D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Scott Christian]

If those tables are weak enough in their desire to not have these rules that the mere publication of the book overcomes that desire - well, it must not be that big a deal for them.

Anyone can make a custom setting, and anyone can restrict add-on books. If doing so loses players, maybe the DM is being too restrictive for their pool of available players. Too bad.

Absolutely no mention of losing players in my post.

I have stated that it might make some of the DM's earlier works dismissive. It might break immersion for a player or DM. It might have a negative (or positive) effect on the table as a whole. But to make it a black and white argument is not what it is.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not always an option - for example, telling players the reason for "no elves" would have involved plot spoilers.

The DM knows things the players do not. The players need to trust the DM has a reason for their rulings, no matter how arbitrary they might appear.

You are correct. In that example, you might say it is a mystery. Hence, you are implying that this might be one of the adventures players are willing to explore. But, you are still giving them a rationale. It is just mysterious.
And the DM does know things players do not. But that doesn't make the entire world a mystery. Most worlds know what races exist, and where they live - especially playable races.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You are correct. In that example, you might say it is a mystery. Hence, you are implying that this might be one of the adventures players are willing to explore. But, you are still giving them a rationale. It is just mysterious.
And the DM does know things players do not. But that doesn't make the entire world a mystery. Most worlds know what races exist, and where they live - especially playable races.

I didn't say anything. My players trust me, and accept that what the DM says goes.

 

[tetrasodium]

Tables are not forced to do anything, including the use of spells. We know this. But few tables do not use feats. Yet, they are optional. Few tables do not use races outside of PHB. Yet those are optional. Even fewer don't use spells or backgrounds outside of the PHB, but those are optional.
The game is a compromise between different types of players, DM's and people. That's it. So if Tasha's is a great selling book, then these rules will be put into place on many tables, including some that do not want it there.

That's questionable because of poor implimentation. Wotc mechanically designs tightly around no feats no magic items citing bounded accuracy & what not yet there is little attempt at making those things work within the mechanical constraints of a couse of cards made from bounded accuracy & such to even pretend there is an attempt to make them not to collapse that house of cards let alone admit problems exist. Its a stilted relationship between one tiny niche that barely exists who must ignore a few pages & the vast majority of players/gms who spend a great deal of gameplay noticing problems with nothing but "they are optional" and "it's not made to be played that way" when they bvent over the needless hassle of trying to realign a system that fights their attempts every step of the way. That's not a "compromise"

 

[Oofta]

That's questionable because of poor implimentation. Wotc mechanically designs tightly around no feats no magic items citing bounded accuracy & what not yet there is little attempt at making those things work within the mechanical constraints of a couse of cards made from bounded accuracy & such to even pretend there is an attempt to make them not to collapse that house of cards let alone admit problems exist. Its a stilted relationship between one tiny niche that barely exists who must ignore a few pages & the vast majority of players/gms who spend a great deal of gameplay noticing problems with nothing but "they are optional" and "it's not made to be played that way" when they bvent over the needless hassle of trying to realign a system that fights their attempts every step of the way. That's not a "compromise"

Unless you assume all optional rules are used and that you have +X weapons and armor by level N there is no way to do what you want. They did that with previous editions with mixed success. The current edition assumes that there's a person also known as "the DM" who will adjust encounters as appropriate to their group and style of play. Maybe you should look into it, I hear there's a whole guidebook on the subject.

In any case, I've run multiple groups. Even with same rules, assumptions and group size I had to adjust the game to fit. D&D isn't a board game, there is no one size fits all.

 

[Scott Christian]

That's questionable because of poor implimentation. Wotc mechanically designs tightly around no feats no magic items citing bounded accuracy & what not yet there is little attempt at making those things work within the mechanical constraints of a couse of cards made from bounded accuracy & such to even pretend there is an attempt to make them not to collapse that house of cards let alone admit problems exist. Its a stilted relationship between one tiny niche that barely exists who must ignore a few pages & the vast majority of players/gms who spend a great deal of gameplay noticing problems with nothing but "they are optional" and "it's not made to be played that way" when they bvent over the needless hassle of trying to realign a system that fights their attempts every step of the way. That's not a "compromise"

Hi. Sorry tetra. I am a bit confused over your post. I am asking for clarification: Are you saying very few tables need to compromise because of the way the mechanics are set up? Thanks.

 

[tetrasodium]

Hi. Sorry tetra. I am a bit confused over your post. I am asking for clarification: Are you saying very few tables need to compromise because of the way the mechanics are set up? Thanks.

There are very few tables where there is a need to "compromise", as you yourself pointed out, and yet the system is exclusively designed to a very tightly tuned variance that only works if you follow all of those extremely niche rarely used assumptions. Once you start flipping the switch and treating "optional" as implied intended like most everyone does & has always played d&d that tight variance starts lashing about with vicious effects on the hole house of cards.

 

[Remathilis]

I didn't say anything. My players trust me, and accept that what the DM says goes.

My brain would want to know a few things:

1. Are elves known about, or would saying elf illicit confused looks?
2. Did they once exist with evidence, are they crypids (rumored but no proof) or are they or are the myth nobody actually believes in?
3. Are elves the Tolkien version, the Santa version, the Nose version or the Kiebler version?

Basically, if someone says "this looks like the work of elves" I want to know how my pc should react. If I'm not given sufficient information to role play that reaction, I reserve the right to make up whatever reaction I choose. ("It can't be elves, they don't exist. Perhaps it was a sandhill crane?")

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My brain would want to know a few things:

1. Are elves known about, or would saying elf illicit confused looks?
2. Did they once exist with evidence, are they crypids (rumored but no proof) or are they or are the myth nobody actually believes in?
3. Are elves the Tolkien version, the Santa version, the Nose version or the Kiebler version?

Basically, if someone says "this looks like the work of elves" I want to know how my pc should react. If I'm not given sufficient information to role play that reaction, I reserve the right to make up whatever reaction I choose. ("It can't be elves, they don't exist. Perhaps it was a sandhill crane?")

This was the Forgotten Realms, with standard elves. Players just weren't permitted to be play as one.

 

[Remathilis]

This was the Forgotten Realms, with standard elves. Players just weren't permitted to be play as one.

Ok. I'm so used to DMs with hyper-specific homebrews, I immediately go to "oh yet another DM trying to be clever." What you said would be enough for me to role play appropriately, thank you.