D&D 5E First World: Possibly One of the New D&D setting?

[Faolyn]

If people believed that, no one would be irritated by lore they don't like. The human brain doesn't work that way. If you like something, you care about it. If you care about it, you probably don't want other people to change it. You especially don't want other people to change it while also talking about how much the original version you liked sucks.

So you're saying that you don't believe that the lore is optional.

I care a lot about Ravenloft. It's my absolute favorite setting. But guess what? I changed tons of it back when I was running it in... GURPS and Fate (and one ill-fated attempt in Prime Time Adventures), actually, since I never DMed 2e or 3x. And I continue to change tons of it now. I never bought any of the older modules (I have Curse of Strahd, to which I made major changes) and I've read maybe two of the novels and I think a collection of short stories. There were lots of things I didn't like or just didn't care about in 2e and 3x, so out they went.

If people are saying that parts of the original Ravenloft sucked, then depending on what they are saying and why they are saying it, I can either agree with them or ignore them, or take what they are saying and use it to adapt what I'm currently running, if I think they have a good point.
And I said it before and I'll say it again: if 5e's Ravenloft had just been a continuation of the 3e/3x stuff, then I would have had absolutely no reason to buy it. I already have all that stuff!

And older Ravenloft--as with Dragonlance--did in fact have a lot of stuff that sucked. While I personally like the caliban, I'm glad that they're not in the books anymore because their concept is pretty awful. I'm glad that the female darklords have a reason for being evil other than being desperate for a man or hating all men. And, of course, I'm glad that the Vistani have been revamped. There are bits of VGR that I'm not thrilled with, but they're things that are easy to change or ignore as necessary. Likewise, there are bits of Dragonlance, like the joke races, that desperately need an overhaul or just a complete removal because they are equally awful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you're saying that you don't believe that the lore is optional.

I care a lot about Ravenloft. It's my absolute favorite setting. But guess what? I changed tons of it back when I was running it in... GURPS and Fate (and one ill-fated attempt in Prime Time Adventures), actually, since I never DMed 2e or 3x. And I continue to change tons of it now. I never bought any of the older modules (I have Curse of Strahd, to which I made major changes) and I've read maybe two of the novels and I think a collection of short stories. There were lots of things I didn't like or just didn't care about in 2e and 3x, so out they went.

If people are saying that parts of the original Ravenloft sucked, then depending on what they are saying and why they are saying it, I can either agree with them or ignore them, or take what they are saying and use it to adapt what I'm currently running, if I think they have a good point.
And I said it before and I'll say it again: if 5e's Ravenloft had just been a continuation of the 3e/3x stuff, then I would have had absolutely no reason to buy it. I already have all that stuff!

And older Ravenloft--as with Dragonlance--did in fact have a lot of stuff that sucked. While I personally like the caliban, I'm glad that they're not in the books anymore because their concept is pretty awful. I'm glad that the female darklords have a reason for being evil other than being desperate for a man or hating all men. And, of course, I'm glad that the Vistani have been revamped. There are bits of VGR that I'm not thrilled with, but they're things that are easy to change or ignore as necessary. Likewise, there are bits of Dragonlance, like the joke races, that desperately need an overhaul or just a complete removal because they are equally awful.

How can you justify liking something and simultaneously think the concept is awful and are happy it's gone? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Parmandur]

To be clear, it's a myth or historical record. Which it actually is, will be up to the DM.

Absolutely, it's just I think that's exactly how they want to keep it.

 

[Parmandur]

No, it's couched in figurative language. Not a historical record in any way.

It can be: I think it's a brilliant move, because it leaves what's "true" entirely up to the DM. I don't think WotC wants to remove the tool by defining it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Absolutely, it's just I think that's exactly how they want to keep it.

I hope so. We need to see another example of the First World to be sure.

 

[Parmandur]

I hope so. We need to see another example of the First World to be sure.

I thinknwe won't have to wait long.

 

[Faolyn]

How can you justify liking something and simultaneously think the concept is awful and are happy it's gone? That makes no sense to me.

Because you don't have to go all or nothing. You can think that parts of it are good and parts of it are bad.

The setting's concept, tone and mood, and general rules of Ravenloft (darklords being trapped in a hell of their own making, for instance) are great. Many of the specifics are not great. The setting becomes even better when those specifics are improved or removed.

What I don't understand how someone can go "My setting, right or wrong."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because you don't have to go all or nothing. You can think that parts of it are good and parts of it are bad.

The setting's concept, tone and mood, and general rules of Ravenloft (darklords being trapped in a hell of their own making, for instance) are great. Many of the specifics are not great. The setting becomes even better when those specifics are improved or removed.

What I don't understand how someone can go "My setting, right or wrong."

You just said you liked Calibans (a specific) but thought the concept was awful. How do you reconcile that cognitive dissonance?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

A matter of opinion no more "true" than the other view.

No it isn't. It's a fact that if nothing ever changes about the game, the game will die. Change is required for progress and inventiveness. That's fact. Opinion is whether or not you prefer the new stuff to the old stuff. If D&D stopped making new things or updating old things towards modern tastes right now the game would eventually die.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Trouble is lore is short, so there is nothing to say it is incorrect. So it may be true, which would be a problem.

No it wouldn't. In Fizban's they leave it purposefully vague so people that like the story can use it and people that don't can ignore it. Do you really think that the only way a creation myth can be good is if it says "this is not true, and if you like it and use it as written, you're doing something wrong"?

Yes there is. See the Epic Level stuff created by 3PP.

Not official.

There needs to be some lore that makes sense.

It is literally a myth. It doesn't have to make sense. Read real-world mythology. None of it makes sense.