D&D General Wildly Diverse "Circus Troupe" Adventuring Parties

[Thomas Shey]

Those people ignore it like they ignore Golarion or Midguard. But the game itself builds upon that lore and everything is compatible with itself rather than contradicting itself.

Though the degree of moving parts and special-casing in D&D components can make it more than trivial to ignore those settings even if you want to. I like PF2e, but I'd find it a chore to use it for a non-Golarian based setting because there are so many assumptions from that baked into it.

 

[TiQuinn]

In less than a month, D&D released two player facing books (Heroes of Faerun and Forge of the Artificer) that, while mechanically are compatible, are miles apart as far as lore compatibly. I cannot build a kalashtar spellfire sorcerer with the mark of finding and is a member of the Harpers. Mechanically I can, but that is smashing conflicting lore all over the place. So it falls to the DM and player to figure out how those two books work together, if they are even both allowed. That shouldn't be necessary.

Why shouldn’t that be necessary?

Setting specific classes, spells, and options are a good thing because they match the lore of those settings, make for a better roleplaying experience, and can do things that are thematically appropriate for that setting. If a DM likes an idea and wants to add it to another setting, what is necessary beyond making it mechanically feasible? Lore is always going to vary from setting to setting, not to mention the large number of homebrew campaigns.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I cannot build a kalashtar spellfire sorcerer with the mark of finding and is a member of the Harpers.

Why not? That's a far better backstory than most players I've seen. That would fit perfectly fine into any world setting I've run or played in

I'm starting to think the only problem that exists here is lack of imagination from a few people on this forum

 

[Remathilis]

Why shouldn’t that be necessary?

Setting specific classes, spells, and options are a good thing because they match the lore of those settings, make for a better roleplaying experience, and can do things that are thematically appropriate for that setting. If a DM likes an idea and wants to add it to another setting, what is necessary beyond making it mechanically feasible? Lore is always going to vary from setting to setting, not to mention the large number of homebrew campaigns.

Because you get dumb ideas like bladesinger and knowledge clerics locked in a Faerun book and half-elves khoravar and artificers locked in the Eberron book and DMs who ban the whole book or don't even bother looking at it because it's "for another setting". The whole bloody thing should work together and if the DM decides otherwise, he can exclude it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I wonder how well you’d get the same results with a ‘human-passing’ world? Trim the aesthetic differences and if needs be some of the more egregious traits too, so even if you’ve got a handful of species running around it’s not something that’s acknowledged because everyone’s just human, yeah so sure jenny just has a natural resistance to sleep and charm magics and taylor’s a little large and can carry twice as much as the next guy, but that’s just how they’re born, some people are tall, some are smart and some can produce flames from their hands, you aint gonna call em a different species over little quirks like that.

I don't know...I think it's all about the players. I mostly play Shadowdark now, where each ancestry is described in a paragraph, and each gets exactly one special ability, and in general I don't notice any more or less intrinsic differentiation between them. Character ancestry tends to stand out not because of abilities, but because (and if) the players lean into their choices.

/shrug?

 

[TiQuinn]

Because you get dumb ideas like bladesinger and knowledge clerics locked in a Faerun book and half-elves khoravar and artificers locked in the Eberron book and DMs who ban the whole book or don't even bother looking at it because it's "for another setting". The whole bloody thing should work together and if the DM decides otherwise, he can exclude it.

So you see the issue as the DM could conceivably approve or deny the use of game components? That can happen with virtually anything. I mean, I was using Dhampirs from the VRGR in other campaigns. I know other DMs who brought shifters from Eberron into other campaigns.

This notion of “locked” is not about game design - it’s arguing about the same apparent inability for some people to have positive social interactions when either a DM wants to restrict PC options or a player comes to the table with something off the beaten path that they want to do. It’s attempting to manage those social interactions through game rules - something which I’ve yet to see work.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So you see the issue as the DM could conceivably approve or deny the use of game components? That can happen with virtually anything.

i think the issue they were getting at is more GMs approving or denying the use of game components based on mostly arbitrary lines of categorization.

 

[TiQuinn]

i think the issue they were getting at is more GMs approving or denying the use of game components based on mostly arbitrary lines of categorization.

It still comes down to a social interaction issue. As well as recognition that it’s ultimately a game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

i think the issue they were getting at is more GMs approving or denying the use of game components based on mostly arbitrary lines of categorization.

I wouldn’t necessarily call excluding something written for another setting an “arbitrary” line.

But then again, I’ve played at tables with DMs who disallowed core classes & races because they don’t like them and don’t want to death with them in their game.