D&D 5E Book of Many Things pre order up.

[Remathilis]

Tying the cards to Netherese lore is new and, honestly, kind of off-putting.

If you're going to splash this much Forgotten Realms all over the place, WotC, concentrate it into a setting book where people who want it can get it all in one place.

Ah yes. WotC doesn't put lore into their books, and when they do it's the wrong lore. Maybe they should have removed Tasha, Bigby and Mordenkainen from the books until they put out a Greyhawk book too?

 

[Parmandur]

Are these the ORIGINAL Deck of Many things? I don't imagine many Netheril Paladins.

I don't think k there is any indication that she is Netherese, juat that she is the originator odlf the Deck in some way (TBD).

 

[Parmandur]

Tying the cards to Netherese lore is new and, honestly, kind of off-putting.

If you're going to splash this much Forgotten Realms all over the place, WotC, concentrate it into a setting book where people who want it can get it all in one place.

They aren't tied to Nethiril in the DMG, nor is there any indication of that here. Poking around, the Netherese connection seems to be based in Neverwinter Nights from Biowate rather than any book from WotC.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Ah yes. WotC doesn't put lore into their books, and when they do it's the wrong lore. Maybe they should have removed Tasha, Bigby and Mordenkainen from the books until they put out a Greyhawk book too?

That sounds good, yes.

WotC knows that the majority of DMs are using homebrew. They are not pushing the lore into all the books because it's what people want, it's because there is a segment of the audience that will buy every bit of content with lore in it. It's wasted space for the majority, but WotC knows they can get that smaller group of folks to jump through the appropriate hoops every time.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't think k there is any indication that she is Netherese, juat that she is the originator odlf the Deck in some way (TBD).

Sorry, I guess I conflated two NPCs.

Still, yuck to there being a canonical creator of an artifact.

 

[Parmandur]

Sorry, I guess I conflated two NPCs.

Still, yuck to there being a canonical creator of an artifact.

I'm curious to see what they do with the character: apparently Makenzie De Armas created the character and her comments on Twitter sugfest some passion for her, and it's always something to take or leave.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm curious to see what they do with the character: apparently Makenzie De Armas created the character and her comments on Twitter sugfest some passion for her, and it's always something to take or leave.

Oh, I am not impugning the quality of the work. It's just the general idea of what she was asked to do that I'm uncomfortable with.

But I also came up with artifact listings with randomly generated powers -- there was supposed to be only a few elements that were canonically true at best, and even those were subject to being myth and legend. Obviously, there's a different group of folks who'd like all this stuff fleshed out and that's who this decision is aimed towards.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh, I am not impugning the quality of the work. It's just the general idea of what she was asked to do that I'm uncomfortable with.

But I also came up with artifact listings with randomly generated powers -- there was supposed to be only a few elements that were canonically true at best, and even those were subject to being myth and legend. Obviously, there's a different group of folks who'd like all this stuff fleshed out and that's who this decision is aimed towards.

They are doing some seriously weird stuff with this product, which is part of what intrigues me about it. They seem to be laying the groundwork of material that an entire campaign could be built upon, with the Grim Reaper being a BBEG, and Asteria as sort of a background figure that PCs can learn about and learn from to overcome some great evil.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Oh, I am not impugning the quality of the work. It's just the general idea of what she was asked to do that I'm uncomfortable with.

But I also came up with artifact listings with randomly generated powers -- there was supposed to be only a few elements that were canonically true at best, and even those were subject to being myth and legend. Obviously, there's a different group of folks who'd like all this stuff fleshed out and that's who this decision is aimed towards.

I dunno if I'm with you there. It seems to me that we're better off encouraging WotC to put as much story into everything as possible. We can throw out what we don't like and use what we do. If we discourage them, we wind up with little-to-no story behind anything, and we have to make everything up ourselves wholecloth. I personally enjoy making stuff up, but then, I'm also not bothered by stories being there, so I can either say "Nah, it's not like that, it's like THIS" or "Sure. That's essentially how that went down".

More story is good for D&D overall, whether we, individual DMs, use any of it or not.

 

[Parmandur]

I dunno if I'm with you there. It seems to me that we're better off encouraging WotC to put as much story into everything as possible. We can throw out what we don't like and use what we do. If we discourage them, we wind up with little-to-no story behind anything, and we have to make everything up wholecloth. I personally enjoy making stuff up, but then, I'm also not bothered by stories being there, so I can either say "Nah, it's not like that, it's like THIS" or "Sure. That's essentially how that went down".

More story is good for D&D overall, whether we, individual DMs, use any of it or not.

Based on a couple of the slides, I'm intrigued to test out the card based Adventure generation for procedural story generation...I like random tables, but thianis different.