cbwjm
Seb-wejem
I sort of care, I love reading setting information and I'm sometimes disappointed by the changes for a setting between editions but usually there is something in there that I also like. This was the case with the 4e FR, I felt it was too big a change, but it also had some really cool ideas in it, I loved the floating city of Airspur and the plaguetouched (I think that's the term, the people with powers gained from the spellplague) and I'd be inclined to keep these aspects in 5e if I was playing in the FR.This came up in one of the Ravenloft threads and I am just curious: do you care about official aka "canon" lore for D&D, either the implied setting or a specific campaign world? Does it bother you if that lore is changed with editions? Should a new version of a setting be "required" to not contradict a previous version?
For my part, I don't care much at all. Chances are I am going to change some stuff anyway if I am using a published setting and if I am homebrewing chances are the stuff in the Monster Manual or whatever isn't relevant in the first place. I don't read novel lines or pour over setting books, so I probably wouldn't notice most changes anyway.
I've found that I don't always like how the lore fits the mechanics of a new edition. This was the case with the sorcerer and dragonlance in 3e. I guess it would be an easy swap of intelligence instead of charisma for the casting stat as well as the creation of spell schools to fit the age of mortals style of sorcery.
I mostly play in homebrew settings so it isn't so much of an issue for me, though I would like to get back to dragonlance and might set my next campaign there.