That is the main reason our group doesn't use official campaign settings (or adventures). The homebrew world that I share with my friends has been around since the 80's and doesn't get changed and retconned every time a new edition hits the market.
Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron wasn't redone or 'retconned', it was a 'living document', a form of playtest+ and is independent of Eberron: Rising from the Last war. As a loving document, it got updates as the versions progressed based on feedback (that's what living document means), which became 'set' when Rising released.
Ah. Maybe it were just me hopes. Anyway, I do think they may look at SCAG 2 - there was a lot of bad feedback on the 1st and they seem to like re-doing things.
The update published in Dragon didn't come from TSR, or maybe is was Wizards by then I forget when that change happened. It was published by Paizo. Dark Sun never got any official 3.x content.
Sure, but the point stands. Setting-specific mechanics shouldn't really take that much space. Besides, I'm tired of campaign settings in general. Aside from mechanics, it's better to just read the original books for killer prices on DTRPG.
Actually, it kind of did (looking at you, MToF). While not the case with every single product, it seems like several products are changing the lore with no real plausible explanation. It is indeed true that a cataclysm or major event marked the shift to the new edition, and I was happy when 5e first came out, as it had restored a lot of what 4e had taken away, but now it seems like they're just throwing things in whenever they want, regardless of established lore.
Can you give us a more precise example of a lore change that bothered you ?
For me, honestly, although I can understand being really immersed in a setting, it is really like the RAW. If I want something to be different because it makes a better story, or creates better roleplaying for my table, the latter win 100% of the time.
Also, and this actually might go in the pet peeves thread, we are discussing a lot about the negative impact of the rule lawyers, but there also can be negative impacts of the setting lawyers. I'm not saying that you are one of those, but I've heard a number of times around tables things like: "but Elminster would not behave this way" or "dark elves are not present in this area of the world". ;)
In any case, the lore is often not that clear, things have changed over the editions, and in some case I think the authors are allowed some creative license even if it is because they do not know the lore as well as some fans. After all, they bring in creativity and adventures that most people want to play...
Possible tl;dr: MToF is the first one that jumps to mind, particularly with elf and drow lore (changed pretty much everything about it, keeping only one or two things), which I've gone in depth about before, though most likely elsewhere. I realize it was meant to be a sort of "setting neutral" work, but it took a lot from FR, but then got rid of it. Yes, it's the "unreliable narrator", but you would think someone such as Mordy, who travels between planes, wouldn't be so unreliable as to totally change lore that has been present through the previous editions. There is a difference between unreliable narrator and lazy writing.
Again, I'm not saying every single product is guilty of it, but it just seems like there is a lot of disregard (from WotC, I'm not talking about what players do) for the setting. I'm aware that 5e isn't the only edition with inconsistencies or changes--you can find some in every edition. It's a big world, with a lot to keep track of. I guess it just feels like they've stopped caring (though to be fair, it started feeling like that in 4e, too). To me, a D&D setting is like any work of fiction. Sure, it's a game world, so it's not entirely the same as a book series written by a single author, and it's designed so that people can play in it. But, if an author has built up a world, you, as the reader, learn, and thus expect, that world to function a certain way. You learn the history and "lore" of that world. Then, all of a sudden, the author goes, "just kidding! It's actually this!" with no plausible explanation for the sudden change. Might leave you feeling a little blindsided. That's kind of how it's been feeling to me.
I'm not saying 5e is horrible--indeed, it's probably the most popular edition so far, and if you've come to D&D in 5e, you're probably not going to care or notice the changes as much, unless you start sifting through older material. I'm also not trying to dictate what people do at their own table. I'm referring specifically to published material, not what gamers use or don't use. Bad analogy, perhaps, but it's like the difference between the official story and fanfiction. Write that fanfiction however you want (please note I am not saying home games should be compared to fanfiction. Like I said, I know it's a bad analogy, I'm just providing an example of the difference).
To me, if you're going to have an established setting, whether that's Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, etc, those settings are going to have a certain "flavor", a certain history, rules (and I don't mean mechanics), lore, etc. This does not mean the settings can't evolve--far from it. But, imho, at least, if you're going to have a setting for D&D, you should be true to that setting. Others may disagree with me, but those are my thoughts. Otherwise, D&D should just be a pamphlet with some basic rules, a couple monsters to fight, and some species to play.
I'm not saying directors or artists--anyone working at WotC/Hasbro--shouldn't bring new ideas to the table. And you're right, they may not know as much even as some fans (and there are fans who know far more than I ever will). But basic checks and looking stuff up shouldn't be too hard, either (and in some cases, they could even look to established lore as a starting point. The example that comes to mind for this is the statement they made about drow and orcs earlier this year. At least for the Forgotten Realms setting, you have the Eilistraeens--and now the Vhaeraunites, as they're allied--and the Ondothi, orcs who follow Eldath. It's not the sole solution, but it could be a starting point. Eilistraee was a big part of earlier editions. Now that she is back in 5e--one of the things I am happy about--my hope is they will utilize her and her followers more. This is going to make me sound like a hypocrite, but I do hope they ignore MToF, as the lore changes in there for the drow aren't going to help their diversity mission). Then, if they want to change it, provide a plausible explanation for doing so. Again, I'm not trying to dictate what players do at their own table. You want to put drow in a region where they aren't usually found? Be my guest. I'm referring solely to official material (by this I mean material published for a given setting). Think even of homebrew worlds--you make a world, you design it, and thus give it a history, people, etc. You then build your game within that, perhaps building the world as you go and explore it, but still maintaining and taking care of it. Your players will doubtless help shape it too, as the PCs go on their adventures, but they're exploring your world, interacting with the people, places, perhaps even the gods, that are part of that homebrew world.
I'm aware that many others are likely going to disagree with me, and maybe I am hanging on too hard. Maybe I am a "lore purist", at least as far as official settings go, not what people do at their table. I came into the Realms in 2005, starting off as a casual fan, reading some of the novels. But the more I explored, the more invested I became. Maybe I need to be like others and stop caring, or walk away entirely. But I can't---not yet. Because I do care about the setting. Do I like everything about? No, of course not, but it's been a part of my life for a number of years, even managing to stick around through 4e. So...we'll see.
Anyway, sorry for the speel. I know most probably don't see it this way.
Actually, it kind of did (looking at you, MToF). While not the case with every single product, it seems like several products are changing the lore with no real plausible explanation. It is indeed true that a cataclysm or major event marked the shift to the new edition, and I was happy when 5e first came out, as it had restored a lot of what 4e had taken away, but now it seems like they're just throwing things in whenever they want, regardless of established lore.
Can you give us a more precise example of a lore change that bothered you ?
For me, honestly, although I can understand being really immersed in a setting, it is really like the RAW. If I want something to be different because it makes a better story, or creates better roleplaying for my table, the latter win 100% of the time.
Also, and this actually might go in the pet peeves thread, we are discussing a lot about the negative impact of the rule lawyers, but there also can be negative impacts of the setting lawyers. I'm not saying that you are one of those, but I've heard a number of times around tables things like: "but Elminster would not behave this way" or "dark elves are not present in this area of the world". ;)
In any case, the lore is often not that clear, things have changed over the editions, and in some case I think the authors are allowed some creative license even if it is because they do not know the lore as well as some fans. After all, they bring in creativity and adventures that most people want to play...
Possible tl;dr: MToF is the first one that jumps to mind, particularly with elf and drow lore (changed pretty much everything about it, keeping only one or two things), which I've gone in depth about before, though most likely elsewhere. I realize it was meant to be a sort of "setting neutral" work, but it took a lot from FR, but then got rid of it. Yes, it's the "unreliable narrator", but you would think someone such as Mordy, who travels between planes, wouldn't be so unreliable as to totally change lore that has been present through the previous editions. There is a difference between unreliable narrator and lazy writing.
Again, I'm not saying every single product is guilty of it, but it just seems like there is a lot of disregard (from WotC, I'm not talking about what players do) for the setting. I'm aware that 5e isn't the only edition with inconsistencies or changes--you can find some in every edition. It's a big world, with a lot to keep track of. I guess it just feels like they've stopped caring (though to be fair, it started feeling like that in 4e, too). To me, a D&D setting is like any work of fiction. Sure, it's a game world, so it's not entirely the same as a book series written by a single author, and it's designed so that people can play in it. But, if an author has built up a world, you, as the reader, learn, and thus expect, that world to function a certain way. You learn the history and "lore" of that world. Then, all of a sudden, the author goes, "just kidding! It's actually this!" with no plausible explanation for the sudden change. Might leave you feeling a little blindsided. That's kind of how it's been feeling to me.
I'm not saying 5e is horrible--indeed, it's probably the most popular edition so far, and if you've come to D&D in 5e, you're probably not going to care or notice the changes as much, unless you start sifting through older material. I'm also not trying to dictate what people do at their own table. I'm referring specifically to published material, not what gamers use or don't use. Bad analogy, perhaps, but it's like the difference between the official story and fanfiction. Write that fanfiction however you want (please note I am not saying home games should be compared to fanfiction. Like I said, I know it's a bad analogy, I'm just providing an example of the difference).
To me, if you're going to have an established setting, whether that's Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, etc, those settings are going to have a certain "flavor", a certain history, rules (and I don't mean mechanics), lore, etc. This does not mean the settings can't evolve--far from it. But, imho, at least, if you're going to have a setting for D&D, you should be true to that setting. Others may disagree with me, but those are my thoughts. Otherwise, D&D should just be a pamphlet with some basic rules, a couple monsters to fight, and some species to play.
I'm not saying directors or artists--anyone working at WotC/Hasbro--shouldn't bring new ideas to the table. And you're right, they may not know as much even as some fans (and there are fans who know far more than I ever will). But basic checks and looking stuff up shouldn't be too hard, either (and in some cases, they could even look to established lore as a starting point. The example that comes to mind for this is the statement they made about drow and orcs earlier this year. At least for the Forgotten Realms setting, you have the Eilistraeens--and now the Vhaeraunites, as they're allied--and the Ondothi, orcs who follow Eldath. It's not the sole solution, but it could be a starting point. Eilistraee was a big part of earlier editions. Now that she is back in 5e--one of the things I am happy about--my hope is they will utilize her and her followers more. This is going to make me sound like a hypocrite, but I do hope they ignore MToF, as the lore changes in there for the drow aren't going to help their diversity mission). Then, if they want to change it, provide a plausible explanation for doing so. Again, I'm not trying to dictate what players do at their own table. You want to put drow in a region where they aren't usually found? Be my guest. I'm referring solely to official material (by this I mean material published for a given setting). Think even of homebrew worlds--you make a world, you design it, and thus give it a history, people, etc. You then build your game within that, perhaps building the world as you go and explore it, but still maintaining and taking care of it. Your players will doubtless help shape it too, as the PCs go on their adventures, but they're exploring your world, interacting with the people, places, perhaps even the gods, that are part of that homebrew world.
I'm aware that many others are likely going to disagree with me, and maybe I am hanging on too hard. Maybe I am a "lore purist", at least as far as official settings go, not what people do at their table. I came into the Realms in 2005, starting off as a casual fan, reading some of the novels. But the more I explored, the more invested I became. Maybe I need to be like others and stop caring, or walk away entirely. But I can't---not yet. Because I do care about the setting. Do I like everything about? No, of course not, but it's been a part of my life for a number of years, even managing to stick around through 4e. So...we'll see.
Anyway, sorry for the speel. I know most probably don't see it this way.
Hey, I don't mind lore changes for 5e. I mean, it is more refined, after all! Also, there is a dnd lore master at WOTC, I think
Actually on the Mordy note, my current game I had to split the table for logistics (which is good, instead of a 7 person game, I have two four people games). Because the original core players were invested in the adventure they're playing through, I'm basically playing the same adventure for both, keeping two sets of notes. Prior to the split, there's a sort of "in game coach" I created an NPC who has planar travels as part of his backstory. He plays with the inconsistencies as the parties' paths diverse in the sandbox (one player is playing the same character in both groups using two different sheets he's having a ball and has even developed his own in jokes). I like the fact that there's a "I'm wrong? Well, maybe I am, if you say so, here." element to Mordenkanian.
As far as the hard core lore adherents out there. I mean I really appreciate the passion project videos on YouTube for what they are, but I think sometimes there's efforts where it's just too convoluted and you need to walk away from any sense of internal consistency.
I think stable lore is just too much to ask. Look to Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel and DC, G.i. Joe, the Transformers, King Arthur, classical mythology. Even those whose bloat was managed by an internal continuity editor (I believe D&D under TSR had such a position, I think under Wizards, at least in 5e, any consideration of continuity is on the overall D&D team, so there's one vector of consequences) had consistency and continuity issues. Part of it is a big role in the product is the creative, and creatives will only accept so many strictures. So if you want good writers you got to negotiate taking liberties with the foundation. Otherwise, you wind up with a mechanical process or iterative approach and you hit a stagnation problem).
I'm still delving into old TSR press about Forgotten Realms to see if I'm right, but when the original boxed set came out, I remember it being written intentionally vague. You get an overview of an area, maybe mention of some key personalities and then "rumors" which offered adventuring opportunities and mysteries that begged to be explored. I want to think the original design team of FR didn't intend every one of those rumors to be answered by an official supplement, novel, or adventure. That was a call by someone on the business side who knew fan consumer habits too well. So now we have what we have.
On an unrelated note, for those who've been skeptical about the likelihood of Kara-tur, Al-Qadim and other worlds published with what's recognized now as problematic cultural appropriation, I book marked a panel from Celebration "Weaving Asian Stories." I haven't sat down and really listened to the whole conversation, but they did touch upon doing sort of "reworks" of those and other properties. It wasn't an official product announcement or anything, but one thing Wizards did say they were exploring were anthologies expanding the diversity of designers working under the official D&D banner, so you never know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Way to make me excited... Honestly, would it be so hard to please many fans by making "So-and-so's guide to the Material Plane" with a chapter or so for each classic setting? (Greyhawk, my favorite, Dragonlance, Mystara, Dark Sun deserves its own book though). The MTG books are honestly just underwhelming and I frankly wish Wizards would focus on D&D settings, not porting over MTG settings for the cash. I don't know if anyone agrees with me on this, but I dislike the FR and the fact that they keep focusing on it.
Way to make me excited... Honestly, would it be so hard to please many fans by making "So-and-so's guide to the Material Plane" with a chapter or so for each classic setting? (Greyhawk, my favorite, Dragonlance, Mystara, Dark Sun deserves its own book though). The MTG books are honestly just underwhelming and I frankly wish Wizards would focus on D&D settings, not porting over MTG settings for the cash. I don't know if anyone agrees with me on this, but I dislike the FR and the fact that they keep focusing on it.
All the settings? I would loathe that, there wouldn’t be enough lore, also MtG is an ok addition to DnD as a lot of fans like both groups and a lot less work needs to be done to produce these books - it’s just there is a strong vocal minority who screams against everything like SCAG, Theros, Mordenkainen, and it is impossible to please those people. Look at the hate Rise of Skywalker got - that disney got for it - and yes, Rise was a bad film, but so too would Collin Tereverrow’s version have been. It’s impossible to make something big suit everybody, so I fully support D&D and WOTC in whatever they do. The unfortunate thing is - they listen too much to the minority. That’s why the mystic died, that’s why they did a reprint of Tyranny of Dragons - they listen to the tiny, vocal community.
Way to make me excited... Honestly, would it be so hard to please many fans by making "So-and-so's guide to the Material Plane" with a chapter or so for each classic setting? (Greyhawk, my favorite, Dragonlance, Mystara, Dark Sun deserves its own book though). The MTG books are honestly just underwhelming and I frankly wish Wizards would focus on D&D settings, not porting over MTG settings for the cash. I don't know if anyone agrees with me on this, but I dislike the FR and the fact that they keep focusing on it.
All the settings? I would loathe that, there wouldn’t be enough lore, also MtG is an ok addition to DnD as a lot of fans like both groups and a lot less work needs to be done to produce these books - it’s just there is a strong vocal minority who screams against everything like SCAG, Theros, Mordenkainen, and it is impossible to please those people. Look at the hate Rise of Skywalker got - that disney got for it - and yes, Rise was a bad film, but so too would Collin Tereverrow’s version have been. It’s impossible to make something big suit everybody, so I fully support D&D and WOTC in whatever they do. The unfortunate thing is - they listen too much to the minority. That’s why the mystic died, that’s why they did a reprint of Tyranny of Dragons - they listen to the tiny, vocal community.
That is making a lot of jumping to conclusions, assumptions, multiple logical fallacies, and warping of the events that happened.
First, the groups who don't want these specific things are different groups of people, not the same group. Don't group them together.
Second, I have never heard anyone complain about the existence of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. Those who aren't interested should just not buy it. I and many others have complained about the SCAG because it is truly a bad book (badly designed subclasses and races, not great lore and overall information, overpriced for its size and content, etc), but that's neither here nor there. Those complaining about Theros have a few different reasons for it, the main group not wanting Magic: the Gathering settings, and the other main one not liking the bastardization of greek mythology contained therein.
Third, anyone's opinion on Rise of Skywalker is not relevant to this discussion, and you are merely using it as an ad hominem and generalization. I dislike the movie, but that doesn't make me a bad person or more inclined to dislike M:tG worlds.
Fourth, they mystic died because it was badly designed and failed to pass the required community approval required for it to be published officially. The minority of players has nothing to do with this, instead the majority said that they did not want the Mystic in the forms it was published.
Fifth, Tyranny of Dragons being reprinted was completely chosen to do by WotC. If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't have done it. A minority of players has nothing to do with its being reprinted.
Sixth, WotC typically listens to the majority of players and choose the most popular option to get more profits with their content. That's how they make money. WotC isn't being deceived by the community, pandering to a minority, or bad at their job. They're good at it, and are making content and changes for what will get them the most cash.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Hmm... You haven't been reading Seldarine's messages on MToF. And... ah. Ah. I've fallen into the reply trap.
They disliked the lore changes in the book, not the existence of the book. I have read their posts on that subject and understand disliking inconsistency between editions in regards to lore. Also, maybe comment on more than just one part of my whole post instead of just cookie cutting the one thing you feel you are correct on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It depends on the definition of hostile. I am not being personally hostile, but someone disagreeing with and refuting your argument is not breaking the site rules in any way. I am opposing your arguments, but not making any personal attacks or meaning to attack you in any way.
P.S. If you think a post breaks site rules, it's better to just report it and wait for the moderators to act if they think it does as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Huh. Wikipedia has a nice list of D&D campaign settings in chronological order. Going through everything pre-5e that isn't yet published for thoughts on whether I'd want it and whether I think WotC would want to publish it:
Blackmoor (1977): really just a subset of later stuff.
Greyhawk (1980): doesn't really give new styles of adventure, but it has a solid fan base, so moderate likelihood.
Mystara (1981): similar to Greyhawk, but I'd consider it less likely.
Ravenloft (1983): popular, but the signature property is already published (CoS).
Pellinore (1984): never heard of it, doesn't appear to have ever been major.
Dragonlance (1984): the signature property was always the mega-campaign arc, not the setting, so if I were WotC I'd want to publish it as an adventure book. Or maybe some combination.
Kara-Tur (1986): it's certainly possible to do a respectful oriental adventures (there's plenty of adventuring potential in their own literature), and I don't recall Kara-Tur being all that bad, but it's been a long time since I read it so maybe it was.
Spelljammer (1989): it's a very different setting, and well suited to very high level play. I suspect there's only room for one between Spelljammer and Planescape, and Planescape would win out, but who knows.
Hollow World (1990): maybe a reference in a Mystara book, if they do that.
Dark Sun (1991): Another quirky setting, and it's seen support more recently, so it wouldn't surprise me.
Al-Qadim (1992): I would expect this to be a problematic setting.
Birthright (1995): it wasn't a terribly good fit for the D&D rules to start with.
Council of Wyrms (1995): might be a fun supplement, but I suspect it would be a rules supplement for dragon PCs, not a setting.
Planescape (1995): another quite distinctive setting.
Jakandor (1997): never heard of it, doesn't appear to have ever been major.
Rokugan (1997): pretty sure they don't have the rights any more.
Dragon Fist (1999): never heard of it, doesn't appear to have ever been major.
Mahasarpa (1999): never heard of it, doesn't appear to have ever been major.
Ghostwalk (2003): quirky, but seems unlikely.
Nentir Vale (2007): I think WotC feels burnt by 4th edition and will stay away.
There is so much negativity around the SCAG that this next season of Adventurer's League isn't allowing it for character creation.
Really? Pray tell, what's so wrong about SCAG? (honerst question - I don't feel any of the PC options printed in it particularly broken, but it's not unlikely I missed something)
I think the books that have been the best received critically and honestly financially successful have had outside influences.
Eberron and Wildmount both had great numbers and were critically very well recieved.
The issue with the "classic" settings is that they do not have as much as an "outside" influence as the core settings do. Overall it creates a product that becomes pretty intellectually incestious in that new/outside ideas are not as embraced.
Now Theros actually broke the mold a bit and did a good job introducing new ideas and character options outside of just the normal character options (backgrounds, race, class/subclass, etc...)
I think they need to embrace the idea of this for these classic settings and not be afraid to go outside the box to make it feel unique.
There is so much negativity around the SCAG that this next season of Adventurer's League isn't allowing it for character creation.
Really? Pray tell, what's so wrong about SCAG? (honerst question - I don't feel any of the PC options printed in it particularly broken, but it's not unlikely I missed something)
Not sure to be honest....I like most of SCAG save a few subclasses (PDK, Undying Warlock,Battlerager) which honestly are just terrible. There are some really good options though! Like bladesinger, swashbuckler, and the blade cantrips.
Honestly I don't really understand why SCAG wasn't allowed. One of the biggest gripes from the community is WotC is terrible with transparency with these changes.
There is so much negativity around the SCAG that this next season of Adventurer's League isn't allowing it for character creation.
Really? Pray tell, what's so wrong about SCAG? (honerst question - I don't feel any of the PC options printed in it particularly broken, but it's not unlikely I missed something)
SCAG just feels very vanilla and boring. You get a couple paragraphs about different places, some stuff on the gods, and overall its just eh. The subclasses were the best part of it, but the book in whole suffers when compared to very well done books like Ebberon or Wildemounte.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
That is the main reason our group doesn't use official campaign settings (or adventures). The homebrew world that I share with my friends has been around since the 80's and doesn't get changed and retconned every time a new edition hits the market.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ah. Maybe it were just me hopes. Anyway, I do think they may look at SCAG 2 - there was a lot of bad feedback on the 1st and they seem to like re-doing things.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
There is so much negativity around the SCAG that this next season of Adventurer's League isn't allowing it for character creation.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sure, but the point stands. Setting-specific mechanics shouldn't really take that much space. Besides, I'm tired of campaign settings in general. Aside from mechanics, it's better to just read the original books for killer prices on DTRPG.
Possible tl;dr: MToF is the first one that jumps to mind, particularly with elf and drow lore (changed pretty much everything about it, keeping only one or two things), which I've gone in depth about before, though most likely elsewhere. I realize it was meant to be a sort of "setting neutral" work, but it took a lot from FR, but then got rid of it. Yes, it's the "unreliable narrator", but you would think someone such as Mordy, who travels between planes, wouldn't be so unreliable as to totally change lore that has been present through the previous editions. There is a difference between unreliable narrator and lazy writing.
Again, I'm not saying every single product is guilty of it, but it just seems like there is a lot of disregard (from WotC, I'm not talking about what players do) for the setting. I'm aware that 5e isn't the only edition with inconsistencies or changes--you can find some in every edition. It's a big world, with a lot to keep track of. I guess it just feels like they've stopped caring (though to be fair, it started feeling like that in 4e, too). To me, a D&D setting is like any work of fiction. Sure, it's a game world, so it's not entirely the same as a book series written by a single author, and it's designed so that people can play in it. But, if an author has built up a world, you, as the reader, learn, and thus expect, that world to function a certain way. You learn the history and "lore" of that world. Then, all of a sudden, the author goes, "just kidding! It's actually this!" with no plausible explanation for the sudden change. Might leave you feeling a little blindsided. That's kind of how it's been feeling to me.
I'm not saying 5e is horrible--indeed, it's probably the most popular edition so far, and if you've come to D&D in 5e, you're probably not going to care or notice the changes as much, unless you start sifting through older material. I'm also not trying to dictate what people do at their own table. I'm referring specifically to published material, not what gamers use or don't use. Bad analogy, perhaps, but it's like the difference between the official story and fanfiction. Write that fanfiction however you want (please note I am not saying home games should be compared to fanfiction. Like I said, I know it's a bad analogy, I'm just providing an example of the difference).
To me, if you're going to have an established setting, whether that's Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, etc, those settings are going to have a certain "flavor", a certain history, rules (and I don't mean mechanics), lore, etc. This does not mean the settings can't evolve--far from it. But, imho, at least, if you're going to have a setting for D&D, you should be true to that setting. Others may disagree with me, but those are my thoughts. Otherwise, D&D should just be a pamphlet with some basic rules, a couple monsters to fight, and some species to play.
I'm not saying directors or artists--anyone working at WotC/Hasbro--shouldn't bring new ideas to the table. And you're right, they may not know as much even as some fans (and there are fans who know far more than I ever will). But basic checks and looking stuff up shouldn't be too hard, either (and in some cases, they could even look to established lore as a starting point. The example that comes to mind for this is the statement they made about drow and orcs earlier this year. At least for the Forgotten Realms setting, you have the Eilistraeens--and now the Vhaeraunites, as they're allied--and the Ondothi, orcs who follow Eldath. It's not the sole solution, but it could be a starting point. Eilistraee was a big part of earlier editions. Now that she is back in 5e--one of the things I am happy about--my hope is they will utilize her and her followers more. This is going to make me sound like a hypocrite, but I do hope they ignore MToF, as the lore changes in there for the drow aren't going to help their diversity mission). Then, if they want to change it, provide a plausible explanation for doing so. Again, I'm not trying to dictate what players do at their own table. You want to put drow in a region where they aren't usually found? Be my guest. I'm referring solely to official material (by this I mean material published for a given setting). Think even of homebrew worlds--you make a world, you design it, and thus give it a history, people, etc. You then build your game within that, perhaps building the world as you go and explore it, but still maintaining and taking care of it. Your players will doubtless help shape it too, as the PCs go on their adventures, but they're exploring your world, interacting with the people, places, perhaps even the gods, that are part of that homebrew world.
I'm aware that many others are likely going to disagree with me, and maybe I am hanging on too hard. Maybe I am a "lore purist", at least as far as official settings go, not what people do at their table. I came into the Realms in 2005, starting off as a casual fan, reading some of the novels. But the more I explored, the more invested I became. Maybe I need to be like others and stop caring, or walk away entirely. But I can't---not yet. Because I do care about the setting. Do I like everything about? No, of course not, but it's been a part of my life for a number of years, even managing to stick around through 4e. So...we'll see.
Anyway, sorry for the speel. I know most probably don't see it this way.
Hey, I don't mind lore changes for 5e. I mean, it is more refined, after all! Also, there is a dnd lore master at WOTC, I think
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Actually on the Mordy note, my current game I had to split the table for logistics (which is good, instead of a 7 person game, I have two four people games). Because the original core players were invested in the adventure they're playing through, I'm basically playing the same adventure for both, keeping two sets of notes. Prior to the split, there's a sort of "in game coach" I created an NPC who has planar travels as part of his backstory. He plays with the inconsistencies as the parties' paths diverse in the sandbox (one player is playing the same character in both groups using two different sheets he's having a ball and has even developed his own in jokes). I like the fact that there's a "I'm wrong? Well, maybe I am, if you say so, here." element to Mordenkanian.
As far as the hard core lore adherents out there. I mean I really appreciate the passion project videos on YouTube for what they are, but I think sometimes there's efforts where it's just too convoluted and you need to walk away from any sense of internal consistency.
I think stable lore is just too much to ask. Look to Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel and DC, G.i. Joe, the Transformers, King Arthur, classical mythology. Even those whose bloat was managed by an internal continuity editor (I believe D&D under TSR had such a position, I think under Wizards, at least in 5e, any consideration of continuity is on the overall D&D team, so there's one vector of consequences) had consistency and continuity issues. Part of it is a big role in the product is the creative, and creatives will only accept so many strictures. So if you want good writers you got to negotiate taking liberties with the foundation. Otherwise, you wind up with a mechanical process or iterative approach and you hit a stagnation problem).
I'm still delving into old TSR press about Forgotten Realms to see if I'm right, but when the original boxed set came out, I remember it being written intentionally vague. You get an overview of an area, maybe mention of some key personalities and then "rumors" which offered adventuring opportunities and mysteries that begged to be explored. I want to think the original design team of FR didn't intend every one of those rumors to be answered by an official supplement, novel, or adventure. That was a call by someone on the business side who knew fan consumer habits too well. So now we have what we have.
On an unrelated note, for those who've been skeptical about the likelihood of Kara-tur, Al-Qadim and other worlds published with what's recognized now as problematic cultural appropriation, I book marked a panel from Celebration "Weaving Asian Stories." I haven't sat down and really listened to the whole conversation, but they did touch upon doing sort of "reworks" of those and other properties. It wasn't an official product announcement or anything, but one thing Wizards did say they were exploring were anthologies expanding the diversity of designers working under the official D&D banner, so you never know.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Way to make me excited... Honestly, would it be so hard to please many fans by making "So-and-so's guide to the Material Plane" with a chapter or so for each classic setting? (Greyhawk, my favorite, Dragonlance, Mystara, Dark Sun deserves its own book though). The MTG books are honestly just underwhelming and I frankly wish Wizards would focus on D&D settings, not porting over MTG settings for the cash. I don't know if anyone agrees with me on this, but I dislike the FR and the fact that they keep focusing on it.
All the settings? I would loathe that, there wouldn’t be enough lore, also MtG is an ok addition to DnD as a lot of fans like both groups and a lot less work needs to be done to produce these books - it’s just there is a strong vocal minority who screams against everything like SCAG, Theros, Mordenkainen, and it is impossible to please those people. Look at the hate Rise of Skywalker got - that disney got for it - and yes, Rise was a bad film, but so too would Collin Tereverrow’s version have been. It’s impossible to make something big suit everybody, so I fully support D&D and WOTC in whatever they do. The unfortunate thing is - they listen too much to the minority. That’s why the mystic died, that’s why they did a reprint of Tyranny of Dragons - they listen to the tiny, vocal community.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
That is making a lot of jumping to conclusions, assumptions, multiple logical fallacies, and warping of the events that happened.
First, the groups who don't want these specific things are different groups of people, not the same group. Don't group them together.
Second, I have never heard anyone complain about the existence of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. Those who aren't interested should just not buy it. I and many others have complained about the SCAG because it is truly a bad book (badly designed subclasses and races, not great lore and overall information, overpriced for its size and content, etc), but that's neither here nor there. Those complaining about Theros have a few different reasons for it, the main group not wanting Magic: the Gathering settings, and the other main one not liking the bastardization of greek mythology contained therein.
Third, anyone's opinion on Rise of Skywalker is not relevant to this discussion, and you are merely using it as an ad hominem and generalization. I dislike the movie, but that doesn't make me a bad person or more inclined to dislike M:tG worlds.
Fourth, they mystic died because it was badly designed and failed to pass the required community approval required for it to be published officially. The minority of players has nothing to do with this, instead the majority said that they did not want the Mystic in the forms it was published.
Fifth, Tyranny of Dragons being reprinted was completely chosen to do by WotC. If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't have done it. A minority of players has nothing to do with its being reprinted.
Sixth, WotC typically listens to the majority of players and choose the most popular option to get more profits with their content. That's how they make money. WotC isn't being deceived by the community, pandering to a minority, or bad at their job. They're good at it, and are making content and changes for what will get them the most cash.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Hmm... You haven't been reading Seldarine's messages on MToF. And... ah. Ah. I've fallen into the reply trap.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
MODERATORS! This forum's getting hostile...
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
They disliked the lore changes in the book, not the existence of the book. I have read their posts on that subject and understand disliking inconsistency between editions in regards to lore. Also, maybe comment on more than just one part of my whole post instead of just cookie cutting the one thing you feel you are correct on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It depends on the definition of hostile. I am not being personally hostile, but someone disagreeing with and refuting your argument is not breaking the site rules in any way. I am opposing your arguments, but not making any personal attacks or meaning to attack you in any way.
P.S. If you think a post breaks site rules, it's better to just report it and wait for the moderators to act if they think it does as well.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Huh. Wikipedia has a nice list of D&D campaign settings in chronological order. Going through everything pre-5e that isn't yet published for thoughts on whether I'd want it and whether I think WotC would want to publish it:
Technically it's part of Ravenloft, but I'm going to take a moment and continue to plug Gothic Earth...
Really? Pray tell, what's so wrong about SCAG? (honerst question - I don't feel any of the PC options printed in it particularly broken, but it's not unlikely I missed something)
I think the books that have been the best received critically and honestly financially successful have had outside influences.
Eberron and Wildmount both had great numbers and were critically very well recieved.
The issue with the "classic" settings is that they do not have as much as an "outside" influence as the core settings do. Overall it creates a product that becomes pretty intellectually incestious in that new/outside ideas are not as embraced.
Now Theros actually broke the mold a bit and did a good job introducing new ideas and character options outside of just the normal character options (backgrounds, race, class/subclass, etc...)
I think they need to embrace the idea of this for these classic settings and not be afraid to go outside the box to make it feel unique.
Not sure to be honest....I like most of SCAG save a few subclasses (PDK, Undying Warlock,Battlerager) which honestly are just terrible. There are some really good options though! Like bladesinger, swashbuckler, and the blade cantrips.
Honestly I don't really understand why SCAG wasn't allowed. One of the biggest gripes from the community is WotC is terrible with transparency with these changes.
SCAG just feels very vanilla and boring. You get a couple paragraphs about different places, some stuff on the gods, and overall its just eh. The subclasses were the best part of it, but the book in whole suffers when compared to very well done books like Ebberon or Wildemounte.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System