D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Chaosmancer]

True, and I was oversimplifying. But when it comes to creating a coherent world, that responsibility lies with the DM alone. Players have control over the actions of their own characters, they do not have any control over the rules that govern the universe in which those characters live.

Does that still hols true when they are pulling from "third party sources" like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Ravenloft? (third party as in written by someone other than the DM or the Players)

In fact, Ravenloft is a particularly interesting example because Curse of Strahd has come up many times in this discussion. DM Bob didn't create that world. They didn't create the NPCs in it. They are simply reading the book to the players as the players play.

So, if the DM doesn't create the world, and the creator of the world didn't say "No Dragonborn Paladins can be used during this Adventure Path Game" does that make a difference?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Does that still hols true when they are pulling from "third party sources" like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Ravenloft? (third party as in written by someone other than the DM or the Players)

In fact, Ravenloft is a particularly interesting example because Curse of Strahd has come up many times in this discussion. DM Bob didn't create that world. They didn't create the NPCs in it. They are simply reading the book to the players as the players play.

So, if the DM doesn't create the world, and the creator of the world didn't say "No Dragonborn Paladins can be used during this Adventure Path Game" does that make a difference?

When I DM, it's always my version of the world - my FR, my Barovia, my Eberron. I reserve the right to make whatever changes I please.

 

[Scott Christian]

If a DM isn't strong enough to tell the players what the rules are in the current game it's time to stop being the DM.

It's not about strength or assertiveness. It is about compromise. Most DM's I know are there to have fun, and they want their players to have fun as well. So they compromise. The game is no longer the DM saying, "It comes at you and chops your head off - no roll needed."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's not about strength or assertiveness. It is about compromise. Most DM's I know are there to have fun, and they want their players to have fun as well. So they compromise. The game is no longer the DM saying, "It comes at you and chops your head off - no roll needed."

If the DM says "you can't play an elf in this campaign" then players can't play an elf. No "but elves are part of the core rules" no "but I really really want to play an elf". No elves means no elves. My players have never had any problems with that, and they are clearly having fun because they keep on coming back for more.

 

[Scott Christian]

The statements you gave are the opening to the entire section. Each and every single one of them.

Yes, some of those traits are innate, something people are born with. I agree. Yes, some of those traits are learned after they are born. I agree.

I disagree that Ability Scores are necessarily innate.

That is what you need to prove here. You need to prove that Ability scores, which can be increased and changed over time, that can be altered by training, environment, ect, are being represented by innate, born abilities.

Prove that. Don't tell me that you found out that some of these traits are innate, so that means that ASIs must be innate, because obviously some of those traits are not innate. So you still need to prove that ASIs are innate.

I can write it out for you. I can even go back to 4th edition and ask you to reread the racial bonuses and physical qualities of each race. The ones that specifically match and detail the bonus. But all you will say is: "It doesn't say they are born with it." And then I will say back: "But it literally says the race, meaning the entire race, has these qualities." And then you will say: "But maybe they just grew up in a culture that promoted it. Because it doesn't say they are born like that." And thus, the cyclical argument goes on forever.
So, let us say you are right. It's not nature, it is nurture. Because in the end, that is the two sides presented. OK. Then my character is from a highlands plain area full of runners. They run. We do it so much, that we are better than 99.9% of the other races. I want a +3 in con because we train so much in running. No other plusses, just a +3 con. That is what my people do. As DM, is this okay, or is their a "natural" limit on how much a race (in your mind culture) can improve?

Yes, that was the examples that they gave.

Guess what, that doesn't mean that they defined every single version of playing against type.

And the examples they give in fourth edition are also focused on stats. But, apparently, you know what they meant.

Not archetypical? Huh, that isn't what Mordenkainen's says under Gnome Adventurers

The Pull of the Stars​

Because of their extensive travels, gnome adventurers often become fascinated with the grandeur of the cosmos as seen in the motion of the stars across the sky. They view the cosmic array as a giant machine of wonderful complexity — a banquet for a curious gnomish mind. Many renowned astronomers, wizards, and extraplanar travelers are gnomes, having undertaken those disciplines in the hope of better understanding the workings of the multiverse.

That is what a splat book does. It doesn't reinforce archetypes, it tries to create new ones. Hence, why it is Mordenkainen's and not the PHB.

I also noticed that you didn't mention the lack of Orc Clerics. Since, you know, would be obviously archetypical.

Sorry. I didn't know you wanted me to address orc clerics. I do not think they would be archetypical. I apologize, I am a bit confused about this question.

See, you said it.

It is an optional rule.

So, no when you said "But if you choose to change a rule that has been in place for five years, and one that has been a staple for the game for several editions in a row, then maybe, just maybe, don't add it"

They have not changed the rule. They added an option. Options give a second path. They can do that for even fundamental parts of the game. They gave us 2 different options for creating Ability Scores, beyond rolling. Yes, they did that early, and they did not do this early, but that does not mean that they should have scraped the entirety of fifth edition before offering this option.

Tables are not going to be "forced" to adopt it. And obviously there is a lot of lore people don't even know about that can start getting accessed. Are the stats the first thing players encounter? Sometimes. Sometimes not. But, if I have a new player , I'm not throwing every book at them. I'm going to guide them through the process, and that means that they are seeing and hearing the rules I as the DM am giving them. And, a lot of the time, I'm giving them different rules than what is in the book, because I have a lot of houserules anyways.

Tables are not forced to do anything, including the use of spells. We know this. But few tables do not use feats. Yet, they are optional. Few tables do not use races outside of PHB. Yet those are optional. Even fewer don't use spells or backgrounds outside of the PHB, but those are optional.
The game is a compromise between different types of players, DM's and people. That's it. So if Tasha's is a great selling book, then these rules will be put into place on many tables, including some that do not want it there.

 

[Scott Christian]

And I was 13 when I started DMing. A game is as much the DM's as it is the players'. They all decide what rules they are willing to use to build a story.

The DM's job is to be an impartial referee on the adjudication of the events in the game/story. Your players are perfectly within their rights to ask you to use some "official" rules, even if they are optional. Remember that at this age they are palying with friends. Rare will be the teenager that will be ready to antgonize his friends ovor what is an official rule.

Yes the DM does a lot of work. Yes, sometimes it ia the DM that pays for a lot of the books. But it does not change the fact that without players, all these pretty hours of work and preps are for naught. You need players and players need you. It is a symbiotic relationship.

It is easy to deny one player. But what about 2? 4? A whole group? Or even all your groups? You may resist, but you might also have to cave in or see your group(s) going to greener pastures.

My perspective here has some experience.

I have run D&D club at different high schools for almost as long as I have taught. I try not to DM, just sit there and explain rules while grading papers. There are a few takeaways:

• They look everything up online. If it is online, then they can use it. I stay out of it, but that is how they roll.
• If a player comes in with a new book, they all try to use it. And then immediately tell me to have our library order it.
• Once the new players understand they can start with a 16 or they see their friend build a stronger character, they all gravitate to build a stronger character...
• Except about 20%. 10% of which do not care. (They are there because of a friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc.) The other 10% want to stick to the original version of their character, even if it means they are weaker.
• The ones that want to change characters often will play suicide with their characters in order to get them to die.
• Most play archetypical characters. They learn very quickly about optimizing characters. They learn the RP aspect much slower.

Most of the clubs I have watched over have between three and five tables of five or six players. A lot. Which is cool. There is not a DM in the lot that would say no to their friend if their friend asked to play a yuan-ti.

 

[ph0rk]

That's it. So if Tasha's is a great selling book, then these rules will be put into place on many tables, including some that do not want it there.

If those tables are weak enough in their desire to not have these rules that the mere publication of the book overcomes that desire - well, it must not be that big a deal for them.

Anyone can make a custom setting, and anyone can restrict add-on books. If doing so loses players, maybe the DM is being too restrictive for their pool of available players. Too bad.

 

[Helldritch]

If the DM says "you can't play an elf in this campaign" then players can't play an elf. No "but elves are part of the core rules" no "but I really really want to play an elf". No elves means no elves. My players have never had any problems with that, and they are clearly having fun because they keep on coming back for more.

And you are perfectly within your rights as a DM to do that.

Personally, I prefer a more democratic approach where if I want something specific removed or unavailable I will discuss it with all the players and get the approval of the majority, thus avoiding the problem.

I once did an all elf campaign, an all dwarf campaign and even an all orc campaign. They were fun campaigns but all players were aware and were forewarned of the restrictions that would be imposed upon them. Again, same results but different approach.

I too have players that keep coming back and a long list of waiting person for a vacant place to be available. It does not mean that I have the obligation to impose all kinds of restrictions on official rules without their consent. Again, it is as much my game as it is theirs.

Edit: added two words missing. Damn the autocorretor

 

[Scott Christian]

True, and I was oversimplifying. But when it comes to creating a coherent world, that responsibility lies with the DM alone. Players have control over the actions of their own characters, they do not have any control over the rules that govern the universe in which those characters live.

I agree. But, I can say this, before players just let a DM tell them know, there generally needs to be a rationale. Like, "Hey, look at these maps and this notebook I have outlining the world," or "I have an idea of a realm that I want to pitch to you guys because it will require your buy in." But if you are sitting down to play a regular old game of D&D, there is a whole lot of compromise.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I agree. But, I can say this, before players just let a DM tell them know, there generally needs to be a rationale.

Not always an option - for example, telling players the reason for "no elves" would have involved plot spoilers.

The DM knows things the players do not. The players need to trust the DM has a reason for their rulings, no matter how arbitrary they might appear.