After reading through, and occasionally participating in, the various permutations of the "exotic races" or "Tolkien races" or "respect mah authorit-ah v. respect mah agenc-ah" thread that have been popping up like mushrooms in a Bavarian forest after the rain, I realized that there is a common denominator to many of these arguments (this, and the rest of this post, is IMO, IME, etc.).
Normally, I think of these debates as being about DM Agency/Empowerment or Player Agency/Empowerment, but the more I have reflected on it, I think there is another factor at work. At least when it comes to D&D as a ruleset. Fundamentally, it is a difference in how people are approaching D&D as a game. I think that this difference can best be explored in two different approaches that we can see exemplified by the following quotes:
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. ... New details can be added and old “laws” altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.
If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein. If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you
play.
Men and Magic, p. 4 (1974).
What is Living Forgotten Realms?
Living Forgotten Realms (LFR for short) is a worldwide Living Campaign that uses the 4th Edition DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® rules and the FORGOTTEN REALMS® campaign setting. Players create characters using the core D&D rules and the guidelines in this document, and can then play those characters in any LFR adventure, anywhere in the world.
The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game is constantly evolving. There are many sources of optional rules (such as character classes, powers, feats, races, and magic items) that LFR characters are allowed to use without needing special permission. We call these player resources. LFR is a “core rules” 4th Edition D&D campaign, which means that we allow players to use material from the vast majority of official published sourcebooks, such as the Player's Handbook series and the D&D Essentials line. However, not everything in every published sourcebook is intended to be freely available to player characters. Some material is for the DM's use only, and certain elements of other 4th Edition campaign settings do not fit with the cosmology or themes of the FORGOTTEN REALMS (such as the concept of arcane defiling from Dark Sun, or anything from Gamma World). We try to be as inclusive as possible when deciding what players can use for their Living Forgotten Realms characters, but we don't allow everything.
LFR Campaign Guide, pp 1, 3 (2011).
I would call these two approaches the two opposite ends of the spectrum as to what the D&D experience is as a game and as a hobby, and this dividing line between these approaches is often the dividing line between the debates about races, or world building, or classes, or any of the interminable debates we often see. Please note that while I picked specific examples from editions, this isn't specific to editions, nor is this an invitation to an edition war. Both approaches are used in all editions of D&D.
Is D&D a ruleset, or a DIY hobby?
In the early days, there was no doubt that D&D was a DIY hobby. It was impossibly to play D&D "as is." It was a kitbash of multiple rulesets, magazine articles, and whatever the DM had to do to keep the game working. This practice continued through the entirety of 1e (AD&D). It is a truism that people say, when discussing 1e, that their table did (or did not) follow certain rules. Most tables used 3PP classes or races at some time, from Dragon Magazine "NPC classes" (yeah, right) to something from The Compleat ... series to a homebrew. Given that the game was unbalanced in many ways, it was hardly surprising when official supplements (such as the 1985 release of Unearthed Arcana) contained additional unbalanced material that was selectively incorporated into campaigns, or not allowed at all.
Moreover, in the early days, there was an expectation that the DM would create the adventures to run, and most certainly create the world in which the adventures occurred (the "campaign setting"). Famously, TSR was late to the gate in publishing modules and campaign settings because Gygax believed that the DM should be creating the adventures and setting, not using pre-published material (a position quickly reversed when TSR realized that, inter alia, Judge's Guild was able to do just fine ...).
The relationship between the DM and the table was thus necessarily different than just a referee administering a codified ruleset or a facilitator of collaborative world building. In effect, the DM functioned as a game designer for the table, creating adventures, campaign settings, and creating rules, excluding other rules, and determining what "worked" and "didn't work" in terms of the game, both mechanically and thematically. This is why you often hear about DMs that had binders of material for their campaigns- specific classes and races that were allowed and not allowed, homebrew, rules alterations, and so on, that accumulated gradually over time. I don't want to oversell this; there were certainly DMs that just winged it, and ran pre-published TSR modules, but it was nearly impossible to play early D&D without the DM altering the material- either adding, subtracting, or otherwise designing the game to better fit the table.
Starting with 2e's player-facing option books and wealth of campaign settings, this slowly began to change, and it certainly was fully changed by 3e. The idea that the DM was more of a referee for players- that the rules were the rules, and that players would design their characters within a specified ruleset, and the DM would run that specified ruleset, began to take hold. This is the time when you began to see ideas such as "Core + 1" first happen, as people struggled to reconcile the idea that players should be allowed to play what they want (the chargen "game") with the profusion of materials and options that could, especially in combination, unbalance the game. Arguably, this led to the 4e reset, which preserved the ability of players to play whatever they wanted and increase options by providing a coherent framework for additional expansions (the so-called "everything is core").
In essence, I am asserting that there is a dichotomy; we often see this in arguments about various options, about rules, and most recently about the inclusion of races. Is the DM the de facto game designer for the table, ensuring that there is a fun and bespoke game enjoyed by all? Or is the DM a referee and facilitator for the table, running the game that is published?
5e Allows for Both
It appears that 5e allows for both styles of play, and quite easily. While 5e might not have lived up to the original billing of a completely modular system, it is also an edition that is easy to quickly and easily modify; hence the appeal of DMs that prefer custom or curated worlds (D&D as a hobby, D&D as DIY). On the other hand, it also works well "out of the box" and provides numerous player-facing options, allowing tables to run it with the expectation that it will be "by the book" (D&D as a standardized ruleset).
In essence, when I see many debates here, they can often be simplified down. When someone asserts that something (race/class, for example) must be playable because it's in the PHB, they are asserting that D&D is a standardized ruleset that requires adjudication (DM as referee/facilitator). On the other hand, when someone asserts that something is not necessarily playable, even if it is in the PHB, they are asserting that D&D is a DIY hobby, with the DM in the role of game designer.
At least, those are my thoughts for now. I am sure that many, many people will disagree with me .... so, have at it!
Normally, I think of these debates as being about DM Agency/Empowerment or Player Agency/Empowerment, but the more I have reflected on it, I think there is another factor at work. At least when it comes to D&D as a ruleset. Fundamentally, it is a difference in how people are approaching D&D as a game. I think that this difference can best be explored in two different approaches that we can see exemplified by the following quotes:
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. ... New details can be added and old “laws” altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.
If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein. If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you
play.
Men and Magic, p. 4 (1974).
What is Living Forgotten Realms?
Living Forgotten Realms (LFR for short) is a worldwide Living Campaign that uses the 4th Edition DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® rules and the FORGOTTEN REALMS® campaign setting. Players create characters using the core D&D rules and the guidelines in this document, and can then play those characters in any LFR adventure, anywhere in the world.
The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game is constantly evolving. There are many sources of optional rules (such as character classes, powers, feats, races, and magic items) that LFR characters are allowed to use without needing special permission. We call these player resources. LFR is a “core rules” 4th Edition D&D campaign, which means that we allow players to use material from the vast majority of official published sourcebooks, such as the Player's Handbook series and the D&D Essentials line. However, not everything in every published sourcebook is intended to be freely available to player characters. Some material is for the DM's use only, and certain elements of other 4th Edition campaign settings do not fit with the cosmology or themes of the FORGOTTEN REALMS (such as the concept of arcane defiling from Dark Sun, or anything from Gamma World). We try to be as inclusive as possible when deciding what players can use for their Living Forgotten Realms characters, but we don't allow everything.
LFR Campaign Guide, pp 1, 3 (2011).
I would call these two approaches the two opposite ends of the spectrum as to what the D&D experience is as a game and as a hobby, and this dividing line between these approaches is often the dividing line between the debates about races, or world building, or classes, or any of the interminable debates we often see. Please note that while I picked specific examples from editions, this isn't specific to editions, nor is this an invitation to an edition war. Both approaches are used in all editions of D&D.
Is D&D a ruleset, or a DIY hobby?
In the early days, there was no doubt that D&D was a DIY hobby. It was impossibly to play D&D "as is." It was a kitbash of multiple rulesets, magazine articles, and whatever the DM had to do to keep the game working. This practice continued through the entirety of 1e (AD&D). It is a truism that people say, when discussing 1e, that their table did (or did not) follow certain rules. Most tables used 3PP classes or races at some time, from Dragon Magazine "NPC classes" (yeah, right) to something from The Compleat ... series to a homebrew. Given that the game was unbalanced in many ways, it was hardly surprising when official supplements (such as the 1985 release of Unearthed Arcana) contained additional unbalanced material that was selectively incorporated into campaigns, or not allowed at all.
Moreover, in the early days, there was an expectation that the DM would create the adventures to run, and most certainly create the world in which the adventures occurred (the "campaign setting"). Famously, TSR was late to the gate in publishing modules and campaign settings because Gygax believed that the DM should be creating the adventures and setting, not using pre-published material (a position quickly reversed when TSR realized that, inter alia, Judge's Guild was able to do just fine ...).
The relationship between the DM and the table was thus necessarily different than just a referee administering a codified ruleset or a facilitator of collaborative world building. In effect, the DM functioned as a game designer for the table, creating adventures, campaign settings, and creating rules, excluding other rules, and determining what "worked" and "didn't work" in terms of the game, both mechanically and thematically. This is why you often hear about DMs that had binders of material for their campaigns- specific classes and races that were allowed and not allowed, homebrew, rules alterations, and so on, that accumulated gradually over time. I don't want to oversell this; there were certainly DMs that just winged it, and ran pre-published TSR modules, but it was nearly impossible to play early D&D without the DM altering the material- either adding, subtracting, or otherwise designing the game to better fit the table.
Starting with 2e's player-facing option books and wealth of campaign settings, this slowly began to change, and it certainly was fully changed by 3e. The idea that the DM was more of a referee for players- that the rules were the rules, and that players would design their characters within a specified ruleset, and the DM would run that specified ruleset, began to take hold. This is the time when you began to see ideas such as "Core + 1" first happen, as people struggled to reconcile the idea that players should be allowed to play what they want (the chargen "game") with the profusion of materials and options that could, especially in combination, unbalance the game. Arguably, this led to the 4e reset, which preserved the ability of players to play whatever they wanted and increase options by providing a coherent framework for additional expansions (the so-called "everything is core").
In essence, I am asserting that there is a dichotomy; we often see this in arguments about various options, about rules, and most recently about the inclusion of races. Is the DM the de facto game designer for the table, ensuring that there is a fun and bespoke game enjoyed by all? Or is the DM a referee and facilitator for the table, running the game that is published?
5e Allows for Both
It appears that 5e allows for both styles of play, and quite easily. While 5e might not have lived up to the original billing of a completely modular system, it is also an edition that is easy to quickly and easily modify; hence the appeal of DMs that prefer custom or curated worlds (D&D as a hobby, D&D as DIY). On the other hand, it also works well "out of the box" and provides numerous player-facing options, allowing tables to run it with the expectation that it will be "by the book" (D&D as a standardized ruleset).
In essence, when I see many debates here, they can often be simplified down. When someone asserts that something (race/class, for example) must be playable because it's in the PHB, they are asserting that D&D is a standardized ruleset that requires adjudication (DM as referee/facilitator). On the other hand, when someone asserts that something is not necessarily playable, even if it is in the PHB, they are asserting that D&D is a DIY hobby, with the DM in the role of game designer.
At least, those are my thoughts for now. I am sure that many, many people will disagree with me .... so, have at it!
Last edited:
