D&D 5E Legends & Lore 3/17 /14

[ForeverSlayer]

I think everything should contain default lore that way you can please the people who want it while the people who don't, can simply ignore it.

Get rid of the lore and make it generic only caters to one group.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The former. Because in the latter... these newbies are going to be reading the section on Halflings and say "Wow, these Dark Sun halflings are cool!", then read the entry on the Drow and say "I really like their scorpion connections in this Eberron setting more than the spider thing"... and then go to the table only to be told by the DM "Oh yeah... those descriptions are kinda cool, but we're playing Forgotten Realms. So... sorry."

The difference being that in this case, they have been informed by the books that that description is just one of many. So then what follows is a question, "What are they like here?"

And to that, the DM has a great response: "Well, how does your character find that out?"

....and we're off to the races.

Versus a newbie coming from a book that told them that drow "In D&D" are scorpion-worshiping jungle-elves (that DMs can change), and then finding out that no, actually, they're not always scorpion-worshiping jungle elves, that's just one version, and suddenly wondering why the book explicitly said they were that in D&D if they are only that in D&D sometimes. And then wondering, "well, do they not worship scorpions, or not live in jungles, or both?" as she searches for some referent to the drow she learned about in the books as being D&D drow.

It's the difference between a general rule that everyone except your DM follows for some reason that is driving them to change it (and thus reason to wonder why the DM cares that much to change it), and a specific rule that the DM just isn't using here (and thus she's using some other rule and it's time to learn about that one).

 

[Cybit]

As one of the probably few people here who runs a game with folks (kids) who have never been exposed to D&D prior to starting this game, having that lore is essential for them. That's how they connect to the game world. Not every game has super in-depth lore with everything having an extensive backstory that ties to the larger plot of the game.

I'm entirely too lazy for that, personally.

In their case, as some of them are starting to DM, they want that lore so they can use it to form their own stories. Most of us used the default lore when we were starting out. Removing that default lore basically screws younger / newer DMs, and adds a potentially massive barrier to entry for an edition that is trying very hard to create a sense of verisimilitude.

 

[ambroseji]

Removing that default lore basically screws younger / newer DMs, and adds a potentially massive barrier to entry for an edition that is trying very hard to create a sense of verisimilitude.

This.

Having default lore also helps me, a relatively experienced DM, use different monsters. I use orcs all the time, but I only use a rakshasa once in a great while. When I do, I like to flip open the MM and see what the assumed lore is. Some I keep, some I ditch, and my players know that they can learn about the monster with a knowledge check. Even now, I'll refer back through several different MMs to get different ideas for the same monster.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Versus a newbie coming from a book that...

...they shouldn't be reading because it is not a player reference manual. Stoopid noob!

They should only reference the book if the DM determines their character would have access to that information. And if the DM knows he changed the creature, he won't send them to the MM to reference it.

Otherwise I agree with another poster above. STOP METAGAMING!

 

[Yaarel]

But the whole "made by a (insert powerful creature here)" thing in 4e was just terribly overdone; I really hope that monster lore in D&D Next can stand on its own two feet without having to invoke demon lords, gods, primordials, or whatever.

True. The ‘made by a (insert powerful unique creature here)’ is way overdone and fails to help the DM describe encounters.

Creature descriptions need to stand on their own two feet. Their behaviors, motives, and relationships need to make sense when players observe them.

Descriptions feel empty, useless, and random, when the description says little more than ‘here are two random creatures, plus this third random (insert powerful unique creature here) did it.’ It is a Random McGuffin Trio.

The solution is for monster books to remove references to unique powerful creatures. No NPCs. No proper names.

Instead. If two creatures tend to occur together, then explain what they each do that makes them work well together.

 

[Yaarel]

For the most part, I like this approach. I definitely like having all the story and ecology information in the monster manual. My only complaint is I don't like when proper nouns are used in monster descriptions. The mention of Graz'zt in the jacklewere somehow pulls me out of the world.

The reliance on proper nouns in monster descriptions is both useless and distracting.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The reliance on proper nouns in monster descriptions is both useless and distracting.

Others seem to disagree. I suspect it has to do with investment in certain aspects of D&D lore.

 

[Yaarel]

Others seem to disagree. I suspect it has to do with investment in certain aspects of D&D lore.

Perhaps these setting-specific fans want completionism for one-true-wayism, rather than content that helps other DMs?

Truly, setting-specific proper nouns belong in a setting guide, where it helps those who use the setting. These proper nouns do well to be absent from a monster book, where DMs who use other settings might use as a resource.



But oblique allusions to someone else somewhere else is useless for the DMs who need a description of a creature, in the first place.

Proper Nouns are distracting. The DM stops thinking about the scene and starts grappling with some random NPC in some random planar location somewhere else. The best case scenario is if this irrelevant NPC exists. Worse. These random NPCs and their random cosmological locations probably dont exist in other settings, so the description leaves the DM with no description at all.



Reliance on proper nouns also reduces the value of the monster book for other settings.

It makes little sense to pay money for setting content that the DM plans to ignore in the first place.

Why pay money to rewrite everything?

The monster book is a more cost-effective investment for other settings when its description focuses on the scene at hand - how do these monsters work well together? - and ignores proper nouns that may or may not exist in other settings.

A description of the creature - as opposed to the description of some random NPC - gives info that the DM can use to describe an encounter. Who cares if (insert powerful unique creature here) did it? The players looking at the scene will never know this. And even if they did, who cares? Proper nouns are useless and fail to give the DM the tools that the DM needs to describe an encounter.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Did Mike Mearls never actually play previous editions?

2nd edition's monsters were loaded with information and he even says this in his article so I'm not sure what he's even on about.

I don't really remember any particular mechanics that were tied to specific bits of lore that couldn't be used in other lore oriented games. Let's say the jackelwares had an ability called the "Gaze of Graz'zt"; you could simply replace the name or even just Graz'zt's name with something else. They are trying to be careful without even needing to be.

It's kind of like thinking you need to tip toe around the house even though no one else is home.