Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e isn't a Golden Age of D&D Lorewise, it's Silver at best.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8703439" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>Ah, but that's not true.</p><p></p><p>I've said that VRGtR is a mixture of stuff that's detailed enough, and other stuff that's cursory. I don't think VRGtR is intentionally "shallow", but it is necessarily cursory because they're jamming a huge amount in to an relatively low page-count. This is particularly a problem with the more-changed or entirely-novel realms, because you can't rely on older material if you're having difficulty getting a sense of what they're supposed to be like.</p><p> </p><p>Re: "usable for actual play", that just sounds absolute nonsense to me. Like literally nonsense. There's no sense that you have a genuine belief in what you're saying and actually run/have run a regular VRGtR game (do you, even? I'm talking VRGtR not running Strahd, note), because you're not actually arguing it, you're just asserting it, and you're asserting something a fanboy would inevitably assert, whilst having a long history of being completely uncritical of WotC. So I'm unable to discern whether you actually mean this, or whether this is a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of a WotC product.</p><p></p><p>If you actually made an argument, and provided examples, rather than "running for the door" as I put it, it would be extremely easy to tell if you really meant it here.</p><p></p><p>As a general point, I've played and run RPGs for 33 years now, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on when I'm getting "my money's worth" setting-wise or campaign-wise. I would assert that people in general do not spend money on a specific setting to <em>not </em>have details specific to that setting. This idea that people buy a setting but don't actually want any setting details seems pretty funny/fantastical to me. Obviously settings can go too far, but that's usually a very specific communication issue/customer requirements mismatch.</p><p></p><p>Look at Ptolus for example. It's a ridiculously detailed setting. Laughably. Wildly detailed. But it's much-praised. Why? Because the people who buy it want a detailed setting. That's a selling point. Whereas 2E's Forgotten Realms material was much criticised because a lot of it wasn't what people wanted - it was needlessly overdetailed when people wanted something more like Eberron's approach (to give a 5E example), or for that matter WotC's 3E FR approach. I don't really buy that someone buying VRGtR would be less happy if there was a bit more detail in the actual setting, like say, 33% more, maybe even 50% more. On the contrary, I think a lot of people who thought VRGtR was a "solid" book, like a 7/10 book, like myself, would have seen it as an absolute classic, had it been, well better as a setting book.</p><p></p><p>I think that'll be one of the legacies of pre-2024 5E - a lot of mediocre setting-books that aren't very good as setting books, and no exceptional/wonderful setting-books, at least not in WotC's output. The best of them are really Eberron (which is merely a recapitulation, just a good one), Theros, and arguably Ravnica. Again, there's time to change this, but they'll have to make a serious direction-change to do so. I'll be really interested to see the reaction from non-hyperfans to Spelljammer's approach.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8703439, member: 18"] Ah, but that's not true. I've said that VRGtR is a mixture of stuff that's detailed enough, and other stuff that's cursory. I don't think VRGtR is intentionally "shallow", but it is necessarily cursory because they're jamming a huge amount in to an relatively low page-count. This is particularly a problem with the more-changed or entirely-novel realms, because you can't rely on older material if you're having difficulty getting a sense of what they're supposed to be like. Re: "usable for actual play", that just sounds absolute nonsense to me. Like literally nonsense. There's no sense that you have a genuine belief in what you're saying and actually run/have run a regular VRGtR game (do you, even? I'm talking VRGtR not running Strahd, note), because you're not actually arguing it, you're just asserting it, and you're asserting something a fanboy would inevitably assert, whilst having a long history of being completely uncritical of WotC. So I'm unable to discern whether you actually mean this, or whether this is a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of a WotC product. If you actually made an argument, and provided examples, rather than "running for the door" as I put it, it would be extremely easy to tell if you really meant it here. As a general point, I've played and run RPGs for 33 years now, and I think I have a pretty good grasp on when I'm getting "my money's worth" setting-wise or campaign-wise. I would assert that people in general do not spend money on a specific setting to [I]not [/I]have details specific to that setting. This idea that people buy a setting but don't actually want any setting details seems pretty funny/fantastical to me. Obviously settings can go too far, but that's usually a very specific communication issue/customer requirements mismatch. Look at Ptolus for example. It's a ridiculously detailed setting. Laughably. Wildly detailed. But it's much-praised. Why? Because the people who buy it want a detailed setting. That's a selling point. Whereas 2E's Forgotten Realms material was much criticised because a lot of it wasn't what people wanted - it was needlessly overdetailed when people wanted something more like Eberron's approach (to give a 5E example), or for that matter WotC's 3E FR approach. I don't really buy that someone buying VRGtR would be less happy if there was a bit more detail in the actual setting, like say, 33% more, maybe even 50% more. On the contrary, I think a lot of people who thought VRGtR was a "solid" book, like a 7/10 book, like myself, would have seen it as an absolute classic, had it been, well better as a setting book. I think that'll be one of the legacies of pre-2024 5E - a lot of mediocre setting-books that aren't very good as setting books, and no exceptional/wonderful setting-books, at least not in WotC's output. The best of them are really Eberron (which is merely a recapitulation, just a good one), Theros, and arguably Ravnica. Again, there's time to change this, but they'll have to make a serious direction-change to do so. I'll be really interested to see the reaction from non-hyperfans to Spelljammer's approach. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e isn't a Golden Age of D&D Lorewise, it's Silver at best.
Top