D&D 5E Mordenkainens starting to show up in the wild?

[darjr]

Another one spotted out in the wild, but this one some folks wrote all over!

https://twitter.com/shimmerwindisle/status/987109365642645504?s=21

 

[SkidAce]

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.

Quoted for truth...

 

[Parmandur]

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.

I actually like proportions, but am not a huge fan of that particular artist, weirdly: I liked the playtest concrpt art better.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Dragon people and Devil people are pretty "cartoonish" in my book: maybe you need to watch better cartoons?

 

[Elf_flambe]

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

Wow. Not only do I think these objections are petty, they're also misguided and inaccurate. Just by using a naming pattern for a few books, WotC is dragging the spotlight off of your characters and onto theirs? That is a mighty big inferiority complex you have, then, to be so easily distracted. It's actually just a fun way to present info a little differently than you've seen it presented in 5 or more previous editions.

And don't pull out your Grognardier-Than-Thou card on us. I remember waiting anxiously for each of the original three AD&D hardback rulebooks to be released in the late '70s. And I also distinctly remember the Magic User (not "wizard") spell list stuffed full of spells created by characters from Gygax's home campaign -- more Bigby hand spells and Mordenkainen spells (and others I can't think of right now) than you could shake a stick at! ("That Bigby is 10 times the wizard yours will ever be! Look at all the spells he created. He got there before everyone else..." ) And almost every rulebook was loaded with references to the world of Greyhawk; likewise, most adventure modules told you exactly where it was located on the Greyhawk map. ("Available now from TSR, the Game Wizards!") So I think you're (conveniently) forgetting how NON-generic most AD&D products were.

Details like things named after an in-game character helps create the feel of a real, "lived-in" world. Knowing the names came from Gygax's world added a bit of extra spice - just like putting some of those names on current rulebooks and sprinkling some references throughout the text does now. Most folks are buying these books for the crunch and fluff presented therein. Being put off by a name in the title or the lack of hair in the art just seems silly...

 

[pming]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Mercule]

"elves are seldom frivolous and carefree"?!? That's an complete 180.

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.

 

[darjr]

OK folks just stop it, please.

 

[MoonSong]

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?

I don't know where you've been all this time, but let me tell you, pming is quite oldschool. He opposes stuff like sorcerers and level by level multiclassing, I don't find it surprising that he cares, and while his opinions might not be right, they aren't wrong either. He is who he is and he cares about what he cares and that's ok.

And why not judge a book by its cover? That is like the whole purpose of the cover. It is not a moral imperative to give chance to every book out there. These things cost money, if the cover -and overall feel- of a book doesn't look right, you don't have to buy it to have an opinion. Unless you happen to suggest something like piracy...

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

Surprisingly I agree more than I think I would or should. And I'm quite new school.

 

[dave2008]

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

I feel sorry for you, you have missed some really good books because of this, IMO, rather odd issue.

Question: has this always been an issue for you, or has it changed over time. As I've gotten older I have noticed how some things that used to bother me no longer do, and other's that didn't when I was younger do now.

One more question: Is it the use of name that bothers you, or is it the WotC IP name? So if it was John's Tome of Foes, would that trigger the same response?