D&D General How is Lore & Legends?

[Parmandur]

I have only skimmed the book and enjoyed the art. I don't recall much detail regarding sales numbers. It is a fan service book, not a history book. If you enjoyed 5e's run and want a coffee table book to page through it is fine.

Unloke.Art & Arcana, I do actually have all the art at hand. More interested in Amy historical insights, and I don't particularly care if it is a happy-clappy Ooh-rah celebration...that is fine.

 

[Burnside]

Well, I mean, that is not incompatible with soberly discussing the facts on the ground for how 5E has performed commercially, is it...?

It isn't, but they don't.

There's an interesting section about the D&D Next playtesting period and how it worked. Beyond that, you can go back and read the public-facing marketing copy created for every official release from 2014 through 2023 and you'll have read basically the same info that is in this book.

 

[Parmandur]

It isn't, but they don't.

There's an interesting section about the D&D Next playtesting period and how it worked. Beyond that, you can go back and read the public-facing marketing copy created for every official release from 2014 through 2023 and you'll have read basically the same info that is in this book.

That's too bad: I wasn't expecting dirt, obviously, bit behind the scenes design stories would have been fun.

 

[Burnside]

That's too bad: I wasn't expecting dirt, obviously, bit behind the scenes design stories would have been fun.

It's just too soon I guess. I'm not sure what I was expecting, really. I wasn't expecting the level of candidness that we got in Art & Arcana, but I was expecting more behind-the-scenes info than we got, and more genuine info about how the sausage was made.

Considering how (relatively) critical they were willing to be in Art & Arcana about certain past editions, publications, and business moves, it did rub me the wrong way a bit that the copy in this one was such an utter hagiography. I mean, I guess it's to be expected, but still.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'm reading it right now. It's fine, though I would've liked to see more behind-the-scenes/making-of information. It's more a retrospective of 5e's lifespan. I kinda feel like it's a product for the future, not today when most of this stuff is fresh in people's minds. It makes me wish that TSR and Wizards had done something like it for each edition prior.

 

[Clint_L]

I flipped through it. Not a lot of meat to it, but it looks really good. Pretty standard coffee table book, and coffee table books almost always disappoint me.

 

[Mercador]

It's just too soon I guess. I'm not sure what I was expecting, really. I wasn't expecting the level of candidness that we got in Art & Arcana, but I was expecting more behind-the-scenes info than we got, and more genuine info about how the sausage was made.

Considering how (relatively) critical they were willing to be in Art & Arcana about certain past editions, publications, and business moves, it did rub me the wrong way a bit that the copy in this one was such an utter hagiography. I mean, I guess it's to be expected, but still.

Thank you, I learned a new English word today.

The way I see it in A&A is a bit like the adage from George Orwell "Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it."

From my perspective, WotC is trying to distance itself from the DnD roots but at the same time, I think it alienate their first and older audience.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Wow, this is shockingly bad. The text is outright fawning and flies in the face of even basic familiarity with 5E -- the exploration pillar is well-supported, really? -- includes factual errors (goliaths didn't debut in 3E with Eberron) and even basic typos.

I'm guessing tone was dictated from on high, but it makes for a book where the text is essentially useless, even as a historical document, since it's so clearly full of crap throughout. That decision should have been pushed back on by everyone else at the company. The fact that it got through like this really feels contemptuous of the audience/customers.

I'm glad I got it for the art, although even then, I'm not sure who thought that reproducing some of it at the postage stamp size was what anyone wanted from this kind of coffee table book.

A&A runs rings around this book.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Wow, this is shockingly bad. The text is outright fawning and flies in the face of even basic familiarity with 5E -- the exploration pillar is well-supported, really? -- includes factual errors (goliaths didn't debut in 3E with Eberron) and even basic typos.

I'm guessing tone was dictated from on high, but it makes for a book where the text is essentially useless, even as a historical document, since it's so clearly full of crap throughout. That decision should have been pushed back on by everyone else at the company. The fact that it got through like this really feels contemptuous of the audience/customers.

I'm glad I got it for the art, although even then, I'm not sure who thought that reproducing some of it at the postage stamp size was what anyone wanted from this kind of coffee table book.

A&A runs rings around this book.

Perhaps what they meant was Eberron was the first setting book where Goliaths appear (which is true btw, although after that Goliaths and the other races of ....races don't get attention much in Eberron).

Later on Goliaths end up more important in FR, Nentir Vale, and Exandria then Eberron ironically.

 

[Stormonu]

It's definitely written by marketing vs. the more research/documentary-orientated view in the first.

Still, it has some interesting information in it I was not aware of (mostly with the pre-5E lead up). It's worth a read, but again it's not a critical look back at the first ten years of 5E.