Parmandur
Book-Friend
On the contrary, the gangbusters sales indicate thst, if anything, folks are satisfied with the flavor of current D&D books. Thst isn't hard evidence, but it is soft evidence, and I see no reason to believe the contrary.
D&D 5E 5e isn't a Golden Age of D&D Lorewise, it's Silver at best.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
That the change to less lore = success, which is what you responded to as an opinion being held by most people.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
No. No it doesn't do any such thing. The gangbuster success could be entirely due to a simplified system, or bounded accuracy, or fewer books released, or, or, or... There's nothing I know of that says that it's due to less lore.
a.everett1287
Explorer
So then the information doesn't say the contrary.
Really, the fact that 5e is a bigger success than all the previous editions, with it's lore, means that it either doesn't matter, or people like the lore
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I didn't claim it did. You claimed that it was an opinion held by most players and I wondered where you got that from is all.
This is what's known as a False Dichotomy. You can really like an edition for X, Y and Z, while at the same time not like A and B. There's plenty of room for 5e to be a huge success while having a majority of players wanting more lore.
Oofta
Legend
I think some of overestimate the value of lore for most people. Having a lot of details is cool for some, but I think the majority are far more casual. Do we have a general picture,? Maybe a map and the big picture? That can be preferable to hundreds of pages of coma inducing lore that can have the adverse effect of making DMs feel like they can't make the setting their own.
Sometimes broad brushstrokes and a light touch is preferable.
Sometimes broad brushstrokes and a light touch is preferable.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
That's fine. I personally love lore and hold 2e's lore as what to shoot for. Do a majority want more? Who knows. Nothing says they do. Do a majority want less? Who knows. Nothing says they do. Do a majority like it best the way it is. Who knows. Nothing says they do.
This discussion should be held without people trying to speak for a majority they know nothing about on this topic. Just speak for yourself(general you).
4E was the golden age of D&D lore. It was the one time in D&D's history when they sat down and refashioned the random hodgepodge of accumulated cruft into a cohesive, well-thought-out, evocative world. And then they threw most of it out with 5E, which was a damn shame.
2E was the golden age of D&D lore output. TSR in its fading years cranked out mountains of the stuff. The gems--and I won't deny there were quite a few--were the result of sheer quantity occasionally lucking into quality. But the average quality of 2E lore was pretty low.
2E was the golden age of D&D lore output. TSR in its fading years cranked out mountains of the stuff. The gems--and I won't deny there were quite a few--were the result of sheer quantity occasionally lucking into quality. But the average quality of 2E lore was pretty low.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Doesn't say the opposite, either. The only people with any sort of clue (that is, actionable data) about how people are responding to the lore in 5E books is WotC, not any of us.
Given WotC tendency to tack with the wind, though, it seems that we can make reasonable guesses what their data says about how they change over tine.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I agree.
Not necessarily. WotC is a business, and making money is their primary concern. Our happiness is secondary to that, though still important to it. If their information tells them that we want more lore, but not so badly that it's worth the extra expense on their part to put in more pages, then they won't write it. If it were hurting their bottom line, they would change it.
Similar Threads
