D&D 5E How Much Lore is Enough?

[Jeff Carlsen]

It's clear that tastes vary. My problem with the Monster Manual is that there isn't enough lore. I'd prefer something like the Iron Kingdoms Monsternomicon with a minimum two page spread for every monster.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

The lore or fluff of the monster manual is actually my favorite part. So many gems that one can build adventures around - fiends being only killable on their native plane, divine origins of the kraken, genies' respective forms of slavery, aboleth's memory...

 

[drjones]

Is everyone comfortable with WOTC dictating this degree of your setting?

What are you afraid your players will take you to court because your kobolds didn't act like the ones in the book? Anyone can get as crazy as they want with their setting even the stats in the book can be completely ignored if you want. The MM is there for people who don't want to make up their own stats and want to be inspired with cool ideas about the monsters to wrap their stories around. If that is not something you want because you don't want the 'Man' dictating how your monsters behave just don't buy it.

I just listened to the podcast talking about its construction and the author made a good point that if you just want to kill monsters computer games do a much better job of that but where RPGs shine is in story and interesting worlds, things that would cost hundreds of millions to put in a viddie game with the level of creativity that a teenager can write into an adventure in an afternoon. This book is providing concrete hooks for story that people who are not expert writers can use. That's hugely valuable even if it's not what you personally want.

 

[Desdichado]

It's clear that tastes vary. My problem with the Monster Manual is that there isn't enough lore. I'd prefer something like the Iron Kingdoms Monsternomicon with a minimum two page spread for every monster.

Love the Monsternomicons. But they're quite different. They establish all new monsters that are deeply rooted in the Iron Kingdoms setting. And if they're taken out of their Iron Kingdoms context, well, it's not like they're widely known monsters that players are likely to have expectations about.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

The more the merrier, lore is always good, whether you use it or not.

 

[Skyscraper]

I'm comfortable with it--in fact, I like it--because I don't in even the tiniest degree think of it as WotC dictating aspects of my setting. I see them giving a default presentation which everyone not only can, but is basically expected to, change or ignore as they see fit. I find the lore to be inspiring to the imagination, sometimes introducing something I want to use, other times inspiring me by making me want to look for alternatives.

I find this far preferable to, say, the 1e MM, and at least as preferable--albeit in a different way--as the 2e.

Likewise, I'm fine with a lot of lore included in the MM. I think that's how it should be. This said, My Setting will not include most of that lore. My setting is a homebrew, with my own pantheon. WotC is not dictating what my setting should or will include. They are providing inspiration. And I think it's great.

 

[TerraDave]

All hail the Wind Dukes of Aaqa!

For those of you who don't have it, there is lore. Probably the most lore that has been in a MM, even with no "named" beings, though the, well, names of those beings are there. In the lore.

They said they would do it, and it was one thing I may have complained about in anticipation.

Now that I see it...I want to see more and more of it as I keep reading this book!

It reminds me of the 1E DMG artifacts, which usually had some teasers on their origins. Evocative, often quirky, very specific to the monster, clearly a source of inspiration for the DM. Easily ignored.

It doesn't lock into any particular campaign setting (except I guess the multiverse itself), it doesn't get repetitive with certain events or elements in a way that 4E could, and, crucially, it tends to be interesting to read, which D&D isn't always.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

For those of you who don't have it, there is lore. Probably the most lore that has been in a MM, even with no "named" beings, though the, well, names of those beings are there. In the lore.

They said they would do it, and it was one thing I may have complained about in anticipation.

Now that I see it...I want to see more and more of it as I keep reading this book!

It reminds me of the 1E DMG artifacts, which usually had some teasers on their origins. Evocative, often quirky, very specific to the monster, clearly a source of inspiration for the DM. Easily ignored.

It doesn't lock into any particular campaign setting (except I guess the multiverse itself), it doesn't get repetitive with certain events or elements in a way that 4E could, and, crucially, it tends to be interesting to read, which D&D isn't always.

Yeah.

 

[Hussar]

Of course they can. Just because we're under no obligation to pay attention to their dictates doesn't mean that Wizards can't dictate all kinds of stuff to us in their books.

The open question is whether or not that's annoying to you, not whether or not they can do it. Sadly for Hussar, it doesn't look like anyone's really carrying his torch for him, so nothing seems likely to change anytime soon. Because, as you say, we can always ignore that kind of setting dictate in the MM. I seem to be the only one so far who's responded a little bit sympathetically to his gripe, but even I don't think it's anything worth worrying about.

Yeah, pretty much whistling in the dark here. To be fair, looking at the previews, it seems that things tend to be different for "social" creatures than "monsters". If you look at the Rust Monster or the Manticore, I would have zero problems with either entry. But, when you start telling me that this race is a slave race to that race, I find that a bit much.

What are you afraid your players will take you to court because your kobolds didn't act like the ones in the book? Anyone can get as crazy as they want with their setting even the stats in the book can be completely ignored if you want. The MM is there for people who don't want to make up their own stats and want to be inspired with cool ideas about the monsters to wrap their stories around. If that is not something you want because you don't want the 'Man' dictating how your monsters behave just don't buy it.

I just listened to the podcast talking about its construction and the author made a good point that if you just want to kill monsters computer games do a much better job of that but where RPGs shine is in story and interesting worlds, things that would cost hundreds of millions to put in a viddie game with the level of creativity that a teenager can write into an adventure in an afternoon. This book is providing concrete hooks for story that people who are not expert writers can use. That's hugely valuable even if it's not what you personally want.

It's not really an issue with the players. What the issue is, is every single module or supplement that WOTC produces will have to follow this lore. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. You're going to have tons more added on over the years, which will filter through every setting, every module, every thing in the game. Draconic slave kobolds will be the new standard and you can bet dollars to donuts that that little tidbit is going to become the de facto standard for kobolds every time they are presented.

Sure, I can ignore it. Yes, I am aware of that. But, when you have this kind of lore added to monsters, its never going away. It's only going to get added to, accrete and become even harder to change in any form down the line.

At least, that's my prediction.

 

[Tovec]

I haven't looked to closely at the previews (it's not my thing to read them so piecemeal) but I've read some and I do have issue with these "slave race" connections. Or the presumed connections between certain creatures that came out during the Wandering Monster articles - like Driders and Drow being automatic allies for encounters. Or the direct statements of demon-lords as patrons of certain creatures (I think it was the Gnoll description that was the worst).

It bugs me to no end. It makes me want to ignore all of the lore they put in so I don't have to have the presumption that it is all in until I rule it out.

I'm not in favour of such explicit connections. I don't mind a definition for a given creature. I think it goes too far when they're prescriptive, especially for special abilities during combat.

I recognize that everybody's limit here is going to be difference. Mine line is that they've gone too far in an attempt to brand the heck out of this game. In order to bring us all in-line with their settings. My problem is that I've never played in those playgrounds, I don't care about Faerun's NPCs or gods, or even Oerth's. So this lore is wasted on me, and it is made all the worse by giving automatic connections that my players will come into my games expecting me to carry over where I definitely won't be.

Yeah, not a fan.