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]

I'm definitely not worried about Wizards' finances. I'm just concerned with not making D&D less appealing to get into than it is now, in terms of inspiring content or in terms of cost. I like there being lots of people of all ages, preferences, and incomes playing D&D.

But if you see D&D becoming harder to get into as a good thing, because it may drive people to alternative options, you're certainly welcome to that view.


Sure, but your "boring and confusing" can be someone else's "fascinating and inspiring". And the 2014 balance of rules and lore in the core rules seemed to work pretty well for the majority of new and veteran players, considering the edition's success. So I don't think Wizards would be wise to throw off that balance.

If they start charging $60-70 instead of $50, I doubt they will lose much of an audience. A new video game costs that much.

 

[Hussar]

There are, in fact, people for whom a trip to Starbucks or a proper sit-down restaurant, or buying anything from McDonald's that isn't on the dollar menu, are all expensive enough that they have to be rare, special treats, assuming that they do them at all.

Is it really so hard to imagine that such people might already be reluctant to drop $50 on a RPG book? And that asking them to double their investment to get the same value in 2024 might make the prospect even less appealing?

Why do you think WotC is marketing to those people?

It's a serious question. All products are marketed to someone. An RPG is a luxury product. There's no need for it. At what point is there any impetus at all to market to someone who can't afford a 10 dollar meal? I know that's not particularly nice to say, but, it's still the reality.

 

[Hussar]

I get that there are complications introduced by working with a) fantasy settings and b) populations that may still be capable of interbreeding. But this doesn't look like someone made deliberate alterations to a cladogram for specific purposes. It looks like someone tried to draw a cladogram without understanding how a cladogram actually works.

Let's be honest here, that's about a scientific as D&D EVER gets. "Someone uses something science sounding without understanding how it works" describes 99% of D&D and probably a very, very large chunk of speculative fiction since day 1.

 

[JEB]

If they start charging $60-70 instead of $50, I doubt they will lose much of an audience. A new video game costs that much.

1) Once again, I'm referring to the removal of most lore into a separate book, and expecting buyers to get two books instead of one for the same amount of content, or leaving the core book less broadly appealing than it had been previously. I'm not talking about raising the cover price of individual books and I never was.

2) The folks I'm talking about generally have to reserve new video games as rare, special treats as well. Do we want them to chose between D&D and the newest, hottest video game? I'm not sure that choice favors D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

They just simply be a renamed Imperial Elf from Spelljammer, who were an important faction in the setting. The name change might just be simply that "Imperial" doesn't exactly give a favorable impression, or they might be revealed to have had an Astral origin like Githyanki...

Edit: I see others have already responded similarly...

They aren't, though. The imperial elves were just high elves. There was nothing outer planar about them, unlike Astral Elves. Assuming that they are changing imperial elves rather than just making a Planejammer is the more complex interpretation and runs afoul of Occam's Razor.

 

[JEB]

Why do you think WotC is marketing to those people?

It's a serious question. All products are marketed to someone. An RPG is a luxury product. There's no need for it. At what point is there any impetus at all to market to someone who can't afford a 10 dollar meal? I know that's not particularly nice to say, but, it's still the reality.

As I said upthread, I just don't want to make D&D less appealing or accessible than it already is. If that doesn't bother you, that's your choice.

 

[Hussar]

I'm definitely not worried about Wizards' finances. I'm just concerned with not making D&D less appealing to get into than it is now, in terms of inspiring content or in terms of cost. I like there being lots of people of all ages, preferences, and incomes playing D&D.

But if you see D&D becoming harder to get into as a good thing, because it may drive people to alternative options, you're certainly welcome to that view.


Sure, but your "boring and confusing" can be someone else's "fascinating and inspiring". And the 2014 balance of rules and lore in the core rules seemed to work pretty well for the majority of new and veteran players, considering the edition's success. So I don't think Wizards would be wise to throw off that balance.

Again, though, you have failed to show any evidence of this. "There are lots of people who cannot afford a Starbucks Coffee" Ok, fair enough. Now, how many people RIGHT NOW, who cannot afford a Starbucks coffee, once a year mind you, are currently playing D&D? Right now, the price of getting into D&D for a group of five people is the price of a night out. Hell, five people go to the movies and it's going to put a serious dent in 150 bucks.

So, complaints that D&D is "too expensive" seem very far off the base. Never minding that 150 bucks is full MSRP, which, again, no one actually has to pay. Right now, the D&D Core Rulebook Gift set is $87 on Amazon.com. Split five ways, and we're talking 17 dollars each to buy the entire core set. 25 dollars more and you have an adventure path book, meaning you're good to go for the next year or so. 20 bucks each, more or less, and you have everything your group needs to game for a year. Another 5 bucks each per year and you buy the newest AP.

What cheaper hobby is there? What can five people do for five bucks a YEAR? And you're suggesting that upping that a dollar a year will block significant numbers of potential players?

 

[Parmandur]

1) Once again, I'm referring to the removal of most lore into a separate book, and expecting buyers to get two books instead of one for the same amount of content, or leaving the core book less broadly appealing than it had been previously. I'm not talking about raising the cover price of individual books and I never was.

2) The folks I'm talking about generally have to reserve new video games as rare, special treats as well. Do we want them to chose between D&D and the newest, hottest video game? I'm not sure that choice favors D&D.

If they do seperate lore any more, it would be to make it more broadly appealing, honestly. Follow the consumer demand.

 

[JEB]

What cheaper hobby is there? What can five people do for five bucks a YEAR? And you're suggesting that upping that a dollar a year will block significant numbers of potential players?

I think you are overestimating the amount of long-term value calculations that most folks on a budget make when buying a special treat. Not to mention whether or not D&D is going to appear to be the best value even for those that do. You and I know you can get tons of value out of D&D, but to a new person it's competing with lots of other options. I'd rather not make it a less appealing option, if possible.

 

[JEB]

If they do seperate lore any more, it would be to make it more broadly appealing, honestly. Follow the consumer demand.

If part of the appeal of the core rules to a person was the lore embedded within, how does removing most lore to a separate book make the core rules more appealing to that person?

As for broadening the appeal of the lore itself to match consumer demand, they can and should do that without providing less of it. Less lore is not better lore, better lore is better lore.