D&D 5E When lore and PC options collide…

[overgeeked]

Which is more important: preserving the lore of a setting or having the full range of PC character creation options?

For example, in the lore of Dragonlance between the Cataclysm and the start of the first novel there are no true clerics. Likewise, there are no halflings, orcs, changelings, tieflings, dragonborn, etc.

So which is more important: preserving existing lore or the full range of 5E PC character creation options?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Lore, definitely lore! Half the time in my homebrew I don't allow some races, classes or subclasses.

Others might argue it detracts from the "fun of the players" but I will counter that with "it detracts from my fun otherwise" and frankly, I play DND primarily for me because I enjoy it. I am not going to run a game I won't enjoy running.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Which is more important: preserving the lore of a setting or having the full range of PC character creation options?

For example, in the lore of Dragonlance between the Cataclysm and the start of the first novel there are no true clerics. Likewise, there are no halflings, orcs, changelings, tieflings, dragonborn, etc.

So which is more important: preserving existing lore or the full range of 5E PC character creation options?

I voted PC Options but, IMO, it really is something to be established, perhaps through some compromises, at session 0. If the table is on board with the limitations of the lore, run with it. If a few of the players are really itching to play the thing they haven't before, even though it "clashes" with established lore, run with it.

TL;DR: Kinda cliche of me to say "whatever is most fun for the table" but... there it is.

 

[iserith]

Constraint can spur creativity and, in my view, if I'm going to run a published setting, we're going to do it according to the theme of that setting and whatever constraints play into that. We can turn on all the options in a kitchen sink game next campaign.

 

[billd91]

Ultimately, it depends. Sometimes we play games with a full slate of options because there's no reason to limit them. But for situations in which we DO pick something a bit more restricted, lore wins. And that would be the point of running a Dragonlance campaign, or a Star Wars scum and villainy - No Jedi campaign. If we're choosing something with a particular lore-heavy character to them, why would we undermine it by not embracing its character?

 

[payn]

I voted Lore, but I prefer smaller lists of items that are stripped out to huge chunks wholesale.

 

[Voadam]

If we are playing Cataclysm Dragonlance I'd prefer no clerics and such, but I could deal with a game where anything was allowed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the setting has restrictions, and they're not a surprise to anyone, I would want those restrictions to be honored by everyone at the table.

 

[Umbran]

So which is more important: preserving existing lore or the full range of 5E PC character creation options?

There's more than just these two poles available to us.

I have very little care that "all the options" of the PHB be available in every setting. The PHB is not a setting-straightjacket. I merely care that there are sufficient options that my players can find cool characters that they would want to play.

That said, I am also flexible. I am okay saying, "This is Dragonlance, so no orcs or clerics." However, if someone came to me looking to play a dragonborn and they were willing to work with me on the background of that character, I expect we could make it happen.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You don’t need every option available to create a character you can have fun with, and if you do I’d ask you to consider and answer me why do you need every option available to have fun?