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

Blue Orange

Gone to Texas
Which barely feature in Planescape, which is almost entirely confined to Sigil, AKA "The Cage". Where familiarity with Nietzsche, Kant and Sartre will stand you in better stead.
Really? I mean, you can go with the Takers (or the Bleak Cabal, per wikipedia) as Nietzschean but having read Beyond Good and Evil isn't really necessary. I don't think most people got really into the philosophy, it was just more fun window-dressing for some people than the standard LOTR/Dragonlance/Conan things people were playing at the time in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk. If you tell me you played a Transcendent Order monk who actually practiced Zen Buddhism I'll believe you, but I think most people just enjoyed playing characters with piercings and mohawks and travelling to the Abyss to fight demons.
If a setting was "for anyone" you wouldn't need any more. The whole point of having multiple settings is to appeal to different tastes.
Forgotten Realms works as a pretty good generic setting where you can be a generic version of Gandalf, Frodo, Conan, Aragorn, Drizzt, or Raistlin; if you've seen or read Lord of the Rings or one of its many knockoffs (Shannara, Belgariad) you have a vague idea of what's there.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Forgotten Realms works as a pretty good generic setting where you can be a generic version of Gandalf, Frodo, Conan, Aragorn, Drizzt, or Raistlin; if you've seen or read Lord of the Rings or one of its many knockoffs (Shannara, Belgariad) you have a vague idea of what's there.
But not everyone likes "generic". A generic setting is not "for anyone". Which is why we need settings like Ravenloft, Planescape and Spelljammer.
 


Really? I mean, you can go with the Takers (or the Bleak Cabal, per wikipedia) as Nietzschean but having read Beyond Good and Evil isn't really necessary. I don't think most people got really into the philosophy, it was just more fun window-dressing for some people than the standard LOTR/Dragonlance/Conan things people were playing at the time in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk. If you tell me you played a Transcendent Order monk who actually practiced Zen Buddhism I'll believe you, but I think most people just enjoyed playing characters with piercings and mohawks and travelling to the Abyss to fight demons.
My experience was that most people who chose to be members of the Factions did actually role-play being members of the Factions.

Now, whether were "deep into the philosophy" is obviously questionable, but it's the same with literally any RPG where your characters are members of organisations with philosophies or goals or the like. How many Clerics and Paladins actually go into depth about their religion, in D&D? I'd say a lot fewer than people who were members of Factions did, because a lot of people want to play Clerics or Paladins for what the class can do, whereas with Factions that was rarely the case - instead people who weren't "into" the Faction stuff chose to be Indeps or Outsiders the like.

Plus it was the '90s, and most of us were teenagers or early twenties, and this sort of stuff, back then, was I'm sorry to say "cool". It was. It was happening. It was zeitgeist-y. People were into it. I suspect in this era people might easily get into it again, actually, because I think people are bored of cynicism re: ideas and philosophies.

But not everyone likes "generic". A generic setting is not "for anyone". Which is why we need settings like Ravenloft, Planescape and Spelljammer.
Precisely. I've always found the idea that generic settings appealed to everyone to be utterly bizarre, all the way back to being a kid. More specific settings appealed to a lot of groups, and it's notable that a lot of homebrew settings are anything but generic.
Forgotten Realms works as a pretty good generic setting where you can be a generic version of Gandalf, Frodo, Conan, Aragorn, Drizzt, or Raistlin; if you've seen or read Lord of the Rings or one of its many knockoffs (Shannara, Belgariad) you have a vague idea of what's there.
This is kind of a good example, because I can honestly say in 33 years of reading fantasy and playing fantasy RPGs I have never, ever, not even once wanted to make a "knock-off" version of any of the characters listed, let alone of the boring-but-nice people of Shannara, or "bag full of total wankers" of the Belgariad (seriously what a bunch of jerks! Way to make the Olympian pantheon look good!).

The Realms actually got lucky for me and provided character examples I might want to emulate just in time before I basically dumped the setting entirely - but most of those were rather peculiar Realms-specific people. I've always enjoyed playing characters from a very specific time and place, not generic or vague characters (and particularly not "me but an elf" unlike some people!).
 
Last edited:


But not everyone likes "generic". A generic setting is not "for anyone". Which is why we need settings like Ravenloft, Planescape and Spelljammer.
you need a generic core so you have a wide net of customers then you make specialist stuff from there as vanilla is easy to sprinkle other flavours in.
personally, I want something new and different I got bored of generic fantasy years ago.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Wow, that was certainly a turn in the thread, to say the least. What do the ethics of capitalism have to do with "the Golden Age of Lore" again?

Yeah, yeah. I hate that Spelljammer costs so much for so few pages as much as the next guy. If I had my way, every setting book would be as long and of as high quality as the Eberron and Wildemount books. But I'm still buying the books because Spelljammer is my favorite setting.

Well, back to the "complaining about 5e's lore" topic of this thread. Maybe it's just because I've never played any previous editions, but I think the lore from 5e's recent releases is of high quality. Notably the Priests of Osybus and Nechricors from Ravenloft, the entirety of Fizban's Treasury of Dragons, the lore expansions to Tasha from TCoE and Witchlight, and the Archaics/Oracles from Strixhaven (and I say this as someone that doesn't like the Strixhaven book) as examples from recent releases.
I would add the now defunct Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Volo's Guide to Monsters. I know a lot of people disagree, esp. with MtoF, but I enjoyed reading the lore bits.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I would add the now defunct Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Volo's Guide to Monsters. I know a lot of people disagree, esp. with MtoF, but I enjoyed reading the lore bits.
I love some of the suggestions in there, particularly the Dwarven genetic memory and Elven reincarnation giving a cosmic tether to their Lawful Good and Chaotic Good tendencies.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I would add the now defunct Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes and Volo's Guide to Monsters. I know a lot of people disagree, esp. with MtoF, but I enjoyed reading the lore bits.
Notably, the Beholders, Mind Flayers, small races, and Gith, in my opinion. I love 5e Beholder lore (I've even added upon it a bit, where there are some Beholders that purposefully spend most of their life comatose in order to manipulate reality more), Mind Flayers are my favorite monsters, Githyanki are awesome, and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes solidified Gnomes as one of my top 3 player races.
 

teitan

Legend
I disagree. You're drawing a lot of conclusions from a very small amount of data.
Those are the exact findings of WOtC when they purchased TSR so I’m not drawing any conclusions but repeating exactly what they were saying for well over two decades now and had been said by industry experts for just as long. Boxed sets were being produced with luxury item quality at bargain prices. They were printing them and selling them at cost and losing money on them. Because one department wasn’t talking to the other department no one knew what was making money or what the break even points were and they were bleeding money and not even aware of it. That was why when WOTC bought TSR the boxed sets that were due for reprints were instead reissued as hardcovers like Domains of Dread & Council of Wyrms. That’s why the new Greyhawk boxed set instead came out as two books, The Adventure Begins and The Greyhawk Player’s Guide. The boxed sets were a bleeding wound and not profitable.

Here are some comments by Ryan Dancey on the acquisition of TSR: Ryan Dancey on the Acquisition of TSR
 

Hussar

Legend
But not everyone likes "generic". A generic setting is not "for anyone". Which is why we need settings like Ravenloft, Planescape and Spelljammer.
But, there are some significant advantages to generic - namely that it can be repurposed so much more easily than more specific material. I can plonk down pretty much any of the Sword Coast 5e AP's, with little or no revision, into virtually any setting, pretty easily. Never minding specific bits that can be repurposed. Trying to tie in Planescape material, for example, gets a whole lot harder. Or Darksun stuff or even Ravenloft stuff.

The more specific the setting, the harder it is for people to repurpose, AND, the less likely that someone will make the attempt as well. I know, from experience, that if I pick up something for Forgotten Realms, be it mechanical or lore, I can pretty easily use it in another setting. But, I also know that I'm going to have to hunt and peck a lot more if I pick up a, say, Planescape, supplement. So, given two books, I'm going to pick the Forgotten Realms one first every time.

And I think this is how it generally works for a lot of people. The more esoteric and unique the material something is, the harder it is to actually use at the table and the less likely people are to pick it up on a whim.

But, rolling back around to golden era of lore - again, I cannot fathom how this isn't the absolute golden era. You have ACCESS to all that lore of yesteryear. When I was gaming in the 80's and 90's and even the ought's, you just didn't have access to any of this material unless you went out and bought it. Which meant the lore for any game was going to have great gaping holes in it unless I started obsessively buying material. Heck, this was the primary reason I never, EVER bought into any of the TSR settings at the time. Other than a handful of supplements (Faiths and Avatars being a good example from 2e), I never bought any TSR setting books. None. Had zero interest because I knew that if I wanted to actually use any of it, I'd have to buy fifteen different books and then try to cross reference it all. By the time I was done all that work, I might as well just write it myself.

To me, the fact that all this material is now available, easily, easily searched, makes it fantastic. I mean, I was doing a bit of background research for my Shining Citadel adventure (based on the idea that in the center of the Shadowfell there is a shining castle where all the light of the plane is housed) and I came across a reference to The Blinding Tower (possibly the same location with a different name) - from the Planar Handbook (p 162). There is zero chance I would have been able to find that information in the past. None. I would never have bought that book, nor would I even consider looking in it if I had. I certainly would never have made the connection.

But, now, because of things like wikis, all that work is done for me and I have a possible extra bit I can add to my adventure if I want.

How is this not the golden age of setting lore?
 

CapnZapp

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

I interpret it differently. I take it as basically proof that the level of detail offered in AD&D and d20 supplements is much deeper than is actually useful.

The idea a role-playing game should simulate a full reality has been thoroughly debunked. Focusing only on what's strictly necessary for the story and action has proven a much more practical approach.

In other words, what if your golden age is only a stone age of senseless minutiae and the current age is D&D's second golden age after the first early years without campaign bloat?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I interpret it differently. I take it as basically proof that the level of detail offered in AD&D and d20 supplements is much deeper than is actually useful.

The idea a role-playing game should simulate a full reality has been thoroughly debunked. Focusing only on what's strictly necessary for the story and action has proven a much more practical approach.

In other words, what if your golden age is only a stone age of senseless minutiae and the current age is D&D's second golden age after the first early years without campaign bloat?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if WotC has factually established this in product research.
 

Selvarin

Explorer
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.
The other part of this is that with a lot of material there becomes the issue of getting buried by canon. Maybe it's just me but I remember back then and I tended to feel 'tied' to whatever was being produced when in fact what matters is what's good for your campaign, or your view of X/Y/Z fantasy world. At the moment we have the best of both worlds, we can still 'dig in' using previous edition material while benefiting from the system we use now. Also, there's enough new books already coming out and I don't want to get fatigue from purchasing higher-cost physical content. Granted, they could put out more digital content, plus WotC has DnD Beyond so they already have some form of subscription service.
 


CapnZapp

Legend
I should add that I never found anything exactly wrong with the content of a regional or campaign supplement.

I just always had a vague feeling "that's an awful lot of words to basically give players a small dollop of minmax content mixed into a huge vat of weak dreck, combined with a truckload of semi-generic story threads that really doesn't help most DMs."

It just felt like a massive amount of work for a not very impressive amount of high-grade play material. I can't speak for WotC; I can basically only understand if their freelancers are thankful they get to focus much more on stuff that's actually useful right away.
 

Selvarin

Explorer
Alternatively, just by browsing through decades old sales data...?
I don't recall which person said it. Perhaps Steven E. Schend(?)...maybe. But whoever it, one of the game designers discussed how all the sourcebooks being published wound up having smaller sales because they were only of use for the DM. So if you're publishing (for example) 40,000 units of a supplementary campaign sourcebook the target market winds up being a smaller subset of the whole community. So, maybe 10,000-12,000 wind up getting purchased and the rest languish on the shelves. It doesn't help the industry as a whole, or the company in particular, to print wonderful in-depth material (the 'fluff') if it would ultimately lose them money.

Could they do more in-depth digital content? Sure. but IIRC the decision was to add bits here and there in future products instead so you at least get something in addition to new mechanics or game options.

I liked Greyhawk though more or less it was a limited/'static' campaign setting. I loved the Forgotten Realms, and it helped to have several top authors and designers manning the helm. Some others were interesting. It's not the same as it was, but I'd rather have them publish good material here and there than risk having mediocre work published just because there's a schedule and so something must be put on the shelves.
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I don't recall which person said it. Perhaps Steven E. Schend(?)...maybe. But whoever it, one of the game designers discussed how all the sourcebooks being published wound up having smaller sales because they were only of use for the DM. So if you're publishing (for example) 40,000 units of a supplementary campaign sourcebook the target market winds up being a smaller subset of the whole community. So, maybe 10,000-12,000 wind up getting purchased and the rest languish on the shelves. It doesn't help the industry as a whole, or the company in particular, to print wonderful in-depth material (the 'fluff') if it would ultimately lose them money.

Could they do more in-depth digital content? Sure. but IIRC the decision was to add bits here and there in future products instead so you at least get something in addition to new mechanics or game options.

I liked Greyhawk though more or less it was a limited/'static' campaign setting. I loved the Forgotten Realms, and it helped to have several top authors and designers manning the helm. Some others were interesting. It's not the same as it was, but I'd rather have them publish good material here and there than risk having mediocre work published just because there's a schedule and so something must be put on the shelves.
So products with setting material and cool inspiration are bad for the industry. Hard to wrap my head around that.
 


Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top