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

[GMforPowergamers]

No, I genuinely don't get why you think it is a false equivalency. What's the difference? If I decide to run my setting using D&D, it seems I am, according to some, required to allow any PC option WotC has decided to print for that game.

has anyone said that? has anyone said 'every single book, every single class, every single race MUST be allowed'?

cause I missed that...

now I keep saying if you say no to a basic phb combo the player is both free to ask why and if your answer doesn't satisfy them not only can they leave but so too can your other players...

THB I would most likely not show up with a half orc (I don't play many half orcs and I know if we do DL there are not orcs I will most likely want to be a 'dark' elf wizard anyway) but if a new player who has no idea sits down with a half orc and you are rude or not able to communicate a reason WHY he can't just play his halforc... I am going to serieusly reconsider if I want to play with you. The ability to roll with crazy things players do and the ablity to roll with weird things players ask is like in my top 5 DM skills I require to play in a game...

So if I decide to run the game using GURPS why doesn't the same apply? And how does this work with homebrew?

well Gurps is VERY different, but off hand if you hand me a book and I make a character from that book THEN you tell me 'no not that' I am going to be at least a little miffed... if you don't have a reason (one I can get behind) then I will be alot miffed.

the better analogy is being told "Hey we want to play a 90's era Vampire the Masqurade, but Cameriala only... and a player shows up with a tremere and another a venture and another a brujha and the 4th with a toradoar and being told "this world doesn't have tremere in it" and when you ask why the answer is give "Cause mages are too smart and the tremere are dumb"
or worse yet (and this is an example red flag from one fo the story teller books) if they say "sorry eric you are too dumb to play a tremere"

Also, IIRC you have your Arabian Nights style setting that you seem to be very proud of. Would you really include in it any sapient player species a player would request, regardless of how badly it clashes with the intended theme and tone?

again, if you have a reason, that reason can be given and evaluated by the group as a whole...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Regardless of whether I know how to the play the game properly or know, you sure know how to address people improperly and I would suggest that you quit making it personal. If you can't, then there is no point dragging this conversation around the thread any further.

didn't there used to be rules about making things personal on this site?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I agree. Often, it’s not even malicious. The GM’s role is to present challenge s to players, the players’ role is to overcome those challenges.

No clerics or divine magic doesn’t mean no druids or bards to many players, or no Thief Rogues with the Healer Feat.

right so (IMO) being honest is better...

"Hey I don't want healing other then HD can you guys work with me"
is better then
"No clerics, divine magic doesn't work here"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, I genuinely don't get why you think it is a false equivalency. What's the difference?

Exalted are not even defined within the rules of 5e. Asking to play a dragonborn, giff, or even a plasmoid is clearly not the same thing.

If I decide to run my setting using D&D, it seems I am, according to some, required to allow any PC option WotC has decided to print for that game.

And here you show you know it isn't the same, even as you engage in the hyperbole people keep mocking if and only if it comes from people challenging the ironclad inviolable restrictions argument.

No one--I mean this, genuinely zero people in this thread--are making the hyperbolic claim you've stated here. Numerous participants have explicitly rejected it.

So if I decide to run the game using GURPS why doesn't the same apply? And how does this work with homebrew?

I genuinely have no idea why you are referencing GURPS. I was criticizing your ludicrously hyperbolic claim that you "have to permit Sidereal Exalted in VtM." The GURPS thing isn't even remotely related, and I find it truly saddening that you see more than the tiniest, most strained and attenuated bit of comparison between that and "I would like to play a dragonborn, please."

Also, IIRC you have your Arabian Nights style setting that you seem to be very proud of. Would you really include in it any sapient player species a player would request, regardless of how badly it clashes with the intended theme and tone?

What counts as "badly clashing"? I've embraced owl-folk (long before owlin came to D&D; in-setting they are burrowing owls, which actually are a thing in some desert areas) purely because a player liked owls. I worked with a player to develop his dwarf barbarian's backstory, inventing the steppe herdsmen tribes to the east, with their animal totem iconography and terrifying battle prowess that they mostly use against one another. I permitted a tiefling character, despite wanting to keep devils and demons special, and this has borne excellent fruit.

So...what would be "grossly clashing"? Because I literally cannot think of a race which would be so utterly beyond the pale that I couldn't find a way to make it work, though the player and I would need to discuss specific implementation and possible tweaks. E.g. the plasmoid people keep talking about might be an arcane experiment or an ancient relic of a lost civilization; a minotaur would likely be a native of one of the more obscure islands among the Ten Thousand Isles of the Sapphire Sea, a gith might have crash-landed on their world, etc. I find such "stranger in a strange land" stories fun and exciting, and if the player is willing to deal with the likely consequences, awesome, that's even more tools for me to frame interesting scenes with. (I should note, I find "people will be racist to you" to be utterly deplorable as far as likely consequences are concerned, so I don't do that. "Likely consequences" would be more along the lines of attracting unwanted attention, difficulties with local customs, issues if anatomical mismatch, or being hounded by someone or something.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Oh, so the PHB is the magic book!

no it is the book that you need the rules in to play the game... like the instructions to chess, clue, risk ect...

So for example a weird world where everyone is some sort of animal person is right out, as you must allow your basic humans elves and dwarves.

once again you are not listening... I am NOT against restrictions, I am against ones you can't answer "WHY" too.

How boring.

yeah my campagins must be so boring for the last 30ish years

I certainly don't understand why you would want to creatively shackle your worldbuilding that way.

lucky I don't and you are going out of your way to pretend I do.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

try again this time remember... YOU NEED TO USE THE PHB TO PLAY D&D and THE HALF ORC IS IN THE PHB

Not sure why you think this is persuasive. The fact that X is in the PHB, is no more important than X is not in setting Y. At the end of the day, when it comes to character options, the PHB is just another book.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What counts as "badly clashing"?

this could be it's own thread... it could be a dozen. I bet it would take less then 10 minutes for some of us to find a thematic way to include most of if not all of the races in ALL of D&D (yup every edition so Deva and Aasimar and new animal head guys) in any setting... Not that I am saying you should but how badly can ANYTHING realy clash if you try to make it work?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not sure why you think this is persuasive. The fact that X is in the PHB, is no more important than X is not in setting Y. At the end of the day, when it comes to character options, the PHB is just another book.

becuse it is the counter to "I want to play colnel mustard in chess"

not only is there not a main rule for it... there are NOT any rules for it... and it doesn't make sense.

so again analogies of superman in athus, or wookies in star trek or klingons in star wars are not the same at all... they aren't even close.


edit: Exalted in Vampire is not possible the rules don't fit together you would have to homebrew... you would be closer with werewolf in vampire those are at least close (although still different game systems)
Nobody CAN show up to a star trek game with character made from the (equivalant) PHB of star trek and it be a wookie.

 

[Aldarc]

except for this analogy to work captain ketchup would have to be in the instructions...

Even if Captain Ketchup was not in the instructions, it wouldn't affect the game much in the same way of 3pp. D&D still plays as D&D with the 3pp or wider range of character options.

 

[Oofta]

The bigger hassle would be that now you need to recruit another player as Bob's replacement...

Nah, I have a wait list.