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

[teitan]

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.

While I love what they did with lore in 4e I don’t think D&D should have a unified lore. It’s a DIY game. A unified lore takes that away.

 

[Helldritch]

I guess the people who like the lore care about it? Look, if I show up to a Vampire the Masqurade game and the GM tells me, "Okay, in my Vampire, all the kidred have been conquered and enslaved by the Technocracy who enforce their will through your Werewolf overseers in a post-apocalyptic dystopian cyberpunk future" I'm going to be a little upset because that's not the game I signed up for.

I don't really care if there are minor changes to the lore in most games I play. If Xanathar didn't exist in your Forgotten Realms game I wouldn't care one bit. I'm not going to care if we go to Daggerford and the right lord isn't in charge. But if you made enough changes, I'd probably ask you why we were playing in the Forgotten Realms to begin with. I was a big fan of Dark Sun when it was first released, but when they revised the setting just a few short year later, I didn't like it as much and I didn't want to play it anymore. So some of us care about lore.

Do you know where is the Town of Trifond in the FR?
Maybe you know where are the Labyrithine depth of Stravoska in the Jungles of Chult?
Or maybe you are aware the Temple of Kazan'Har in the Gamboge Forest in Greyhawk?
And how about the Joint Kingdom of the Dragonborn and Mountain dwarves in the Abbor-Alz?

No? Normal, these are locations you will only find in my FR and my GH. These are the changes that are brought by thousands of DMs out there. At some point, lore is just a common ground to discuss. I used to be a fan of lore then came the sundering... and all of a sudden it dawned on me. The only thing I really need from a setting is the renewed original setting and how to align it with the current edition...

And the map. I really wish we could buy setting maps as print on demand.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, take Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, which you brought up: you called it shallow and cursory, I find it sleek and useable for actual play.

Ah, but that's not true.

I've said that VRGtR is a mixture of stuff that's detailed enough, and other stuff that's cursory. I don't think VRGtR is intentionally "shallow", but it is necessarily cursory because they're jamming a huge amount in to an relatively low page-count. This is particularly a problem with the more-changed or entirely-novel realms, because you can't rely on older material if you're having difficulty getting a sense of what they're supposed to be like.

Re: "usable for actual play", that just sounds absolute nonsense to me. Like literally nonsense. There's no sense that you have a genuine belief in what you're saying and actually run/have run a regular VRGtR game (do you, even? I'm talking VRGtR not running Strahd, note), because you're not actually arguing it, you're just asserting it, and you're asserting something a fanboy would inevitably assert, whilst having a long history of being completely uncritical of WotC. So I'm unable to discern whether you actually mean this, or whether this is a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of a WotC product.

If you actually made an argument, and provided examples, rather than "running for the door" as I put it, it would be extremely easy to tell if you really meant it here.

As a general point, I've played and run RPGs for 33 years now, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on when I'm getting "my money's worth" setting-wise or campaign-wise. I would assert that people in general do not spend money on a specific setting to not have details specific to that setting. This idea that people buy a setting but don't actually want any setting details seems pretty funny/fantastical to me. Obviously settings can go too far, but that's usually a very specific communication issue/customer requirements mismatch.

Look at Ptolus for example. It's a ridiculously detailed setting. Laughably. Wildly detailed. But it's much-praised. Why? Because the people who buy it want a detailed setting. That's a selling point. Whereas 2E's Forgotten Realms material was much criticised because a lot of it wasn't what people wanted - it was needlessly overdetailed when people wanted something more like Eberron's approach (to give a 5E example), or for that matter WotC's 3E FR approach. I don't really buy that someone buying VRGtR would be less happy if there was a bit more detail in the actual setting, like say, 33% more, maybe even 50% more. On the contrary, I think a lot of people who thought VRGtR was a "solid" book, like a 7/10 book, like myself, would have seen it as an absolute classic, had it been, well better as a setting book.

I think that'll be one of the legacies of pre-2024 5E - a lot of mediocre setting-books that aren't very good as setting books, and no exceptional/wonderful setting-books, at least not in WotC's output. The best of them are really Eberron (which is merely a recapitulation, just a good one), Theros, and arguably Ravnica. Again, there's time to change this, but they'll have to make a serious direction-change to do so. I'll be really interested to see the reaction from non-hyperfans to Spelljammer's approach.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Ah, but that's not true.

I've said that VRGtR is a mixture of stuff that's detailed enough, and other stuff that's cursory. I don't think VRGtR is intentionally "shallow", but it is necessarily cursory because they're jamming a huge amount in to an relatively low page-count. This is particularly a problem with the more-changed or entirely-novel realms, because you can't rely on older material if you're having difficulty getting a sense of what they're supposed to be like.

Re: "usable for actual play", that just sounds absolute nonsense to me. Like literally nonsense. There's no sense that you have a genuine belief in what you're saying and actually run/have run a regular VRGtR game (do you, even? I'm talking VRGtR not running Strahd, note), because you're not actually arguing it, you're just asserting it, and you're asserting something a fanboy would inevitably assert, whilst having a long history of being completely uncritical of WotC. So I'm unable to discern whether you actually mean this, or whether this is a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of a WotC product.

If you actually made an argument, and provided examples, rather than "running for the door" as I put it, it would be extremely easy to tell if you really meant it here.

As a general point, I've played and run RPGs for 33 years now, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on when I'm getting "my money's worth" setting-wise or campaign-wise. I would assert that people in general do not spend money on a specific setting to not have details specific to that setting. This idea that people buy a setting but don't actually want any setting details seems pretty funny/fantastical to me. Obviously settings can go too far, but that's usually a very specific communication issue/customer requirements mismatch.

Look at Ptolus for example. It's a ridiculously detailed setting. Laughably. Wildly detailed. But it's much-praised. Why? Because the people who buy it want a detailed setting. That's a selling point. Whereas 2E's Forgotten Realms material was much criticised because a lot of it wasn't what people wanted - it was needlessly overdetailed when people wanted something more like Eberron's approach (to give a 5E example), or for that matter WotC's 3E FR approach. I don't really buy that someone buying VRGtR would be less happy if there was a bit more detail in the actual setting, like say, 33% more, maybe even 50% more. On the contrary, I think a lot of people who thought VRGtR was a "solid" book, like a 7/10 book, like myself, would have seen it as an absolute classic, had it been, well better as a setting book.

I think that'll be one of the legacies of pre-2024 5E - a lot of mediocre setting-books that aren't very good as setting books, and no exceptional/wonderful setting-books, at least not in WotC's output. The best of them are really Eberron (which is merely a recapitulation, just a good one), Theros, and arguably Ravnica. Again, there's time to change this, but they'll have to make a serious direction-change to do so. I'll be really interested to see the reaction from non-hyperfans to Spelljammer's approach.

I think they decided the primary use of ravenloft is not a setting but weekend in hell-style adventures hence how the built it for 5e

 

[Helldritch]

Ah, but that's not true.

I've said that VRGtR is a mixture of stuff that's detailed enough, and other stuff that's cursory. I don't think VRGtR is intentionally "shallow", but it is necessarily cursory because they're jamming a huge amount in to an relatively low page-count. This is particularly a problem with the more-changed or entirely-novel realms, because you can't rely on older material if you're having difficulty getting a sense of what they're supposed to be like.

Re: "usable for actual play", that just sounds absolute nonsense to me. Like literally nonsense. There's no sense that you have a genuine belief in what you're saying and actually run/have run a regular VRGtR game (do you, even? I'm talking VRGtR not running Strahd, note), because you're not actually arguing it, you're just asserting it, and you're asserting something a fanboy would inevitably assert, whilst having a long history of being completely uncritical of WotC. So I'm unable to discern whether you actually mean this, or whether this is a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of a WotC product.

If you actually made an argument, and provided examples, rather than "running for the door" as I put it, it would be extremely easy to tell if you really meant it here.

As a general point, I've played and run RPGs for 33 years now, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on when I'm getting "my money's worth" setting-wise or campaign-wise. I would assert that people in general do not spend money on a specific setting to not have details specific to that setting. This idea that people buy a setting but don't actually want any setting details seems pretty funny/fantastical to me. Obviously settings can go too far, but that's usually a very specific communication issue/customer requirements mismatch.

Look at Ptolus for example. It's a ridiculously detailed setting. Laughably. Wildly detailed. But it's much-praised. Why? Because the people who buy it want a detailed setting. That's a selling point. Whereas 2E's Forgotten Realms material was much criticised because a lot of it wasn't what people wanted - it was needlessly overdetailed when people wanted something more like Eberron's approach (to give a 5E example), or for that matter WotC's 3E FR approach. I don't really buy that someone buying VRGtR would be less happy if there was a bit more detail in the actual setting, like say, 33% more, maybe even 50% more. On the contrary, I think a lot of people who thought VRGtR was a "solid" book, like a 7/10 book, like myself, would have seen it as an absolute classic, had it been, well better as a setting book.

I think that'll be one of the legacies of pre-2024 5E - a lot of mediocre setting-books that aren't very good as setting books, and no exceptional/wonderful setting-books, at least not in WotC's output. The best of them are really Eberron (which is merely a recapitulation, just a good one), Theros, and arguably Ravnica. Again, there's time to change this, but they'll have to make a serious direction-change to do so. I'll be really interested to see the reaction from non-hyperfans to Spelljammer's approach.

To summarize.
A setting must have enough "crunch" to satisfy its fans. But not too much to put them into not doing anything with it for fear of changing it too much.

Strangely, the three setting books you acclaim are exactly the same I really liked. Eberron, Theros and Ravnica. VRGtR is not bad, but the page count was too low and it shows in how things were done. It could have gone easily twice its size and all would have good. Now, just way too short to be of real value. And yet, VRGtR does exactly what a setting book is supposed to do. Give the setting with a few hints here and there about what can happen (or not) as you make the setting your own. A real shame that it was so short on pages...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Give the setting with a few hints here and there about what can happen (or not) as you make the setting your own. A real shame that it was so short on pages...

Yeah it didn't need a huge amount more, like across the whole thing. 33% actual setting material more would probably have pushed it from solid to great.

I don't understand WotC's choices re: page counts at all, I have to say. With Spelljammer I think it was probably cheapness, like, they've unnecessarily made it into three books, I have no doubt it keeps costs down in all three books are exactly the same rather pathetic length (64 pages, for a hardback? Talking about destroying the planet...), but I dunno why VRGtR wasn't 320 pages like Eberron was, especially when they insisted in jamming in a 20-page adventure (the "how to run horror" stuff seems much more apposite so I can't critique that).

I'm fully expecting the MotP/Planescape book to be like 180-220 pages and to complete bland-ize the Planes and especially ultra-bland-ize Sigil at this point, simply because they haven't got any space for any detail. We'll be lucky if 1/3rd of the book isn't monsters, and about 1/5th-to-1/3rd isn't some mediocre-as-hell adventure.

 

[jasper]

Pewterware era. Because every time they have lore, they change it with another book or some one griped.

 

[MGibster]

Do you know where is the Town of Trifond in the FR?
Maybe you know where are the Labyrithine depth of Stravoska in the Jungles of Chult?
Or maybe you are aware the Temple of Kazan'Har in the Gamboge Forest in Greyhawk?
And how about the Joint Kingdom of the Dragonborn and Mountain dwarves in the Abbor-Alz?

Are you kidding? I had to look up to see whether Chult was in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk because I didn't remember off hand. To me, Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms are pretty much interchangeable because they're both just so generic and I don't really have strong feelings about the lore in either.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Ah, but that's not true.

I've said that VRGtR is a mixture of stuff that's detailed enough, and other stuff that's cursory. I don't think VRGtR is intentionally "shallow", but it is necessarily cursory because they're jamming a huge amount in to an relatively low page-count. This is particularly a problem with the more-changed or entirely-novel realms, because you can't rely on older material if you're having difficulty getting a sense of what they're supposed to be like.

Re: "usable for actual play", that just sounds absolute nonsense to me. Like literally nonsense. There's no sense that you have a genuine belief in what you're saying and actually run/have run a regular VRGtR game (do you, even? I'm talking VRGtR not running Strahd, note), because you're not actually arguing it, you're just asserting it, and you're asserting something a fanboy would inevitably assert, whilst having a long history of being completely uncritical of WotC. So I'm unable to discern whether you actually mean this, or whether this is a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of a WotC product.

If you actually made an argument, and provided examples, rather than "running for the door" as I put it, it would be extremely easy to tell if you really meant it here.

As a general point, I've played and run RPGs for 33 years now, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on when I'm getting "my money's worth" setting-wise or campaign-wise. I would assert that people in general do not spend money on a specific setting to not have details specific to that setting. This idea that people buy a setting but don't actually want any setting details seems pretty funny/fantastical to me. Obviously settings can go too far, but that's usually a very specific communication issue/customer requirements mismatch.

Look at Ptolus for example. It's a ridiculously detailed setting. Laughably. Wildly detailed. But it's much-praised. Why? Because the people who buy it want a detailed setting. That's a selling point. Whereas 2E's Forgotten Realms material was much criticised because a lot of it wasn't what people wanted - it was needlessly overdetailed when people wanted something more like Eberron's approach (to give a 5E example), or for that matter WotC's 3E FR approach. I don't really buy that someone buying VRGtR would be less happy if there was a bit more detail in the actual setting, like say, 33% more, maybe even 50% more. On the contrary, I think a lot of people who thought VRGtR was a "solid" book, like a 7/10 book, like myself, would have seen it as an absolute classic, had it been, well better as a setting book.

I think that'll be one of the legacies of pre-2024 5E - a lot of mediocre setting-books that aren't very good as setting books, and no exceptional/wonderful setting-books, at least not in WotC's output. The best of them are really Eberron (which is merely a recapitulation, just a good one), Theros, and arguably Ravnica. Again, there's time to change this, but they'll have to make a serious direction-change to do so. I'll be really interested to see the reaction from non-hyperfans to Spelljammer's approach.

I'd say Eberron and Wildmounte are the best ones done. Wildmounte is suprisingly old school deep setting and I say that as someone who isn't a CR fan (although the cartoon was fun).

Theros has some really cool stuff in it, but they made some major screw ups in it, because they didn't pay enough attention to the short stories s a ton of missed opportunities, like the second largest city in Akroan territory being MIA.

Ravnica over focuses on the Guilds, which would be fine if the book was bigger so you also hard the space to explore more beyond the Guilds, there are soooo many cool things that don't get explored that are outside the Guilds, especially from the original 3 sets, like the Order of the Tiger.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd say Eberron and Wildmounte are the best ones done. Wildmounte is suprisingly old school deep setting and I say that as someone who isn't a CR fan (although the cartoon was fun).

Theros has some really cool stuff in it, but they made some major screw ups in it, because they didn't pay enough attention to the short stories s a ton of missed opportunities, like the second largest city in Akroan territory being MIA.

Ravnica over focuses on the Guilds, which would be fine if the book was bigger so you also hard the space to explore more beyond the Guilds, there are soooo many cool things that don't get explored that are outside the Guilds, especially from the original 3 sets, like the Order of the Tiger.

Oh yeah I forgot Wildemount was first-party, I was thinking of it as 3PP. Re: MtG settings, I didn't know enough about Theros/Ravnica to spot those issues, that sounds a little unfortunate, though I feel like getting the entire tone "wrong" (or at least very different) with Strixhaven was a much bigger miss (basically making a Slytherin/Ravenclaw-ish setting into pure Hufflepuff).