D&D 5E D&D Lore Changes: Multiversal Focus & Fey Goblins of Prehistory

WotC's Jeremy Crawford revealed a couple of the lore changes in Monsters of the Multiverse.

• The big shift is toward the multiverse as the game's main perspective rather than a specific setting. The game is shifting towards a multiversal focus, with a variety of worlds and settings.
• Universe-spanning mythical story beats, such as deep lore on goblinoids going back to 1st Edition, and the gods they had before Maglubiyet. Prior to Magulbiyet unifying them, goblinoids were folk of the feywild in keeping with 'real-world' folklore.
• Changelings aren't just Eberron, but they've been everywhere -- you just don't necessarily know it. Their origin is also in the realm of the fey.

D&D 5E - A Compilation of all the Race Changes in Monsters of the Multiverse

Over on Reddit, user KingJackel went through the video leak which came out a few days ago and manually compiled a list of all the changes to races in the book. The changes are quite extensive, with only the fairy and harengon remaining unchanged. The book contains 33 races in total, compiled and...

www.enworld.org

 

[Scribe]

And, if gods were real in tangible ways, why wouldn't all creatures just choose from all known gods, instead of species-specific gods.

This will be the real migraine inducer for me, I just know it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's baffling how so many people skip over this.

The Multiverse only matters to your game if you allow it to matter to your game.

This also applies to literally everything WotC publishes.

The changes in Xanathar's, Tasha's, Monsters of the Multiverse, etc only matter to your game if you allow it to matter to your game.

The mere existence of things you don't like in D&D products does not force you to use those things you don't like.

True, but if they continually publish things you don't like it does affect your level of engagement with the IP holder and the community as a whole. That certainly matters to some people, if not everyone.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But these don't remind me of the baby. Goblins should remind you of the baby.

What baby?

Now I'm genuinely curious... What is the difference between a separate universe, and a world in a crystal sphere, or alternate plane? Is it no travel? Different travel? Between universes? My brain might no fully awake, or recovered from yoga this morning....

In practical terms, there is almost no difference between a separate cosmology/universe and one that is sealed off in a crystal sphere, inside which the metaphysical laws are different to the outside.

In terms of personal engagement however, it is more significant. For example gaming in an existence where religion is a matter of faith is appealing to a lot of people.
The feel of gaming in an existence where gods actually manifest, bang author avatars, punish those who don't believe in them etc is very different and much less appealing to those people. Even though you might be playing in a little corner of that existence where they aren't currently doing that, the feel of the world is different.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's baffling how so many people skip over this.

The Multiverse only matters to your game if you allow it to matter to your game.

This also applies to literally everything WotC publishes.

The changes in Xanathar's, Tasha's, Monsters of the Multiverse, etc only matter to your game if you allow it to matter to your game.

The mere existence of things you don't like in D&D products does not force you to use those things you don't like.

I don’t think most people who dislike a given change think, on any level, that they have to use any given thing.

But it is difficult to control how one responds to a work, emotionally, or to changes to that work that recontextualize it.

Also people don’t like the idea that all future products will be written through the lense of a model of the game that they see as less interesting or otherwise unpalatable.

 

[overgeeked]

True, but if they continually publish things you don't like it does affect your level of engagement with the IP holder and the community as a whole. That certainly matters to some people, if not everyone.

No. Not at all. You can engage with the "IP holder" in various ways. Collecting every single book and playing the game exactly as it's written despite your personal preferences is only one of a myriad of options. And the "community as a whole" is not limited to only the newest releases from WotC. Sure, I guess some people who view D&D as a lifestyle brand rather than an RPG to play and/or a hobby to engage with might view things that way, but that mindset is utterly alien to me. Besides, if it's only a brand, used for show, it shouldn't matter what's actually in the books.

I don’t think most people who dislike a given change think, on any level, that they have to use any given thing.

That seems to be the arguments we're getting into a lot lately. Some change is made and someone on the forum complains and it's a whole thread about how no one's forcing Johnny Rando to use every word that WotC publishes. So clearly a lot of people seem to think that they have to use it all exactly as written. Otherwise there'd be nothing to complain about.

WotC produced a product you don't like? Don't buy it and don't use it. There, done. Literally zero reason to complain.

Yet here we are.

But it is difficult to control how one responds to a work, emotionally, or to changes to that work that recontextualize it.

Sure. I guess it mostly depends on where people are emotionally invested. I am emotionally invested in the game as played at the table. I've been doing this for almost 40 years. I couldn't care less what WotC does or doesn't produce. The entire "industry" could collapse tomorrow and I'd still have more game material on my shelves than I'll ever be able to use at the table. All the older editions are still there. All the retro-clones are still there. All the 3PP for all the editions are still there. All the home-brew stuff me and mine have created over the decades is still there. All the freely available home-brew stuff on the internet is still there. I don't need anything from WotC. And I don't need WotC to produce only books that cater specifically and exactly to me and my tastes. When they put out a book I'm interested in, I'll have a look. That's the end of it. Do people honestly think complaining and whining on the internet will get WotC to make books they like? Is that really their hope? That if they whine loud enough for WotC to hear, they'll get rewarded with a pat on the head.

Also people don’t like the idea that all future products will be written through the lense of a model of the game that they see as less interesting or otherwise unpalatable.

So don't buy them. They can either buy the book or not. That's the sum total of their input in the decision of what WotC produces. Whining about it accomplishes literally nothing. Don't like where WotC is going with 5E in the future? Don't follow. Stick with the 5E you already have. Don't like 5E, try any of the eight other editions of D&D or a different game entirely. This kind of thing is somehow common across fandoms. People whining about it not catering to them specifically. If you don't like it, move on. Simple as.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So clearly a lot of people seem to think that they have to use it all exactly as written. Otherwise there'd be nothing to complain about.

So, you actually think, no bs, that the only two options are “nothing to complain about” and “criticize a new work because you feel obligated to use it exactly as written.”…?

Seriously?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Disagree. The less WotC taints D&D with MtG the better. They should be completely separate and hermetically sealed off from each other.

Why do you care? After all, "The Multiverse only matters to your game if you allow it to matter to your game."

 

[Kurotowa]

Also people don’t like the idea that all future products will be written through the lense of a model of the game that they see as less interesting or otherwise unpalatable.

Here's the thing. Preserving the status quo is not a contextually neutral choice. It means that all the people who find aspects of the product as it currently exists "less interesting or otherwise unpalatable" will continue to be unhappy because of that. And so the choice between changes and the status quo is one part moral and creative value judgment, two parts business analysis about what the larger market segment is.

I'm sure it stings for some people to have it shoved in their face that they aren't the core audience demographic anymore. But that's what happens when you get older. Generational slices get smaller the older they get, while young people are a constantly refreshing resource. Properties have to stay current if they don't want to be stuck with a fossilized and shrinking fanbase. That's why the Transformers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoons of today are made for the kids of today and not for people like me who were kids in the 80s.

WotC has made their choices about what direction is best for their business. As players, you either get on board with that or find alternative products designed to cater to your differing tastes. Goodness knows there's always someone eager to fill a niche market, if you're willing to explore small creators.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Honestly this is all just another reason to bring in parts of Planescape, specifically Sigil, and make it a linking-place between the multiverse's realms. I don't think you could have the whole of Planescape, you'd have to reshape it a bit so it could encompass all realms (rather than being Great Wheel-specific), but Sigil could work with that, and the Factions (or revised versions thereof) could fit really well with that. You could also modernize and expand Sigil.


I mean, we did that for decades with various beings, so I'm not really feeling like this is a very effective argument.

"They already did it with other things" is not a reason to do it. They published Forest Oracle, so should I just expect nothing better, or along those lines.

In Krynn, goblins are humanoids transformed by the Greygem. They have no connection to the Feywild (which shows no signs of existing in the krynnish cosmology) nor with goblins of other worlds. How is the Dragonlance setting enriched by shoe-horning in this fey connection?

Whether or not Dalamar can scoot along to have lunch with Elminster and Mordenkainen has nothing to do with whether all the settings should have one forced origins for their species and cosmologies. Its a red herring.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Fair enough and all true.

But, it's not true that 2e worlds were distinct from each other. That's the opposite of how it was. In 2e, everything was 100% Planescape Compatible all the time. Every single setting got dragged, kicking and screaming under the same umbrella of Planescape. Gods from different settings all inhabited the same planes depending on alignment. Other than Dark Sun, and even then, not really, all settings were part of the Great Wheel and were shoehorned into a single meta-setting.

Where are you getting this notion that settings were meant to be distinct from each other?

Heck, that was one of the biggest complaints about 4e was that settings were actually being made distinct from each other and not interdependent. How did you come to the conclusion that the 2e settings were meant to be distinct?

"Planescape compatibility" really only was in settings that continued to be actively supported after 1994, ie Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk (the Moore era). Dragonlance and Spelljammer had already been discontinued (note Dragonlance SAGA made no references to Planescape), and Birthright, Ravenloft and Dark Sun were defined by being outside the core cosmology. (There were more Birthright-Ravenloft crossovers than either settings with Planescape).