D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Shasarak]

AD&D has no such mechanic (until the introduciton of cavaliers in UA, but that won't be relevant if your noble's son is a cleric, or a ranger, or some other non-generic warrior.

Neither 3E nor 4e has any such mechanic in its PHB.

So for most of D&D history, your expectation has not been met. Yet people have been playing PCs, some but not all of whom are nobles' sons.

I think you will find that 4e did in fact have backgrounds in at least one of its many PHBs but I think the biggest mistake you make is assuming that because there was no such mechanic for "most of DnD history" that we should not have such a mechanic. By that kind of argument then because for the most of human history we did not have internet that should mean that we should not have internet when in reality humans just spent a long long time waiting for the internet to be invented.

(Which speaks also to [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]'s comment about wizards. For most of D&D's history, differences in the fictional background of PCs have not been mechanically expressed at all. 3E really starts to individuate fighting style, for instance, but that doesn't mean that, in the fition, all AD&D fighters were indistinguishable in their martial arts techniques.)

And certainly because you have never seen anyone commenting on how one fighter is indistinguishable from another then I guess that means it never happened.

This is weird for two reasons.

(1) D&D has had stats for lions in many editions, yet Africa has never been part of the core gameworld (the original MM has Sumatran rats, evil spirits from India, Japanese ogres and Chinese dragons, but no reference to Africa).

Did you specifically refer to the stats for African Lions? Because I am not sure that the Japanese Ogre stats are relevant to discussions regarding African Lions or are you inferring that you use Japanese Ogre stats in the game to represent your African Lions?

(2) Madagascar is part of Africa.

Not sure how to properly explain the concept of islands to you with out it seeming weird but it is kind of like how Tasmania is part of Australia without actually being physically attached to Australia.

Yes yes I realise that ADnD did not have any stats for a Tasmania but you could probably just use the ones for the Chinese Dragons without your players knowing the difference.

 

[Shasarak]

I am sure that Africa would be pleased to know that as they never made the core game world of DnD that they never really existed.

That is hardly racist at all.

 

[Bigsta]

What is the true canon: the group that follows 4E's Dark Sun canon or the group that follows 2nd Edition Dark Sun canon? Or what of the group that followed the Athas.org canon? Or the group that followed the 3rd edition canon from Paizo's Dragon article?

We actually had this issue come up in the weekly Dark Sun game I run.

When I was putting the campaign together, I started with the 4e campaign guide as the base and then used 2e materials to flesh things out. As far as I'm concerned, 4e had the best Dark Sun canon as no 2e Dark Sun group I ever played with in back in the day set things past Kalak's death per "Beyond the Prism Pentad."

A few weeks ago I tried to work the Princes of the Apocalypse dungeons in as I thought elemental cults were perfect for Dark Sun, especially considering that the book has suggestions for integrating it into Athas. The adventure hook was that the PCs were approached by a married couple, a water elemental cleric and a paraelemental rain cleric. They were working to bring the elemental and paraelemental clerics together, and they wanted the PCs to kill four elemental clerics that had formed their own elemental cults to eventually wage war on the paraelemental clerics.

Well one of my players absolutely hated this and was passive aggressive and obstructionist the entire session. We talked the next day after I sent an email to him entitled "Dark Sun - What the Hell Man!" After apologizing for the way he acted (we drink a lot during Thursday D&D so I didn't take anything personal), he explained that to him Elemental Evil is not Dark Sun. You don't have elemental cults in Dark Sun. Per the lore, elemental clerics tend to be loners that worship their element in their own way. He was right, under 2e canon.

I told him that I disagreed. I thought that elemental cults fit perfectly into Dark Sun. I was right, under 4e canon.

I told him that while I disagreed that Elemental Evil didn't work in Dark Sun, I respected his opinion. The next week we just agreed that the previous session never happened and the PCs went off and did a different adventure hook.

 

[ProgBard]

The example that [MENTION=6803284]Bigsta[/MENTION] shares is relevant to many points that have come up while this thread has gone round.

"Elemental Evil isn't Dark Sun" is a visceral squick reaction from a player who has definite, but possibly hard to articulate, feelings about what DS canon is (and can be) and what it isn't. But as the example demonstrates, it's kind of up in the air depnding on what lore you give primacy to.

It was certainly an issue for Bigsta's group - they couldn't agree on what had the right feel for the setting. This is a demonstration, if you need one, that expectations of canon are deeply held and can be problematic when they come into conflict with not only non-canonical ideas but ideas suggested by other canonical readings or sources.

But Bigsta's handling of this is also exemplary of How To Do It: Talk to the players, suss out the source of the problem, and be willing to retcon if it keeps the table happy. Everyone wins.

I think it shows how, while the folks who are relative canon-purists here are right in saying it can cause problems (depending on the group), they only remain problems if you're not willing to be flexible.

(Which is not to say that a DM with a singular vision needs to always give in to player demands. And sometimes, of course, "be flexible" means "find another group to play with whose Cool Stuff list has more in common with yours.")

 

[I'm A Banana]

AD&D has no such mechanic (until the introduciton of cavaliers in UA, but that won't be relevant if your noble's son is a cleric, or a ranger, or some other non-generic warrior.

Neither 3E nor 4e has any such mechanic in its PHB.

So for most of D&D history, your expectation has not been met. Yet people have been playing PCs, some but not all of whom are nobles' sons.

(Which speaks also to [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]'s comment about wizards. For most of D&D's history, differences in the fictional background of PCs have not been mechanically expressed at all. 3E really starts to individuate fighting style, for instance, but that doesn't mean that, in the fition, all AD&D fighters were indistinguishable in their martial arts techniques.)

Well, for one, remember that a list of Corymrean noble houses that you can plug into your character's own history *is* a rule. So if that's all we got, that might be enough support.

But for two, sure! I also have no trouble with the concept that support for various PC types has been anemic in D&D. The game can rely a bit more on audience participation to fill in its own gaps than many games, because it can tell the DM to fill in its gaps for it. The degree to which this is a "problem" depends on how important those particular character types are to you. Cormyrean nobles, mercenary warriors, whatever, some concepts are better-supported than others.

I choose to talk about Greyhawk, Dungeons and Dragons, and role playing games in an inclusive way because I believe we should be celebrating the diversity of this wonderful hobby. I also believe that when we rely on strict definitions we often lose sight of cultural similarities and discourage taking creative risks.
...
I personally don't see much value in encourage a very specific and more homogenous culture.

I don't think that separating lore from rules achieves this goal. In fact, I think separating lore from rules undermines that goal. It creates a second class of game mechanics (the lore) that "doesn't matter" and so can be changed and trod on and disregarded and trivialized, while the "more important" rules (roll 1d20 to hit; six ability scores; fighters are a class) become unreasonably entrenched and unable to be changed. True diversity is, in part, a recognition of the value of different experiences - including the experience of lore being important.

And backstory isn't happening, and it's not a mechanic, so it's nothing like a rule, because rules are what govern how the game plays.

If your backstory isn't informing the motivation and role-playing of the character's current behavior, then it's as superfluous as the appearance of a queen in chess.

But most characters I know of have a history that informs how they currently play. The past also affects plot hooks, story details, lost empires, ruins...

The past is never dead. It's not even past.

Backstory is part of the rules of pretty much every D&D setting, and is part of the rules of character-building coded into race, background, and even class. Your character had a history before they became an adventurer that informed what they are, and the world had a history before your adventurer came along that informed what it is.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think that separating lore from rules achieves this goal. In fact, I think separating lore from rules undermines that goal. It creates a second class of game mechanics (the lore) that "doesn't matter" and so can be changed and trod on and disregarded and trivialized, while the "more important" rules (roll 1d20 to hit; six ability scores; fighters are a class) become unreasonably entrenched and unable to be changed. True diversity is, in part, a recognition of the value of different experiences - including the experience of lore being important.

I'm not entirely sure what you are responding to here. Upthread, I spoke at length about how role playing games are a synthesis of processes, procedures, and fiction. I pontificated about how the fictional playspace needed to be designed and iterated on with the same level of rigor and intent as the other elements of the game. You can also see where I talk about choosing which elements of the fiction to represent in rules (processes and procedures) is a critical component of role playing game design. All of that is largely beside the point. What matters is how we communicate.

Conversation is all about getting to meaning. Words and phrases are cultural constructs defined by their usage. Look at any word in the dictionary - I'm going to bet it has multiple definitions. Look at in another dictionary - I'm also going to bet it has a slightly different set of definitions. The same thing is true for role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, and Greyhawk. It's not up to me to privilege one definition over any other, although I'm going to bet their definitions haven't rose to enough cultural significance to make the OED - my very favorite dictionary. I get it. You want a single standard for things, but that isn't the way communication works in the real world. We should attempt to meet people where they are as long as they are speaking in good faith.

Here's the way I look at it: Dungeons and Dragons is not a game. It is several distinct games that share a cultural heritage, and play in phenomenally different ways. Gygax's Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is a hack of OD&D. TSR's Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is a hack of Gygax's game. When Gygax wrote Arcana Unearthed he was hacking his own game. Someone using just the core 3 did not just stop playing Dungeons and Dragons because they are not using his hack. If we want to be all essentialist about the second we deviate from anything written in any game book, which includes introducing new fiction we are engaging in game design. So I am not playing the same game as I was last week. So what does this mean in practical terms? We deal.

Given ambiguity we seek meaning, drilling down into specifics until we can achieve mutual understanding. We also depend on context and if you are like me you embrace the hacker culture instead of pushing against it. When we want to talk about specifics we clarify our intent. Words still have meaning, it's just ambiguous and messy - like most human communication. I mean what's the real cultural impact of only accepting a single definition of role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, or Greyhawk into being? We make it harder for the fringes to engage the greater community, and lose valuable perspectives. What's the cost of ambiguity? We sometimes have to drill down to specifics and perhaps expose new people to different games within the larger hobby.

I mean there is another cost when people join games, and don't communicate about their expectations as seen above. Can we stop doing that? I mean there is so much more to communicate about than which version of the game we're using. There's all this interesting stuff about theme, tone, possible hacks, etc. Let's not blame different expectations. Having expectations, bringing stuff to the table, and reaching consensus is critical to playing role playing games. It's a crucial skill for doing this thing we do. It's where the magic happens - I bring my fiction, you bring yours, and we engage together using the game so it's now our fiction.

 

[ProgBard]

Well, for one, remember that a list of Corymrean noble houses that you can plug into your character's own history *is* a rule. So if that's all we got, that might be enough support.

Okay, so I've been thinking about some of the dialogue that was previously confusing me a little, because the last couple of rounds I was initially scratching my head that you'd put forth a response of "But changing that lore changes the experience of play," to which I could only reply, "Um ... yes?"

But I realized, after our previous exchange, that - assuming I'm understanding you right, natch - you define everything that affects the experience of play as a rule.

And, as I said before, I don't think that's necessarily wrong. But I think it is ... idiosyncratic. And I posit that it's potentially getting in the way of some of the conversation on this subject, because I don't think you're going to convince everyone to get on board with making the idea of "rules" that big an umbrella. And, if I may, I wonder if it's obscuring more than it reveals.

I don't think that separating lore from rules achieves this goal. In fact, I think separating lore from rules undermines that goal. It creates a second class of game mechanics (the lore) that "doesn't matter" and so can be changed and trod on and disregarded and trivialized, while the "more important" rules (roll 1d20 to hit; six ability scores; fighters are a class) become unreasonably entrenched and unable to be changed. True diversity is, in part, a recognition of the value of different experiences - including the experience of lore being important.

True diversity recognizes that it can be important, but doesn't have to be, and that it isn't equally so for everyone. It's necessary for me to recognize that other types of players will hold some things in high value that I don't. It's just as necessary that those other players recognize that their preferences aren't virtues either. Our differing perspectives are equally valuable; that doesn't mean lore-adherents have a special claim on a perspective that has to be honored more than others.

Separating lore and rules, I would argue, doesn't by implication devalue or trivialize one of them. It merely recognizes that they are two dials, the adjusting of which have qualitatively different effects on the experience of play - even if, as you're quite right in observing, they both have an effect.

And consider that it seems to be part of the design of the current edition of the game - or at the very least part of its designers' explicit approach - that you are invited to change and disregard lore as a distinct phenomenon of play. I don't think that means the WotC folks don't have any use for lore, or don't consider it of any value - they quite clearly love it very much, judging by how much of it they've been eager to refer to and build on. They've recognized, though, that you can love and even value lore without insisting that it needs special defending, or enshrining it with the same kind of assumed immutability as rolling d20 to hit.

 

[seebs]

Backstory informs character choices, sure, but that doesn't make it a rule any more than "my idea of my character's personality" is a rule.

 

[Shasarak]

Backstory informs character choices, sure, but that doesn't make it a rule any more than "my idea of my character's personality" is a rule.

I was listening to a game designer today who suggested that Players can tell how important something is to any particular RPG by the amount of pages dedicated to it in the PHB. So how important is backstory to your character? In ADnD not important at all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's the way I look at it: Dungeons and Dragons is not a game. It is several distinct games that share a cultural heritage, and play in phenomenally different ways. Gygax's Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is a hack of OD&D. TSR's Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is a hack of Gygax's game. When Gygax wrote Arcana Unearthed he was hacking his own game. Someone using just the core 3 did not just stop playing Dungeons and Dragons because they are not using his hack. If we want to be all essentialist about the second we deviate from anything written in any game book, which includes introducing new fiction we are engaging in game design. So I am not playing the same game as I was last week. So what does this mean in practical terms? We deal.

I can follow your logic.

Given ambiguity we seek meaning, drilling down into specifics until we can achieve mutual understanding. We also depend on context and if you are like me you embrace the hacker culture instead of pushing against it. When we want to talk about specifics we clarify our intent. Words still have meaning, it's just ambiguous and messy - like most human communication. I mean what's the real cultural impact of only accepting a single definition of role playing games, Dungeons and Dragons, or Greyhawk into being? We make it harder for the fringes to engage the greater community, and lose valuable perspectives. What's the cost of ambiguity? We sometimes have to drill down to specifics and perhaps expose new people to different games within the larger hobby.

I don't agree that the consequence of defining these things makes it harder to engage. I think it makes it easier, because it helps define the experience you'll be in for.

By way of comparison, consider Doom (2016) and how it isn't afraid to define itself as One Specific Thing.

Or even how D&D entrenches itself in the Fantasy genre (it's not quite One Specific Thing, but it's excluded a big swath of fantasy fiction and fandom in that decision!).

There's varying positions on that slider, of course - varying levels of focus. RPG's aren't all fantasy games. Not every D&D setting is the same. Even on Greyhawk, you have different nations and different lands and different threats that all produce different experiences. But each level excludes a little bit more, and that's OK.

I mean there is another cost when people join games, and don't communicate about their expectations as seen above. Can we stop doing that? I mean there is so much more to communicate about than which version of the game we're using. There's all this interesting stuff about theme, tone, possible hacks, etc. Let's not blame different expectations. Having expectations, bringing stuff to the table, and reaching consensus is critical to playing role playing games. It's a crucial skill for doing this thing we do. It's where the magic happens - I bring my fiction, you bring yours, and we engage together using the game so it's now our fiction.

Part of how you communicate better about expectations is by making those expectations less flexible, so that they can be safe assumptions.

Okay, so I've been thinking about some of the dialogue that was previously confusing me a little, because the last couple of rounds I was initially scratching my head that you'd put forth a response of "But changing that lore changes the experience of play," to which I could only reply, "Um ... yes?"

But I realized, after our previous exchange, that - assuming I'm understanding you right, natch - you define everything that affects the experience of play as a rule.

And, as I said before, I don't think that's necessarily wrong. But I think it is ... idiosyncratic. And I posit that it's potentially getting in the way of some of the conversation on this subject, because I don't think you're going to convince everyone to get on board with making the idea of "rules" that big an umbrella. And, if I may, I wonder if it's obscuring more than it reveals.

It's not that everything that affects the experience of play is a rule. If all the queens in your chess game were slick with human saliva, that would affect the experience of play pretty profoundly, but it's not a rule of chess that queens not be coated in a layer of drool. It is, perhaps, a very important aesthetic.

It's that rules describe how a game is meant to be played - they create a play experience. Part of the play of D&D is describing your character. When you say "Rath is a dwarf," that's part of the play of D&D - everyone has some idea of what Rath looks like now, because they know the rules for how a dwarf looks (no one imagines him to be a twenty-foot tall column of eerie glowing gas).

According to at least one formal definition, all rules for all games have the following characteristics:

• They limit player action.
• They are explicit.
• They are shared by all players.
• They don't change during play.
• They are an authority.
• They are portable (in that anyone can use them to play the same game).

"Roll 1d20 to make an attack roll" and "Dwarves stand well under 5 feet tall" both fit that. By the rules, I can't make my dwarf six feet tall, it's clear to me and to the other players that dwarves are under 5 feet tall, the DM won't suddenly declare that dwarves are six feet tall one day and ten feet tall the next, if I try to make a six-foot-tall dwarf you can point me at the rules to show me that this is not kosher, and if I'm using these rules in Brooklyn and someone else is using these rules in Burkina Faso, neither of us will have six-foot-tall dwarves in our games (and if one of us changes the rule, as D&D encourages, maybe one of us does!).

It seems to me that those that want to make a strong distinction between "lore" and "rules" are trying to draw a line that doesn't really exist - trying to remove acts like "describing your character" from the realm of playing D&D and put it in some aesthetic category that's not relevant to actual gameplay. In the process, that distinction winds up being pretty incoherent.

True diversity recognizes that it can be important, but doesn't have to be, and that it isn't equally so for everyone

It still respects those that it is true for.

Separating lore and rules, I would argue, doesn't by implication devalue or trivialize one of them. It merely recognizes that they are two dials, the adjusting of which have qualitatively different effects on the experience of play - even if, as you're quite right in observing, they both have an effect.

I don't see any qualitative difference between them. "As a hill dwarf, you have keen senses, deep intuition, and remarkable resilience" is equal to "As a hill dwarf, you have +1 WIS and +1 MAX HP." Both rules have largely the same effect: the tell you how to pretend to be a hill dwarf (the first rule through giving you an active direction, and the second rule by giving you numbers that that creates essentially the same experience as the first rule, but in combat scenarios where your ability to describe your character is a bit more constrained than usual).

And consider that it seems to be part of the design of the current edition of the game - or at the very least part of its designers' explicit approach - that you are invited to change and disregard lore as a distinct phenomenon of play. I don't think that means the WotC folks don't have any use for lore, or don't consider it of any value - they quite clearly love it very much, judging by how much of it they've been eager to refer to and build on. They've recognized, though, that you can love and even value lore without insisting that it needs special defending, or enshrining it with the same kind of assumed immutability as rolling d20 to hit.

They invite you to change all the rules, which includes the height of dwarves as much as it includes what you add to something you're proficient in, how you account for spellcasting, how many ability scores there are, what monsters there are, how skills work, if you can "mark" enemies in combat....

The assumed immutability of the d20-to-hit is more a function of impact than of nature (it'd be akin to perhaps changing the game into a Western, from a "pure fluff" perspective - something you can do, but not something that's exactly easy or straightforward, so probably best reserved for someone who already knows enough to know what they're going to break by doing it).