Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6278996" data-attributes="member: 2067"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/XAxaV.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />Sure. Like I said in post #1, it might be OK, if they're smart about it. But it would be reversing the trend of the last 15 years, and telling people that they can change the defaults is not enough. So people making assumptions based on what they read that the play experience won't support is a legit concern that WotC could solve in a number of ways, one of which would be abandoning the concept of default lore. Daring to suggest that is apparently like whacking a bee's nest, which is curious...Man, this is D&D, no one NEEDS to know ANY of the rules. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> But some of the most passionate fans of the game will be those folks who rip through the core books and find a group or form their own group around themselves. Those are people I don't want assuming that D&D lore is a certain way automatically. Nah, you mix it up. Banedead are FR stuff. Maybe you grab Strahd and put him in. Mariliths can be Blood War generals and Balors can be servants of (insert appropriate evil Dragonlance deity here). And I dunno why it would seem like an advert any more than "Jackalweres are made by Grazz'zt" seems like an advert for whatever inevitable book/adventure with the demon lords 5e comes along with. Or any more than having centaurs and succubi and mummies and aquatic elves share a book means that it's advertising a Greek setting and a medieval monotheistic setting and an Egyptian setting and an undersea setting. MM lore isn't trying to sell you anything, it's giving you something you can use out of the box. Use them all at once and you've got Bane making skeletons and Strahd looming over the town and Mariliths fighting devils and Balors serving some deity of evil, and man, that sounds like a lot of interesting stories to me. Kind of like your typical D&D world with mummies and dragons and aquatic elves and centaurs and succubi. All interesting stories. The point here being that lore is modular, and should be treated as such. There is no bit of lore that is true about any creature in D&D at every table. That's the functional reality of the game as it is played. A book that denies that reality and tries to present a lore that people can just presume to be true fails to be as useful a book as it otherwise could be. And the benefit of that is still something pretty vague to me.</blockquote>

Verification