D&D 5E 2024 Monster Manual has better lore than 2014 Monster Manual

[dave2008]

They’ve stripped it out of the MM to keep that book setting neutral. Setting specific lore will be in the individual setting books.

That makes the most sense to me.

While I agree to some extent. I don't think we are going to get detailed lore for devils, demons, dragons, etc. in the forthcoming setting guides. Large sections of lore on various groups was cut from the MM and I find it unlikely that it is coming back in each and every setting. So I agree it is better, IMO, if it is setting specific; however, it is impractical to implement that policy to mine (and I guess many others) satisfaction.

My preference, some general group / monster lore provided in the MM and then specific setting lore can add or amend that general lore as needed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They’ve stripped it out of the MM to keep that book setting neutral. Setting specific lore will be in the individual setting books.

That makes the most sense to me.

That only matters if they actually do that. Who knows if they will? And how long will that take? How many books? At least before (to one degree or another) there was one book that had a lot of lore about the setting of D&D. Now, there's little lore about anything, except the "promise" that there will be again at some point down the road.

 

[TheSword]

The lore still exists. The only folks bothered by the lore are those that already know it. And therefore by definition are not affected by the changes.

New players won’t know, and if they research to find out what they are missing - which frankly is as simple as a google search - they now know the lore and therefore haven’t missed out.

The MM lore criticism is a complete red herring.

 

[dave2008]

Wouldn't someone capable/interested in doing their own world building be able to do so with the lore there? I mean if your into world building, stripping a stat blocks from lore filled descriptions seems to be a no brainer. Where as someone with no interest in world building having to create lore for a monster in a book full of pictures and statblocks seems to add unwanted work. Just seems counter intuitive to remove something not easily replaced for those who want it when it is already there and so easy to ignore for those that won't use it.

I guess it comes down to which audience they want to cater to, the world builders or the people that want to play a game with out creating the lore. Obviously I'm in the lore camp.

Fortunately there is still quite a bit of lore for most monsters in the 2024 MM. While some monsters have less, a lot have the same (though sometimes more concise) lore, and some even have more lore than the 2014. The cut in the lore vs the 2014 MM is in group monster lore (angels, demons, devils, dragons, giants, etc.). I miss those lore sections, but the individual monster lore is as good if not better in the 2024 MM vs the 2014 MM, IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That take is just wild to me. The tables are very good and useful, of course, but the lore is dearly missed.
I often feel inspired while reading through a monster book, and the lore is a big part of that.

Agreed. Reading the various Monster Manual (for D&D especially the 2e material really stands out for me) was what kept me in the hobby, and encouraged me to try my hand at DMing and worldbuilding. I feel removing that, even if you intend to put it in another book certain to be read by a small fraction of those who buy and read the MM, does a significant disservice to the game and its fans IMO.

 

[Divine2021]

I actually think producing focus tested corporate approved monsters robbed of their raison d’etre is bad for the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I liked using duergar because of their included lore, which was evocative enough to make me choose using them over anything else I might have chosen. I didn't add much new world building when using them in my campaign, mostly using what I had read in the Monster Manual and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. Without the lore I don't have any pre-built hooks or idea on how to slot them into a world, but with the lore I did.

I'm afraid that by taking away lore and adding contextless statblocks people will be less likely to actually use those statblocks because there's no context for what an aarakocra or azer or bullywug's deal is and why they are interesting enough to use.

I suspect you're not the only DM who feels that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The lore still exists. The only folks bothered by the lore are those that already know it. And therefore by definition are not affected by the changes.

New players won’t know, and if they research to find out what they are missing - which frankly is as simple as a google search - they now know the lore and therefore haven’t missed out.

The MM lore criticism is a complete red herring.

People absorb what is in front if them, and research is work you have to decide to do. You're basically saying that if people see what WotC offers and don't do that work themselves, that's on them. That seems unfair to me.

 

[Reynard]

I'm afraid that by taking away lore and adding contextless statblocks people will be less likely to actually use those statblocks because there's no context for what an aarakocra or azer or bullywug's deal is and why they are interesting enough to use.

Why do you think excluding world specific lore would result in contextless stat blocks? You can still say what the creatures are and what environments they live in and what they tend to do, without going down the rabbit hold of prescribing a bunch of information that makes it hard to fit them in the GM's world or one of the not-FR clone worlds.

 

[dave2008]

I do wonder whether the change is due to money or a sincere design preference.

I am trying to understand how money could play into the decision? Can you expand on your thought here?

Also, there are other options the "why" of the change including, but not limited to, both sincere design preference and money.