That tweet seems to have disappeared quickly - I can't find it on his account, unless I'm missing something. And it's not surprising if it has been removed as it's a month before even the FLGS release date!
One more point I need to bring up: I've been playing D&D since 1979, and I will say quite honestly that:
1. This is my favorite edition of the game. Period.
2. I love what is happening to D&D overall right now.
3. There has never been a better time to be a D&D or RPG player in general.
4. I've never had an easier time finding groups, players, and just folks interested in talking about the game.
5. Not all of us older players are "get off my lawn" types. I embrace change and welcome a new generation of players to keep D&D going strong hopefully far into the future.
I actually like proportions, but am not a huge fan of that particular artist, weirdly: I liked the playtest concrpt art better.It is not really my cup-of-tea either, but I wouldn't call it terrible. As mentioned by other's there is precedent. Also, despite not really caring for the proportions of the halflings, i think that art itself is some of my favorite (the picture in the FG preview). I really love that particular artist style and wish he/she did more art for 5e.
Dragon people and Devil people are pretty "cartoonish" in my book: maybe you need to watch better cartoons?Tieflings and Dragonborn aren’t cartoonish. “Not real”/=cartoonish.
also, modern science has pretty much abandoned the notion that brain size, or even brain size relative to body size, determines intelligence.
Hiya!
I guess the closest I can come is this: WotC seems to be trying to focus attention on THEIR characters and not YOURS/OURS.
I don't want to be constantly reminded of how great Mordenkainen is, or how awesome Elminster is, or how super-secretive-but-everyone-knows-him-and-is-afraid-but-not-really that Xanathar floating orb monster is, etc. I don't want to hear "Oh, Mordenkainens Foes book has those guys" because it ever so slightly denigrates the monsters in it to be somehow related to Mordenkainen. If I write a series of adventures centered around some creature to be found therein, no matter how unique and memorable my adventure is...both the players and I will ALWAYS "know" that "Mordenkainen knew all about those guys first". Supplemental books for AD&D were generic. They were tools for us to use to tell our own stories and have our own tales of heroics. Now? Well...
I don't want to be reminded of how cool and wonderful WotC's IP is. I want WotC to produce products that focus on US...the DM's and the Players of D&D. I don't much care for this constant "Tooting of their own horn" with every supplement they put out. To me it seems like WotC has taken on the role of those annoying parents who attribute all the success of their wonderkind's success at [insert sport or ability] to themselves more than their kid. Yeah, you know the type. That's WotC now. "Look how great my kid is! Aren't I an amazing Parent!? See what I have done? I am the one who really deserves the credit because without me my kid would just be so-so...sorry honey, but it's true. You should thank me for making you great! And everyone watching my kid should thank me too!".
WotC: Please stop trying to be *that* parent.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Well I've got great news for you, because those books aren't like that at all. The characters in question pop up occasionally to provide brief, entertaining quips, and that's about all you see of them. They're very, very loose narrators at best, and there's no real self-congratulatory tone to speak of.
So you don't actually know anything about Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes/ Volo's Guide to Monsters/ Xanathar's Guide to Everything. And are just judging them harshly because they are featuring D&D lore in books. Despite the fact that the books don't do anything you mention.
Like this is possibly the most petty and minor complaint about a D&D book I have heard, along with a bunch of stuff that is blatantly false. Of course you would not know it's false cause you decided to just judge it by some crazy standard and never give them chance.
That jumped out at me, as well. IIRC, the 1E PHB actually said elves were often seen as "flighty and frivolous" to members of other races."elves are seldom frivolous and carefree"?!? That's an complete 180.
Mordenkainen has been bald since late 2e. He's definitely quite bald on the cover (and in the illustrations inside) the 3e Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, as well as Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, looking in both pretty much the same as he looks on the cover of MToF. So, not only are you judging a book by its cover, you're doing so on a change that happened approximately 20 years ago?
Hiya!
Hardy-har-har, guys. I get it. I'm an old fart set in my ways... I did mention my Grognardia Curmudgeonitis, didn't I? I'm fully aware that my particular "tastes" for how a D&D product should be made are on the, hmmm, lets say "crusty deep-fried edges", but I've simply accepted it. I speak up about these little things often becuse I know WotC folks pop in here from time to time and just want them to keep striving for perfection. If all they heard was how happy the unwashed masses were with their product, they'd never try anything difference.
The books don't have to have much in them to make a difference. All it takes is one little "thing" or "word" or "look", and the message is changed. The title is enough, more than enough, because a title should embody the theme of the work. At least IMNSHO.
Basically...yes? As I said in the paragraph above...all it takes sometimes is ONE little thing; and having the title of the book be "[Proper Character Name]'s, [brief description]" sets the stage from which the entire perspective of the book is to be viewed. If it was called "Tome of Foes" it tells you it's a book with a bunch of bad guys that a DM can use in his personal campaign. "Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes" tells you it is a book about how Mordenkainen discovered, wrote about, saw, encountered or otherwise "was involved with" a bunch of bad guys the DM can use in his personal campaign. In the later, that tiny little thread, however ephemeral, "connects the foes, and thus the DM's personal campaign, to Mordenkainen and how he saw/sees the foes". It doesn't matter if there are ZERO mentions of Mordenkainen at all in the book. The damage is done with the name in the title. First impressions and all that I guess...
Anyway. Carry on poking fun at the old guy in the back. I can't hear you anyway...
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Hiya!
Basically...yes? As I said in the paragraph above...all it takes sometimes is ONE little thing; and having the title of the book be "[Proper Character Name]'s, [brief description]" sets the stage from which the entire perspective of the book is to be viewed. If it was called "Tome of Foes" it tells you it's a book with a bunch of bad guys that a DM can use in his personal campaign. "Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes" tells you it is a book about how Mordenkainen discovered, wrote about, saw, encountered or otherwise "was involved with" a bunch of bad guys the DM can use in his personal campaign. In the later, that tiny little thread, however ephemeral, "connects the foes, and thus the DM's personal campaign, to Mordenkainen and how he saw/sees the foes". It doesn't matter if there are ZERO mentions of Mordenkainen at all in the book. The damage is done with the name in the title. First impressions and all that I guess...
Anyway. Carry on poking fun at the old guy in the back. I can't hear you anyway...
^_^
Paul L. Ming