D&D 5E Merits of including too much or too little in the PHB

[GMMichael]

This is ridiculously subjective, Sadrik. You seem to have no criteria beyond "Sadrik think so" for what "drips flavour". If you do have criteria, what are they? Halflings existing tells you as much about a world as Dragonborn, for goodness sake.

Chilling effect, RE. You might not want to post on threads you find ridiculously subjective.

Game concepts that have been released that drip setting flavor:
Wild magic
Dragonborn
Tiefling
Drow
Warlocks

For instance, does this enhance the experience for the players and does it enhance the ability of the DM to have them? Or does it detract from the player or DM or both? Will it be hard for the DM to say no I don't want Drow in my game? How about for players to will it be hard for them to accept if the DM says they don't want wild magic or pacts or whatever in their campaign setting?

I'm going to be one of the last people to buy 5e. That said, I've been paying some attention, and it seems that the "Basic Rules" are the narrow net, and the PHB is the wider net.

Now a GM who's worth his salt will both tell his players "this is the game I want to run," and ask "what kind of game do you want?" That process right there will determine whether Warlocks become a metagame issue or not. Now, does the DMG discuss how groups should set up their games? It should.

Strangely, I expected WotC to leave out niche ideas like these, simply so that they could sell you another book later. Maybe that option is still open?

 

[Umbran]

The problem with the toolkit method they've chosen is for people who became really accustomed to the "everything is core" mentality.

If the culture of a gaming group is that everything in the PHB, MM, and DMG is core, 5e is going to provide some culture shock.

You say that as if it is a new thing. It isn't. Back before we talked about "core" game rules, there was instead an argument about "official" material - some folks said anything "official" should be allowed, and others disagreed. This went back to early Dragon Magazine, and whether its contents were "official"....

It seems to me that having a definition of "core" was intended to alleviate that. To communicate "that bare minimum of stuff that everyone should expect *will* be in a game, and anything beyond that is up for debate". Except, that never really coalesced into reality. There was always stuff in core (of any game, not just D&D flavors) that GMs would edit out, and there was always stuff in supplemental sources outside of core that players thought should be allowed, despite what the GM said.

In practice, I have not seen having a definition of "core" alleviate that tension. It still exists. "Core" as something stable, reliable, that everyone agrees on, is a myth. Thus, it really doesn't matter what's in what book. GMs always have to make decisions as to what's going to appear. And player swill try to argue for other supplemental material be included.

Rather than depend on some publisher-determined line be drawn in the sand as to what will or won't be, we should learn to communicate with our players like rational adults. Go figure

 

[Thaumaturge]

You say that as if it is a new thing. It isn't. Back before we talked about "core" game rules, there was instead an argument about "official" material - some folks said anything "official" should be allowed, and others disagreed. This went back to early Dragon Magazine, and whether its contents were "official"....

Oh, I remember. I was simply pointing it out for the sake of the discussion. And I think the "everything's core" stance of the last edition exacerbated this tension.

Rather than depend on some publisher-determined line be drawn in the sand as to what will or won't be, we should learn to communicate with our players like rational adults. Go figure

I absolutely agree. Based on some reactions I've seen, this is harder for some than others.

Thaumaturge.

 

[jrowland]

Rather than depend on some publisher-determined line be drawn in the sand as to what will or won't be, we should learn to communicate with our players like rational adults. Go figure

Wild Mages excluded of course. Nothing Rational about them.

 

[Agamon]

I absolutely agree. Based on some reactions I've seen, this is harder for some than others.

I do wonder at the number of rational adults that post here. We may be outnumbered...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Chilling effect, RE. You might not want to post on threads you find ridiculously subjective.

Maybe it isn't subjective, though, Mike, that's why I ask the criteria for "dripping flavour". I particularly ask because calling stuff like Tieflings and Warlocks "niche" and suggesting they have flavour without noting that stuff like Halflings and Gnomes are pretty "niche" and certainly just as rich in "flavour" (by which it appears he might mean "specificity") seems a bit strange.

But maybe I just don't understand the criteria, which is why I asked. If was certain it was agenda-y, I would have ignored the thread. Sadrik may well mean it completely agenda-free and just accidentally have selected controversial examples rather than just listing all the "flavourful" stuff.

Anyway, in the end, D&D is full of things which seems to me, without clear criteria, as "niche" and "flavourful" as those on the list - here are just a few examples:

1) Paladins
2) Clerics
3) Halflings
4) Gnomes
5) Druids
6) Monks

I could go on, but I think you get my point - those are things with very high degrees of specificity. You could even make a case for Vancian Magic itself being on the list - D&D managed without it for an entire edition (and of all the "Why I didn't play 4E" or "Why I disliked 4E" answers, I've almost never heard "Lack of Vancian Magic" as a major factor - I'm sure it was for a few people, of course, everything is for a few people), after all.

(PS - I actually like most of the above things, and often play Paladins, but they are, realistically, very "flavourful".)

I really think that once you get past Fighter, Rogue and Mage, and Human, Elf, and Dwarf, you're outside the "fantasy basics" - D&D has settings with no real Clerics, for example, or settings with no Paladins (several, iirc), others without Gnomes (as we know them), or without Halflings. Monks are absent in loads of settings. Druids in some. Even Fighter, Mage and Rogue, and Human, Elf, and Dwarf have been severely modified in certain settings, because they have flavour which wouldn't fit with the setting otherwise.

Looking at the specific questions Sadrik asks, let's see if we can answer them:

1) Does this enhance the experience of players and the DM to "have them" (which I assume means, "attract and keep players")?

Well, yes, in my experience, very strongly yes. Players are attracted to strong ideas, in my experience, and thus things with high specificity often have very high appeal. There's always the odd guy who wants a totally nondescript class, but hey, that's what Fighters are for eh? I'll be hear all night folks!

I mean, the first PC I ever played, given the choice of anything in the 2E PHB, and in the 2E FRA, was a Speciality Priest of Mask - hugely "flavourful", and hugely appealing to me. Indeed, FR speciality priests seemed to attract a lot of people - people who never, ever play a generic "Cleric of the Gods" or the like.

As for DMs, I think it helps, because more options with more "ooomph" means you're more likely to get a player genuinely excited. Whilst some people can really get excited about say, an Elf Ranger, others tend to get excited about more specific things, like a Half-Orc Cleric of the God of War, or a Tiefling Evoker, or a Drow Monk, or whatever. People can roll out the lazy, nasty "special snowflake" venom, but in the end, most people aren't motivated by the desire to be special, but rather they find a particular combination of characteristics that excites them, and given the vast array to choose from, it's unlikely to be a "vanilla" combination.

2) Does it detract?

I don't see how it does.

3) Will it be hard for a DM to say "No Drow"?

Not if he's playing his own setting which doesn't have Drow in it, no. 5E isn't doing what 4E did, and saying "Everything is Core" and "Find a way to say yes" (things I objected to about 4E, not, despite being labelled a 4venger lolz), it's very upfront that any group is going to personalize things. I do think a reasonable DM will be reasonable, and not foot-stamping about race inclusions - but if there is really no way, then it's not hard to say no. I've said no to countless races and classes, even in 4E, without fallout, because I'm polite about it and make the reasons clear, and if there are no good reasons, I don't say no. It's not a terribly difficult situation.

The only time it could become difficult is if the DM has a world with plenty of Drow, but is refusing to let a player be one, and isn't articulate enough to explain why in reasonable terms - but the real problem there is that the DM isn't articulate and socially adept, which is always a big problem in a DM. I mean, I had to say "no" to Halflings when running Krynn (well, only one, but still), for example - and they aren't listing as having "flavour", but really, they do. In the end though, it's not a problem, because you work it out like reasonable people.

4) Will it be hard for player to accept "no" about certain elements?

Depends on the DM's social skills and the player's maturity, I suspect.

We've been saying no to stuff, including Wild Magic, for decades. It being in the PHB does not make it particularly more difficult UNLESS you, as the DM, make it part of the world, something NPCs can have, but don't let PCs have it, and don't have the degree of articulate-ness needed to explain the reason for that situation (or have a godawful reason - it does happen from time to time - in which case maybe consider being reasonable? Just sayin'). I mean, does the fact that Paladins are in the PHB cause a problem when I'm running Dark Sun and you can't be one? Well, no. Or running Taladas in Krynn and you can't be one? Again, no. It's just a thing.

In casting a wide net, WotC are being very smart. They are avoiding people feeling really excluded, and they empower DMs to make decisions for their own campaign and setting. It really is pretty easy to say no, so long as you remain polite, transparent, and reasonable, and giving you more to pick from is good.

I mean, it's pretty cool that when I think "What are we missing?" only one thing comes to mind - Warlords - and we're told there will be a Fighter subclass for that - I believe it when I see it, but y'know, that's better than any other edition, way better. Even 4E had no Bards or Druids in PHB1, and that was a noticed absence (Barbarians and Monks less so, much as I love them).

Is that more clear?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Rather than depend on some publisher-determined line be drawn in the sand as to what will or won't be, we should learn to communicate with our players like rational adults. Go figure

I kind of feel like a lot of us are scarred by teenage/young adult experiences here. I haven't seen a DM behave like a total twerp over whether a class or race is allowed (i.e. throwing a tantrum of some sort, being rude or unreasonable, or the like) since I was... hmmm... 22? And that was like 5 years after the previous time. It was only common when I was like, a teenager-teenager, like 13-16.

But damn do I remember some of those scenes. Scarred, I tell you.

As a proper adult with proper social skills, I've not had any problems saying no to any players about anything.

I kind of wonder if people playing over the internet or with stranger-strangers (I don't DM for anyone I haven't hung out with first) experience more... caustic... personalities. One thing I do see on the internet that I just didn't see much IRL is people who have a completely pre-conceived notion of what they are going to play "I will play an Elf Wizard, as I always do!" (and really, it is usually an Elf Wizard... or MC variant of that), and if that's stymied, they're either at a total loss, or they're desperately bargaining, or they're really annoyed (or maybe all three in some order). If I was playing with internet strangers, especially over the internet, I wouldn't necessarily expect to be able to smoothly say no quite so easily.

So perhaps some people fear that.

If you're dealing with real people who you even vaguely know and who are in the same room as you, though, if you can't say no, it's definitely not the rules at fault!

 

[marleykat]

Easy solution

someone should create a PDF with a checklist of all the classes and optional rules in the PHB & DMG

have someone make it form fallible, check marks...

GM fills it out, prints it, and hands it to his players.....

This is what is in, and what is out... here are the page numbers....

done...

That was how it was done in 2e. The GM had a checklist of what's in and what's out. You wouldn't need to copy all the PHB or DMG since all of it is optional.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, I remember. I was simply pointing it out for the sake of the discussion. And I think the "everything's core" stance of the last edition exacerbated this tension.

I don't think it did, is what I'm saying. It happened before we even had "core". It happened when "core" was limited. It happened when "everything is core". It just happens. The tension would be there, regardless, because players want things, and GMs want to exclude things. As soon as a GM wants to leave out something the player has read about and wants, the tension arises. If part of the goal was to eliminate the tension with the "core" thing, it *failed*.

Basically, "It isn't core," is insufficient justification to begin with, as far as the player is concerned. The player *doesn't care* if it is core, he or she wants it anyway. So the core/non-core distinction is meaningless in this sense.

IMHO, that is.

 

[DDNFan]

Easy solution

someone should create a PDF with a checklist of all the classes and optional rules in the PHB & DMG

have someone make it form fallible, check marks...

GM fills it out, prints it, and hands it to his players.....

This is what is in, and what is out... here are the page numbers....

done...

Good idea, I would use that.