D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Maxperson]

The tools in the 2014 DMG still work, the game is still 5e. It has not changed in any fundamental way.

So then since it's all 5e and we can mix and match freely, I'm sure the next time I'm a player the DM will not object to my using a 2014 race and getting racial stat bonuses, and then picking a 2024 background and getting more stat bonuses.

 

[pemerton]

A basic principle I follow for DMing is "If there's two ways to interpret something, and one way makes people happy and the other way makes people sad, I'm going to pick the first one."

Thus do you reveal your weakness for all to see . . .

 

[pemerton]

But what makes me happy, is classes in a class based game being strong thematic archetypes, and a cleric not needing to care about their god goes against that.

Can't we separate the fiction from the play here? In the fiction, the cleric needs to care about their god. (Assuming we ignore the DMG text that has been quoted.)

At the table, this means the player plays their PC as needing to care about their god.

If the player won't do this unless they are worried about the GM depriving them of character features, that tells me something about the dynamics of play at that table. But doesn't tell me about the thematic archetypes of the game.

EDIT:

Yes. I have never used it, and it is unlikely that I ever will. But I want it to be possible, should the situation demand it. Also, saying it is possible tells us something about the metaphysics, about the relationship of the deity and the cleric. And I find that important and worthwhile.

Like I don't think wizard's spellbook has ever been destroyed in my game. But I still want the rules and metaphysics to be that the wizard requires the book.

The same point applies to this: the metaphysics and possibilities within the fiction don't require a rule that one participant at the table has the power to remove or very significantly downgrade another participant's game piece.

 

[dave2008]

So then since it's all 5e and we can mix and match freely,

I didn't say anything about mixing and matching freely though. I realize you are being snarky, but that is really an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[pemerton]

as, presumably, are you. Pretty sure there is some ‘setting logic’ in your game too and the characters operate within it

Sure. We're not talking about the characters, though. We're talking about who at the table makes decisions about what fits within the "setting logic. That's a conversation about real people and real things that they do when playing a RPG together.

 

[pemerton]

Because it makes heretics impossible. If God provides the Pope with cleric spells but not Martin Luther, then clearly Martin Luther is wrong (or vice versa).

But that's not unfair, within the fiction. Within the fiction heresy is wrong, and the divinity is punishing the heretic!

The issue of fairness seems to me to be a feature of gameplay in the real world, not the imagined circumstances of imaginary people in the fictional world.

 

[pemerton]

My choice is based on what in my judgement makes the most logical sense given the setting concepts. I don't assume it will always be to the PCs benefit.

@TwoSix didn't say anything about choosing "to the PC's benefit". He talked about making the player happy or sad.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Care to back that up? How is a D&D cleric less of a cleric than Spider-Man is?

Spider-man's powers wax and wane based on the strength of his faith instead of whether or not he's checked off the right boxen related to things unrelated to his actual tenets and purposes for one.

eg: Fire god is LE; Fire cleric is all about fire, but is a decent guy; somehow fire cleric can't do fire anymore.

 

[pemerton]

Because they are different class fantasies. Who am I to tell a player they have to play a fighter with an off switch for their abilities if that class fantasy doesn't have one built in?

But it could, right? I mean, we could have an "off switch" that involves a loss of self-resolve, or honour, or something similar. This is a fairly well known trope in fantasy/adventure/action-oriented fiction.

It's not as if these class fantasies have been handed down on stone tablets, after all.

 

[pemerton]

The advice should be "if your DM does this without prior a conversation on it, you should leave that game"

I think that advice for new players, that implies that there is nothing useful to be said about reconciling ideas and approaches and hence that the only recourse is to part ways, is bad advice.

There are well-known player-GM flashpoints in D&D play, that have been discussed and debated for decades now. Alignment, and fidelity to the divinities, are two of these.

The book proactively trying to structure things, and channel participants, down pathways that are likely to avoid rather than ignite these issues seems sensible to me.