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

[teitan]

What we have coming, all my complaining aside, actually shares a lot of DNA with 2e Spelljammer. If anything, they're actually leaning harder into the silly aspects of the setting.

It doesn't look sillier to me but sure, let's go with that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It doesn't look sillier to me but sure, let's go with that.

I think they are being more open about the silliness. First time round they kept any suggestion of silly out of the marketing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All.

Sounds like you're arguing for no settings at all. Pure fantasy toolbox then?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sounds like you're arguing for no settings at all. Pure fantasy toolbox then?

Not really. Setting lore is itself a useful tool, so long as it's not a straitjacket. But the only reason to update something is to change it, and changing things is inevitably going to make existing users unhappy.

 

[delericho]

Spelljammer failed and was done withing 15 months.

The first Spelljammer boxed set was released in 1989. The final one was released in 1993. Spelljammer was never the most popular setting, but it lasted a lot longer than 15 months.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I think it was a joke some years ago and like the large mammaries goth warlock patron someone made it.

I looked it up, it's true, some one did a Goth Girlfriend Patron, and not just a write up in a forum post, but a full dmsguild worthy PDF. It looks funny and fun.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Let's be fair though, nothing is marketed now as Forgotten Realms, so the shine is gone. It's now The Sword Coast and just Dungeons & Dragons. The Forgotten Realms label hasn't been used on a D&D product since before 5e launched ten years ago. It's been defaulted into the game as the base assumption.

That's kind of my point. I'm sure a lot of newer players have actually played in the Forgotten Realms without even knowing it. They don't know about the world, they just think they're playing through Tyranny of Dragons or Princes of the Apocalypse or Tomb of Annihilation. A lot of people probably don't realize that they're playing in that setting because it's assumed at the core of 5e.

And I bet the same thing would have happened if, say, Greyhawk or Eberron were the main setting of 5e. So it's not that the Forgotten Realms is actually more-liked than any other setting or inherently better at fulfilling the role WotC gave it this edition, it's just the one they chose and there are other settings that would have worked at least as well as the FR.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Lore can evolve without a metaplot. Just look at Eberron. There's been quite a few lore additions/changes to the setting since its original publishing in 3.5e, but it has no metaplot.

So, yes, good lore isn't static and needs to evolve with the times, but a metaplot isn't a sign of good lore. It's a consequence of evolving the setting in the wrong way.

I may have been unclear. In my opinion D&D isn't a game with a metaplot in the same sense as lets say classic Deadlands (with the possible exception of the between-editions-cataclysms). But over the decades the lore still has evolved, and it's meta in the sense of the evolved lore not necessarily being able to be identified in the in-game dieges, or the evolution per se used in-game, but still able to be enjoyed as a thing in itself outside the game. Hence, it's not a meta plot, but a meta perspective of lore evolution.

 

[Parmandur]

I think they are being more open about the silliness. First time round they kept any suggestion of silly out of the marketing.

I mean, it looks like more competent silliness.

 

[Parmandur]

Let's be fair though, nothing is marketed now as Forgotten Realms, so the shine is gone. It's now The Sword Coast and just Dungeons & Dragons. The Forgotten Realms label hasn't been used on a D&D product since before 5e launched ten years ago. It's been defaulted into the game as the base assumption.

Yes, FR is ideally suited as the generic example.