D&D 5E First World: Possibly One of the New D&D setting?

[JEB]

Lore from the PHB, maybe, but how often are they actually portrayed as being outcast?

Indeed, which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they changed it.

Of course, I also assume some folks who play tieflings (or caliban, or similar races), do like the outcast angle. I hope those folks don't (ironically) feel left out by lore changes that reduce or remove that.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't know that I can explain it, but I am the same way as @Faolyn . Often, the things I like the most are the ones I find myself the most likely to modify. When something sparks my imagination I invariably find my imagination flows in a slightly different direction than what is written (or on the screen) and I strive to make it more what I want. It seems so natural to me. I can get into more specifics if you want, but that is generally the idea. I love something, and yet dislike the parts of it that seem off to me.

Exactly. For me, if I find something that I like the base concept of in an official product, I take the core concept and make it my own. I change the thing I like in order to make it something I like even more. I know it's weird and kind of contradictory, but I'm more likely to change something that I like than something I don't. I just don't use the stuff I don't enjoy.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It may be3 vague now.
I said it would be a problem if it was true, and ended up back by more lore.

Then what the hell are you complaining about? A hypothetical situation where some version of the First World is confirmed to have existed?

Produced under license, so yeah it is.

No. No, it really isn't. Anyone can make basically anything with the Open Game License or the DMsGuild license. That doesn't mean that the content they make is official.

It might be a myth, so what?
Nothing wrong with some parts of DnD myth being true....just not the dragons bits.

I like this myth. I would actually enjoy if we got more info on it and it were confirmed to be true. I was just noting that what we know about it so far (which you're complaining about) is framed as being a myth that might be true, but equally might not be.

 

[JEB]

I'd rather have a setting be "disingenuous" or "not faithful" to its original content than have it include racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist content (which many popular older settings have). I'd rather have people that like the base ideas of those settings be able to play them in a slightly different way from the original than doom the original to be forgotten or force WotC to publish the older setting exactly as originally published with all of its problematic/outdated content. I'd rather have fun with a slightly changed version of an older setting than never get to experience that setting in my preferred ruleset because some older players get grumpy at me for not playing how they want me to.

I wouldn't call the way they handled 5E Ravenloft "slightly changed" - there's not much about the setting that they didn't change, and some elements were unrecognizable beyond a few familiar names. The changes also went well beyond addressing problematic content. By contrast, Eberron was only slightly changed for 5E. Unsurprisingly, the latter update got much less grumbling than the former.

It'll be interesting to see where Spelljammer and Dragonlance fall in that spectrum.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I wouldn't call the way they handled 5E Ravenloft "slightly changed" - there's not much about the setting that they didn't change, and some elements were unrecognizable beyond a few familiar names. The changes went well beyond addressing problematic content, as well. By contrast, Eberron was only slightly changed for 5E. Unsurprisingly, the latter update got much less grumbling than the former.

It'll be interesting to see where Spelljammer and Dragonlance fall in that spectrum.

I'd say the biggest reasons for why Ravenloft was heavily revised, and Eberron note, is that Eberron was already quite close to modern sensibilities as it's initial iteration was written far more recently than Ravenloft's.

I mean, Ravenloft first released in 1984. Eberron in 2004. Significant difference there.

 

[JEB]

I'd say the biggest reasons for why Ravenloft was heavily revised, and Eberron note, is that Eberron was already quite close to modern sensibilities as it's initial iteration was written far more recently than Ravenloft's.

I mean, Ravenloft first released in 1984. Eberron in 2004. Significant difference there.

The Forgotten Realms is about the same vintage, and it also hasn't been heavily revised in the course of 5E (it actually moved closer to older-edition incarnations, in fact). Of course, if the Realms is the revisit we're supposed to get in 2024, they may use the opportunity to make more extensive changes...

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The Forgotten Realms is about the same vintage, and it also hasn't been heavily revised in the course of 5E (it actually moved closer to older-edition incarnations, in fact). Of course, if the Realms is the revisit we're supposed to get in 2024, they may use the opportunity to make more extensive changes...

I don't agree with this at all. I mean, it's true it hasn't been revised much... but I think that is due to 5E hyper-fixating on one of the least problematic regions, and the one with the most "modern" sensibilities... the Sword Coast. Only region to get a setting book, too.

There are a lot of regions of FR that are really, REALLY problematic, and 5E has so far stayed clear of them (with a handful exceptions).

 

[dave2008]

I know it's weird and kind of contradictory, but I'm more likely to change something that I like than something I don't. I just don't use the stuff I don't enjoy.

Makes complete sense to me.

 

[JEB]

I don't agree with this at all. I mean, it's true it hasn't been revised much... but I think that is due to 5E hyper-fixating on one of the least problematic regions, and the one with the most "modern" sensibilities... the Sword Coast. Only region to get a setting book, too.

Again, the changes to Ravenloft in 5E went well beyond addressing problematic material. So if the age of the setting was the core issue, the Sword Coast should have been just as ripe for overhaul.

There are a lot of regions of FR that are really, REALLY problematic, and 5E has so far stayed clear of them (with a handful exceptions).

As noted, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the Realms in 2024.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Again, the changes to Ravenloft in 5E went well beyond addressing problematic material. So if the age of the setting was the core issue, the Sword Coast should have been just as ripe for overhaul.

Funny thing to me is that for Ravenloft, the changes seemed to reset to a pre-Core time (which is what, pre-2E?) so actually felt like a return to a very OG Ravenloft in some ways. Which was great to me, as I have zero interest in the Core. Always felt it as a concept was anti-horror and Marvel Battleworld instead.