Search results

I know it's based on the current lore, and I know that I like parts of that lore less than previous versions, and I know that they are excluding aspects of the lore that a book purporting to cover the D&D multiverse shouldn't exclude.

I have seen very little in current lore that measures up to what previous editions had to offer, and much I don't care for. This book is basically a guide to using lore I don't like. Why would I spend money on it?

I love lore, you know that. But there are reasons why this lore book does not appeal to me.

Also halfling. Little longer lifespan, good food, peace and comfort. And as Tolkien once said in "Concerning Hobbits", we both enjoy books full of things we already know. If I could retire to the Shire, I would.

That's been the plan for a while now I think.

Well, you have clearly delineated all the reasons why they're not getting my money, so there's that at least.

So...a guide to rewriting history. Hard pass.

What would be the point? Radically changing the setting to conform with their conception of what "modern" audiences want out of a setting that most of them have probably never heard of seem like a case of diminishing returns to me. Best to not mention it at all if they're that afraid of...

Is that the point though? Has anyone at WotC actually stated the goal is to create a worldbuilding chapter with a little worldbuilding as possible, presumably so as to teach of new generation of dungeon masters not to bother with the practice?

My hopes for WotC were suppressed long ago.

Are you just against settings altogether? You seem to have nothing good to say about the concept of worldbuilding in a thread about the forthcoming worldbuilding chapter in the 5.2 DMG. And people say I'm too negative.

Is there a way you can express your opinion that is less aggressive and insulting to those who don't agree with you? If so, please find it.

There are plenty of classic fantasy stories that are, more or less, but they don't have to be. I also don't want the alternative baked into the game, where all nations must be cosmopolitan. Perhaps both options can be discussed?

Nice assumption. How did you get hired as the official representative of all the D&D players you're clearly speaking for?

I've been fine-tuning the same world for years, and all my fantasy campaigns use one part of it or another. I've written a couple hundred pages about it so far in various drafts, with maps and charts. And that's just world detail, not my 500 page compendium of mechanical game elements that my...

See, I already have all this information, to a far greater level of detail (which matters more to me than whatever they think is 2024-appropriate). The only thing I might want is what they specifically aren't providing: game details for the edition everybody is playing. This is of no use to me.

The description you quoted shows that it's not edition-neutral, what with Spelljammer's Astral Sea that only exists in that form in 5e, and less than a year ago at that.

Middle ground tends to be frowned upon in these discussions.

And everything the DM does in D&D has to be all about what the players care about? What about what the DM wants and finds fun? Heck, what about what the players might enjoy more because of the detail that went into the world they're experiencing through their PCs? Maybe worldbuilding is...

If you want more control over your game, AL is probably not the best place for you.