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

[Henadic Theologian]

5e might mechanically be the best system and it's certainly the most popular (possibly soon to be even more so), but is far from D&D's second golden age.

It simply doesn't approach AD&D depth of lore, heck it doesn't even out do Basic D&D on lore. This isn't an edition war post, mechncally and certain other ways 5e is my favourite edition, but I don't pretend its something its not, a golden age.

Social Media/Pop culture is fueling D&D's popularity. Playtesters pushed WotC in a direction, accidentily, that just dove tailed with streaming and other cultural pheonomana.

Compare to AD&D the lore is extremely shallow, occasionally self contradictory in the sane book, shallow (deserved to be said twice), and often is starved for room because 5e books try to be too many things at once, and so do few to none of them well.

Hell even 4e had deeper dives into settings it did.

It also confusingly mixes generic D&D lore with FR lore sowing confusion. I'm still baffled by much of MToFs lore and parts of VGtM.

3rd parties shouldn't be vastly out doing WotC on quality & support of their settings. I bought the core 5e Southland books from their Kickstarter and it straight up kicks the ass of WotC's best, most well done 5e setting books. Its not alone in doing so. I wish WotC supported it's settings half as well as Kobold press does there's. Honestly the paper quality and the binding quality for Southlands is also vastly superior.

Also they killed most of the novel lines in 5e just as things were getting good. This we do not forgive or forget!





So no it's not a Golden Age, it's system and current popular earn it silver at best.

 

[Parmandur]

Alternative take, 5E lorewise is more streamlined and useful than the metaplot bloat of 2E. What counts as a "Golden Age" in lore quality is entirely subjective, unlike sales or player activity.

 

[Shardstone]

I disagree.

For the most part, every lore change made for 5E has — against mainstream opinion — been a success in my eyes. I think elves are far more interesting and playable and worth thinking about then before, I think the infernal war machines makes Hell a lot cooler, and things like the Raven Queen I find far more interesting with her new lore as compared to the old.

All perspective, I guess!

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree.

For the most part, every lore change made for 5E has — against mainstream opinion — been a success in my eyes. I think elves are far more interesting and playable and worth thinking about then before, I think the infernal war machines makes Hell a lot cooler, and things like the Raven Queen I find far more interesting with her new lore as compared to the old.

All perspective, I guess!

I don't think thst is against mainstream opinion, at all.

 

[a.everett1287]

I disagree.

For the most part, every lore change made for 5E has — against mainstream opinion — been a success in my eyes. I think elves are far more interesting and playable and worth thinking about then before, I think the infernal war machines makes Hell a lot cooler, and things like the Raven Queen I find far more interesting with her new lore as compared to the old.

All perspective, I guess!

This is not the abnormal opinion. It is shared by most people.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree.

For the most part, every lore change made for 5E has — against mainstream opinion — been a success in my eyes. I think elves are far more interesting and playable and worth thinking about then before, I think the infernal war machines makes Hell a lot cooler, and things like the Raven Queen I find far more interesting with her new lore as compared to the old.

All perspective, I guess!

I donthink that is what they are saying. Rather, they seem to be saying that 5e like is definitively more shallow than previous editions, in no small part because there are so many fewer publications than in previous editions. Even discounting major releases, there is no Deagon to build the story of the world's. And WotC only seems to bother with YouTube videos when they want to sell a thing.

Certainly there are real world economic reasons for this, but that doesn't change the fact that it is notably more shallow than previous editions.

 

[a.everett1287]

I donthink that is what they are saying. Rather, they seem to be saying that 5e like is definitively more shallow than previous editions, in no small part because there are so many fewer publications than in previous editions. Even discounting major releases, there is no Deagon to build the story of the world's. And WotC only seems to bother with YouTube videos when they want to sell a thing.

Certainly there are real world economic reasons for this, but that doesn't change the fact that it is notably more shallow than previous editions.

I forgot that bloat means depth


Edit: this was meant more facetious than it came out. I don't entertain the original position enough to have a non-facetious response.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Honestly, lore is low on my list of what makes an edition the "golden age" edition.

 

[Maxperson]

This is not the abnormal opinion. It is shared by most people.

Where do you get this from? 5e sales doesn't show it.

 

[a.everett1287]

Where do you get this from? 5e sales doesn't show it.

Which opinion do you think I'm saying is commonly held?

 

[Parmandur]

Where do you get this from? 5e sales doesn't show it.

On the contrary, the gangbusters sales indicate thst, if anything, folks are satisfied with the flavor of current D&D books. Thst isn't hard evidence, but it is soft evidence, and I see no reason to believe the contrary.

 

[Maxperson]

Which opinion do you think I'm saying is commonly held?

That the change to less lore = success, which is what you responded to as an opinion being held by most people.

 

[Maxperson]

On the contrary, the gangbusters sales indicate thst, if anything, folks are satisfied with the flavor of current D&D books. Thst isn't hard evidence, but it is soft evidence, and I see no reason to believe the contrary.

No. No it doesn't do any such thing. The gangbuster success could be entirely due to a simplified system, or bounded accuracy, or fewer books released, or, or, or... There's nothing I know of that says that it's due to less lore.

 

[a.everett1287]

No. No it doesn't do any such thing. The gangbuster success could be entirely due to a simplified system, or bounded accuracy, or fewer books released, or, or, or... There's nothing I know of that says that it's due to less lore.

So then the information doesn't say the contrary.
Really, the fact that 5e is a bigger success than all the previous editions, with it's lore, means that it either doesn't matter, or people like the lore

 

[Maxperson]

So then the information doesn't say the contrary.

I didn't claim it did. You claimed that it was an opinion held by most players and I wondered where you got that from is all.

Really, the fact that 5e is a bigger success than all the previous editions, with it's lore, means that it either doesn't matter, or people like the lore

This is what's known as a False Dichotomy. You can really like an edition for X, Y and Z, while at the same time not like A and B. There's plenty of room for 5e to be a huge success while having a majority of players wanting more lore.

 

[Oofta]

I think some of overestimate the value of lore for most people. Having a lot of details is cool for some, but I think the majority are far more casual. Do we have a general picture,? Maybe a map and the big picture? That can be preferable to hundreds of pages of coma inducing lore that can have the adverse effect of making DMs feel like they can't make the setting their own.

Sometimes broad brushstrokes and a light touch is preferable.

 

[Maxperson]

I think some of overestimate the value of lore for most people. Having a lot of details is cool for some, but I think the majority are far more casual. Do we have a general picture,? Maybe a map and the big picture? That can be preferable to hundreds of pages of coma inducing lore that can have the adverse effect of making DMs feel like they can't make the setting their own.

Sometimes broad brushstrokes and a light touch is preferable.

That's fine. I personally love lore and hold 2e's lore as what to shoot for. Do a majority want more? Who knows. Nothing says they do. Do a majority want less? Who knows. Nothing says they do. Do a majority like it best the way it is. Who knows. Nothing says they do.

This discussion should be held without people trying to speak for a majority they know nothing about on this topic. Just speak for yourself(general you).

 

[Dausuul]

4E was the golden age of D&D lore. It was the one time in D&D's history when they sat down and refashioned the random hodgepodge of accumulated cruft into a cohesive, well-thought-out, evocative world. And then they threw most of it out with 5E, which was a damn shame.

2E was the golden age of D&D lore output. TSR in its fading years cranked out mountains of the stuff. The gems--and I won't deny there were quite a few--were the result of sheer quantity occasionally lucking into quality. But the average quality of 2E lore was pretty low.

 

[Parmandur]

No. No it doesn't do any such thing. The gangbuster success could be entirely due to a simplified system, or bounded accuracy, or fewer books released, or, or, or... There's nothing I know of that says that it's due to less lore.

Doesn't say the opposite, either. The only people with any sort of clue (that is, actionable data) about how people are responding to the lore in 5E books is WotC, not any of us.

Given WotC tendency to tack with the wind, though, it seems that we can make reasonable guesses what their data says about how they change over tine.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't say the opposite, either. The only people with any sort of clue (that is, actionable data) about how people are responding to the lore in 5E books is WotC, not any of us.

I agree.

Given WotC tendency to tack with the wind, though, it seems that we can make reasonable guesses what their data says about how they change over tine.

Not necessarily. WotC is a business, and making money is their primary concern. Our happiness is secondary to that, though still important to it. If their information tells them that we want more lore, but not so badly that it's worth the extra expense on their part to put in more pages, then they won't write it. If it were hurting their bottom line, they would change it.