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

[jasper]

Which is more important: preserving the lore of a setting or having the full range of PC character creation options?

For example, in the lore of Dragonlance between the Cataclysm and the start of the first novel there are no true clerics. Likewise, there are no halflings, orcs, changelings, tieflings, dragonborn, etc.

So which is more important: preserving existing lore or the full range of 5E PC character creation options?

LORE! LOVE IT OR LEAVE LOSER. Unless you are my ride, my snuggle bunny, or it is an adventure league table.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As usual, a post that begins with “So you…” can safely be ignored.

Too bad I replied before I saw your advice... Live and learn.

 

[billd91]

They created it - and they aren't playing at this table. So tough.

But if I am running this game and I like their decision and rationale... tough.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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

Which doesn't prevent it being a dull and basic reason. And pretty clearly the player who wants to play the member of a race the DM doesn't want has personal preferences. And they are going to be the ones playing that race. But apparently their preferences don't matter?

There are good reasons to ban races (Kender...) but "the DM doesn't like it" is dull and basic.

 

[billd91]

Which doesn't prevent it being a dull and basic reason. And pretty clearly the player who wants to play the member of a race the DM doesn't want has personal preferences. And they are going to be the ones playing that race. But apparently their preferences don't matter?

There are good reasons to ban races (Kender...) but "the DM doesn't like it" is dull and basic.

And yet, the DM shouldn't be made to run a game that will be less fun for him because it contrasts with his preferences either.

Preferences are preferences - preferring to play one vs preferring not to have to deal with them. Neither is really dull nor basic unless the other is as well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And yet, the DM shouldn't be made to run a game that will be less fun for him because it contrasts with his preferences either.

Preferences are preferences - preferring to play one vs preferring not to have to deal with them. Neither is really dull nor basic unless the other is as well.

Yep. This was my position from the beginning:

Others might argue it detracts from the "fun of the players" but I will counter that with "it detracts from my fun otherwise" and frankly, I play DND primarily for me because I enjoy it. I am not going to run a game I won't enjoy running.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is theme, lore, style, and preference are separate thingd. You can tie them together or not.

Gotcha. I don't think they're as separate as you want to make them. Style and theme pretty lore dependent.

Going with the greek theme, if I say there are centaurs and satyrs, I don't have to come up with lore for it since the theme itself is the lore. Everyone(or at least most gamers) know that those are greek mythology themed creatures, so they're expected in such a setting. If however, I want to add in gnomes, it's going to be pretty out of theme and should have some lore explanation for why this greek themed setting has gnomes.

Preference isn't dependent on lore, but it's better if there is lore of some sort, either inherent like centaurs in a greek themed setting, or created for the gnomes in the greek themed setting. As has been noted, while it's valid to just be like "because I said so," it's often unsatisfying to hear that.

For example, you can say your has a Greek Mythology theme. But the lore can be altered to offer all kinds of races.

But not all races. I can say I have a reptile theme and allow lizard men, yuan-ti, tortles and dragonborn, but if I then also allow elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, humans, tieflings, aasimar, genasi and whatever the rabbit people are called, I no longer have a reptile theme.

I might get away with offering one of those races, but that would be about it. Any more and now I'm offering 50% of the reptile races and I no longer really have a theme.

There's some leeway, but not a huge amount.

Kratos is from a Greek Mythology themed IP. But the lore has him in Norseland. And Marvels Thor interacts with Greek gods. Same with American Gods. Or Dresden Files.

Sure, but none of those is greek themed. You intermix to an extent if your theme allows it. Let's say Jim Butcher had space aliens invade earth in the next Dresden book. That book would be very out of theme.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which doesn't prevent it being a dull and basic reason. And pretty clearly the player who wants to play the member of a race the DM doesn't want has personal preferences. And they are going to be the ones playing that race. But apparently their preferences don't matter?

If we have incompatible preferences then we shouldn't play together.

There are good reasons to ban races (Kender...) but "the DM doesn't like it" is dull and basic.

I rather like the kender...

 

[jasper]

.....

....

1.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!)

1. Hey you so you did like my fictional lore.

2.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.

2. I said their sweat fells tacky. And there are only 250 well written story words between 1 and 2.

If you're going to ban something because you dislike it, be honest enough with your players to just tell them that. .......

3. Even when I do I have gotten people demanding I do 250 words so it fit into reason 1. And still demand they have player agency and I must change. Because the DM is their play thing.
and I don't know why the page breaks happen.

 

[Mecheon]

DA was written by Weis and Hickman and published in 1987. Kendermore was written by someone else two years later. I have no problem trusting that Weis and Hickman know more about the world they created than the author of Kendermore.

Y'know, this just reminds me of a very specific point:

The orcs of 35 years ago are not the orcs someone would want to play today. We're in a post-Warcraft universe where LotR orcs are far from the "This is an orc" image, instead the big things that influenced that image being Warhammer and Warcraft. Even D&D has had to bend to those being the big sources for the common image of "This is an orc", and Dragonlance kind of doesn't really have an answer to that archetype. Well, it technically has an answer, but everyone says 'That's an error in a book' rather than expand on it like that time Headmasters got mentioned as an ancient thing in Transformers and we just went ??? until a later comic tied into it and went "Yeah, Headmasters were ancient, have some Mysteries"