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

[GMforPowergamers]

What Paladin abilities does she have?

She inspires others to be better I can see that as the Aura. She hits harder then Jammie thinks she should (maybe a smite)

 

[Minigiant]

As nobody said that "because I said so" = lore, your invention of an argument not made and argument against it is in fact a Strawman

I'm not stating anyone say "because I said so" is lore. I am just stating things that are lore.

My point is that banning something because of lore is stating that there is a lore reason why the race doesnt exist or never exist. But lore is lore. Lore is not theme. Lore is not style. Lore is not preferences.

There is nothing wrong with banning some race or class because of theme, style, or preferences. But they aren't lore.

There are no goliaths or warforged in my Six Kingdoms setting because all intelligent mortal races currently are bound to a divine king, dead or alive. And binding allows for the title of Archrebel to be claimed. There is no points in the Divine Line of Kings to squeeze in another race so no race can be created UNTIL the Archrebel or one of the 6 Godkings are killed. So if a player wants to be a Goliath or warforged, they have to wait until a party kills an Godking or Archrebel or until I canonically advance the timeline and decide which of these 7 NPCs die first.

THAT is a lore reason to ban a race.

 

[Micah Sweet]

mistake or not it is common on these boards (I can't say how common in person cause my group is always called out as an outlier)

or 3... when the referee restricts AND it comes in conflict AND the player cares enough (so 3 conditions) the referee has to have a good enough reason for the player and/or work with the player on a compromise.

again I get told my style is an outlier (and I may start a new thread since I was just asked for advice this morning) but I focus my games on what the players want

I focus my games on what everyone wants, with my ideas being the base. I have no interest in sublimating my enjoyment. We all get to play.

 

[Voadam]

What Paladin abilities does she have?

Smite, AKA hit really hard.
She doesn't get sick so immunity to disease? Seems like it might be more useful in GRRM's world.
Lay on hands self for the hit points are not meat model.
I don't remember her coming upon any fiends, celestials, undead, or fey, so no real basis for evaluating whether she has 5e detect evil.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is that banning something because of lore is stating that there is a lore reason why the race doesnt exist or never exist. But lore is lore. Lore is not theme. Lore is not style. Lore is not preferences.

Maybe I'm not understanding you, because it seems to me that lore is all three of those things. Themes are created via lore. Style is created via lore. Preferences come out in the lore you create. What am I not getting about what you are saying there?

There are no goliaths or warforged in my Six Kingdoms setting because all intelligent mortal races currently are bound to a divine king, dead or alive. And binding allows for the title of Archrebel to be claimed. There is no points in the Divine Line of Kings to squeeze in another race so no race can be created UNTil the Archrebel or one of the 6 Godkings are killed. So if a player wants to be a Goliath or warforged, they have to wait until a party kills an Godking or Archrebel or until I canonically advance the timeline and decide which of thes 7 PCs die first.

THAT is a lore reason to ban a race.

And it seems to me that the lore creates a theme, style and is the embodiment of what you preferred to create.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Funny. You get to decide that anything other than a kitchen sink campaign is dull and boring,

I didn't say that. I said if the only reason to leave something out is that the GM doesn't like it, that's a dull and basic reason.

but if a poster uses the word "whine" to describe a player complaining about some aspect of the game "doesn't really do anything" while also denigrating every DM that gives a **** about their setting by calling it "precious".

No, this is about when there is a conflict between lore and player options. @overgeeked seemed to define any such disagreement as being about the players “whining”. So I made the point that it’s just as likely for either side to be whining about their preference.

Based on your response, it seems you get how it sucks to be labeled a whiner for having a preference.

Better to assume good faith and reasonable behavior on part of both player and GM.

If you want to have a conversation without putting down people who disagree with you, perhaps you should take a gander at your own wording and phrasing.

I’m not putting anyone down. I responded in kind. Can any individual player be an entitled whiner? Sure. Can any goven GM be a control freak who cares more about his world than his players? Of course.

Better to view the discussion assuming reasonable parties. A compromise can’t be found, so what do we do?

In those instances, I personally choose the player.

 

[Ancalagon]

That's their problem. They can start over during session 0. PCs are rolled up together, in front of everyone.

True, but not for the reason you give above.

I totally agree that it is "their fault", BUT, some people will at least think about a character concept the very moment an opening appears. It's how their minds work. So why not prevent that with a few guidelines (like "no goblins" or whatever).

 

[Bill Zebub]

I guess what I keep coming back to is that if somebody in my group wanted to DM a new campaign but part of their idea included restrictions on PC options, my reaction would be, “Sure, no problem. Thanks for volunteering to DM.”

Anything else is just whining, imo.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I didn't say that. I said if the only reason to leave something out is that the GM doesn't like it, that's a dull and basic reason.

Not really. Any sort of creative process is in large part guided by personal preferences.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Except that "one deviation" can in the right (or wrong!) circumstances become the thin end of a wedge, leading not just to the kitchen sink but to the campaign going down its drain.

The best way to avoid going down a slippery slope is to refuse to stand near the top of it.

So.. like a literal slippery slope argument?

Please tell me how this is going to happen, because that's the thing that keeps going missing form these screaming matches: How is having this one thing or even multiple things contained to this specific character in this specific campaign going to destroy everything.

People keep asking like they need to build up entire add-ons to the world and do all kinds of work to just explain why this guy looks funny or casts funny or is actually capable while swinging a stick.