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

[EzekielRaiden]

if you don't have a good reason for your players it's 'cause i said so' if you HAVE a good reason YOU don't HAVE to say 'cause I said so"

Seems to me that you're talking past each other.

@Maxperson appears to be saying, "Every choice we make is because we wanted to make it." Which, I mean, that's accurate, but unhelpful.

You appear to be arguing, "A choice can be made purely on a whim, on literally nothing but 'it's what I felt like doing, zero further reason.' Or it can be made very deliberately, with reason and forethought, to seek a specific and identifiable end beyond mere 'I felt like it.'" Which, I doubt anyone will be surprised, is something I completely agree with.

There is a difference between totally arbitrary subjective choice and carefully-reasoned subjective choice. The latter is far more tolerable than the former. Unfortunately, I find that a lot of people who are fans of draconian (heh) restrictions will make a show of doing the latter, but if you drill down about it, the appearance of careful reasoning slowly evaporates and you're left with "because gnomes annoy me," or "dragonborn are just so...so...gauche," etc.

Leaving out dragonborn because dragons are angelic divine beings who don't copulate in the first place? Alright, that's kind of disappointing (seems like they would be a good fit for the aasimar-/tiefling-equivalent in this world!) Leaving out dragonborn because you think they're tacky is rather another story. So is writing (or, oftentimes, rewriting) world-lore for the purpose of enshrining that "because they're just so tacky" stance, since that's rather blatantly petty.

If you're going to ban something because you dislike it, be honest enough with your players to just tell them that. "I just think dragonborn are the stupidest thing ever written, and cannot conceive of a situation where I would enjoy running a game that has even a single dragonborn in it" is a position I rather strenuously disagree with for a variety of reasons. But if you're at least honest enough to say that up front, hey, at least you're clearly and obviously displaying it. I'd still consider it a red flag, or perhaps a yellow one.

 

[jgsugden]

Again, I challenge that this is a false choice. You can name any setting, and any PC option available in any WotC book, and I can come up with an organic way to introduce them and have them contribute to the accumulated lore of the campaign setting. When I do so it is not a choice between lore and player option - it is a melding of them.

Some would call that selecting the player option - but I strongly disagree. I have a setting that has existed for 40 years. There are a lot of key elements of the campaign that exist because a character either created it, or prompted the creation of it. Some of those started off as an off the wall 'fun' suggestion that allowed, built around and developed into something far more immersive. These choices build your world.

Look at Critical Role. Matt builds a canvas for his setting, then the players create characters, and then Matt builds the rest of his world around those PC creation choices. Look at the choices his players have made. Vox Machina was cookie cutter D&D in many ways. The Mighty Nein began to explore new areas, with focuses on races not common to his world (Tieflings, Aasimar, Furbolg), challenging races (Goblin), and class options that were unique (homebrew subclasses, Matt's own class). Bell's Hells are a step into the weird - and are in many wys symbiotic explorations of new ideas from players and Matt's established lore.

That is a pretty common scenario in my experience. As players enjoy a setting more and more, they explore more and more of it - and that allows them to come up with new takes on the lore that develop the world further.

As a player, I had an AD&D PC that started a secret organization in another DM's world. I know that secret organization is still a major power in his setting, but I have not played with him in 20 years outside an occasional drop in guest spot where I played the same PC when his current PCs came to request something of the PC. Players and DMs make choices that evolve the lore.

 

[Oofta]

Seems to me that you're talking past each other.

@Maxperson appears to be saying, "Every choice we make is because we wanted to make it." Which, I mean, that's accurate, but unhelpful.

You appear to be arguing, "A choice can be made purely on a whim, on literally nothing but 'it's what I felt like doing, zero further reason.' Or it can be made very deliberately, with reason and forethought, to seek a specific and identifiable end beyond mere 'I felt like it.'" Which, I doubt anyone will be surprised, is something I completely agree with.

There is a difference between totally arbitrary subjective choice and carefully-reasoned subjective choice. The latter is far more tolerable than the former. Unfortunately, I find that a lot of people who are fans of draconian (heh) restrictions will make a show of doing the latter, but if you drill down about it, the appearance of careful reasoning slowly evaporates and you're left with "because gnomes annoy me," or "dragonborn are just so...so...gauche," etc.

Leaving out dragonborn because dragons are angelic divine beings who don't copulate in the first place? Alright, that's kind of disappointing (seems like they would be a good fit for the aasimar-/tiefling-equivalent in this world!) Leaving out dragonborn because you think they're tacky is rather another story. So is writing (or, oftentimes, rewriting) world-lore for the purpose of enshrining that "because they're just so tacky" stance, since that's rather blatantly petty.

If you're going to ban something because you dislike it, be honest enough with your players to just tell them that. "I just think dragonborn are the stupidest thing ever written, and cannot conceive of a situation where I would enjoy running a game that has even a single dragonborn in it" is a position I rather strenuously disagree with for a variety of reasons. But if you're at least honest enough to say that up front, hey, at least you're clearly and obviously displaying it. I'd still consider it a red flag, or perhaps a yellow one.

Many, if not most, decisions we make are justified after the fact. Heck there are some people who say that virtually all decisions we make are justified after the fact whether we realize it or not, not that I would go that far. If I've decided that no one in my campaign setting is named Bob because I really hate Bob, I can justify it as lore because there was once an all-powerful being using the name that shall not be uttered. Total crap of course, but it is a reason.

My point is that calling a decision a "whim" sounds dismissive. I can always come up with a reason there are no bards in my world even if that reason is "There's a reason but you don't know why." Even it's really because I'm a big Snarf Zagyg fanboy and I dream of them joining my game some day, I can create a justification. Sometimes that justification is "Because I don't want anthropomorphic rabbit people in my game."

I don't allow drow in my game* because drow live in a separate realm (Svartleheim) and if they don't return to that realm they either go insane and die or become what I call gray elves (kind of like Vulcans are logic-based Romulans). Is that a good justification? Even if it's really just because I've rarely used drow in my game and hate Drizzt clones so I came up with gray elves? Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure myself.

*It's a bit more complicated than my description but end result is there are no drow that live on the surface for months on end.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Seems to me that you're talking past each other.

@Maxperson appears to be saying, "Every choice we make is because we wanted to make it." Which, I mean, that's accurate, but unhelpful.

You appear to be arguing, "A choice can be made purely on a whim, on literally nothing but 'it's what I felt like doing, zero further reason.' Or it can be made very deliberately, with reason and forethought, to seek a specific and identifiable end beyond mere 'I felt like it.'" Which, I doubt anyone will be surprised, is something I completely agree with.

right the 2 why questions I care about (and this is I, me, my opinion)

Why does this resection happen
why would the game be WORSE for having it...

in DL this doesn't work, the first 2 years the adventures were out you could play a half orc... and years later in a novel they had a half orc assassin that was treated as just another person...

the the best argument I have seen is that the Draconians are the endless minion of the dark lady (lord) so you don't need orcs that are just minions of the dark lord and we want it different then Tolkien now this falls apart when orcs are a full race not just minions... and D&D has grown WAY beyond Tolkien
the second best argument is "All the races have there place and there story as created by a god and we didn't make one for orcs" and that falls apart with "Do you plan to reference the creation myth of every race? and if so how hard is it to add 'and orc' next to oger and goblin?'
the final argument (what I call the cause we said so) is that by tradition there have never been orcs in krynn (except those first few years when no one knew that, and that time a writer, story editor and line editor at TSR didn't notice that there was a semi main character half orc assassin in a canon novel).


now let me go to one of my worlds that didn't have hobgoblins in it... when I was asked (not that someone wanted to play one but was just asked why) why? my answer was 'TBH kurt is sick of fighting hobgoblins, so I promised I would make a world without them" and that is as close as I have gotten to 'cause I said so' since 98.

a second example was my dark hunter game were I said no druids... and then someone REALLY wanted to play a druid, so I explained in depth and gave them the choice to play one but it would alter the game drasticly in a harder way....

Spoiler: why no druids

what i explained is that druids are the enemy... most religion is, but people see clerics or paladins from one of the religious communities as 'strangers' but the druids as out and out threats. "they speak with animals and cause storms and attack caravans and loggers" I went on to explain the powerful (maybe immortal but at least long lived) ruler of the shadow lands HATES druids and has special forces hunting them. so where a cleric or paliden or even ranger may get an odd look or two it is possible to draw down the ire of the army if someone was known to be a druid... I went on to explain I plan on you meeting druids and finding out EXACTLY what is and isn't up with them, so on 1 hand it will be WAY eaiser you will have a druid you will know the secret language, BUT in some ways it will be WAY harder cause any use of class feature or spell might trigger the party being kicked out of a town or worse...

since I promised the next campaign they could play there druid if they wanted they did just switch to a warlock. the funny part is when the next campaign came up and I had druids play an important part so they could make a druid instead they made a warlock...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Many, if not most, decisions we make are justified after the fact. Heck there are some people who say that virtually all decisions we make are justified after the fact whether we realize it or not, not that I would go that far. If I've decided that no one in my campaign setting is named Bob because I really hate Bob, I can justify it as lore because there was once an all-powerful being using the name that shall not be uttered. Total crap of course, but it is a reason.

if you come up with a good enough reason your players will most likely buy into it... if you come up with as you said a 'Total crap' they will most likely NOT go along with you... notice how that is all that matters...

I CAN make a world with any restrictions I want (I do so all the time). Heck sometimes I start with mechanics... I want a martial heavy world so people can feel good playing martial characters... I want a mage school game... I want a no healing (or slow) game... then I make the world around it. However I make sure all the reasons all the lore are things my players will buy into... even if I am honest (and I am to a fault) and say "I just wanted to try X"

My point is that calling a decision a "whim" sounds dismissive. I can always come up with a reason there are no bards in my world even if that reason is "There's a reason but you don't know why." Even it's really because I'm a big Snarf Zagyg fanboy and I dream of them joining my game some day, I can create a justification. Sometimes that justification is "Because I don't want anthropomorphic rabbit people in my game."

again and if you make flimsy justifications against things your players want (That trix rabbit bard) they are fully in there right to call you out on it.

I don't allow drow in my game* because drow live in a separate realm (Svartleheim) and if they don't return to that realm they either go insane and die or become what I call gray elves (kind of like Vulcans are logic-based Romulans). Is that a good justification? Even if it's really just because I've rarely used drow in my game and hate Drizzt clones so I came up with gray elves? Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure myself.

*It's a bit more complicated than my description but end result is there are no drow that live on the surface for months on end.

since we don't play in your game I can only say in an overview (with only this little to go on) Unless someone really wanted to play a drow this seems fine...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Lore, easily. I want the GMs to build coherent worlds they're inspired by and I want the players to be engaged in exploring those worlds.

Not that this is a conflict that tends to even happen is real life in my experience. Sometimes some players are not interested in the GM's pitch, so they don't participate. And of course the players can make suggestions to the GM and GM's tend to try to accommodate them, but that too has limits.

But I guess it is because I have always played in environment where people create their own settings, houserule systems or even create systems from scratch that I find the sentiment common in this forum that a D&D game must contain everything someone in WotC decided to put in print utterly alien. To me published rules are just a toolbox; use what you need. And I don't think this "everything must be available" idea exists in other games. Do people insist that they must be allowed superpowers in Napoleonic game using GURPS because GURPS Supers exists?

 

[Xamnam]

if you come up with as you said a 'Total crap' they will most likely NOT go along with you... notice how that is all that matters...

I don't know that this is true. If I'm a player in this situation, excited to play the game the DM is going through the effort to the run, and they say, "Oh, by the way, I really don't like gnomes, so no one play one, please," and I was planning on playing a gnome? I'd go, "Oh, okay," and pick something else.

If someone cares enough to take an option off the table beforehand, that means they care more than a little, and that person having strong feelings is a great reason for me 99% of the time. They don't need to justify them, and they don't need to come up with an in-universe reason unless that brings them satisfaction to do so.

 

[MoonSong]

In our MOD, Bards are half-casters, Sorcerers are a subclass of Wizard, and Warlock is a subclass of Cleric.

So you removed sorcerer and gave wizard its toys.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I mean, we have literally had at least half a dozen threads with people dunking on the "true exotics" or the "weird fantasy races" etc.

The same few people saying the same thing many times. You see what you expect to see, not what is actually there.

 

[Mort]

Again, I challenge that this is a false choice. You can name any setting, and any PC option available in any WotC book, and I can come up with an organic way to introduce them and have them contribute to the accumulated lore of the campaign setting. When I do so it is not a choice between lore and player option - it is a melding of them.

Some would call that selecting the player option - but I strongly disagree. I have a setting that has existed for 40 years. There are a lot of key elements of the campaign that exist because a character either created it, or prompted the creation of it. Some of those started off as an off the wall 'fun' suggestion that allowed, built around and developed into something far more immersive. These choices build your world.

Look at Critical Role. Matt builds a canvas for his setting, then the players create characters, and then Matt builds the rest of his world around those PC creation choices. Look at the choices his players have made. Vox Machina was cookie cutter D&D in many ways. The Mighty Nein began to explore new areas, with focuses on races not common to his world (Tieflings, Aasimar, Furbolg), challenging races (Goblin), and class options that were unique (homebrew subclasses, Matt's own class). Bell's Hells are a step into the weird - and are in many wys symbiotic explorations of new ideas from players and Matt's established lore.

That is a pretty common scenario in my experience. As players enjoy a setting more and more, they explore more and more of it - and that allows them to come up with new takes on the lore that develop the world further.

As a player, I had an AD&D PC that started a secret organization in another DM's world. I know that secret organization is still a major power in his setting, but I have not played with him in 20 years outside an occasional drop in guest spot where I played the same PC when his current PCs came to request something of the PC. Players and DMs make choices that evolve the lore.

This is a great point. I totally agree that the game is at its most fun when lore and player choice are merged.

And yeah, if one of Matt's players wanted to play a vegepygmy, he'd, likely, not only allow it - he'd use it as an excuse to introduce vegepygmy society and lore into the campaign and Exandria in general.