D&D 5E How Much Lore is Enough?

[Hussar]

I've been looking at the Monster Manual previews and something has really struck me. WOTC is really going to town including very, very specific lore in monster write-ups. Kobolds are now slaves to dragons, salamanders are slaves to efreeti, so on and so forth. The writeups are chock a block with proper nouns - naming gods and specific places like the City of Brass or the Plane of Ash.

I have to admit, the more I'm seeing of the Monster Manual, the less I'm liking it. I don't mind some lore, that's a good thing. But, this lore has a very strong tone, and is authoritatively written. It's not rumour or hearsay or "some sages believe" but rather, this monster is X, it lives in Y, and it has the history of Z.

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

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

 

[Li Shenron]

From the MM preview so far, I didn't have the impression that the lore is that much... my general feel is that there is too much space spent on artwork and too little spent on words!!

But anyway, I LOVE for the MM having lore and fluff for each monster (except physical description, honestly I think the artwork takes away the need for verbal description of the appearance).

The problem with that, is that it depends on the chosen lore... I absolutely hated the approach of 4e to try and give a new spin to a lot of creatures, assuming that everybody was bored. That killed legacy with 30+ years of adventures. Minor changes are OK, as well as additions that don't truly change the concept or the role of old monsters in fantasy settings and adventures.

So unfortunately for me the only to judge that, is on a one-on-one basis.

 

[delericho]

Provided they:

a) Make it clear to players that DMs are able (indeed encouraged) to change some or all of the lore, and
b) Don't try to force all their published settings to fit the mold where it contradicts setting-specific lore

I don't see any great problem with it. It's useful for new DMs to have a default setting to fall back on and, frankly, many experienced DMs are just going to ignore it anyway (indeed, they may never read it, being interested only in the new stats for monsters).

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I guess it's similar to the "points of light" setting philosophy of 4E: unless a DM has a clear vision of the world where his adventures take place, he is free to use the prefab lore from the MM and use it to flesh encounters and whole campaigns. If he has strong opinions about the setting, he can discard everything that he doesn't need.

 

[wedgeski]

Having spent most of last night gobbling up every page of this wonderful book, I would have to say that more is better. I don't feel obliged to use the official lore, and in fact I already have a couple of pages of adventure ideas almost entirely inspired by what was written, so in that respect, I'm glad it's there. We take what we want and leave the rest. That's what we do, right?

 

[Nemio]

As a new DM I like it.
I can use it as the default background and always give my own spin to it if I want.

 

[Iosue]

Personally, I like monster descriptions to be about the length and specificity of those in B/X and BECMI. Which the monsters in the 5e Basic Rules provide me, so I'm happy there.

As far as the Monster Manual goes, I think a little more specificity, some story hooks, and the like, work fine. I don't see it as "dictating" to my campaign, because the MM can't dictate to my campaign. It can give suggestions, it can tell me what the default that WotC is using is, even inspire me, but if I'm running homebrew, lore is strictly the purview of the DM, and the MM has no say.

OTOH, if I have no particular idea about something, or am not a DM particularly given to worldbuilding, then that stuff is awesome.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I ignore a lot of lore when it suits me.

That said, there are so many people on this forum that sing the praises of the 4e Monster Lore Books, that I suspect WotC saw a desire in the fanbase for richer lore and not sparser.

 

[Astrosicebear]

The MM is a DM's toolbox. It should spark imagination and insight. I think this new MM does so very well. Reading through a DM will see these lore blurbs and be like... "Wow! They can fight this guy now, and later... they'll see these other guys using them as slaves and be like, 'holy hell! remember those things?! And these guys have them on leashes?!'.

That's what its all about. Inception.