "Saying no to gatekeeping is taking away our freedom to gatekeep"

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Oh yes, because if there's one thing we know about large corporations producing disposable income products it's that they have absolutely no reason to invest in effective market research of how consumers are using their existing products. If you don't care to acknowledge the number, fine you do whatever, but let's not pretend that market research is not an extensive field of study where companies have a vested interest in getting accurate results.

The recent playtests would be pretty solid evidence that they are absolutely terrible at writing and dissecting surveys so the they are a giant corporation defense doesn't really ring true. 

Quote from kayakingpoodle >>

 Without the source it is just conjecture, throwing numbers in an argument without the source (especially when they side with the argument being pushed) is super sketchy especially when asked to provide them and the answer is go find them yourself. Super greasy. 

 
Except I did share my source: WotC. So, none of the above applies, and all of it is simply saying that I am an untrustworthy person by fabrication -- an ad hominem and bad faith statement. The bolded portions are all direct personal attacks.

Now, if  you mean I am supposed to provide you with a specific link, well, now, this isn't a school course or a peer reviewed journal. 

I am under no obligation to do so, and asking for someone to provide the information that you are supposed to be capable of looking up is an appeal to authority -- my authority, specifically -- that is essentially telling someone you don't trust or believe or accept at face value (an ac of bad faith) that you will trust, accept, and believe the things that they provide you, which is simply asinine to do. Hi, I don't believe you will eat my face, so, please, eat my face to prove it.

Ok well, yeah, we are talking about the Monster Manual, so I can see how that might be a thought.

If you are asserting that because I "did not provide a source" that I am somehow to be considered lesser, that's an additional act of bad faith, as well as an ad hominem, because it targets the character in order to undermine them.

Now, all of that only applies in circumstances where someone is willing to change their mind as a result of an argument -- which, I will note one more time, was not the case.

We had a disagreement. A disagreement is not an argument. An argument generally requires that people be willing to change their minds -- because good faith requires it. Being unwilling to change one's mind means that one cannot argue in good faith.

You can disagree, and not seek to change someone's mind, however. I am disagreeing and providing the rationale for my disagreement, not trying to change their minds. I cannot argue with them or attempt to change their minds because I am unwilling to change my own mind -- meaning that a disagreement is all I can do.

So, although it is stretching things a tad, I could point out that offering a link to something that anyone else could look up if they took the ******* time out of their day to do so  (which they would have to do in a debate) would be me engaging in a bad faith argument, since I would then be falling into a trap of shifting to an argument instead of exposition, as the purpose in doing so would be to change their mind.

But I am not seeking to change their minds. Nor yours, for that matter. I don't give a spell component's hind end if you believe, feel, think, or otherwise attempt to consider the information truthful and accurate. I know it is, and it is what I base my statements on, and I do not do so to change your mind or make you think differently. 

I do it to illustrate a counterpoint, provide a possible rationale, and to participate in the thread. Because I am not going to engage with someone who is acting in bad faith, nor am I going to engage in bad faith.  That's is unproductive.

My only concern is that if someone lies about me, or defames me, then I have something to say. Which I have now done.

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Oh yes, because if there's one thing we know about large corporations producing disposable income products it's that they have absolutely no reason to invest in effective market research of how consumers are using their existing products. If you don't care to acknowledge the number, fine you do whatever, but let's not pretend that market research is not an extensive field of study where companies have a vested interest in getting accurate results.

 

The recent playtests would be pretty solid evidence that they are absolutely terrible at writing and dissecting surveys so the they are a giant corporation defense doesn't really ring true. 

 Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results. (Which is perfectly reasonable. Not everyone will like everything.) But even if 80% agree, 20% don’t. (And they only shoot for 70, so 80 is even higher than the minimum.) At either percentage that’s hundreds of thousands of people in the 20%, probably more than 1 million. Plenty enough to raise their (fair and reasonable) concerns on the internet and certainly a lot of people. But still  distinct minority. 

Quote from Xalthu >>

 Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.

 The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

 Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.

 The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).

 Or, they’re very well aware of the limitations of their survey techniques, and use the demographic and other data they collect to weight the responses.

Why are people so willing to assume a multi-billion dollar company with a wildly successful product doesn’t understand how to run a market research survey? Them not sharing their proprietary customer information doesn’t mean they don’t have it.

If they thought people wanted the lore, they’d print the lore.

Quote from Xalthu >>

 Or, they’re very well aware of the limitations of their survey techniques, and use the demographic and other data they collect to weight the responses.

Why are people so willing to assume a multi-billion dollar company with a wildly successful product doesn’t understand how to run a market research survey?

Plenty of larger corporations have fumbled their market research, but I expect they're aware of the limitations of their survey tech and just don't consider it worth the cost to try and do better. Also, why would they do weighting in the numbers they tell us? Sure, they probably do subgroup analysis based on the demographic information they ask for, but they aren't an election polling company.

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from Xalthu >>

 Or, they’re very good at it, and some people just don’t like the results.

 The way their surveys work absolutely suffer from response bias; they're getting the opinions of people who actually respond to their surveys, who are generally going to be more dedicated players than the average. That may well skew responses towards homebrew (low-effort games are likely to run published campaigns, not create their own), but it also likely skews responses to caring more about lore rather than less (if you're running a published campaign, you probably don't cross-reference the MM lore because it really doesn't matter).

 Or, they’re very well aware of the limitations of their survey techniques, and use the demographic and other data they collect to weight the responses.

Why are people so willing to assume a multi-billion dollar company with a wildly successful product doesn’t understand how to run a market research survey? Them not sharing their proprietary customer information doesn’t mean they don’t have it.

If they thought people wanted the lore, they’d print the lore.

Why are you so wiling to worship them and assume they are infallible. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

Why are you so wiling to worship them and assume they are infallible. 

 There's a difference between assuming they're infallible, and assuming that your personal experience is more reliable than their data (note that the actual data point that Wizards cares about, and the real test for how good the market survey is, is how the book ends up selling). As such, the most valuable data point Wizards actually has is how well MotM (which replaced two books with lots of lore with one book with not much lore) actually sold, and I assume it sold well enough for them not to decide to change course.

Hasbro didn’t become as sleazy as any other major corp recently — they were that way before D&D even existed. At the very least since 1970 and the Romper Room stuff.

They are not infallible, either; no one is. It would be disingenuous to suggest that pointing out reasonable statements regarding their business operations are equivalent to worship or even a liking of them.

It is also reasonable to expect that when folks spread falsehoods regarding them that others will offer statements of correction that contradict those falsehoods.