Devs change - worse content?

[Amnestic]

I have no dog in this fight, as I don't buy or use modules. But one thing to remember is that Tyranny of Dragons was
1) outsourced (ie "licensed 3rd party")

I confess having mixed feelings on pointing at outsourcing - you are correct that it's not an 'internal' product, but it was still greenlit by WotC. If it didn't see an editing/quality pass before print by the 'internal' devs, that speaks to poor practice on their part, and if it did see it, then it's hard to blame outsourcing since they were/are happy to sell it for cash money.

It's been a while since I went over ToD but while some of its problems were mechanical, I do recall others being structural/narrative, which is harder to point out for 5e's early life.

It is a fair point though as a rule we should expect modules/adventures to be better/more tightly designed as the game gets older though.

[Sception]

My biggest problem with post Tasha's releases is the lack of lore.

You know what? Yeah. Yeah, this is fair, it is a problem, and it does represent a change from what came before.

I mean, I like ditching proficiencies, especially armor proficiencies, from races, they almost always do exactly the opposite of what they seem to have been intended to do. "These people have a militaristic warrior culture! So we're giving them features that are utterly redundant for warrior classes and too-valuable for non-warrior classes, ensuring that players exclusively play them with exactly the opposite of the classes they're supposed to favor!"

But that said, while I think removing gear proficiencies from races is the right choice mechanically, it does fall within the larger trend towards stripping explicit lore out of the game, or at least out of core game mechanics supplements, which is I think a mistake.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But that said, while I think removing gear proficiencies from races is the right choice mechanically, it does fall within the larger trend towards stripping explicit lore out of the game, or at least out of core game mechanics supplements, which is I think a mistake.

It seems they're actually a bit two-faced about this. There's definitely harder (in the sense of "more restrictive", not "more fleshed out") "this is the way the universe works" lore (cf Fizban's and shoving everything into one multiverse that has to be accessible everywhere, like it or not, including MtG properties). But they're not actually going to tell you anything about that in any useful detail. All you know is that it's the same everywhere (maybe different names and slightly different colors of paint, but it's still the same Lada underneath). All elves come from Correllon. Everywhere. All dwarves are connected to Moradin. Everywhere. But what effects does that have? We'll give you some cagey BS but it's mostly cosmetic.

And that's the worst option--for fear of offending/disappointing/etc anyone, they remove all interesting details you could build on. But then for marketing reasons insist that all these disparate properties must be fundamentally the same and intercompatible. All that remains is a creeping sense of aggressive universal blandness. Assumptions are locked in harder...but those assumptions don't lead to anything interesting.

[KorvinStarmast]

And that's the worst option--for fear of offending/disappointing/etc anyone, they remove all interesting details you could build on. But then for marketing reasons insist that all these disparate properties must be fundamentally the same and intercompatible. All that remains is a creeping sense of aggressive universal blandness. Assumptions are locked in harder...but those assumptions don't lead to anything interesting.

I think that they are still hanging some of their growth designs on public play, hence a desire for greater standardization. (Which to me is antithetical to the game, but that rant belongs elsewhere).

[Psyren]

Cultural lore belongs in setting books. There is no monolithic culture that all hobgoblins or elves across the multiverse share; elves in Eberron are very different from elves in FR and elves in Ravnica.

Now if they have absolutely no cultural information in the Dragonlance book or any supplemental Krynn material, I agree that's a problem. But not including specific cultures in something universal like MPMM or TCoE or the revised PHB is fine.

[Keltest]

Cultural lore belongs in setting books. There is no monolithic culture that all hobgoblins or elves across the multiverse share; elves in Eberron are very different from elves in FR and elves in Ravnica.

Now if they have absolutely no cultural information in the Dragonlance book or any supplemental Krynn material, I agree that's a problem. But not including specific cultures in something universal like MPMM or TCoE or the revised PHB is fine.

I strenuously disagree. The core rules, notably, do not include a setting book. Not having any of that lore included in the core rules dramatically increases the barrier to entry for both playing and especially DMing. You either need to buy another (fairly expensive) book or make something up whole cloth, neither of which are trivial things to ask of somebody.

[Psyren]

I strenuously disagree. The core rules, notably, do not include a setting book. Not having any of that lore included in the core rules dramatically increases the barrier to entry for both playing and especially DMing. You either need to buy another (fairly expensive) book or make something up whole cloth, neither of which are trivial things to ask of somebody.

I disagree that it's a barrier to entry. Entry-level players are likely either running a self-contained low-level module, in which case cultures are extraneous faff that doesn't matter (you don't need to know dwarven politics to play a dwarf in Stormwreck Isle or Icespire Peak for example), or they're running a custom campaign, in which case the DM already has setting material or is running their own creation anyway. None of those three scenarios needs the PHB to opine on multiversal dwarven attitudes and mores.

[Keltest]

I disagree that it's a barrier to entry. Entry-level players are likely either running a self-contained low-level module, in which case cultures are extraneous faff that doesn't matter (you don't need to know dwarven politics to play a dwarf in Stormwreck Isle or Icespire Peak for example), or they're running a custom campaign, in which case the DM already has setting material or is running their own creation anyway. None of those three scenarios needs the PHB to opine on multiversal dwarven attitudes and mores.

You dont think a DM having to make up a setting whole cloth to get to play is a barrier to entry? Have you... actually made a setting yourself? Because let me tell you, it is a crap ton of work to do anything bigger than a town.

[Psyren]

You dont think a DM having to make up a setting whole cloth to get to play is a barrier to entry? Have you... actually made a setting yourself? Because let me tell you, it is a crap ton of work to do anything bigger than a town.

They don't have to do any such thing. Starter Sets exist, and are a far better intro for new players and DMs than a full campaign. And Starter Set + Basic is a far cheaper investment than PHB-DMG-MM-makeupsetting anyway.

[Segev]

They don't have to do any such thing. Starter Sets exist, and are a far better intro for new players and DMs than a full campaign. And Starter Set + Basic is a far cheaper investment than PHB-DMG-MM-makeupsetting anyway.

Don't worry, starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too, so that nobody* can be offended.

[Psyren]

Don't worry, starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too, so that nobody* can be offended.

What cultural lore was in the old starter sets then, since that is apparently the gold standard? I'm looking at my Essentials and 2014 starter and it's not telling me a thing about what all elves think of halflings or how all dwarves view magic.

[Tanarii]

I think that they are still hanging some of their growth designs on public play, hence a desire for greater standardization. (Which to me is antithetical to the game, but that rant belongs elsewhere).

I think so to. But that is a "still". 5e core has many elements predicated on making it balanced for official play.

I'm curious if 4e was designed with that in mind too, or it just took off in that time because it was wotc hosted for that edition, and maybe because the internet helped raise awareness. "Took off" relative to number of folks willing to play it at all of course.

[Oramac]

Don't worry, starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too, so that nobody* can be offended.

What cultural lore was in the old starter sets then, since that is apparently the gold standard? I'm looking at my Essentials and 2014 starter and it's not telling me a thing about what all elves think of halflings or how all dwarves view magic.

I think the major issue we/they (the devs) are running into is that they don't want to ever say "all [insert race here] believe X thing". In their misguided efforts to never offend anyone, they removed everything that made a dwarf a dwarf, or an elf an elf.

What they should do (but won't, because it might offend someone) is to use the "all [insert race here] believe X thing" statement, then put in a sidebar or something stating that it is ok and encouraged to break this rule. Which has technically been done, but it wasn't advertised well at all.

[Tanarii]

Races aren't ALL anything. What was in the PHB were usually shared traits to help with roleplaying. That's critical to helping new players understand how these races usually differ from humans, and also establishing a baseline for the game.

[Oramac]

Races aren't ALL anything. What was in the PHB were usually shared traits to help with roleplaying. That's critical to helping new players understand how these races usually differ from humans, and also establishing a baseline for the game.

I mean, I get that. But that's not generally how it's interpreted. Between Adventure League and home games, I've played with dozens of new players, and without fail they all took the descriptions to be "all [race] is like this". I had to explain to them that even if that were true (though it's not), they can still make a character that plays against type.

[Psyren]

I think the major issue we/they (the devs) are running into is that they don't want to ever say "all [insert race here] believe X thing". In their misguided efforts to never offend anyone, they removed everything that made a dwarf a dwarf, or an elf an elf.

What they should do (but won't, because it might offend someone) is to use the "all [insert race here] believe X thing" statement, then put in a sidebar or something stating that it is ok and encouraged to break this rule. Which has technically been done, but it wasn't advertised well at all.

Rather than say something like "Dwarves hate arcane magic, but feel free to not let your PC Dwarf hate arcane magic if you want" - I think they should say "The Axeholm Dwarves who live in the mountains just outside Cormyr hate magic, because their ancestors waged centuries of war with the Netherese empire and suffered untold atrocities at their hands." Then the Dwarf player can say "ooh, that sounds interesting, I want my Dwarf to have descended from the Axeholm clan." Whereas another player who wants their Dwarf to be a Sorcerer or Warlock can say "Okay, sounds like my Dwarf isn't an Axeholm Dwarf then" or "maybe they are an Axeholm Dwarf and now I'm an outcast from that clan." You don't need non-setting books to have that information.

Races aren't ALL anything. What was in the PHB were usually shared traits to help with roleplaying. That's critical to helping new players understand how these races usually differ from humans, and also establishing a baseline for the game.

The modern design still has "shared traits to help with roleplaying." Drow have an ancestral connection to the Underdark, whether they are Lolthites or not. Orcs were created by Grummsh to value strength, and some channel that constructively to defend the weak, others destructively to oppress them, and some ignore his mandate entirely and forge their own path. Halflings have uncanny luck whether they are parochial homebodies in Faerun or savage nomads in Eberron. All of that stuff still exists.

[Segev]

What cultural lore was in the old starter sets then, since that is apparently the gold standard? I'm looking at my Essentials and 2014 starter and it's not telling me a thing about what all elves think of halflings or how all dwarves view magic.

If you were not holding up starter sets as having the required lore, then why did you bring them up in response to people complaining that without the lore, they have a lot more work on their hands?

[Psyren]

If you were not holding up starter sets as having the required lore, then why did you bring them up in response to people complaining that without the lore, they have a lot more work on their hands?

You said "starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too" and I'm asking "what edit, Starter Sets have never had that stuff at any point in 5e, they're not supposed to."

(In other words, I'm disputing the "required lore" premise as a barrier to entry.)

[Keltest]

You said "starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too" and I'm asking "what edit, Starter Sets have never had that stuff at any point in 5e, they're not supposed to."

(In other words, I'm disputing the "required lore" premise as a barrier to entry.)

Ok, but the Starter Sets are incomplete by design. Ots a watered down experience. Thats why the core rules exist as more than just a wordy version of the Starter Set. Do we're back to why you brought it up at all.

[Sception]

And that's the worst option--for fear of offending/disappointing/etc anyone, they remove all interesting details you could build on. But then for marketing reasons insist that all these disparate properties must be fundamentally the same and intercompatible. All that remains is a creeping sense of aggressive universal blandness. Assumptions are locked in harder...but those assumptions don't lead to anything interesting.

I wouldn't blame this all on 'not wanting to offend anyone'. I think there's also at least a big chunk of 'why dedicate 5/6 of the page space of a core book to lore that 5/6 of game tables are going to throw straight in the bin since it doesn't apply to the particular campaign setting - homebrew or otherwise - that they're playing in.

This same reason, and not 'marketing' or whatever, is also I think the bigger part of trying to frame what lore they do print in core books as universal or applying to all settings, generally via a larger multiverse metasetting framing.

But while I don't see the motivation behind the move being anywhere near as negative or objectionable, I do agree that it's not the best move regardless, and prefer the previous 'assume a common generic setting in core books from which individual games and settings can deviate however they want' approach, even if it means printing a lot of text that most users of a given book are not going to use directly. Again, even if few individual games use that baseline, at least they /have/ a baseline that they can deviate from as they wish.

It just requires a change of perspective on the dev's part. Feeling bad about players not sticking to the core book lore, like that represents a waste of the effort they put into writing it, is like guy who makes diving boards being disappointed that divers don't stay on the board. "why bother with the board at all if everyone is just going to jump off of it right away" is missing the point.

[Psyren]

Ok, but the Starter Sets are incomplete by design. Ots a watered down experience. Thats why the core rules exist as more than just a wordy version of the Starter Set. Do we're back to why you brought it up at all.

Because you claimed that without this cultural information in core there is a "barrier to entry" for brand new players/DMs. Yet Starter Sets are the intended entry point for this very audience, so your conclusion does not follow.

I think there's also at least a big chunk of 'why dedicate 5/6 of the page space of a core book to lore that 5/6 of game tables are going to throw straight in the bin since it doesn't apply to the particular campaign setting - homebrew or otherwise - that they're playing in.

This same reason, and not 'marketing' or whatever, is also I think the bigger part of trying to frame what lore they do print in core books as universal or applying to all settings, generally via a larger multiverse metasetting framing.

Indeed.

But while I don't see the motivation behind the move being anywhere near as negative or objectionable, I do agree that it's not the best move regardless, and prefer the previous 'assume a common generic setting in core books from which individual games and settings can deviate however they want' approach, even if it means printing a lot of text that most users of a given book are not going to use directly. Again, even if few individual games use that baseline, at least they /have/ a baseline that they can deviate from as they wish.

It just requires a change of perspective on the dev's part. Feeling bad about players not sticking to the core book lore, like that represents a waste of the effort they put into writing it, is like guy who makes diving boards being disappointed that divers don't stay on the board. "why bother with the board at all if everyone is just going to jump off of it right away" is missing the point.

My problem with the "assume a core setting" approach is that either that setting will have to be unbelievably bland (Points of Light anyone?) or it will just be more Faerun again (the indisputably "best" setting ). And even if you're totally okay with the latter, there are multiple cultures for each race even just within that one setting, so appending one of those cultures to the race entry still makes no sense. Elves in Evermeet are very different than Elves in the Dalelands and Elves in Chult.

[Sception]

You know, I liked points of light. I think it did its job as I see it - providing a baseline of generic narrative tropes for individual campaigns to deviate from or fill in with detail as they wished - pretty well. I also continue to prefer the world axis to the celestial spheres, think the feywild and shadowfell were fantastic additions that I'm glad have at least sort of stayed around, Shadowfell: Gloomwrought & Beyond was fantastic, imo on par with some of the best setting/adventure box sets from 2nd edition, etc.

As is so often the case, I think 4th edition had a ton of really great bits to it and it remains a huge shame that it failed /so hard/ in other areas that a lot of those bits ended up getting thrown out with the bad.

[Segev]

You said "starter sets will also be edited to remove all lore, too" and I'm asking "what edit, Starter Sets have never had that stuff at any point in 5e, they're not supposed to."

(In other words, I'm disputing the "required lore" premise as a barrier to entry.)

Then the response you gave where you brought up the starter sets as an alternative to building your own settings and lore seems not to be a useful response to the complaint they were raising.

"I can't drive a car without instruction in driving."
"Well, you could just buy a smaller car."
"Do smaller cars come with driving instructions?"
"Why would they? Why would they need them?"
"Then how does that help me learn to drive a car?"

[Amnestic]

I do think that ideally there should be a 'core' setting for the core books which let you detail lore concepts - and also it shouldn't be FR.

FR is fine but it's also massive, with decades and decades of lore and an enormous world that spans everything. I guess you could say "the sword coast is our core setting", and that probably works fine introductory wise. Much as I'd love Eberron to be the core setting it's probably not gonna happen.

But also I didn't hate Points of Light. It wasn't perfect by any means but it was fine enough as an introductory thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I could understand removing lore and keeping it to setting books. But they haven't done that. What they've done is set some really hard rules (certain gods exist and are connected to these races, there must be an underdark, every setting must be part of the multiverse and share particular things)... And then not follow through.

Fizbans is full of lore. It's just offensively and aggressively bland, bad lore (bad in that it sparks no wonder, gives nowhere to go, allows no alterations outside it's limited span).

The issue is that they're fixing some things... While pretending to leave it open. Either way could work. But doing half of each of them? No.

[Psyren]

Then the response you gave where you brought up the starter sets as an alternative to building your own settings and lore seems not to be a useful response to the complaint they were raising.

"I can't drive a car without instruction in driving."
"Well, you could just buy a smaller car."
"Do smaller cars come with driving instructions?"
"Why would they? Why would they need them?"
"Then how does that help me learn to drive a car?"

Again, I was specifically addressing the "barrier to entry" objection.

"If they don't make information on building your own car core, how will new drivers learn?"
"New drivers aren't supposed to learn how to drive that way, they're supposed to use this pre-built New Drivers kit."
"But I want to build my own car."
"You already know how to drive, you're not the target audience for the New Drivers kit."
"But I want to build my own car!"

I could understand removing lore and keeping it to setting books. But they haven't done that. What they've done is set some really hard rules (certain gods exist and are connected to these races, there must be an underdark, every setting must be part of the multiverse and share particular things)... And then not follow through.

Fizbans is full of lore. It's just offensively and aggressively bland, bad lore (bad in that it sparks no wonder, gives nowhere to go, allows no alterations outside it's limited span).

The issue is that they're fixing some things... While pretending to leave it open. Either way could work. But doing half of each of them? No.

We haven't gotten any setting books since Tasha's. Dragonlance will literally be the first one. Everything else has either been global/multiversal or an adventure/adventure path.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We haven't gotten any setting books since Tasha's. Dragonlance will literally be the first one. Everything else has either been global/multiversal or an adventure/adventure path.

And if they'd merely said "hey, we're stripping out the lore because our new way is that that belongs in setting books" and then actually printed setting books, I'd be mostly ok with it. But that's not what they've done. What they've done is
1) present new, not-seen-before lore in non-adventure-path books (Fizbans, MotM) that locks down large chunks of the possible settings[1]
2) and do so badly (in my estimation). It's a noxious mix of lore that is
2a) too detailed and specific in all the wrong places (cosmology, racial origins, gods, even some class fictions)
2b) but only provides the surface veneer of lore everywhere where you could actually use some.

It's a false front, a facade of having lore but then not actually providing the necessary stuff. What they've given is basically restrictions on how you can build settings without actually giving any useful tools for setting building. Or any assistance to even people running adventure paths, unless they're going to do so as super-hard, no-thought, no-life railroads. Because you need to understand the settings' lore to run the adventure path. When someone asks "what are XYZ people like?" or the party meets an otherwise not-well-described person and asks more, you need that underlying lore. Unless you're fine with cardboard settings. I'm not.

I will note that this is mostly just a matter of "professional" pride here--as a worldbuilder who does it out of love for the topic, it annoys me to see someone publish such utter unmitigated crap and call it lore and charge people for it. It's a farce. A deceptive trick. A frosted cardboard box pretending to be a wedding cake. There's no there there. And what little scraps they give are actively noxious and overly concerned with not offending anyone and not actually answering any questions.

They could have done things like
* have sidebars giving examples tied to specific worlds.
* publish web articles giving lore.
* heck, even just explain that they're only going to be writing mechanics and you can go make up whatever lore you want. But that would cut into sales, because they want to "encourage" everyone to buy their paltry excuses for setting books. But then feel free to burn them down and replace them with watered-down overcooked, pre-chewed gruel.

[1] When every world must have arisen from the same First World AND have the same gods (even if by different names) AND have the same planar structure AND have the same relationships and classes AND have the same races (with the same mishmash of cultural and non-cultural traits and origins) AND have the same spells (even with the names of people that don't exist in that setting!)...AND all you have left is a skin. You've already taken away the meat, all you can do is rename the various cultures and shuffle around the deck chairs.

[Jervis]

RE: setting problems
To me dnd does have a serious lore problem precisely because it doesn’t have a default setting. Things like race origins, cultural norms, etc are gonna vary a lot between settings. This goes beyond races like Drow and Orcs that have controversial backstories. You really gonna tell me that you’re gonna play/run Dragonborn the same was in Eberron that you will in Dragonlance? The game has several settings and publishes adventures in settings but any book that has lore needs a setting to put it in. My biggest issue with MotM is that it leaned too much on setting agnostic lore, which shouldn’t exist in the first place. It certainly shouldn’t exist for player characters since any player race should ideally have some very established backstory in universe (why is there a semic hibrid in my greyhawk?).

Touching on some of the more controversial races I think just having a default setting would fix the problems people have better than sweeping lore rewrites. Using Drow as an example regardless of your stance on rewriting the lore I think you’ll agree that the spider tattoo thing was stupid and that the changes to Lolth lore make a lot of characters really stupid in retrospect. Illestrae had no real purpose in the lore now and Dritz is much less interesting. Just having a different setting removes the problem entirely. A lot of the same people that didn’t like the changes to Drow, Orcs, etc really like Eberron. Making a new setting to be the default for books not set in a specific setting instead of making setting agnostic lore that still has to fit every setting is a problem.

[Psyren]

@PP: If the Dragonlance book has no cultural information in it then I'll be right there on the battlements with you protesting. I want to know what parts of Ansalon I can find Dwarves, or whether Silvanesti and Qualinesti have mechanical differences, and suggestions for fitting orcs and dragonborn into the world. But I won't be grabbing my pitchfork and torch before it even comes out.

And I'm very in favor of web articles that dive into racial cultures in various settings. I suspect their new cultural review process is going to delay those however, but I agree those could be a great way to provide racial hooks without sweeping generalizations.

Touching on some of the more controversial races I think just having a default setting would fix the problems people have better than sweeping lore rewrites. Using Drow as an example regardless of your stance on rewriting the lore I think you’ll agree that the spider tattoo thing was stupid and that the changes to Lolth lore make a lot of characters really stupid in retrospect. Illestrae had no real purpose in the lore now and Dritz is much less interesting. Just having a different setting removes the problem entirely. A lot of the same people that didn’t like the changes to Drow, Orcs, etc really like Eberron. Making a new setting to be the default for books not set in a specific setting instead of making setting agnostic lore that still has to fit every setting is a problem.

Eilistraee definitely still has a place; just because it's possible to make good Drow without her, doesn't mean the bad ones don't still need help escaping their cult.

[Oramac]

And if they'd merely said "hey, we're stripping out the lore because our new way is that that belongs in setting books" and then actually printed setting books, I'd be mostly ok with it. But that's not what they've done.

snip

I wish there was a like button on GITP so I could smash the crap out of it for this post. Well said, my friend.