D&D General Dungeons & Dragons Encyclopedia - new product

[Parmandur]

all of those and Ravenloft were named in the product description, but that is not enough for ‘more than half a dozen’. I assume Planescape and probably Spelljammer, at which point they just eeked into that range

Yeah, just about.

 

[dave2008]

If you can justify saying that "official title" means "reference encyclopedia," I'd be happy to hear it.

Actually, what needs to be done is to justify that a coffee table art book =/= "official title." That seems to be the relevant bit and one that could make sense in that something in an art book is not "official" lore. However, a reference encyclopedia that provides "official lore" is therefore an "official title."

I am not saying that is the case, but it could be a reasonable argument. Of course, so is that the marketing depart of DK or WotC doesn't know what they are talking about!

 

[dave2008]

Might not be a bad option for newer players who want a brief overview of elements of setting lore.

Or older players / DMs (like me) who are not feel versed in D&D lore because they have spent the last 40 years playing in a homebrew setting!

 

[dave2008]

Looks like the headers are color-coded by setting: Purple for Eberron, Green for Forgotten Realms, Red for Dragonlance, Blue for Spelljammer, Black for Ravenloft, and Gray for 'generic' D&D. There's a Yellow header on the Moonstone Dragon, but I'm not familiar enough with those to know with which setting they might be associated.

Any chance Gray is for Greyhawk?!

 

[Parmandur]

Any chance Gray is for Greyhawk?!

The marketing blurb confirms Grehhawk is in.

 

[Starmaster]

Looks like the headers are color-coded by setting: Purple for Eberron, Green for Forgotten Realms, Red for Dragonlance, Blue for Spelljammer, Black for Ravenloft, and Gray for 'generic' D&D. There's a Yellow header on the Moonstone Dragon, but I'm not familiar enough with those to know with which setting they might be associated.

My guess is that yellow is for Feywild. It's a bright and cheery color, which would be appropriate. Also, Moonstone Dragons lived in Feywild. It's even mentioned in the entry shown. The "Worlds & Realms" licensed D&D book had a section on Feywild, so I suppose this one covers it also.

 

[Alzrius]

Actually, what needs to be done is to justify that a coffee table art book =/= "official title."

I mean, I kept saying that, but...

That seems to be the relevant bit and one that could make sense in that something in an art book is not "official" lore. However, a reference encyclopedia that provides "official lore" is therefore an "official title." I am not saying that is the case, but it could be a reasonable argument.

Well, I'd posit that there's a difference between "official lore," i.e. lore that's considered canon or is otherwise approved by WotC, versus an "official title," which is about the publication being made with the acknowledgment and consent of the IP holder. I'm not sure that I'd call Dungeon Academy: No Humans Allowed "official lore," for instance, but I'd say it's no less of an "official title" than this encyclopedia.

Of course, so is that the marketing depart of DK or WotC doesn't know what they are talking about!

Also very possible!

 

[Echohawk]

For the first time ever in an official title, Wizards of the Coast has brought together more than half a dozen of its legendary settings - stretching all the way back to Greyhawk - to showcase the elements that make them unique, and Dungeons & Dragons the most diverse, exciting and unpredictable game in the world.

"For the first time ever in an official title"? Didn't they just publish a Worlds & Realms book less than eighteen months ago that was pretty much the same thing? Or are they being pedantic about the "official" part of that?

Maybe the part they are being pedantic about isn't "official title", or whether or not Worlds & Realms counts as a reference book. If we must dissect every work of this marketing blurb — and of course we must! — maybe the important bit is "more than half a dozen [...] settings".

Worlds & Realms covers Greyhawk, Mystara, Dragonlance, Faerûn*, Eberron and Spelljammer, which is either five settings and a continent or, if you overlook the fact that Faerûn is not the name of the setting, six settings. Worlds & Realms does also cover several planar locations (including Sigil), but not the Planescape setting.

So, technically, we could say that Dungeons & Dragons Encyclopedia is the first official title (reference book or otherwise) bringing together more than half a dozen D&D settings.

Except of course that it isn't. How many setting logos do I count on this 1992 title? Why I do believe it's seven .

 

[Alzrius]

Except of course that it isn't. How many setting logos do I count on this 1992 title? Why I do believe it's seven .
View attachment 432061

Yeah, but that still doesn't count because that's not a reference encyclopedia, which as we all know is what "official title" means when it's said in the blurb for a reference encyclopedia. Context!

 

[Starmaster]

We all know that we gamers have VERY strong opinions on so many aspects of our hobby since we are so personally invested in it; however, I had no idea when I started this thread earlier today that there would be so many strong contradictory opinions on the product's advertising blurb. To quote Spock, I find it all quite "fascinating".