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

[dave2008]

That take is just wild to me. The tables are very good and useful, of course, but the lore is dearly missed.

Actually, most of the monster specific lore is still in the 2024 MM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

We can never know anyway (at least until maybe years from now when NDAs are no longer valid), so the answer will depend on your place on the optimist-pessimist scale.

 

[dave2008]

I wish I believed that. WotC has been paring down the amount of lore in all their products for some time now.

fizban's treasury of dragons and bigby presents glory of the giants might disagree with that assessment (and let is not forget volo's guide to monsters and mordenkainen's tome of foes), not to mention planescape: adventures in the multiverse. There has been quite a bit of monster and setting lore released in the near past.
Though I do feel it is unlikely that setting guides will fill in all the missing monster group lore.

 

[dave2008]

I like my monsters to be setting agnostic but I want full lore as to what they are, they do, their societies (if any), interactions...etc. I'm the same with campaign settings. Don't give me a ran down and leave stuff up to me. If there is something then give me the information so I can work with it.

This statement seems at odds with itself. How can monster lore be setting agnostic and discuss there societies, interactions, etc. - that information is very dependent on the setting!

 

[TheSword]

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.

Why unfair? It’s all relative. Whether it’s one sentence, one paragraph, one segment, one column, one page, one chapter, one book - there will always be more monster lore. If you care about monster lore research it. I don’t see a problem with them providing a core amount of data and then let people flesh it out.

The problem otherwise is that your lore is not my lore. Forgotten Realms is not Greyhawk, is not homebrew. Is not 5e or 3e, or 1e. Lore becomes dated, basic principals don’t.

 

[Reynard]

This statement seems at odds with itself. How can monster lore be setting agnostic and discuss there societies, interactions, etc. - that information is very dependent on the setting!

I think there is a fuzzy space between "lore" (which is setting specific) and "description" (which is not). Barring the outer planar creatures, which do not exist outside of a specific setting in D&D, the monsters as presented in the 2E MM have lots of description and little lore, in the way I am defining the terms here and I think the way @DragonLancer is thinking about it.

 

[dave2008]

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 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.

Actually, there is still a lot of lore in the 5e24.

The only areas I find truly lacking (beside a specific monster now and again) is the group monster lore. I would be fine if it appears in setting books, but I doubt it will and I miss that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why unfair? It’s all relative. Whether it’s one sentence, one paragraph, one segment, one column, one page, one chapter, one book - there will always be more monster lore. If you care about monster lore research it. I don’t see a problem with them providing a core amount of data and then let people flesh it out.

The problem otherwise is that your lore is not my lore. Forgotten Realms is not Greyhawk, is not homebrew. Is not 5e or 3e, or 1e. Lore becomes dated, basic principals don’t.

Dated as a concept is relative and subjective. And if you don't know any better, what tells you to look up more information as a new player?

 

[dave2008]

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.

That works for you, but less so for me. I am generally uninterested in the level of lore provided by the 2e MC. I didn't find it interesting, inspiring, or useful enough back in the day to want to continue buying 2e monster supplements. Which is a crazy thought to me now as I buy a stupid amount of monster books!

There is no one perfect answer. Everyone wants different things so it is probably impossible to provide what some gamers want without providing some perceived disservice to others.

 

[TheSword]

Dated as a concept is relative and subjective. And if you don't know any better, what tells you to look up more information as a new player?

What tells you to research anything? Interest.

You’re either interested in learning more about Chuul or not interested.