No, it was always supposed to come out in 2025, at least from outside the company. It is called the 2024 MM because that is the revision name for the entire revision. "2024" is the naming convention for the new set.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You do realise that the exact same method has been used for multiple of the past books like Mordenkainens monsters of the Universe? They do group it at the back of the book but I find it a lot easier to just page flip to find what monsters I want, especially since it can give you Inspiration to group random monsters together. Sure certain subtypes of monsters would be the obvious choice to group together, but having random combinations of monsters with interesting explanations is way more memorable.
If I want to look up Incubus/Sucubus (same creature btw, it decides at the end of a long rest which form to take), yet the Incubus and Sucubus pages are 150 pages apart ("I" for Incubus, "S" for Sucubus).
If they do that on a long rest, they're not doing it in combat, nor in the middle of an interaction scene. So why do you need the entries to be adjacent?
Having their entries be alphabetical makes them far easier to find when you actually need them - planning encounters.
1. Whoever is throwing more then 10 direwolves at their party at a time is kind of a jerk.
2. The Tarrasque honestly hasn't been that interesting of a monster in ages. Like yes: It's the great devourer, a massive beast that awakens and then goes on a rampage that lays waste to whole civilizations and it's consistently swaddled in so many levels of protection and HPs that it becomes like a puzzle for the players to figure out how they're going to credibly hurt it... but at the same time it's frankly just an animal. A really big, really strong, really dangerous animal... but quite frankly it feels like there are only two ways to run a campaign with one since it's either Trapped/sleeping and the players are racing to prevent people from unleashing it for stupid reasons OR it's already lose and yucking it up. Give me a Dragon, Liche, warlord, Devil or Demon over that any day.
3. Everything I've heard and seen from 2024 suggests that the Devs are trying to pull elements from 4e and implement them into 5e but they're kind of missing some of the core elements with how monsters were designed back then; Like yes you had XP values you would use to build encounters with and monsters fit into various archetypes (Soldier, artillery, Controller, Lurker, Brute, skirmisher ect.) but there were also different *scales* of monsters as well which went from minion at the lowest to Solo at the highest. The reason this was important was because it made it so that GM's could put a whole whack of chaffe monsters that would die in a single hit and typically do minimal damage when they hit (which they could do pretty consistently)... but the flip side was that a character that did high damage per hit and only got like... 1 attack with no AOE per turn could get bogged down by decrepit skeletons while the necromancer kept hucking death at the party (and this kind of situation gave Controllers who often had AOEs an opportunity to clear them out in a hurry).
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
Narrowing it down to just this one point.
60% of games don't use the lore given (WotC's own numbers) and get pretty upset when they get told that a monster acts this way. One of the things that is most attractive about the new book is that it generally avoids trying to make a monster from the book have a special kind of culture or ecology that would make absolutely no sense at all in my world -- to the point that it causes interruptions in games because "that monster isn't right".
When the majority of settings in use have nothing in common with the published ones -- and the published ones are so different that it creates problems and makes them all seem the same -- it is smarter to go setting agnostic.
Plus, it means that the books coming out can make setting specific versions of those (like they are doing with the Drow in the FR books and the goblins in something) -- that gives folks extra reason to buy the new books if they do use that setting, and allows them to make the setting more distinct and special from one another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
Narrowing it down to just this one point.
60% of games don't use the lore given (WotC's own numbers) and get pretty upset when they get told that a monster acts this way. One of the things that is most attractive about the new book is that it generally avoids trying to make a monster from the book have a special kind of culture or ecology that would make absolutely no sense at all in my world -- to the point that it causes interruptions in games because "that monster isn't right".
When the majority of settings in use have nothing in common with the published ones -- and the published ones are so different that it creates problems and makes them all seem the same -- it is smarter to go setting agnostic.
Plus, it means that the books coming out can make setting specific versions of those (like they are doing with the Drow in the FR books and the goblins in something) -- that gives folks extra reason to buy the new books if they do use that setting, and allows them to make the setting more distinct and special from one another.
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
Narrowing it down to just this one point.
60% of games don't use the lore given (WotC's own numbers) and get pretty upset when they get told that a monster acts this way. One of the things that is most attractive about the new book is that it generally avoids trying to make a monster from the book have a special kind of culture or ecology that would make absolutely no sense at all in my world -- to the point that it causes interruptions in games because "that monster isn't right".
When the majority of settings in use have nothing in common with the published ones -- and the published ones are so different that it creates problems and makes them all seem the same -- it is smarter to go setting agnostic.
Plus, it means that the books coming out can make setting specific versions of those (like they are doing with the Drow in the FR books and the goblins in something) -- that gives folks extra reason to buy the new books if they do use that setting, and allows them to make the setting more distinct and special from one another.
So a few things.
First, I'm curious where you're getting "60%" from.
Second: It still means that 40% are using it.
Third: even if you aren't using the lore of a given creature verbatim, it's still possible for elements present therein to spark your imagination for something else.
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
Narrowing it down to just this one point.
60% of games don't use the lore given (WotC's own numbers) and get pretty upset when they get told that a monster acts this way. One of the things that is most attractive about the new book is that it generally avoids trying to make a monster from the book have a special kind of culture or ecology that would make absolutely no sense at all in my world -- to the point that it causes interruptions in games because "that monster isn't right".
When the majority of settings in use have nothing in common with the published ones -- and the published ones are so different that it creates problems and makes them all seem the same -- it is smarter to go setting agnostic.
Plus, it means that the books coming out can make setting specific versions of those (like they are doing with the Drow in the FR books and the goblins in something) -- that gives folks extra reason to buy the new books if they do use that setting, and allows them to make the setting more distinct and special from one another.
So a few things.
First, I'm curious where you're getting "60%" from.
Second: It still means that 40% are using it.
Third: even if you aren't using the lore of a given creature verbatim, it's still possible for elements present therein to spark your imagination for something else.
Erego: More lore please.
I told you: WotC. These are their numbers. I'll tell you they underestimate the broader base, and overestimate the IP base, but thats me looking at control effects, and besides, who the **** am I to use my numbers. So, I use theirs.
No, it doesn't mean 40% are using it. The most popular published setting is FR -- which has 15% of the total. So, if the lore is for FR, then it only works for a portion of the 15%, since the 15% includes people who use FR with their own lore, and those who just use the setting for locations and not the lore. All other 1st and 3rd party setting fill in the rest of the segments, and they, too, are broken the same way. This includes every published world, including all the TSR ones from older editions, as well as the ones they have done stuff for 5e -- because some folks still use the old worlds. There are over two dozen worlds from WotC alone -- and then you have all the third party from the same time.
So, it is better to save lore for setting books, where it can spark all the creativity you mentioned, in a place where it can be appreciated and useful, and here someone who is curious about the lore can seek it out.
That's why the lore being stripped from the Core books is better: it allows the folks who want it to seek it out in products created for them, and the folks whom the lore offends and makes it less enjoyable to play can still enjoy the game.
It is easier to add lore than to remove it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
Narrowing it down to just this one point.
60% of games don't use the lore given (WotC's own numbers) and get pretty upset when they get told that a monster acts this way. One of the things that is most attractive about the new book is that it generally avoids trying to make a monster from the book have a special kind of culture or ecology that would make absolutely no sense at all in my world -- to the point that it causes interruptions in games because "that monster isn't right".
When the majority of settings in use have nothing in common with the published ones -- and the published ones are so different that it creates problems and makes them all seem the same -- it is smarter to go setting agnostic.
Plus, it means that the books coming out can make setting specific versions of those (like they are doing with the Drow in the FR books and the goblins in something) -- that gives folks extra reason to buy the new books if they do use that setting, and allows them to make the setting more distinct and special from one another.
So a few things.
First, I'm curious where you're getting "60%" from.
Second: It still means that 40% are using it.
Third: even if you aren't using the lore of a given creature verbatim, it's still possible for elements present therein to spark your imagination for something else.
Erego: More lore please.
I told you: WotC. These are their numbers. I'll tell you they underestimate the broader base, and overestimate the IP base, but thats me looking at control effects, and besides, who the **** am I to use my numbers. So, I use theirs.
No, it doesn't mean 40% are using it. The most popular published setting is FR -- which has 15% of the total. So, if the lore is for FR, then it only works for a portion of the 15%, since the 15% includes people who use FR with their own lore, and those who just use the setting for locations and not the lore. All other 1st and 3rd party setting fill in the rest of the segments, and they, too, are broken the same way. This includes every published world, including all the TSR ones from older editions, as well as the ones they have done stuff for 5e -- because some folks still use the old worlds. There are over two dozen worlds from WotC alone -- and then you have all the third party from the same time.
So, it is better to save lore for setting books, where it can spark all the creativity you mentioned, in a place where it can be appreciated and useful, and here someone who is curious about the lore can seek it out.
That's why the lore being stripped from the Core books is better: it allows the folks who want it to seek it out in products created for them, and the folks whom the lore offends and makes it less enjoyable to play can still enjoy the game.
It is easier to add lore than to remove it.
Do you have a link to these stats? From wotc is not helpful, they may not even be relevant to the discussion. You state you use theirs with nothing to reference. Doesn't really sell the argument.
Not trying to be condescending or anything. But do DMs modify or create monsters anymore? I'm seeing all these complaints about things I have never encountered or seen as a problem in all my years of playing DnD, player or DM.
When I DMed, I almost never went by the basic stat block. It was a base template to use. If I found it lacking, I added to it to make it more challenging or unique, depending on the situation. Is it because of Maps that this is an issue?
Homebrew settings were WAY out in front of ALL other options with Official Setting Slightly Homebrewed was about a quarter of the total votes. I have not seen the numbers from WotC, but they have said that Homebrew settings are the most widely used settings and that Forgotten Realms is the most popular Official setting. I don't quite remember which of the videos they said it in though.
I don't need to reference what someone can find on their own, and I'm not here to try to sell an argument. Selling it presumes I have something to gain. I don't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't need to reference what someone can find on their own, and I'm not here to try to sell an argument. Selling it presumes I have something to gain. I don't.
Homebrew settings were WAY out in front of ALL other options with Official Setting Slightly Homebrewed was about a quarter of the total votes. I have not seen the numbers from WotC, but they have said that Homebrew settings are the most widely used settings and that Forgotten Realms is the most popular Official setting. I don't quite remember which of the videos they said it in though.
Hope that is at least a little helpful.
The problem with polls is that they're self-reporting, and self-reporting heavily skews the responses. As a point - how many people were convinced D&D was self destructing because of OGL and "everyone" they knew were up arms? Taking a step back, 90% of people who play still have never even heard of OGL. Of those that have, most probably don't even care. Of those that do care, some think it wasn't a problem, others did.
But they thought that everyone bar a few of us here was upset and angry because...the people who are passionate come here and Reddit and talk about it, and most of those were upset. Most players had zero opinion whatsoever. Of the tens of millions of players, there are only a few hundred that use these forums - generally, the most passionate.
Self reporting polls are far more likely to be filled out by people who are particularly passionate than your average casual gamer. Those are far more likely to homebrew adventures rather than just buying adventures. You can use sales numbers to compare between official settings - we know that Rime of the Frostmaiden sold X number of copies while Spelljammer sold Y number of copies for example, but comparing it to homebrew is a losing proposition. It's just not reliable at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
Narrowing it down to just this one point.
60% of games don't use the lore given (WotC's own numbers) and get pretty upset when they get told that a monster acts this way. One of the things that is most attractive about the new book is that it generally avoids trying to make a monster from the book have a special kind of culture or ecology that would make absolutely no sense at all in my world -- to the point that it causes interruptions in games because "that monster isn't right".
When the majority of settings in use have nothing in common with the published ones -- and the published ones are so different that it creates problems and makes them all seem the same -- it is smarter to go setting agnostic.
Plus, it means that the books coming out can make setting specific versions of those (like they are doing with the Drow in the FR books and the goblins in something) -- that gives folks extra reason to buy the new books if they do use that setting, and allows them to make the setting more distinct and special from one another.
So a few things.
First, I'm curious where you're getting "60%" from.
Second: It still means that 40% are using it.
Third: even if you aren't using the lore of a given creature verbatim, it's still possible for elements present therein to spark your imagination for something else.
Erego: More lore please.
I told you: WotC. These are their numbers. I'll tell you they underestimate the broader base, and overestimate the IP base, but thats me looking at control effects, and besides, who the **** am I to use my numbers. So, I use theirs.
No, it doesn't mean 40% are using it. The most popular published setting is FR -- which has 15% of the total. So, if the lore is for FR, then it only works for a portion of the 15%, since the 15% includes people who use FR with their own lore, and those who just use the setting for locations and not the lore. All other 1st and 3rd party setting fill in the rest of the segments, and they, too, are broken the same way. This includes every published world, including all the TSR ones from older editions, as well as the ones they have done stuff for 5e -- because some folks still use the old worlds. There are over two dozen worlds from WotC alone -- and then you have all the third party from the same time.
So, it is better to save lore for setting books, where it can spark all the creativity you mentioned, in a place where it can be appreciated and useful, and here someone who is curious about the lore can seek it out.
That's why the lore being stripped from the Core books is better: it allows the folks who want it to seek it out in products created for them, and the folks whom the lore offends and makes it less enjoyable to play can still enjoy the game.
It is easier to add lore than to remove it.
1.Again: How are they getting those numbers? I'm asking because I've never actually met a representative from WotC who asked me for my preferences regarding the settings and lore nor have I ever heard of anyone having a similar expierience; the closest I ever got was when the gaming store where I was running there program was trying to provide feedback on attendance for I think Adventurerrs league?
Further, has it occurred to you that it's possible that people may have been moving away from official settings because the writers have been releasing increasingly lackluster campaign guides (IE doing a bad job with the lore)? Because the consistent complaint is that they feel hollow because they've done a terrible job with it; I had high hopes for both Dragonlance and Spelljammer but the former came across as being so utterly lacking in the tone that I'd associate with that setting and the war of the lance that you could change some names and easily plunk it down into greyhawk, Forgotten realms, mystara or exandria and no one would notice the difference while Spelljammer (a setting that I felt was a wonderful choice with the direction that WotC has decided to go given it's whimsical romantic nature) was just... so completely and utterly *nothing*; No suggestions for stellar phenomenon, no information on how to set up star systems, owing or operating a magical boat that flies through space.... But it did make time to ditch the crystal spheres and the phlogistron and thereby screw up both the Astral Plane and the Prime Material Plane.
2. Again: you're speculating and pulling numbers seemingly out of the aether since you can't share the source of your data.
3. No, the dearth of lore is still a problem since the lack of it provides nothing to potential new (or even older ones who are looking for new ideas) GM's or players to get them going; it's like leaving an 8 year old in a fully stocked kitchen where nothing is labled, the only things to help them prepare a meal are a series of owners manuals for the various appliances and told to just go and make a 4 course meal. It's going to go badly and possibly scare them off of cooking entirely whereas if you provide them with a cookbook they're going to have a better idea of how to do things like season properly, make something nutritionally balanced and also properly proportioned.
Also I have some statitistics for you: half of the people who have posted in the last 16 hours people who have responded since you brought up percentages have directly called into question the validity of the polling information for a plethora of reasons which 1/6th of posters have cited. This therefore means that their claims are flawed and must be discarded.
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
Narrowing it down to just this one point.
60% of games don't use the lore given (WotC's own numbers) and get pretty upset when they get told that a monster acts this way. One of the things that is most attractive about the new book is that it generally avoids trying to make a monster from the book have a special kind of culture or ecology that would make absolutely no sense at all in my world -- to the point that it causes interruptions in games because "that monster isn't right".
When the majority of settings in use have nothing in common with the published ones -- and the published ones are so different that it creates problems and makes them all seem the same -- it is smarter to go setting agnostic.
Plus, it means that the books coming out can make setting specific versions of those (like they are doing with the Drow in the FR books and the goblins in something) -- that gives folks extra reason to buy the new books if they do use that setting, and allows them to make the setting more distinct and special from one another.
So a few things.
First, I'm curious where you're getting "60%" from.
Second: It still means that 40% are using it.
Third: even if you aren't using the lore of a given creature verbatim, it's still possible for elements present therein to spark your imagination for something else.
Erego: More lore please.
I told you: WotC. These are their numbers. I'll tell you they underestimate the broader base, and overestimate the IP base, but thats me looking at control effects, and besides, who the **** am I to use my numbers. So, I use theirs.
No, it doesn't mean 40% are using it. The most popular published setting is FR -- which has 15% of the total. So, if the lore is for FR, then it only works for a portion of the 15%, since the 15% includes people who use FR with their own lore, and those who just use the setting for locations and not the lore. All other 1st and 3rd party setting fill in the rest of the segments, and they, too, are broken the same way. This includes every published world, including all the TSR ones from older editions, as well as the ones they have done stuff for 5e -- because some folks still use the old worlds. There are over two dozen worlds from WotC alone -- and then you have all the third party from the same time.
So, it is better to save lore for setting books, where it can spark all the creativity you mentioned, in a place where it can be appreciated and useful, and here someone who is curious about the lore can seek it out.
That's why the lore being stripped from the Core books is better: it allows the folks who want it to seek it out in products created for them, and the folks whom the lore offends and makes it less enjoyable to play can still enjoy the game.
It is easier to add lore than to remove it.
1.Again: How are they getting those numbers? I'm asking because I've never actually met a representative from WotC who asked me for my preferences regarding the settings and lore nor have I ever heard of anyone having a similar expierience; the closest I ever got was when the gaming store where I was running there program was trying to provide feedback on attendance for I think Adventurerrs league?
Further, has it occurred to you that it's possible that people may have been moving away from official settings because the writers have been releasing increasingly lackluster campaign guides (IE doing a bad job with the lore)? Because the consistent complaint is that they feel hollow because they've done a terrible job with it; I had high hopes for both Dragonlance and Spelljammer but the former came across as being so utterly lacking in the tone that I'd associate with that setting and the war of the lance that you could change some names and easily plunk it down into greyhawk, Forgotten realms, mystara or exandria and no one would notice the difference while Spelljammer (a setting that I felt was a wonderful choice with the direction that WotC has decided to go given it's whimsical romantic nature) was just... so completely and utterly *nothing*; No suggestions for stellar phenomenon, no information on how to set up star systems, owing or operating a magical boat that flies through space.... But it did make time to ditch the crystal spheres and the phlogistron and thereby screw up both the Astral Plane and the Prime Material Plane.
2. Again: you're speculating and pulling numbers seemingly out of the aether since you can't share the source of your data.
3. No, the dearth of lore is still a problem since the lack of it provides nothing to potential new (or even older ones who are looking for new ideas) GM's or players to get them going; it's like leaving an 8 year old in a fully stocked kitchen where nothing is labled, the only things to help them prepare a meal are a series of owners manuals for the various appliances and told to just go and make a 4 course meal. It's going to go badly and possibly scare them off of cooking entirely whereas if you provide them with a cookbook they're going to have a better idea of how to do things like season properly, make something nutritionally balanced and also properly proportioned.
Also I have some statitistics for you: half of the people who have posted in the last 16 hours people who have responded since you brought up percentages have directly called into question the validity of the polling information for a plethora of reasons which 1/6th of posters have cited. This therefore means that their claims are flawed and must be discarded.
point 1: Ask WotC how they get those numbers. Funny thing about that data set, as well -- it tracks with datasets from the long history of D&D. And, as a general trendline, people are slowly moving towards the published settings, overall. In 2010, it was 65% of all games. In the 90's it was 70% of all games. Now, I am recalling data for this that I saw in those eras, but it has always been something that I paid attention to over the last 45+ years.
point 2: Not speculating, you simply don't believe me. Which is fine -- you don't have to. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I am explaining some things. I really don't give a shit if you believe me or not. Bad faith is rampant, and since you already went there, it no longer matters.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The thing about the 60% figure is that, even if 60% of campaigns are in homebrew settings (which I can believe), that doesn't mean they don't use any lore, they just don't use all of the lore. However, the reverse of this is that that "add a species template to an NPC template" is much better for any enemy type you're going to use extensively in a campaign -- having three types of orc is fine if your plan is that orcs are your enemies for a couple sessions, but not if they're your enemies for a campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, it was always supposed to come out in 2025, at least from outside the company. It is called the 2024 MM because that is the revision name for the entire revision. "2024" is the naming convention for the new set.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
In some places I believe WotC has referred to it as the 2025 monster manual
You do realise that the exact same method has been used for multiple of the past books like Mordenkainens monsters of the Universe? They do group it at the back of the book but I find it a lot easier to just page flip to find what monsters I want, especially since it can give you Inspiration to group random monsters together. Sure certain subtypes of monsters would be the obvious choice to group together, but having random combinations of monsters with interesting explanations is way more memorable.
If they do that on a long rest, they're not doing it in combat, nor in the middle of an interaction scene. So why do you need the entries to be adjacent?
Having their entries be alphabetical makes them far easier to find when you actually need them - planning encounters.
Who's Manuel?
a monster
So a few thoughts occur to me:
1. Whoever is throwing more then 10 direwolves at their party at a time is kind of a jerk.
2. The Tarrasque honestly hasn't been that interesting of a monster in ages. Like yes: It's the great devourer, a massive beast that awakens and then goes on a rampage that lays waste to whole civilizations and it's consistently swaddled in so many levels of protection and HPs that it becomes like a puzzle for the players to figure out how they're going to credibly hurt it... but at the same time it's frankly just an animal. A really big, really strong, really dangerous animal... but quite frankly it feels like there are only two ways to run a campaign with one since it's either Trapped/sleeping and the players are racing to prevent people from unleashing it for stupid reasons OR it's already lose and yucking it up. Give me a Dragon, Liche, warlord, Devil or Demon over that any day.
3. Everything I've heard and seen from 2024 suggests that the Devs are trying to pull elements from 4e and implement them into 5e but they're kind of missing some of the core elements with how monsters were designed back then; Like yes you had XP values you would use to build encounters with and monsters fit into various archetypes (Soldier, artillery, Controller, Lurker, Brute, skirmisher ect.) but there were also different *scales* of monsters as well which went from minion at the lowest to Solo at the highest. The reason this was important was because it made it so that GM's could put a whole whack of chaffe monsters that would die in a single hit and typically do minimal damage when they hit (which they could do pretty consistently)... but the flip side was that a character that did high damage per hit and only got like... 1 attack with no AOE per turn could get bogged down by decrepit skeletons while the necromancer kept hucking death at the party (and this kind of situation gave Controllers who often had AOEs an opportunity to clear them out in a hurry).
4. The move towards setting agnostic information means that players will get a bunch of statblocks... but often times very little information about the social structure, history or aspirations of a given monster. As a result GM's who are more narrative focused over mechanical focused may very well have a harder time getting inspiration from the materials provided.
Just my thoughts so far; I don't have a copy of the MM and won't for some time so I'm kind of going off of word of mouth with this so far.
Narrowing it down to just this one point.
60% of games don't use the lore given (WotC's own numbers) and get pretty upset when they get told that a monster acts this way. One of the things that is most attractive about the new book is that it generally avoids trying to make a monster from the book have a special kind of culture or ecology that would make absolutely no sense at all in my world -- to the point that it causes interruptions in games because "that monster isn't right".
When the majority of settings in use have nothing in common with the published ones -- and the published ones are so different that it creates problems and makes them all seem the same -- it is smarter to go setting agnostic.
Plus, it means that the books coming out can make setting specific versions of those (like they are doing with the Drow in the FR books and the goblins in something) -- that gives folks extra reason to buy the new books if they do use that setting, and allows them to make the setting more distinct and special from one another.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
60% of which games?
So a few things.
First, I'm curious where you're getting "60%" from.
Second: It still means that 40% are using it.
Third: even if you aren't using the lore of a given creature verbatim, it's still possible for elements present therein to spark your imagination for something else.
Erego: More lore please.
I told you: WotC. These are their numbers. I'll tell you they underestimate the broader base, and overestimate the IP base, but thats me looking at control effects, and besides, who the **** am I to use my numbers. So, I use theirs.
No, it doesn't mean 40% are using it. The most popular published setting is FR -- which has 15% of the total. So, if the lore is for FR, then it only works for a portion of the 15%, since the 15% includes people who use FR with their own lore, and those who just use the setting for locations and not the lore. All other 1st and 3rd party setting fill in the rest of the segments, and they, too, are broken the same way. This includes every published world, including all the TSR ones from older editions, as well as the ones they have done stuff for 5e -- because some folks still use the old worlds. There are over two dozen worlds from WotC alone -- and then you have all the third party from the same time.
So, it is better to save lore for setting books, where it can spark all the creativity you mentioned, in a place where it can be appreciated and useful, and here someone who is curious about the lore can seek it out.
That's why the lore being stripped from the Core books is better: it allows the folks who want it to seek it out in products created for them, and the folks whom the lore offends and makes it less enjoyable to play can still enjoy the game.
It is easier to add lore than to remove it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Do you have a link to these stats? From wotc is not helpful, they may not even be relevant to the discussion. You state you use theirs with nothing to reference. Doesn't really sell the argument.
Not trying to be condescending or anything. But do DMs modify or create monsters anymore? I'm seeing all these complaints about things I have never encountered or seen as a problem in all my years of playing DnD, player or DM.
When I DMed, I almost never went by the basic stat block. It was a base template to use. If I found it lacking, I added to it to make it more challenging or unique, depending on the situation. Is it because of Maps that this is an issue?
I know there is this one Reddit What Setting Do You Use
Homebrew settings were WAY out in front of ALL other options with Official Setting Slightly Homebrewed was about a quarter of the total votes. I have not seen the numbers from WotC, but they have said that Homebrew settings are the most widely used settings and that Forgotten Realms is the most popular Official setting. I don't quite remember which of the videos they said it in though.
Hope that is at least a little helpful.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't need to reference what someone can find on their own, and I'm not here to try to sell an argument. Selling it presumes I have something to gain. I don't.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Cool, thanks for clarifying your argument.
The problem with polls is that they're self-reporting, and self-reporting heavily skews the responses. As a point - how many people were convinced D&D was self destructing because of OGL and "everyone" they knew were up arms? Taking a step back, 90% of people who play still have never even heard of OGL. Of those that have, most probably don't even care. Of those that do care, some think it wasn't a problem, others did.
But they thought that everyone bar a few of us here was upset and angry because...the people who are passionate come here and Reddit and talk about it, and most of those were upset. Most players had zero opinion whatsoever. Of the tens of millions of players, there are only a few hundred that use these forums - generally, the most passionate.
Self reporting polls are far more likely to be filled out by people who are particularly passionate than your average casual gamer. Those are far more likely to homebrew adventures rather than just buying adventures. You can use sales numbers to compare between official settings - we know that Rime of the Frostmaiden sold X number of copies while Spelljammer sold Y number of copies for example, but comparing it to homebrew is a losing proposition. It's just not reliable at all.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
1.Again: How are they getting those numbers? I'm asking because I've never actually met a representative from WotC who asked me for my preferences regarding the settings and lore nor have I ever heard of anyone having a similar expierience; the closest I ever got was when the gaming store where I was running there program was trying to provide feedback on attendance for I think Adventurerrs league?
Further, has it occurred to you that it's possible that people may have been moving away from official settings because the writers have been releasing increasingly lackluster campaign guides (IE doing a bad job with the lore)? Because the consistent complaint is that they feel hollow because they've done a terrible job with it; I had high hopes for both Dragonlance and Spelljammer but the former came across as being so utterly lacking in the tone that I'd associate with that setting and the war of the lance that you could change some names and easily plunk it down into greyhawk, Forgotten realms, mystara or exandria and no one would notice the difference while Spelljammer (a setting that I felt was a wonderful choice with the direction that WotC has decided to go given it's whimsical romantic nature) was just... so completely and utterly *nothing*; No suggestions for stellar phenomenon, no information on how to set up star systems, owing or operating a magical boat that flies through space.... But it did make time to ditch the crystal spheres and the phlogistron and thereby screw up both the Astral Plane and the Prime Material Plane.
2. Again: you're speculating and pulling numbers seemingly out of the aether since you can't share the source of your data.
3. No, the dearth of lore is still a problem since the lack of it provides nothing to potential new (or even older ones who are looking for new ideas) GM's or players to get them going; it's like leaving an 8 year old in a fully stocked kitchen where nothing is labled, the only things to help them prepare a meal are a series of owners manuals for the various appliances and told to just go and make a 4 course meal. It's going to go badly and possibly scare them off of cooking entirely whereas if you provide them with a cookbook they're going to have a better idea of how to do things like season properly, make something nutritionally balanced and also properly proportioned.
Also I have some statitistics for you: half of the people who have posted in the last 16 hours people who have responded since you brought up percentages have directly called into question the validity of the polling information for a plethora of reasons which 1/6th of posters have cited. This therefore means that their claims are flawed and must be discarded.
point 1: Ask WotC how they get those numbers. Funny thing about that data set, as well -- it tracks with datasets from the long history of D&D. And, as a general trendline, people are slowly moving towards the published settings, overall. In 2010, it was 65% of all games. In the 90's it was 70% of all games. Now, I am recalling data for this that I saw in those eras, but it has always been something that I paid attention to over the last 45+ years.
point 2: Not speculating, you simply don't believe me. Which is fine -- you don't have to. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I am explaining some things. I really don't give a shit if you believe me or not. Bad faith is rampant, and since you already went there, it no longer matters.
point 3: There an immense and gigantic hole in your statement that you seem to have skipped over, and excluding the core books, it seems there is a significant amount of locations for assorted lore. available for the new folks to turn to for inspiration, suggestions, and ideas, not to mention the source of inspiration for the large number of folks who don't use any of that, such as video games, anime, netflix shows based on video games, and more. But, thanks for the giggle.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The thing about the 60% figure is that, even if 60% of campaigns are in homebrew settings (which I can believe), that doesn't mean they don't use any lore, they just don't use all of the lore. However, the reverse of this is that that "add a species template to an NPC template" is much better for any enemy type you're going to use extensively in a campaign -- having three types of orc is fine if your plan is that orcs are your enemies for a couple sessions, but not if they're your enemies for a campaign.