D&D 5E When lore and PC options collide…

[Xamnam]

what does the word judge MEAN in this world... we ALL judge if we want to play a game (system or table) I don't know how (this is what post 4 or 5) this entire discussion is now about me and not lore vs pc options...

I think a lot of people read how you used it in this sense. The capital letters especially lent it an emphasis that leans that way. That's how I initially read it, and probably why people are asking why you care so much about how other tables play, no less in a context where we are talking about hypothetical tables.

Saying "I'll judge how other tables play" comes across very different than saying "I'll judge if something is a good fit for me", if that makes it clearer.

Examining something and coming to a personal assessment is perfectly reasonable, and I'm glad that you clarified. Your posts read very different with that context.

 

[Xamnam]

Whatever engages the players and their enthusiasm? That's the right answer for that table.

As long as we're not discounting the DM as a player, absolutely.

 

[Hussar]

As long as we're not discounting the DM as a player, absolutely.

Meh. If my players are enthusiastic, I'll bend over backwards, move heaven and earth, to keep them enthusiastic.

If it's a choice between enthusiastic players and my own personal preferences, I'll take player enthusiasm every single time. I've learned my lesson over the past few years. Trying to "mold the group" to my tastes is a futile exercise in frustration.

So, yup, any lore in any setting is absolutely, at my table, 100% up for grabs if the player is enthusiastic enough.

Which, fortunately, my players know and, since they know they are pretty much equally responsible to the table and for the table, they exercise their power responsibly.

Give me something to work with, and I'll happily eject any lore from a setting to make it work.

 

[Xamnam]

Meh. If my players are enthusiastic, I'll bend over backwards, move heaven and earth, to keep them enthusiastic.

If it's a choice between enthusiastic players and my own personal preferences, I'll take player enthusiasm every single time. I've learned my lesson over the past few years. Trying to "mold the group" to my tastes is a futile exercise in frustration.

Don't get me wrong, I would never try and force an unenthusiastic table to form to do something just for my own enjoyment. I more meant that if the DM is not enthusiastic about running it, that's probably not going to be a fun game for anyone. If the DM is happy to run the game the players want, even if it's not their own first choice, then the DM is still a happy player. If the player wants and DM wants are in active, strong conflict, and someone's going to be unenthusiastic about it as a result, the best outcome is they find a different campaign or game to play.

And, as other people have stated, it's not like you have to choose one and only one side of this, and disregard the other. Sometimes there's no conflict at all, and other times it's a spectrum where the table as a collective decides what things will have the greatest impact by their presence or absence, and what compromise will leave everyone the most excited.

 

[overgeeked]

As long as we're not discounting the DM as a player, absolutely.

Agreed.

When I say “I want to play a Dark Sun campaign,” that means I want to follow the actual lore of Dark Sun. So if you tell me you want to play something that doesn’t exist in Dark Sun that tells me either you don’t know the lore or you don’t actually want to play a Dark Sun game. If, after I explain the lore, you persist then that tells me clearly you’re not interested in a Dark Sun game. Dark Sun is just an example. Swap out Dark Sun for any setting with established lore.

It goes to D&D being a group activity. The choices you make have an impact on everyone’s fun…not just your own. Like someone playing a jerk edge lord can spoil the fun for the table (unless everyone’s into it) or playing the thief that always steals from the party can spoil the fun (unless everyone’s into it), playing something excluded by the lore of the setting can spoil the fun for the rest of the group (unless everyone’s into it). And the DM is a player, too.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When I say “I want to play a Dark Sun campaign,” that means I want to follow the actual lore of Dark Sun. So if you tell me you want to play something that doesn’t exist in Dark Sun that tells me either you don’t know the lore or you don’t actually want to play a Dark Sun game. If, after I explain the lore, you persist then that tells me clearly you’re not interested in a Dark Sun game. Dark Sun is just an example. Swap out Dark Sun for any setting with established lore.

Not necessarily.

It could mean that they want to play a desert world of harshness and psionics and everything that DarkSun has, but also with... I don't know, what does DarkSun not have? Like a big turtle dude. A desert tortoise man.

Them having a tortle character isn't making it not Darksun.

Lacking things, especially not in the sense of lacking ever single instance of things doesn't make a setting. Even in the most lore-defying instances. I imagine people would be quite interested in a caster that's not a defiler and that could be a plot point... or not. It's not going to ruin things unless the person running the game makes it ruin things.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Likewise, my apologies.

But, I have another theory. I don't think it is mutually exclusive to the We Really Want to be Playing Star Wars theory.

I think we* as players sit in front of the Dungeon Master's screen and watch him roleplay monsters, evil badasses, every other kind of creature and we become envious. I think this is true today but more so in the past.

In our envy**, we want to be able to do what the Dungeon Master does. So, we lobby for it with our dollars and the designers deliver.

* The Royal 'We', if that's a thing.
** Not the bad kind of envy.

In the spirit of my previous apology, striving for a more productive response: Is it jealousy? Or is it buying into the promise of fantasy?

I mean that in both senses of the term, "promise" as "an assurance upon which expectation can be based" and as "the potential for future greatness." Because the fundamental idea of fantasy, indeed the thing we TTRPG fans champion as the best part of D&D, is that "you can do anything." You aren't limited by the stuff a writer scripted in, nor what the art team could manage to produce, nor what a programmer could code for. You're limited solely by your imagination.

That idea of "you can do anything" is held up in both of the aforementioned senses. It's given as an offer: "The reason you want to play D&D and not WoW or Pandemic or Elden Ring is that you aren't limited to what those things already contain." And it's also given as an aspiration: "Nothing can hold you back but you."

So, does the player covet the DM's power? Or is the player under the belief that, by being a game where "you can do anything" (quotes because plenty of people use that exact phrase), they should be able to do a thing they find interesting/exciting/etc.? This seems to me substantially more plausible than a secret, burning envy that pushes players to act out, petulant and demanding; it also seems much more in line with the general reluctance to even consider DMing, because players do actually get that it's a hell of a lot of work, which you don't know will pan out, and which could be subject to ridicule (or at the very least disappointment.)

Or, to put a different spin on this: It seems to me that you must presume, in advance, that most people have bad motives for why they do what they do, and then select the most plausible option from among them. It is that presumption of bad motive--that, because you find these actions disruptive, the player(s) must have disruptive intent--which seems in error here.

(As an aside, the "royal we" is a thing, but it wouldn't be relevant here. It's used when a monarch speaks not as their individual person, but as or by way of the crown they hold. It's plural because the speaker is, technically, speaking for the entirety of the nation they rule. We don't really do personal monarchy much anymore in the Anglosphere, so it wouldn't generally be used anymore. You're just using the first-person plural pronoun, with the knowledge that although it can be interpreted as referring to 100% of all gamers everywhere, it should be understood as "most" or "the vast majority" etc.)

 

[Minigiant]

It's not one or the other..

Lore can open more PC options or constraint them.
Lore can constraint options but open up for other homebrew to offer new ways to play.
Lor can also make boring as butt gameplay.

 

[TerraDave]

As expected, lore is winning, and its what I chose.

But I am not trying to sell game books.

 

[TerraDave]

The Lore isn't playing in my game, inviting me to dinner, going to my birthday party, letting me cry on its shoulder or doing anything for me in general.

PC options all the way.

Your players will do all that, but they won't accept your game lore?