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

[Shardstone]

You wouldn't think they'd have to tell folks they can make up their own canon either, but they did. Even though they already did that in the DMG. The key difference between the two is that the DMG policy placed different "expressions" into one official canon, while the 2021 policy draws lines.

I think your stance requires a pre-disposed and antagonistic view against WotC's message in order for it to be actually valid. I don't hold that same view of WotC; them telling me that 5E has its own canon means that I am free of old canon but can return to it as I like.

 

[MadArkitekt]

I think your stance requires a pre-disposed and antagonistic view against WotC's message in order for it to be actually valid. I don't hold that same view as WotC; to them, them telling me that 5E has its own canon means that I am free of old canon but can return to it as I like.

100% agree. I mean, they’ve dig up Vecna again. They can retro his history, or people will RIOT

 

[Parmandur]

we have finally found the guy who is lucky with wotc stuff, I wish I had your luck.

I don't think it's rare at all, I have rather common tastes, actually, if more broad than most.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think it's rare at all, I have rather common tastes, actually.

I think they're referring to the fact that you seem 100% in lockstep with everything WotC has done and produced lately, which actually is pretty rare.

 

[Parmandur]

I think they're referring to the fact that you seem 100% in lockstep with everything WotC has done and produced lately, which actually is pretty rare.

To be honest, probably not. The reasonable supposition is that all of their recent changes of direction are based on customer feedback and maximizing profit. Societhas shifted in 8 years, WotC is tacking with the wind.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To be honest, probably not. The reasonable supposition is that all of their recent changes of direction are based on customer feedback and maximizing profit. Societhas shifted in 8 years, WotC is tacking with the wind.

In other words, lots of people are probably happy with current WotC stuff. But since people don't go on the internet and complain when they are happy, you hear a lot more from the unhappy people.

 

[Shardstone]

In other words, lots of people are probably happy with current WotC stuff. But since people don't go on the internet and complain when they are happy, you hear a lot more from the unhappy people.

Ya but, so what?

People are allowed to complain. Its good that people complain. If we lived in a world where everyone circlejerked on how great WotC's every release was, we'd have a bizarre 1984 society where its either you close your eyes and drink the kool-aid or get ostracized for daring to have an artistic opinion seperate from the company producing the art.

The thing is, I mostly agree with @Ruin Explorer and I like a lot of WotC's content. I loved Van Richten's, Fizban's, Wild Beyond the Witchlight, Radiant Citadel. But some of these, like Van Richtens, could be better. And saying that this content can be better doesn't mean we have to make up a list of hyperboles, as often happens on this forum, to make those critical of the content look asinine. Instead, you could actually say to yourself "Ya, this is a good product, but what if it did include 20 more pages on XYZ? Then it'd be even better!"

This statement doesn't negate that something is good, only that it can be better. So let's not sit around and gush about how everyone is super happy and the only people complaining are just worrywarts who don't give a damn about joy and smiles. Instead, let's look at these criticisms, think about them honestly, and try to imagine what books would look like with the actual criticism, and not the hyperbole so many of you want to perpetuate.

What if Vanrichten's as 320 pages? Those extra pages would probably be put-together stat blocks for the Darklords and more gameable content in each Domain of Dread. How is that bad? Is it wrong to want a book comparable to Wildemonte or Eberron in terms of content? Is it even wrong to want a book like Fizban's, perhaps the best sourcebook for 5E done so far? And if it is wrong, why? Why is it wrong that I want Van Richten's to be an even better book, with more gameable content in it? Why is it such a problem that I want D&D to get even better than it is instead of plateauing where it is at?

You didn't directly say any of this, but your post heavily implies it, even if you didn't intend to imply it. Meeting criticism with guffawing about how happy everyone is, is the most cowardly and ineffective way to actually deal with criticism. Not calling you a coward.

 

[Parmandur]

In other words, lots of people are probably happy with current WotC stuff. But since people don't go on the internet and complain when they are happy, you hear a lot more from the unhappy people.

Exactly.

 

[Parmandur]

Ya but, so what?

People are allowed to complain. Its good that people complain. If we lived in a world where everyone circlejerked on how great WotC's every release was, we'd have a bizarre 1984 society where its either you close your eyes and drink the kool-aid or get ostracized for daring to have an artistic opinion seperate from the company producing the art.

The thing is, I mostly agree with @Ruin Explorer and I like a lot of WotC's content. I loved Van Richten's, Fizban's, Wild Beyond the Witchlight, Radiant Citadel. But some of these, like Van Richtens, could be better. And saying that this content can be better doesn't mean we have to make up a list of hyperboles, as often happens on this forum, to make those critical of the content look asinine. Instead, you could actually say to yourself "Ya, this is a good product, but what if it did include 20 more pages on XYZ? Then it'd be even better!"

This statement doesn't negate that something is good, only that it can be better. So let's not sit around and gush about how everyone is super happy and the only people complaining are just worrywarts who don't give a damn about joy and smiles. Instead, let's look at these criticisms, think about them honestly, and try to imagine what books would look like with the actual criticism, and not the hyperbole so many of you want to perpetuate.

What if Vanrichten's as 320 pages? Those extra pages would probably be put-together stat blocks for the Darklords and more gameable content in each Domain of Dread. How is that bad? Is it wrong to want a book comparable to Wildemonte or Eberron in terms of content? Is it even wrong to want a book like Fizban's, perhaps the best sourcebook for 5E done so far? And if it is wrong, why? Why is it wrong that I want Van Richten's to be an even better book, with more gameable content in it? Why is it such a problem that I want D&D to get even better than it is instead of plateauing where it is at?

You didn't directly say any of this, but your post heavily implies it, even if you didn't intend to imply it. Meeting criticism with guffawing about how happy everyone is, is the most cowardly and ineffective way to actually deal with criticism. Not calling you a coward.

More isn't always better.

 

[Steampunkette]

The DMG said novels and video games are part of a setting's canon, without distinguishing by edition. The 2021 policy splits off tabletop canon from novels, video games, and every other "expression" of D&D. It's a change in policy.

Quote mining to ignore the larger point of logical consistency... Coooooool... cool cool cool.

So you're going to continue to presume that WotC is logically inconsistent in their designs. That they want you to use all the old stuff, but then never use the old stuff because 5e has it's own canon that is the only canon, but then also use the old stuff, sometimes, when they tell you to use it. Rather than follow a logically consistent thought process for WotC.

'Kay. Just uh... know that I disagree with your fundamental assertions and so do others!