D&D General Joe Manganiello: Compares Early 5E to BG 3 . How Important is Lore?

[Quickleaf]

I thinknits so they can pitch it as a direct sequel. The 100 year jump makes it hard. Asking them and arguably Minsc and Jaheira doesn't fix that.

I didn't play BG 1&2 how is Minsc still alive?

How is Mirt alive? Trapped in a blueflame axe, then released 100 years later of course.

The stories I've heard of poor Ed Greendwood and R.A. Salvatore talking to each other in the wake of one of the 4th edition lore meetings is heartbreaking. And also inspiring for how they tried to stick to their guns and do the best with management's decision.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Since I run a long-term campaign setting that stretches through the decades and editions, I never overwrite existing lore (that has been used in the campaign). I modify, stretch, and integrate the new lore wherever possible, but in the case of an out-and-out conflict or rewrite, the old stuff stays. Precedent matters. Mind flayers use the lore from the 2e book the Illithiad; beholders use the lore from I, Tyrant; the fact that leprechauns are a cross between pixies and halflings, per the 1e MM, is in; the fact that elves and orcs can't breed, per 1e lore, overwrites any newfangled information to the contrary.

In very rare cases, I might decide that old lore that came up only as lore, but never as an in-game element that pcs saw for themselves, might be wrong. But usually, nope.

An example of integrating the new with the old: when 4e's new cosmology came out, I integrated it by saying that, first of all, nobody really knows how the planes are arranged and both the Great Wheel and the World Axis were mortal interpretations of the same underlying cosmology; and that the Elemental Chaos was just a deeper part of the Inner Planes where the various Elemental Planes mix together. I still use the para- and quasi-elemental planes.

Right there with you. Unless I can make the new stuff fit into the existing lore (at least in broad strokes), the old stuff wins.

 

[Micah Sweet]

4e updated the lore because the new mechanics no longer matched the old lore.

And yet they called it the same game.

 

[Minigiant]

And yet they called it the same game.

It was the same game.


It's is just that in each of the last 3 edition changes, new tools and new fan considerations were added to the game.

I mean the mechanics and base lore of the older editions were sooo rigid that older setting would be forced to update with newer editions or straight up no longer get support.

 

[Quickleaf]

And yet they called it the same game.

Oh, hah, I remember that 4th edition ad now, with the French accent "but the game is the same?"

What's you're problem, man? There were great things about 4th edition!

 

[Ancalagon]

I first learned FR lore in the 2e era, and then in the 3e era. I have... no need to update the lore beyond this. Why would I?

I think it's telling that all the settings I've used, only 2 are WotC... (Yoon Suin, UVG, Drakkenheim, warhammer, homebrewed pseudo earth, star wars SAGA, FR, 2e planescape advanced fighting fantasy, troika!, the GLOG by skerple, ...)

 

[Sulicius]

Why do people care so much about some crusty settings?

To me the lore is what happens at the table, or what is required to make the game better. It differs from campaign to campaign.

Sometimes WotC lore inspires me, sometimes it doesn’t, and I take what I like.

Are people who started playing in the last 10 years here who care about this?

 

[Minigiant]

Why do people care so much about some crusty settings?

To me the lore is what happens at the table, or what is required to make the game better. It differs from campaign to campaign.

Sometimes WotC lore inspires me, sometimes it doesn’t, and I take what I like.

Are people who started playing in the last 10 years here who care about this?

Well an established public setting allows for the groups members to all be on the same page and lets people who want to be more engaged get more engaged.

The issue is the demand for the lore to be static. New game design emerges. New story design emerges. New story to game interaction emerges. New groups join the fandom adding their desires for stories and gameplay.

Demanding a setting stay static is locking the fandom of it in place. Which is fine if you don't want continued support and wish to gatekeep it until it's death. However if the setting is to be everliving it has to match forward. And this is the toughest part long time fans have coming to grips with.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I first learned FR lore in the 2e era, and then in the 3e era. I have... no need to update the lore beyond this. Why would I?

I think it's telling that all the settings I've used, only 2 are WotC... (Yoon Suin, UVG, Drakkenheim, warhammer, homebrewed pseudo earth, star wars SAGA, FR, 2e planescape advanced fighting fantasy, troika!, the GLOG by skerple, ...)

It's pretty much just for the (Drizzt) novels. I can kind of get why WotC doesn't care about lore anymore. It really only matters to keep Drizzt going. (Which I'm fine with love me some Drizzt books).

 

[Micah Sweet]

It was the same game.


It's is just that in each of the last 3 edition changes, new tools and new fan considerations were added to the game.

I mean the mechanics and base lore of the older editions were sooo rigid that older setting would be forced to update with newer editions or straight up no longer get support.

Given the support we got in 4e and 5e (by and large), I would have been happier if they stopped at 3e.