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

[dave2008]

OK folks just stop it, please.

Will do!

 

[ssvegeta555]

Man, here I was hoping someone would spill some beans on contents of the book but instead it's people arguing about halfling proportions... -_-

 

[pming]

Hiya.

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...

Wow. Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bedroll!

I'll keep it brief: I guess if I boil it down to brass tac's, it's because there is a WoTC IP character Name in the title, with a pic of the character. If the book was called "Frightening Foes!", and on the back it had a blurb about "Frightening Foes from across the multiverse are found in this tome. Packed with information gleaned from various sources like Mordenkainen, Elminster and Volo, these horrible beasties are sure to liven up any Dungeon Masters campaign!" ...or something like that. That would be fine. Why? It's not a core selling point. The book is not "written by [insert NPC]". The 1e AD&D PHB was called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook"...it was not called "The Circle of Eights Treatise on Adventurers", nor was it called "Tensers Tome of Adventuring Heroes" or anything with a 'name' in it.

Splitting hairs, maybe, but I still stand by my statements. I don't want ANY "NPC" Name part of any supplement that is intended to be used by any DM. It ruins the whole feel of the book for me. YMMV.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Imaculata]

I don't play 5th edition, but damn, the art in that book is gorgeous.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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.

First...you're thinking of someone else about the whole Sorcerers thing. I think 5e Sorcerers are cool as is. Multiclassing and FEAT are the things I dislike the most in 5e...and thus, don't use.
Second...thanks? I think?

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...

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

It's almost entirely the cover (pic and NPC name) that I don't like. Just rubs me the wrong way. Ever have one of those players who played a strong barbarian human with a big ax (for example)? And that PC died after months of play? And now anytime someone plays a barbarian in the group, that player chimes in with "Oh, yeah. That's a good one. Nugnug loved that. He did it best!". Or maybe a magic ax is found and then its "Magic Ax!? Nugnug would have loved that! I suppose your guy will probably do ok, I guess". Or even "You ordered the Dead Viking Ale? Ha! Nugnug ALWAYS drank Dead Viking Ale...your PC will be in good company!" You know that type of player...we've all seen it at some point. From my perspective, this is what WotC is doing; constantly trying to remind us of how awesome their IP is by trying to interject it into any campaign that happens to be using Volo's, Xanathar's, Mordenkainens, etc "book of whatever".

Anyway, yeah. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pming]

HIya!

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?

A#1) Pretty much always. I have always been a pretty mellow guy. Stubborn, however, when I come to the conclusion that I like/dislike something. Takes a lot to convince me otherwise...but if I see the logic in someones argument I will happily change my mind.

A#2) It's the name, but particularly the IP name. "John's Tome of Foes" would bother me, but not as much. Mainly because there is no presumption of who this "John" guy is. I can make it up. I can do what I want and nobody in the D&D hobby-o-sphere will have any preconceptions on this "John" character or how he knows so much about Foes. But replace that with Mordenkainen, Elminster, Drizz't, Volo, Rary, etc...and now you have preconceptions of who, what, how, and why.

*shrug* I'm not knocking others for liking or buying them; go for it! But for me, it's pretty much a deal-breaker unless I really really want the info!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[dave2008]

A#2) It's the name, but particularly the IP name. "John's Tome of Foes" would bother me, but not as much. Mainly because there is no presumption of who this "John" guy is. I can make it up. I can do what I want and nobody in the D&D hobby-o-sphere will have any preconceptions on this "John" character or how he knows so much about Foes. But replace that with Mordenkainen, Elminster, Drizz't, Volo, Rary, etc...and now you have preconceptions of who, what, how, and why.

*shrug* I'm not knocking others for liking or buying them; go for it! But for me, it's pretty much a deal-breaker unless I really really want the info!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Thank you again for your response. That is interesting. I would have assumed from your comments that, similar to me, you have no preconceived notion of Mordenkainen precisely because you don't buy into their IP. To me Mordenkainen = John, I have no preconceived notion of who he is. None of the TSR / WotC IP has really ever entered my games (despite being all over the place in 2e). Their unique characters carry no baggage for me. How do they carry baggage for you if, in your distaste for them, you've avoided them as you suggest?

EDIT: On reading the post again it appears your concerned about the perceptions of others, is that it. So, your worried that even if Mordenkainen is some nobody to you, you willget challenged by others in your game. I apologize, but I just don't get it. I'm trying to understand your perspective, but it just seems like such a trivial issue to care about I'm having a hard time finding a point of reference for me to understand. To each his own! Seems to me your missing out on some good content (and games all together for that matter), but I guess it is working for you!

 

[Vanveen]

Wouldn't be that odd, insofar as the Displacer Beast is one of the handful of distinct product identity monsters.

It would be odd indeed, given that the displacer beast was shamelessly stolen from A.E. Van Vogt. Identity theft maybe?!?

 

[Parmandur]

It would be odd indeed, given that the displacer beast was shamelessly stolen from A.E. Van Vogt. Identity theft maybe?!?

Well, WotC has been claiming product identity on it for nearly twenty years.

 

[Demetrios1453]

HIya!




A#1) Pretty much always. I have always been a pretty mellow guy. Stubborn, however, when I come to the conclusion that I like/dislike something. Takes a lot to convince me otherwise...but if I see the logic in someones argument I will happily change my mind.

A#2) It's the name, but particularly the IP name. "John's Tome of Foes" would bother me, but not as much. Mainly because there is no presumption of who this "John" guy is. I can make it up. I can do what I want and nobody in the D&D hobby-o-sphere will have any preconceptions on this "John" character or how he knows so much about Foes. But replace that with Mordenkainen, Elminster, Drizz't, Volo, Rary, etc...and now you have preconceptions of who, what, how, and why.

*shrug* I'm not knocking others for liking or buying them; go for it! But for me, it's pretty much a deal-breaker unless I really really want the info!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

But do you realize that the titular characters almost have no voice within the books? The text is written in a neutral tone, and not in a pseudo-narration by the title character. The most the character gets in the books is the introduction and little side notes scattered here and there similar to those in the Monster Manual. This was the case for Volo's and Xanathar's, and appears to be the case for Mordenkainen's if the released stat block for Moloch is anything to go by. If you're worried that the title characters have to much of an authorial voice, well, it minimal. Heck, of it annoys you that much, just invest in some sticky notes or white-out and cover up those little asides (and the offending name on the cover if you wish), and you'll have removed the offending IP entirely. You're really puzzling some here by missing out on some good content over something that is exceedingly minor in the books!