D&D 5E Orcs and Drow in YOUR game (poll */comments +)

[Helldritch]

Whether it was optional or not is irrelevant. Whether you believe it to be popular or common or not is also irrelevant.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with being relevant.
Come at a table playing second edition. Do they allow that book? Do they play in Planescape? If not, is your cleric allowed? If a single no is answered to these, you will not play a philosophical cleric as these do not exists outside this book or that specific setting. A DM will be within his rights to tell you no, that cleric is not allowed.
More over, during the few tournaments of 2nd edition, as per TSR, only the core books were used as "official" material for tournaments... Even owners of the IP were not allowing splat book either. The last "official" tournament I have seen was in 1993, 3 years after that book was printed. Never have I seen it used in any tournaments that I have been in or heard about.

The problem with claiming that such and such is canon with splat book is that not everyone owned it. In fact, some people found that book horrible, others like me found that book to be the best written of them (class related that is). And others simply did not have it. I do not remember the sale's figures, but it was not that big of a deal back then. Without a good income, many would simply pass on a lot of books, concentrating on their personal favourite line of books. Be it Ravenloft, Planescapes, Darksun, Forgotten Realm or Al Qadim or whatever, it was a rare thing to see someone owning all books that would come out. The only way to have a common ground was to stick to core books in discussions.

Now if you want to speak about a specific book. Feel free to do it. But do not claim it to be core. It was not. Far from that.

 

[Azzy]

On the contrary, it has everything to do with being relevant.
Come at a table playing second edition. Do they allow that book? Do they play in Planescape? If not, is your cleric allowed? If a single no is answered to these, you will not play a philosophical cleric as these do not exists outside this book or that specific setting. A DM will be within his rights to tell you no, that cleric is not allowed.
More over, during the few tournaments of 2nd edition, as per TSR, only the core books were used as "official" material for tournaments... Even owners of the IP were not allowing splat book either. The last "official" tournament I have seen was in 1993, 3 years after that book was printed. Never have I seen it used in any tournaments that I have been in or heard about.

The problem with claiming that such and such is canon with splat book is that not everyone owned it. In fact, some people found that book horrible, others like me found that book to be the best written of them (class related that is). And others simply did not have it. I do not remember the sale's figures, but it was not that big of a deal back then. Without a good income, many would simply pass on a lot of books, concentrating on their personal favourite line of books. Be it Ravenloft, Planescapes, Darksun, Forgotten Realm or Al Qadim or whatever, it was a rare thing to see someone owning all books that would come out. The only way to have a common ground was to stick to core books in discussions.

Now if you want to speak about a specific book. Feel free to do it. But do not claim it to be core. It was not. Far from that.

You can keep trying to move the goal poasts all you want, but I'm not going to fall for that BS.

 

[Helldritch]

You can keep trying to move the goal poasts all you want, but I'm not going to fall for that BS.

That is your right.
But it is not BS.
The gods do have influence when present in a campaign and it can explain that certain races are stuck in their mindset. Lolth will not allow Drows to get away from her without a fight and consequences. Gruumsh will make sure that an orc not following the edicts of his pantheon will suffer (if not die outright) as much as possible and the consequences will not be pleasant.

A god might allow for minor deviations, but major one by one of his race will be acted upon, unless a god wants to see "his" people turning away from the one true way.

 

[Azzy]

That is your right.
But it is not BS.
The gods do have influence when present in a campaign and it can explain that certain races are stuck in their mindset. Lolth will not allow Drows to get away from her without a fight and consequences. Gruumsh will make sure that an orc not following the edicts of his pantheon will suffer (if not die outright) as much as possible and the consequences will not be pleasant.

A god might allow for minor deviations, but major one by one of his race will be acted upon, unless a god wants to see "his" people turning away from the one true way.

It is BS because you keep moving the goalposts from your original response to me. I'll have none of it.

 

[Helldritch]

It is BS because you keep moving the goalposts from your original response to me. I'll have none of it.

Wrong.
My original response was.

God am I happy to not playing in that world too.
The basic premise of D&D is that the gods are there. They can and will meddle in mortals affair. Yes you can do otherwise, but in doing so, you leave the basic premise and thus the "always" and "generaly" need not apply after that.

And I never changed my stance on that subject.
But you do you.

 

[Azzy]

Wrong.
My original response was.

And I never changed my stance on that subject.
But you do you.

Let's start with that. You said that the "basic premise of D&D is that the gods are there", but that doesn't follow the history of D&D (in which clerics were an add-on appearing first in the Blackmoor supplement, and gods were largely an afterthought until Gygax's players bugged him about them and then going from two to being all over the place). You must be misusing the word "premise" because the existence of gods is nebulous in the original work and is purposefully not supported by the "basic" D&D line.

You also said "They can and will meddle in mortals affair." However, that's really a setting-specific thing (hence my reference to FR, GH, & DL), but is not something that necessarily follows. Even in settings where gods exist, they do not need to be the meddlesome variety. Hence my original bebuttal.

You ended with "Yes you can do otherwise, but in doing so, you leave the basic premise and thus the "always" and "generaly" need not apply after that." And I retorted about your false claim of meddling gods being "the basic premise of D&D".

 

[Lanefan]

Irrelevant.

Whether something is core or not is highly relevant.

In 2e there's enough splat product that if I dug deep enough I could probably find quotes that prove I have two thumbs on my left hand. 3e is even worse.

When comparing editions there's little if any point in going beyond core (and for 4e, that's just the first round of DMG-PH-MM).

 

[Helldritch]

If you want to go that far, the first adventures were about lost temples... temples = gods.
As soon as clerics were introduced, gods were too.
As soon as the head of D&D pointed its head in an official boxed set, clerics were there.
1st player handbook ever? Clerics were there.
1st splat book ever? Deities and demi gods.

A game in its infancy, such as D&D had already the pîllage of lost temples and endless dungeons beneath them.
And what about Blackmoor? The temple of the Gods...
The first published adventure ever talks about lost gods.
B2 speaks about the Gods of chaos.
I think you only see what you want to see. The gods have always been there. The cleric class? Nope. But the gods? Yep. Clerics were added simply to add healing, and a justifications for the healing trips and the cure the characters were seeking between forays. By making the cleric class available, they just shorten the number of trips required to get to town to get... healing at the temple...

 

[Hussar]

Whether something is core or not is highly relevant.

In 2e there's enough splat product that if I dug deep enough I could probably find quotes that prove I have two thumbs on my left hand. 3e is even worse.

When comparing editions there's little if any point in going beyond core (and for 4e, that's just the first round of DMG-PH-MM).

Not commenting at all on the whole gods debate, but, @Azzy is right when it comes to 1e and 2e.

The notion of "Core Rules" was a 3e invention that didn't exist in AD&D. In AD&D, ALL RULES were core, except those that were specifically called out as optional. Thus, you see Barbarians (as the class) being used in 1e modules like Isle of the Ape. Rules from various, what is now termed "splats" appeared and were referenced repeatedly by later publications.

The Wilderness Survival Guide (to pick an example) is every bit as core as the Player's Handbook in 1e. As is Unearthed Arcana. The Complete Guides in 2e were also just as core as the Player's Handbook. You were presumed to be using them. Heck the books often referenced each other.

Only setting specific books were truly optional.

 

[Helldritch]

Whether something is core or not is highly relevant.

In 2e there's enough splat product that if I dug deep enough I could probably find quotes that prove I have two thumbs on my left hand. 3e is even worse.

When comparing editions there's little if any point in going beyond core (and for 4e, that's just the first round of DMG-PH-MM).

I would even dare to say current edition too.
If someone wants to talk about a splat book, I will be more than happy to oblige.
But for the basic assumptions and rules of the game? Going beyond core is utterly useless. Not everyone buys all the books as I do. In fact, most gamers buys little beyond the DMG, PHB and MM. A book here and there when it suits their fancy and their wallet, but other wise... I know more groups that restricts themselves to one maybe two books beyond the three than groups that buys everything.