D&D General Do you care about lore?

[Remathilis]

I feel the opposite. Those choices are part of what make a setting feel like a distinct setting. So a version of Mystara that didn't have straight up dwarf or halfling wizards but maybe the former could be some kind of artificer, would be cool.

In fact, I prefer for all non-standard D&D peoples (everything aside from human, dwarf, elf, halfling, maybe gnome) be connected to specific settings. I never have dragonborn in my games (I do allow a lizardfolk variant to fill that gap because of the environment). But if I ran a game in Krynn I'd allow some kind of Draconian race, because Dragonlance - but would replace halflings with kender.

The idea that a setting must include all possible core lineages seems off to me. Changing, adding to, and/or eliminating that kind of basic "lore" (if you can call it that) is what different settings are for - they change the flavor of the game.

Heck, a friend of mine is starting up a "nothing but humans" D&D game in a homebrew and even though originally I thought I'd play a gnome next, I was happy to change my idea because I like the sword & sorcery feel of humans only in a world of monsters and newly re-born magic.

And that's fine for your home game. Go nuts. Do what you want.

AS A BRAND, D&D has an obligation to provide a mostly uniform experience. Part of the problem during the 2e era of settings was every setting was its own micro-game only vaguely compatible with each other. Each setting had different rules for character generation, proficiencies, class features, specialty priests, etc. Rulebooks were siloed to their own unique niche, and compatibility wasn't guaranteed. Wizards of the Coast has an obligation to create that smooth experience. A Ravenloft PC shouldn't be leagues better than a Ravnica one, and any class option in Tasha's should work regardless of if I'm in Theros, Eberron, or Exandria. If the DM wants to limit options, change how the setting works, or even require all players to play gnome paladins, that's the DM's right, but WotC shouldn't be making that choice for the DM.

Which goes back to some of the disconnect older fans have with WotC's modern design; they remember the time where the settings supported themselves first and AD&D bent and twisted to suit the setting rather than providing a D&D experience flavored with whatever tropes and genre the setting provides. Ravenloft should support running D&D in a horror genre, not create a horror setting/game using a variant of the D&D rules. Dark Sun should give options and mechanics to support creating post-apocalyptic wasteland PCs, not re-write the character chapter so that 1/10th of the PHB is still viable. And if warlocks are one of the twelve classes in the PHB, Dragonlance has obligation to find a home for them. If YOU don't want warlocks on Krynn, take them out, but WotC shouldn't be banning them for "flavor" reasons.

(Before you ask, I'm aware the M:TG settings use little or no of the PHB races. It's a compromise to me because a.) they are effectively a licensed product and not part of the official D&D multiverse and b.) It's only a limit on races; they don't limit feats, spells, classes, subclasses, or even equipment.).

 

[DemoMonkey]

Regardless of whether it is my own lore, or a published setting, my opinions are the same.

Settings can (and should) evolve and grow. But Retcons are always - always - bad.

If you don't like something in a settings past, it's ok to have the people in Universe not like it too. But it should still stay as the canonical past.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

This came up in one of the Ravenloft threads and I am just curious: do you care about official aka "canon" lore for D&D, either the implied setting or a specific campaign world? Does it bother you if that lore is changed with editions? Should a new version of a setting be "required" to not contradict a previous version?

Yes, It does. Since I follow most of those settings as multimedia properties and not only as background for running D&D campaigns, I care a lot about their consistency as displayed in novels, videogames, comic books, and even previous editions. I'm fine with the eventual retcon, such as Rudolph Van Richten appearing in Curse of Strahd, but making Dr. Victor Mordenheim a woman contradicts too many previous sources for my own taste.

 

[el-remmen]

AS A BRAND

Yeah, I don't care about D&D as a brand. To me D&D is as much a DIY hobby as it is a game, and it will survive in countless permutations regardless of what happens to "the brand."

 

[Remathilis]

Regardless of whether it is my own lore, or a published setting, my opinions are the same.

Settings can (and should) evolve and grow. But Retcons are always - always - bad.

If you don't like something in a settings past, it's ok to have the people in Universe not like it too. But it should still stay as the canonical past.

Yes, It does. Since I follow most of those settings as multimedia properties and not only as background for running D&D campaigns, I care a lot about their consistency as displayed in novels, videogames, comic books, and even previous editions. I'm fine with the eventual retcon, such as Rudolph Van Richten appearing in Curse of Strahd, but making Dr. Victor Mordenheim a woman contradicts too many previous sources for my own taste.

I'm curious how you both address things like the multiple inconsistent versions of I6 (Ravenloft, House of Strahd, Expedition, Curse of Strahd) or blatantly contradictory things (like Tristan Hiregaards origin in the Black Box vs. Ravenloft Monster Compendium 2 vs. The Enemy Within, or the Lord of Necropolis novel)?

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I don't care about D&D as a brand. To me D&D is as much a DIY hobby as it is a game, and it will survive in countless permutations regardless of what happens to "the brand."

Likewise, I don't care what happens in your game. You have the SRD, make what you want. I care about the special brew only WotC can make. Last I checked, this thread is about that lore, not yours.

 

[DemoMonkey]

By hating the inconsistencies.

Never underestimate the cathartic value of dislike!

 

[el-remmen]

If you don't like something in a settings past, it's ok to have the people in Universe not like it too. But it should still stay as the canonical past.

I mean, so-called real-world history does not have a canonical past and we argue all the time about "What actually happened and why," I don't see why a fictional history should be any different. Ret-Cons happen all the time in the real world. What you call a ret-con, I call a new understanding of what may have happened, just with an in-story and a meta-game reason.

 

[Alzrius]

This probably should have been a poll.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"This probably should have been a poll."

It was a poll. Don't you remember? It was always a poll.

In other news, Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.