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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Parmandur" data-source="post: 9183683" data-attributes="member: 6780330">But immediately after he says that and says explicitly says that this is to give cover to R. A. Salvatore and Paramoint pictures (though I will note both Salvatore and Hinor Among Thieves use more lore than is in the core 3, quite a bit), he says this:"However, we use canonical lore internally to maintain consistency across our fifth-edition products. Knowing that fire giants are canonically shorter yet more powerful than frost giants means that we don’t need to rethink that bit of lore in upcoming products. Similarly, knowing that all trolls regenerate makes designing new troll variants easier.""If you’re not sure what else is canonical in fifth edition, let me give you a quick primer. Strahd von Zarovich canonically sleeps in a coffin (as vampires do), Menzoberranzan is canonically a subterranean drow city under Lolth’s sway (as it has always been), and Zariel is canonically the archduke of Avernus (at least for now). Conversely, anything that transpires during an Acquisitions Incorporated live game is not canonical in fifth edition because we treat it the same as any other home game (even when members of the D&D Studio are involved)."And this in regards to their motivation, which makes sense for not raising barriers for entry to middle schoolers:"The most important reason why we maintain our own continuity, separate from other expressions and earlier editions of D&D, is to lessen the burden on DMs. It’s not that we insist on creating everything ourselves; rather, we don’t want DMs or players to feel like they must read a novel, play a video game, or buy a third-edition sourcebook to enjoy our game and get the most out of our current line of products. We’re judicious about introducing certain types of new lore for this same reason: DMs and players should be able to use our content without having to keep up on some metaplot that stretches across novels, comics, and video games."Here's what Perkins lays out for their standards, which makes sense of what we have seen and are likely to see, and to me it is entirely reasonable and not something thst takes less work at all:"Those among us who are fortunate enough to become shepherds or stewards of the D&D game must train ourselves to become art and lore experts so that we know when we’re being faithful to the game’s past and when we’re moving in a new direction. We decide, based on our understanding of the game’s history and audience, what artwork or lore to pull forward, what artwork or lore needs to change, and what artwork or lore should be buried so deep that it never again sees the light of day. We have a couple guiding principles:""If the artwork holds up or the lore has been true in every past edition of the game, we think twice about changing it.""If the artwork or lore hasn’t withstood the test of time, we can update or discard it.""The number of eyes on a stock beholder has been consistent throughout D&D’s history. No need to meddle with perfection, I say. On the other hand, if you’re familiar with old maps of Waterdeep, you might recall that one of its seedier avenues was named Slut Street. When we updated the map for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, we gave that street a new name. The old name was never good to begin with and does not withstand the test of time."</blockquote>

Verification