D&D 5E D&D Lore Changes: Multiversal Focus & Fey Goblins of Prehistory

WotC's Jeremy Crawford revealed a couple of the lore changes in Monsters of the Multiverse.

• The big shift is toward the multiverse as the game's main perspective rather than a specific setting. The game is shifting towards a multiversal focus, with a variety of worlds and settings.
• Universe-spanning mythical story beats, such as deep lore on goblinoids going back to 1st Edition, and the gods they had before Maglubiyet. Prior to Magulbiyet unifying them, goblinoids were folk of the feywild in keeping with 'real-world' folklore.
• Changelings aren't just Eberron, but they've been everywhere -- you just don't necessarily know it. Their origin is also in the realm of the fey.

D&D 5E - A Compilation of all the Race Changes in Monsters of the Multiverse

Over on Reddit, user KingJackel went through the video leak which came out a few days ago and manually compiled a list of all the changes to races in the book. The changes are quite extensive, with only the fairy and harengon remaining unchanged. The book contains 33 races in total, compiled and...

www.enworld.org

 

[Parmandur]

That’s what they’ve been doing so far, but I can only imagine the prospect of merging the IPs would look appealing to WotC. I think they’re being cautious because they don’t want to upset the fanbase, but I don’t think it’s too out there to imagine them trying to boil that frog slowly.

They have made more and more moves towards aligning them. Honestly, neither game needs them to be airtight and seperated to work as games: D&D players can take or leave official lore as they will, and Magic lore is a very abstract background to the actual game. They could merge them without actually making a big impact on most fans, and can consolidate a lot of art design that way.

 

[overgeeked]

The Multiverse only matters to your game if you allow it to matter to your game.

It's baffling how so many people skip over this.

The Multiverse only matters to your game if you allow it to matter to your game.

This also applies to literally everything WotC publishes.

The changes in Xanathar's, Tasha's, Monsters of the Multiverse, etc only matter to your game if you allow it to matter to your game.

The mere existence of things you don't like in D&D products does not force you to use those things you don't like.

 

[TwoSix]

So to actually care about the so-called "truth"? What a waste of my time.

I'm so glad there's at least one person who understands how completely irrelevant "canon" arguments are.

 

[overgeeked]

They have made more and more moves towards aligning them. Honestly, neither game needs them to be airtight and seperated to work as games: D&D players can take or leave official lore as they will, and Magic lore is a very abstract background to the actual game. They could merge them without actually making a big impact on most fans, and can consolidate a lot of art design that way.

Disagree. The less WotC taints D&D with MtG the better. They should be completely separate and hermetically sealed off from each other.

 

[Reynard]

The Multiverse only matters to your game if you allow it to matter to your game.

Sure, but the more material from WotC the less connected you feel to the "living" game and its community, and the more likely you are to abandon it, which might feel bad for people that actually like being part of the D&D community. In that way, embedding lore deeply into every release is exclusionary.

In fact, 5E has not been "DM friendly" from a homebrew campaign setting perspective at all. There is very little support for campaign setting creation or even homebrew adventure/campaign creation. Every other edition (except maybe 4E, I am not especially familiar with the line) had setting agnostic dedicated products for this purpose.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but the more material from WotC the less connected you feel to the "living" game and its community, and the more likely you are to abandon it, which might feel bad for people that actually like being part of the D&D community. In that way, embedding lore deeply into every release is exclusionary.

I don't feel that tracks. One simply has to accept that the "official lore" and your own headcanon you use at your table are sometimes contradictory, and that's OK.

 

[overgeeked]

Sure, but the more material from WotC the less connected you feel to the "living" game and its community, and the more likely you are to abandon it, which might feel bad for people that actually like being part of the D&D community. In that way, embedding lore deeply into every release is exclusionary.

WotC producing content you don't personally like or lore changes you don't agree with is exclusionary...

Wow. That's certainly an...argument...you are capable of presenting. Not a compelling argument at all. But you certainly can present it.

In fact, 5E has not been "DM friendly" from a homebrew campaign setting perspective at all. There is very little support for campaign setting creation or even homebrew adventure/campaign creation. Every other edition (except maybe 4E, I am not especially familiar with the line) had setting agnostic dedicated products for this purpose.

DMs don't need WotC's permission to be creative.

 

[Remathilis]

Disagree. The less WotC taints D&D with MtG the better. They should be completely separate and hermetically sealed off from each other.

Three settings later, that ship has sailed.

 

[Scribe]

Three settings later, that ship has sailed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sure, but the more material from WotC the less connected you feel to the "living" game and its community, and the more likely you are to abandon it, which might feel bad for people that actually like being part of the D&D community. In that way, embedding lore deeply into every release is exclusionary.

So what you are saying is that WotC has to do what you want, or else you feel excluded. Huh. Trying to guilt trip WotC into only producing the content you want is an interesting theory. Let us know how it works out for you.