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

[Lanefan]

Because you have a limited number of players and a limited number of characters they’ll play.

At any one time, yes. Over the course of the whole campaign, however, both are open-ended in number as players and characters come and go, with characters being by far the likelier to turn over regularly.

If you create the world without any input from them at all, and then won’t budge if any conflict does come up… then I’d question who the setting is meant to be for.

The setting is mine.

If people want to play in it, good. If they don't, I'll be back in a year or two with a different one.

 

[Li Shenron]

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, absolutely.

PC Options are important for the game as a whole, because it makes the edition capable of covering more genres, styles, concepts etc.

Lore is what makes each setting unique, and allowing full range of options in every one destroys settings diversity.

 

[Hussar]

It's so bizarre. One would think that players are playing new PC's every week. Like allowing any option at chargen actually impacts the setting in any real way. Since the players are, over the course of a typical campaign, only going to play 1 or 2 PC's per player, the total number of "lore breaking" characters is miniscule. Who cares?

It really, really doesn't matter if Bob wants to play a plasmoid in a Dragonlance campaign. You find a simple background solution and move on. I just don't get this whole idea that if you allowed, again, a plasmoid PC, this would require anything more than 30 seconds work for the DM to slot in. There's a thousand possible ways to add that in.

It's such a bizarre hill to die on for me. It's almost like there's this idea that DM's have limited creativity. If we make the DM think too much, his creativity tank will be empty and the campaign won't be able to work because he won't be able to think of anything for the next NPC to say because he's totally out of creativity juice.

Again, if adding a single race to your campaign causes you that much angst, I really do think that this is indicative of far, far larger issues down the road.

 

[Maxperson]

Because you have a limited number of players and a limited number of characters they’ll play.

I get that the number of characters is limited and I said as much in my post, but that doesn't answer my question. If I have to allow whatever the players want, how does that not put literally everything on the table as something to be allowed?

If you talk to the players, if you collaborate, you can actually create a setting that’s more likely to suit everyone.

If you create the world without any input from them at all, and then won’t budge if any conflict does come up… then I’d question who the setting is meant to be for.

Sure, and during session -1 we come up with a campaign for me to run in a method that I've described here a number of times in other threads. That's not the same as everything being allowed, though.

 

[overgeeked]

It's so bizarre. One would think that players are playing new PC's every week. Like allowing any option at chargen actually impacts the setting in any real way.

If you want the setting to have any cohesion or sense of verisimilitude, yes it does.

Since the players are, over the course of a typical campaign, only going to play 1 or 2 PC's per player, the total number of "lore breaking" characters is miniscule. Who cares?

Some DMs and players, clearly.

It really, really doesn't matter if Bob wants to play a plasmoid in a Dragonlance campaign.

It doesn't matter to you. Clearly it matters to a lot of other people.

You find a simple background solution and move on. I just don't get this whole idea that if you allowed, again, a plasmoid PC, this would require anything more than 30 seconds work for the DM to slot in. There's a thousand possible ways to add that in.

There's also 61 other races not including subraces. The player can pick something else. This would require less than 30 seconds work for the player. "No plasmoids, okay. How about a firbolg?" Or, if we're being honest, the DM limiting races is going to tell the players up front what's on the menu. It's only a problem if the player decided that no matter what they were going to play this one and only character before they even joined the game. Now it's a problem. And it's not on the DM.

It's such a bizarre hill to die on for me. It's almost like there's this idea that DM's have limited creativity.

No, just limited time to be creative. I'd much rather spend that time making a kick-ass game to play than arguing about why you can't play something that violates the lore I've decided on and that you've agreed to abide by. It's such a bizarre hill for a player to die on. Are players limited in creativity? Can't they come up with a different character idea? Do they only get one?

If we make the DM think too much, his creativity tank will be empty and the campaign won't be able to work because he won't be able to think of anything for the next NPC to say because he's totally out of creativity juice.

If we make the player think too much, their creativity tank will be empty and the next character won't be able to work because they won't be able to think of anything for the next PC to be because they're totally out of creativity juice.

Hint: it's a lot more effort and creativity to run the entire world of a setting than it is to run a single PC. Maybe the player can be "burdened" with a little extra work for a change.

Again, if adding a single race to your campaign causes you that much angst, I really do think that this is indicative of far, far larger issues down the road.

Again, if making a single new character for a campaign causes you this much angst, I really do think that this is indicative of far, far larger issues down the road.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Seriously, do people do this in other games? Demand to play Sidereal Exalted in Vampire the Masquerade, to play GURPS Supers character in GURPS Napoleonics game? This is so bizarre.

What if I write my own game from scratch? Am I then also required to include anything players might imagine?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Seriously, do people do this in other games? Demand to play Sidereal Exalted in Vampire the Masquerade, to play GURPS Supers character in GURPS Napoleonics game? This is so bizarre.

What if I write my own game from scratch? Am I then also required to include anything players might imagine?

When I play chess, I always insist on being Colonel Mustard.

 

[Hussar]

If you want the setting to have any cohesion or sense of verisimilitude, yes it does.
/snip

Hint: it's a lot more effort and creativity to run the entire world of a setting than it is to run a single PC. Maybe the player can be "burdened" with a little extra work for a change.

Again, if making a single new character for a campaign causes you this much angst, I really do think that this is indicative of far, far larger issues down the road.

Ok, firstly, could you please not fisk responses? It's extremely difficult to read and I simply don't have the patience for it.

Secondly, I find the whole "I do all the work, so, I get all the authority" argument falls on its face when you don't allow anyone else to have any chance to do any of the work. If you are the sole source of lore for the game, then you cannot then complain when players are not contributing.

See, I haven't agreed to abide by anything. You've pitched the game, I've made an attempt to bring something to the table that I think will be fun for me and for everyone else. You've decided that my ideas just aren't good enough to play in your game, because you've done all the work developing the campaign, without ever actually taking the time to ask the players if there is something they would like included before you did all the work and made all the decisions.

Lastly, if adding a plasmoid (as an example) to your campaign totally ruins all cohesion and sense of verisimilitude, then, well, I'm thinking that that's a bit of an over reaction. Oh noes, the player has made a choice that probably in no way actually changes your campaign, has zero effect on anything, and frankly, is probably the least important or interesting part of your campaign (There are no XXXX in this campaign is not the most interesting part of your campaign). How would adding a plasmoid PC to a Dragonlance campaign change anything?

That's the point that's being made - and note, this is a point that has been made and repeated for decades and it never seems to get answered. If you're running, say, Dragonlance, how would the presence of a plasmoid PC change anything? Would the Dragonarmies cease to exist? Would the plot of the game change? Would any of the NPC's, locations, or adventure hooks change in any meaningful way?

So, what work am I negating by having a plasmoid PC in your Dragonlance game?

 

[Minigiant]

I really wonder how often this is a problem these days.

I mean. I get it back in the day. D&D was unbalanced. So players really wanted to have certain race/class combos. If you played a fighter or monk, you needed to play a race with the right +X -X.

But in 4e, you had control of your ASI and a balanced spread of primary scores and cultures amongst classes and roles. 5e's spread is not as good but now has Tashas rules.

So if the DM is running 4e or 5e there shouldn't be a problem.... unless the race and class options due to lore is bad.

Hot Take: The traditional PHB lore based race/class options in the default D&D is poorly designed gameplaywise in every edition except 4th. By definition, any DM who sticks to the PHB default or restricts passed them is running a poor race/class spread mechanically and therefore must make it up greatly with lore.

 

[Aldarc]

When I play chess, I always insist on being Colonel Mustard.

I think a more analogous example would be when playing Clue(do) that you insist on being Captain Ketchup rather than one of the pre-established characters. Clue(do) won't break by creating a character called Captain Ketchup for the game as an investigator and possible suspect.