D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

Maxperson · Jan 28, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
Using your analogy, and attempting to explain what appears to be @Shasarak's view that you just don't seem to be getting:

Not eating liver because you don't like the taste makes perfect sense. I don't eat liver either, interestingly enough.

But when you say "No dragonborn at my table." it doesn't sound like you are saying "No liver for me, thanks." so much as it sounds like "No liver for anyone eating at the same table as me."

It's a group game which means that all of us partake of all dishes. Nobody can "eat liver" in a D&D game without my being forced to eat it, too. If someone plays a dragonborn, I have no option to not eat the dragonborn "liver".

cbwjm · Jan 28, 2017

On the subject of allowing or disallowing certain races/classes, I have a setting concept that would be highly restrictive in that only humans could be chosen. This primitive tribal setting has no wizards, monks, paladins, or clerics and certain subclasses are not allowed. Sorcerers and warlocks fill the role of the arcane caster and druids the role of the divine caster. Bards also have a role.

This setting is all about exploration as the PCs expand their exploration of the world around them beyond the borders of the tribes hunting grounds. I want the party to be close-knit so they all come from the same tribe and as they explore they may come across other races and uncover the settings big hook.

Basically, restricting of features leads to some great creativity. A world without elves or dwarves sraight away it sets the world apart from the standard settings and players will, in my experience, buy into these changes and more often then not work with them. It's always a good idea to run this by the players first so they are aware of the changes and don't show up with a dwarf monk or elven cleric, but in general, players will still show up an work with what the world allows.

Shasarak · Jan 28, 2017

Lanliss said:
One of my players, who sometimes DMs, is thinking of doing exactly that. He hates monks. Highly mobile, competent damage, multiple attacks, a touch of magic. They are just too flexible for his liking. He is also willing to allow them to remain, so long as they take a nerf-stick to the head. There is also flavor to consider. Much like I would not want a Gunslinger in my Neanderthal vs. Dinosaurs game, someone may not want a Monk in their Edgar Allen Poe/Lovecraftian Horror game. Wall running and Kai Blasts doesn't always mesh with everything, so it is understandable, IMO, to sometimes not want them involved.

First of all, really a Nerf stick to the Monk because they can move more then 30 feet? Maybe I guess. I imagine my group would give that DM problems if that is too broken for him.

And Lovecraftian Space Fungi are ok but Jackie Chan running up a wall makes you lose Sanity? Well I guess if you live in Providence then you can be as Fish faced as you want as long as you stay on the ground.

On the other matter, I do expect more than a sentence or two, unless those are the right sentences, to get a new "thing"(here meaning anything from laser gun to a Dragonborn) into my world. I expect them to actually know the relevant lore (i.e. The basic history of the area their thing is supposedly from, or how their thing might function under my worlds physics.). Learning how to help me help them is enough work, for me personally, to get some leeway in getting off things into my world. For example, I would not just want them to say "My Dragonborn was caused by a chaos eruption". I would want to hear how their Dragonborn feels about that, how it influences their behavior (hint, Chaos generally leads to Chaotic behavior), and how they imagine people respond to them. If they won't put at least that little amount of work in, they don't really want it, IMO.

Maybe they just want to play their Dragonborn Monk for 1 night a week without having to worry about doing more homework between games. Maybe they want to develop their character through game play rather then backstory. I dont know there are plenty of reasons why someone would think something is cool and want to play it without having to meet someone else arbitrary standards.

Personally I want to find out more about these Chaos eruptions without having to worry about how it makes me feel but if I had to guess I would say ticklish like little butterfly kisses.

AaronOfBarbaria · Jan 28, 2017

Caliban said:
Where did I say, imply, or reference "No way that's happening," as my initial response?

It was in responding to my comments with phrasing that suggest you were disagreeing with my stance on that matter that I was lead to believe you were taking the stance to which I was expressing opposition in the post of mine that you quoted.

Caliban · Jan 28, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
It was in responding to my comments with phrasing that suggest you were disagreeing with my stance on that matter that I was lead to believe you were taking the stance to which I was expressing opposition in the post of mine that you quoted.

So you put words in my mouth and then acted as if you were quoting me verbatim. Gotcha.

AaronOfBarbaria · Jan 28, 2017

Caliban said:
They seem to have a very player-centric view of D&D. It's all about and for the players, the DM's are just there to entertain them (for free) and should be grateful for the opportunity.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but you've certainly gotten my view of D&D wrong.

It's not "player-centric" - it's everyone-at-the-table-centric.

I refuse the separation of DM and players when it comes to determining who gets what they want out of the game. Instead, I insist that the entire group collectively get what they want, working together towards that goal - even when it means someone tolerating someone else having different preferences.

AaronOfBarbaria · Jan 28, 2017

Caliban said:
So you put words in my mouth and then acted as if you were quoting me verbatim. Gotcha.

I did no such thing.

At worst, I misunderstood you because of context. Don't try to make it personal, because it isn't.

AaronOfBarbaria · Jan 28, 2017

Maxperson said:
It's a group game which means that all of us partake of all dishes. Nobody can "eat liver" in a D&D game without my being forced to eat it, too. If someone plays a dragonborn, I have no option to not eat the dragonborn "liver".

You aren't making any sense.

In my experience, it really doesn't register to anyone except the player of the character in question what race that character is in the general playing of the game. I've had a gnome at my table (and I hate gnomes) for years, and not once ever has that character being a gnome been any different than if that character were an awakened sponge or a human because I don't bring it up, I don't dwell on it, and the player playing the gnome has no reason to be constantly drawing attention to that their character is a gnome.

All the role-playing is about what the character is doing, not about how much of a gnome he's being.

AaronOfBarbaria · Jan 28, 2017

Sadras said:
[MENTION=6701872]Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn.

Unless you have anecdotes of those two refusing to work something out with a player wanting to play one of those things, you've created a false equivalence.

Not pre-adding everything that a player could possibly want to your campaign setting, and telling a player you won't add in a specific something they like under any circumstance are worlds apart. The former is fine, not at all lazy, and not what was being discussed. The later is what [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION] called "lazy".

Shasarak · Jan 28, 2017

Sadras said:
[MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] doesn't follow that line of reasoning, neither does his head-scratching friend [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]. The former posted his reasoning in the Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves thread. The latter is so entitled that he casually calls the rest of us lazy.

Not sure how you being lazy makes anyone else entitled.

Apparently Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman were lazy because they did not allow Tieflings, Orcs, Half-Orcs, Drow and Lyncathropes in Krynn. Lazy DMs those two. How about all the other world builders who didn't include Kender. Lazy! And now with Volo's Guide, well you just cannot imagine how many Lazy DM's are out there these days. Its an epidemic I tell you!

I am glad you brought up Dragonlance. It is a complicated subject and I have noticed that not many people understand it as well as they think they do.

Firstly if you are talking about the novels then you must understand the difference between writing a novel and playing an RPG. Other then superficial similarities it turns out being an author is different to being a DM at least according to actual successful writers.

Secondly Dragonlance is infamous for its on going meta story where Margaret and Tracy introduce changes that blow away adding a Dragonborn Monk to your own campaign in comparison. They literally drop a mountain on the world and that is just the beginning without mentioning Chaos, Alien Dragons and killing their own Gods. And dont forget the rules changes that make what the Forgotten Realms went through look light in comparison.

And thirdly, I do appreciate the irony of using a World where anyone can actually play a Dragonborn Monk (well Draconian but you know WotC policy on reflavouring; see also Purple Dragon Knight) to make your point.

So no, Margaret and Tracy are not lazy. They are much too creative to be called that.