D&D 5E New Monster Manual Cover

From IGN, the cover of the 2025 Monster Manual!

@Morrus

 

[Charlaquin]

So far this cover art is my favorite thing about 6e (or whatever it's called now).

It is now, and has always been, the 2024 revisions of the D&D 5e core rulebooks.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just wonder a bit at all the people for whom the cover art is apparently enough to sell or unsell them on the book. Seriously, you don't see the cover while it's on the shelf, you don't see it while you're reading the book, and it does nothing to change the contents of the game rules for better or worse. It is literally the least important part of the book, in my view.

Also, the easiest part to change. If you want to use the rules but hate the cover art, just buy a dust jacket for it with art you prefer. You don't even need DM permission, like you would if you wanted to change the rules content.

I don’t disagree, I have just been endeavoring lately to try to ask those questions directly, instead of going after someone’s choice to say “it sucks” rather than “I don’t like it.”

 

[Hussar]

I mean, personally I have been making a conscious effort lately to avoid the “you should say ‘I don’t like it’ instead of ‘it’s bad’” line of argumentation. I’ve seen that exact line used to shut down legitimate critique so often, I think we’d be better off just assuming that every instance of “X art is horrible” is followed with an unspoken “in my personal opinion,” and to investigate what factors are informing that opinion, rather than policing people’s word choice.

Except the problem almost always is, "This is bad" is followed by the question of "Why do you think it's bad" and then a ringing silence or examples of "bad" that are just more cases of "Well, I don't like X, and this looks like X, thus it's bad".

IOW, there's virtually nothing underpinning the opinions other than, "I don't like it."

 

[Benjamin Olson]

It is now, and has always been, the 2024 revisions of the D&D 5e core rulebooks.

Well that's cumbersome branding. "Hey what edition are we playing". "We're playing the 2024 revisions of the D&D 5e core rulebooks!"

Presumably "OneD&D" was just a nightmare I had.

 

[Kurotowa]

I don’t disagree, I have just been endeavoring lately to try to ask those questions directly, instead of going after someone’s choice to say “it sucks” rather than “I don’t like it.”

Clarity is good, though not every request for clarity is taken (or given) in a calm spirit of friendly discussion. For my part, I try to make it clear when I'm saying "This isn't for me" and when I'm saying "I think this is objectively badly made". But distinguishing between the two even in your own head isn't always clear, and honestly is a skill that takes quite a bit of introspection to train.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except the problem almost always is, "This is bad" is followed by the question of "Why do you think it's bad" and then a ringing silence or examples of "bad" that are just more cases of "Well, I don't like X, and this looks like X, thus it's bad".

IOW, there's virtually nothing underpinning the opinions other than, "I don't like it."

Sure, but like, it’s okay not to like things, even for no particular reason.

 

[mamba]

Presumably "OneD&D" was just a nightmare I had.

no, it was a codename, just like D&D Next

 

[mamba]

Except the problem almost always is, "This is bad" is followed by the question of "Why do you think it's bad" and then a ringing silence or examples of "bad" that are just more cases of "Well, I don't like X, and this looks like X, thus it's bad".

IOW, there's virtually nothing underpinning the opinions other than, "I don't like it."

not sure how much more than ‘I do not like X and this has X in it’ you need… if we reversed this and I would ask you why you do not like a certain song, I doubt I would get a better answer in most cases - or whether the ones saying ‘I like it’ would have a better rationale

I do not need to write a dissertation to be allowed to express that I do (not) like something

 

[Charlaquin]

Well that's cumbersome branding. "Hey what edition are we playing". "We're playing the 2024 revisions of the D&D 5e core rulebooks!"

If you’re using the 2024 revisions of the 5e core rulebooks, then the edition you’re playing is 5e. It’s not really necessary to specify that you’re using the most recent printing of the books. If you’re choosing to use an out of date printing and for some reason consider it important to specify that fact, you could say “pre-revision 5e” or something.

Presumably "OneD&D" was just a nightmare I had.

“One D&D” referred to the playtest documents, just as “D&D Next” referred to the earliest 5e playtest documents. They stopped using it because people were making the same mistake you are now, of thinking it referred to the revised rules rather than the playtest documents. People made the same mistake about “D&D Next” at first, so it’s kind of funny that WotC didn’t anticipate them doing so again. But, here we are.

 

[Charlaquin]

Clarity is good, though not every request for clarity is taken (or given) in a calm spirit of friendly discussion. For my part, I try to make it clear when I'm saying "This isn't for me" and when I'm saying "I think this is objectively badly made". But distinguishing between the two even in your own head isn't always clear, and honestly is a skill that takes quite a bit of introspection to train.

Sure, I try to do that too. But by the same token, I try to extend some grace to folks who aren’t as careful about wording their opinions in an explicitly subjective manner. I get annoyed at folks like Ricky Gervais complaining that people shouldn’t be allowed to say his jokes “aren’t funny,” only that they don’t find them funny, so it would be inconsistent of me to insist people say “I don’t like that cover art” rather than “that cover art is bad.” I know what they meant, I’d rather keep the discussion focused on why they feel that way than get bogged down in tone-policing.