D&D 5E 5e isn't a Golden Age of D&D Lorewise, it's Silver at best.


log in or register to remove this ad

Not a fan of lore. Some is needed but I regard lore an enemy of new players and especially DM, particularly if given the impression that they need lore knowledge to play.
I especially despise "canonical" lore, It is the source of much argument and bile and kind of meaninglessness. Since any given groups FR or Greyhawk is bound to be different to another's in some or many details. We do not have canonical history so why should be have canonical lore.
So I am pretty happy as there is enough to act as scaffolding and I can add what I need.
I bought a few lore books in the 3.x era and for the most part never used them.

For people that like lore, I would honestly recommend going back to the TSR era and adapt what you like.
I completely agree. Don’t ram dogma down someone’s throat during their first one shot. If they ask, I tell them where Illithid come from. If it’s a campaign, only include the lore necessary. I believe knowing the lore allows the party to tell a richer and more meaningful story.
 





It's actually far more complicated then reverting to 3e, because nothing actually got retconned, 5e brought back a lot of things from 3e and even stuff from before 3e, but those things are different from how they used to be, and they kept more from 4e then folks realize, such as Tymanther's key most important locations, various NPCs, the Shadowfell, Feywild, 4e style Tieflings, and more. Plus 5e added a bunch of new things too. The SCAG gives you just enough detail to get a broad sense of the changes, but not enough to actually usable.
I actually find SCAG extremely useful as a game reaource.
 




Remove ads

Top