What lore from previous editions do you wish stayed?

[TwoSix]

To be clear- I did not mean to imply you are not roleplaying!

And it's not just about roleplaying restrictions as rules.* It's more ... hmmm... when I think of integration of rules and fluff, I specifically think of the following:

A. Fluff informs RAI/houserules. Let's use the Warlock/Cleric example on this one. In my setting, absent some amazing special factors that I can't think of right now, you can't have a Warlock/Cleric, because Gods don't take kindly to their Clerics serving other masters. Period. Now, I also utilize the level 1/2 rule (heretics keep first and second level spells for a time) so MCing wouldn't immediately result in all loss of clerical powers, but you get the idea.

B. Fluff and rules feed on each other. Why does (the class that shall not be named) get those stupid powers? Because they are champions of stupidity and good, that's why.

...and that's what I mean.

*Although that's part of it.

No worries!

Just to draw on the well-covered cleric/warlock example, that sort of contradiction doesn’t happen in my game because clerics and warlocks don’t exist. Gods exist, and magical entities that grant powers exist, but how a character relates to them is entirely driven by their concept. They might use sorcerer as a base for their “priest of god of fire” concept, or Druid for their “I serve a malevolent demon bound to a tree” concept.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

Original D&D, of course! Might as well go full-retro. And, I mean, just: green rubbery supernaturally-regenerating humanoid + ceramic lawn decoration come to life = hyena-morph (which puns with 'knoll')? Genius!

That was a guess, not exactly lore. I mean, they even state in OD&D that it's a total guess from Lord Dunsany. so that's not what I'd hold up to the D&D lore standard

 

[Arnwolf666]

I do not like the lore behind 5E beholders. Much prefer them as described in 2E

 

[Arnwolf666]

Speaking of clerics and warlocks, I do miss the old days when role playing had an effect on your character. Meaning, if clerics didn’t follow the guidelines set by their god, they wouldn’t have spells granted. Similar to how if paladins and rangers strayed, they lost their abilities. Since then, the game feels like the role playing fluff is completely divested from the class, where each class is now just a box of stats and the role that class is inspired by doesn’t matter; where role playing doesn’t matter if you don’t want.

I’m probably not wording it well, but it seems the shift went from “I want to play class X because class X represents such and such flavor (heroic paladin defenders, righteous clerics, woodland protectors, etc) to “I want to play class X because of the following powers / DPR I can get”

*edit. I know those types of players have always been around, but back then, the game actually has guidelines and consequences if you didn’t play with the role playing aspect

I 100% agree. And dwarves should be biologically incapable of being wizards and sorcerers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That was a guess, not exactly lore. I mean, they even state in OD&D that it's a total guess from Lord Dunsany. so that's not what I'd hold up to the D&D lore standard

But you would hold up nunchuck-wielding uber-Gnolls as the D&D lore standard?

However vague the description and different the spelling I'll take Lord Dunsany over Bruce Lee, thanks.

...yeah, I'm sorry, it's the whole flindbar thing, just can't take it seriously...

 

[Psyzhran2357]

I 100% agree. And dwarves should be biologically incapable of being wizards and sorcerers.

See, I'm a young whippersnapper, and I don't understand the love for racial class restrictions. Class roleplaying guidelines I'm more behind; I don't like the idea of "you lose your powers if you don't kowtow to the sun 50 times a morning while singing the song of strawberry waffles" but I do think that your god/patron/other superior taking you to task on your behaviour if you're being a wangrod is perfectly cromulent. Why race-class restrictions though. It seems there's a mentality behind limiting options and codifying behaviour prevalent in older RPGs and their communities that I'm failing to grasp as to why they're good things.

 

[TwoSix]

See, I'm a young whippersnapper, and I don't understand the love for racial class restrictions. Class roleplaying guidelines I'm more behind; I don't like the idea of "you lose your powers if you don't kowtow to the sun 50 times a morning while singing the song of strawberry waffles" but I do think that your god/patron/other superior taking you to task on your behaviour if you're being a wangrod is perfectly cromulent. Why race-class restrictions though. It seems there's a mentality behind limiting options and codifying behaviour prevalent in older RPGs and their communities that I'm failing to grasp as to why they're good things.

I don't use them, but I imagine they're popular because they provide an upfront way to define the setting that the players can immediately recognize. You can write "dwarves dislike and distrust magic" 50 times in your campaign gazetteer, but a rule that says "dwarves can't be wizards or sorcerers because they dislike magic" really communicates the concept to the players in a way they'll recognize.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed. I mean, that's why paladins we so powerful. Because it was hard to qualify for one mechanically, and then you had to actually adhere to a code of ethos.

This was and is all fine.

The problem with Pallies as written is that having one in the party forces all the other players to play characters who the Pally will find acceptable...which means not only no evil characters allowed but no chaotics either. Bleah!

If you wanted the power, then you had to follow the rules. Then the anti-paladin showed up in a Dragon magazine and suddenly everyone wanted to say "screw the role playing requirements, I want all that power and to be able to not follow any rules." Nevermind that the anti-paladin was never meant to be played by players...

After about 25 years of humming and hawing I finally redesigned Paladins last year such that they can be any one of the four extreme alignments (LG, CG, LE, CE) each with its own code of ethics and standards. Same problem exists to a point, but now if the rest of the players want to play more generally chaotic characters then a CG Paladin can fit in.

If someone ever wants to try playing a CE Paladin as a PC I expect an interesting if very short-lived experiment. But having the LE and CE Paladins out there gives me more options for villains...

 

[Lanefan]

Lore I'd like to see 'officially' reintroduced:

Some settings from 2e - Mystara/Known World and Birthright just to name a couple - and their associated lore.
The idea that some races or species simply cannot be some classes e.g. no Dwarf Wizards, and the lore that backs this up.
Racial antipathy (some others here already hit this one)

And then there's one piece of lore I'd like to see disappear forever, along with all the horrible effects it had for one particular class:

Drizz't Do'Urden