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

[Minigiant]

Oh by the way, I choose PC options because only Good Lore justifies lose of PC options. Bad or Meh Lore only justifies adding replacement options.

You choose to limit us to Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling with only the classes available in the 1980? Congratulations. I expect your lore to be half as good as Tolkien, Gygax, and Arneson.

Also LORE is not the Same as THEME.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Your players will do all that, but they won't accept your game lore?

As with the previous: why do you assume jerk players?

 

[Oofta]

Oh by the way, I choose PC options because only Good Lore justifies lose of PC options. Bad or Meh Lore only justifies adding replacement options.

You choose to limit us to Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling with only the classes available in the 1980? Congratulations. I expect your lore to be half as good as Tolkien, Gygax, and Arneson.

Also LORE is not the Same as THEME.

First, if I invite you to my game I'll tell you up front my approach. If it doesn't work for you that I don't allow anthropomorphic turtles that's too bad. Maybe we can get together and play Pandemic some time. I've put a lot of thought and time into my campaign, far more than you will put into creating a character. If you absolutely insist that you must play a Yuan-ti and nothing else, that's a red flag to me as a DM anyway. I guess I'm not the DM for you. If ask if you can play an Aasimar maybe we can talk. They'll look human but perhaps be a fallen valkyrie that's been stripped of all their power and much of their memory? Maybe we can we come up with an interesting story.

As far as lore not being theme ... not to get into semantics, but I think they go hand in hand. If I'm super excited about the Mythic Odyssey of Theros because I want an ancient Greece inspired fantasy campaign, dwarves are going to be out of place.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Your players will do all that, but they won't accept your game lore?

I won't force them to 'accept my game lore' as an excuse to keep them from playing what they want.

Because I like, respect and appreciate them and their time.

 

[TerraDave]

I won't force them to 'accept my game lore' as an excuse to keep them from playing what they want.

Because I like, respect and appreciate them and their time.

Sure. But it can go two ways.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not one or the other..

Lore can open more PC options or constraint them.
Lore can constraint options but open up for other homebrew to offer new ways to play.
Lor can also make boring as butt gameplay.

Lore would be more exciting in a D&D game than Data would be.

 

[Minigiant]

First, if I invite you to my game I'll tell you up front my approach. If it doesn't work for you that I don't allow anthropomorphic turtles that's too bad. Maybe we can get together and play Pandemic some time. I've put a lot of thought and time into my campaign, far more than you will put into creating a character. If you absolutely insist that you must play a Yuan-ti and nothing else, that's a red flag to me as a DM anyway. I guess I'm not the DM for you. If ask if you can play an Aasimar maybe we can talk. They'll look human but perhaps be a fallen valkyrie that's been stripped of all their power and much of their memory? Maybe we can we come up with an interesting story.

You missing my point..

It really doesn't matter why I want to play a tortle artificer that is banned in your setting but I dont want to be a dwarf fighter that is allowed in your setting.

Lore isn't restrictions. Lore is lore.

Most players can find a PC concept within a good D&D setting that matches how they like to play or elements that excite them.

However if your lore restricts huge swathes of PC options, there is a good chance it is a bad D&D setting.

GRRM's ASOIAF is a great setting. It is a terrible D&D setting. It limits race to one option. Bans most classes. Favors a ability score array that is not balanced amongst classes. Has a clear heirachy in equipment and status. Lack enemy variety. And has no dungeons.

Lore should trump PC options because Lore should allow enough PC options for most players to find one they might enjoy.

As far as lore not being theme ... not to get into semantics, but I think they go hand in hand. If I'm super excited about the Mythic Odyssey of Theros because I want an ancient Greece inspired fantasy campaign, dwarves are going to be out of place.

It's not sematics. Theme is Theme. Lore is Lore. If someone wants to be a race or class out of the theme, there should be an option that captures the part of that class or race the player cares about.

That's the point. Themes don't often restrict as much as they alter.

 

[Maxperson]

GRRM's ASOIAF is a great setting. It is a terrible D&D setting. It limits race to one option. Bans most classes. Favors a ability score array that is not balanced amongst classes. Has a clear heirachy in equipment and status. Lack enemy variety. And has no dungeons.

It has fighters, clerics, rogues, rangers, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, monks and barbarians. It might have paladins. It lacks formal wizards and bards, and might have paladins.

That setting has most classes, not bans most classes. It would make a fine D&D setting.

 

[Incenjucar]

Lore. I am big on letting people play whatever they paid to access, but unless there's a way to modify it to fit the lore of the game (and usually there is!) this creates an opportunity to try something new anyway. That said, I would very often just work with the player to reskin things. If there are no undead but lots of constructs perhaps they can be a constructomancer instead of a necromancer, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

It has fighters, clerics, rogues, rangers, sorcerers, warlocks, druids, monks and barbarians. It might paladins. It lacks formal wizards and bards, and might have paladins.

That setting has most classes, not bans most classes. It would make a fine D&D setting.

Depends on the era.

By the Time of the Targeryen invasion, all full casters would be absent and most half casters would be rare.

During the times of any of the books or shows, it would be human only, barbarian, fighter, monk, rogue. Only northerners and freefolk could be rangers. Only people from Essos.could be paladins and warlocks.

Plus... enemy variety would be very low and no dungeons.

ASOIAF would be a terrible D&D setting.