Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9357117" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So, since you literally just did the thing you think the chapter should do, why are you insisting that WotC cannot or will not do that? Why are Goliaths a problem, but dwarves aren't, if you can treat them literally the exact same way in the chapter? Now, I will disagree with you, that teach someone how to worldbuild, they should make a paragraph each on what humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, dragonborn, tiefling, Aasimar, Orcs, and Goliath culture, politics, and ecology are. You don't need to do that, to teach how to do that. You only need maybe three different examples. More than that, and you start moving into a setting book.  And any writer who tries to make every single chapter match up to every different reason for every different need is never going to write anything of value. The target audience is not people who want to see how Greyhawk was changed for 5e. The writers should not consider them, because writing for those people will take away from who they are writing for.Because the reason you say it is bad, is because it will be forced to be a terrible teaching example because they will be required to bend the knee to the demands of people wanting a setting book, not a chapter on world-building. If you want to argue that the Chapter in the DMG is going to be a naughty word setting book, I will agree with you. But it isn't guaranteed to be a bad chapter on how to world build, just because they used an existing setting. That is nonsensical. It would be like declaring that you can't teach someone how to make a new cake recipe unless you make one from scratch, because talking about how an existing recipe was made and why it works is impossible because baking pans have changed.That is still telling. "Show don't tell" is a writing phrase, telling authors not to info dump. You don't say "The woman was upset because her husband was dead" you show her being upset. Writing "The Orc Empire of Pomarj is good, and they have strong trade relations with the shield lands where their orcish paladins quest for the good of the common people" is still telling. You are telling me about the empire, the paladins, ect. SHOWING me that would be having character meet those orc paladins. Yes, that is actual play instead of world-building, but like I said, ALL world building is telling. All of it. It is all information dumps and encyclopedia entries. None of it is showing. Your point actually seems to be that it isn't good enough to say in the PHB that good orcs exist if the setting doesn't have a good tribe of orcs. That is a different problem than show don't tell. That's actually following through with what you are stating.Because making a new setting from scratch will also confuse and anger people. How dare they make a new setting instead of using their old settings! Why are they trying to force us grognards out of the game? People are declaring these things over the changes to how dragons look, making a whole new setting will still set those same people off. And also, I think you keep forgetting this. It is an anniversary edition. They are celebrating DnD's History. You can think that is stupid and pointless, but since they are going to upset people no matter what, the people who loved the game and have loved the game for most of therir lives, want to honor that game. And since the book is being published in a few months, I doubt the letters you have sent to their home office declaring their inevtiable failure have convinced them to suddenly change course and scrap everything they have done and announced.</blockquote>

Verification