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

[Paul Farquhar]

If someone asks me to join a D&D game that is set in a non-magical world with only humans as PCs, I'll have some questions about details. I might still join if it sounds interesting,

I've certainly toyed with a real world historical setting. Which would, perforce, imply that the PCs are all human. Not got round to running it yet, I might allow some fey.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

man it's almost like I have in all these posts time and time again posted examples of asking my players not to do something not being the same as telling them something can't for no reason... almost like the honesty matters.

 

[Xamnam]

man it's almost like I have in all these posts time and time again posted examples of asking my players not to do something not being the same as telling them something can't for no reason... almost like the honesty matters.

My apologies, I wasn't trying to change your words, and I can see the difference you're pointing out.

But, also, that wouldn't change my reaction at all. If the DM just emailed out a list of campaign rules and one was "No gnomes" it would feel the exact same to me. The why doesn't really matter.

 

[Maxperson]

"Because I said so" isn't lore.

Nobody claimed it was, so you're tilting at Strawmen here.

You can't be a gnome in my Six Kingdoms setting because gnomes are full on fey there. Their minds are partially alien and they can't stay out of the Fairylands for long. They replaced elves as the Fey of Summer. This makes them impossible to play inside of the D&D playloop. If you want to be small and cute, be a halfling, kobold, or munk. If you want to be a gadgeteer, be a green elf of kobold. If you want to talk to animals, be a hound, a cursed human of Wu, or a swamp dwarf.

And there is lore in both Athas and Krynn that keep orcs from being present. One is stronger than the other, but it exists in both. And when you get right down to it, the lore on Athas doesn't keep orcs from being present. Genocide =/= every individual is killed, so the sorcerer kings could easily have missed some small groups of orcs.

 

[Maxperson]

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"

It doesn't matter if you say it. Both instances happen because you say so. One is just left without another reason. Because I say so isn't the problem. It literally cannot be, since it's all "Because I say so." You need a reason other than that for something to be good or bad.

 

[Deset Gled]

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

Is a nice philosophy to play by in many cases, but unfortunately it's not a universal response.

Some game worlds are not only defined by what's in them, but also by what's not in them. If a group plays in an explicitly low magic campaign/world, you can't just assume a player could come up with a powerful spellcasting character and it could/should be easily integrated into the game. Of course, it gets hairier when exclusions are implicit.

 

[Maxperson]

D&D is a game. If your lore doesn't support a fun game and breaks the agreement that the player get to make their own PCs, it's not good lore for D&D.

You need to show how limitations don't allow players to make their own PCs. For that matter, there's no inherent agreement that players do get to make them. Convention games typically make them for you and everyone plays those without complaint.

It seems to me that if you want to expect to be able to have all options open to you in defiance of the PHB that says the opposite, you need to get the DM's okay for that during session 0.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My apologies, I wasn't trying to change your words, and I can see the difference you're pointing out.

But, also, that wouldn't change my reaction at all. If the DM just emailed out a list of campaign rules and one was "No gnomes" it would feel the exact same to me. The why doesn't really matter.

okay, but again not the example we have been discussing over multi threads... I can only assume you are coming in new here (to the orcs on DL issue that has already closed 1 thread)

The example was your regular weekly game, you all show up with drawn up characters (or mostly cause some said you would need to roll stats at table) and you made a half orc. You are then told this world doesn't have orcs and teh reason isn't one you as a player feel is a good one.

the idea that "hey we would have to all agree to play in this no orcs or be given a reason" seemed to get more and more push back with examples of "Well the rules don't say I can't play superman so I guess I can play superman then" and "It's like showing up to a star wars game with a Klingon you should know better"
When I pointed out Klingon would not be a basic race in a star wars PHB this got turned into "What if I don't like the prequals and the sequals and don't want that is my starwars game" and I asked why we would be useing the game that 2/3 of it you don't like and that got squashed... then it turned into "I guess everything must be in every game, so half mind flayer half beholder with a homebrew class is AOKAY!!!!" but again I pointed out that a PHB race is NOT the same as just making stuff up... that lead to me being told the PHB isn't always allowed.
So this lead me to examples that I gave where we as a table agreeed to such restrictions as a group and I was told no...just DM gets the say. This lead to me starting to say "IF you say enough they disagree with THEY say bye bye and you don't have a game"

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Dragonborn is a good example. I ban dragonborn in my game because I really don't like them as a race. I don't just leave it at that, though. I explained my reasons for not liking them as a PC race to my players.

Dragons in my game are rare and extremely powerful creatures. Anything with their blood in it to the point of looking like a a bipedal dragon would not only be very rare, but would also be MUCH stronger than any 5e PHB race. I'd have to give them tons of bonuses to their stats, beef up their breath weapons and resistances, etc. and they would be overpowered.

My choices for inclusion are to either make them overpowered or include the PHB version that trivializes dragons and dragon blood. Neither of those choices are acceptable to me so I ban them.

 

[Maxperson]

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...

And in the second 2 years you could play a half-orc, and the third 2 years, and... They just aren't native to the setting and come from another plane or if playing 5e another world.

I don't understand why there's this deep seated need to force orcs into a setting that doesn't have them when you can and always have been able to play them from elsewhere.

As for a half-orc assassin being in a novel. Three things. First and foremost an example of something that escaped through editing is not an example of new canon. It's an example of an error that wasn't caught. Second, half-orcs can be on Krynn if they come from somewhere else. Third, there's a difference between assassins the class and assassins the concept. Only the former doesn't exist on Krynn. This half-orc could very well have been a thief/rogue that kills people for money and is an "assassin."