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

[Minigiant]

"Because I said so" isn't lore.

"I don't want to deal with flying and swimming races" isn't lore.

"We are playing a Greek inspired game" isn't lore.

Lore is lore.

You can't be a gnome in my Six Kingdoms setting because gnomes are full on fey there. Their minds are partially alien and they can't stay out of the Fairylands for long. They replaced elves as the Fey of Summer. This makes them impossible to play inside of the D&D playloop. If you want to be small and cute, be a halfling, kobold, or munk. If you want to be a gadgeteer, be a green elf of kobold. If you want to talk to animals, be a hound, a cursed human of Wu, or a swamp dwarf.

 

[delericho]

Lore.

In fact, I'm increasingly coming to the view that settings should start from an assumption that nothing is allowed, and then only add those things that fit the intended theme for the setting. Mostly because I'm getting sick of seeing the same old dwarves, elves, and orcs everywhere!

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Lore. Definitely lore. Especially since Spelljammer.

My Session Zero asks that the players prepare a character that fits in a setting. Good luck explaining how a Plasmoid fits in the Forgotten Realms.

 

[delericho]

Lore. Definitely lore. Especially since Spelljammer.

My Session Zero asks that the players prepare a character that fits in a setting. Good luck explaining how a Plasmoid fits in the Forgotten Realms.

Arrived on a crashed Spelljammer?

 

[nevin]

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?

lore. if someone is going to to not play over a character option they were going to be a problem anyway.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Lore.

In fact, I'm increasingly coming to the view that settings should start from an assumption that nothing is allowed, and then only add those things that fit the intended theme for the setting. Mostly because I'm getting sick of seeing the same old dwarves, elves, and orcs everywhere!

Surprising. The vast majority of people who propose restrictions grant carte blanche grandfather clauses to Fellowship of the Ring races and the Core Four classes. That's a big part of why I get my back up so much on this; as I have said before, we play a hobby that allows us to do anything we can imagine...so naturally 99% of the time we repeat the same tired cliches and out-of-context "borrowings" from the one guy who actually put work into this group project.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The vast majority of people who propose restrictions grant carte blanche grandfather clauses to Fellowship of the Ring races and the Core Four classes.

Evidence?

I'm perfectly happy to see elves, dwarves and orcs thrown on the bonfire.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Look. I get what you are saying, but at the same time you can't say, "because I said so" is the bad thing, because everything is "because I said so."

if you don't have a good reason for your players it's 'cause i said so' if you HAVE a good reason YOU don't HAVE to say 'cause I said so"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Evidence?

I'm perfectly happy to see elves, dwarves and orcs thrown on the bonfire.

I mean, we have literally had at least half a dozen threads with people dunking on the "true exotics" or the "weird fantasy races" etc. And numerous people (easily a dozen) have explicitly told me that humans are mandatory, that you HAVE to include humans in every game or it won't work, etc.

Note, though, that I specifically said "Fellowship" races for a reason. Dwarf, elf, halfling, human. Orcs don't get nearly as much protection, because they were bad guys and thus necessarily not part of the Fellowship. Same goes for goblins, talking eagles, ents, trolls, and other races that technically exist in Tolkien's work but aren't central characters. The eagles and ents prove that it also isn't restricted to bad guys.

To turn that around: do you have examples, hell even just a single example, of discussion where people are gung-ho about significant and inflexible restrictions but expressly forbid elves, dwarves, and halflings? (Although I would prefer forbidding humans too, I recognize that that is too big an ask for evidence of this kind.)

 

[Oofta]

Well that is often the issue. Many DMs and Worldbuilders use "lore" to recreate a feeling that would be better played using a different system or with heavy houserules.

D&D is a game. If your lore doesn't support a fun game and breaks the agreement that the player get to make their own PCs, it's not good lore for D&D.

The DM gets to make whatever lore they want. It however doesn't insulate them from being called out on disruptive lore.


Pirates of the Caribbean, Spelljammer, and Iomandra have swashbukling themes but vastly direct lores and PC options.

Ah, the dreaded nefarious "Many DMs". That explains everything!

First, I don't know who these many DMs are, nor do I really care. People running games of their own style and with heavy house rules has been a part of D&D since it's inception. The fact that people can, and do, run very different styles of games using D&D as a basis is a strength of the system not a flaw. It's one of it's reasons for the games ongoing popularity.

I do agree that a game that is not fun will not be fun. However you're trying to make a connection between restrictions based on lore for a campaign making it automatically being a bad game. That connection does not inherently exist and you have proven nothing. If someone asks me to join a D&D game that is set in a non-magical world with only humans as PCs, I'll have some questions about details. I might still join if it sounds interesting, especially if they've run a good game previously. I would probably be more hesitant if they also had a 20 page double sided document of house rules but that's a a red herring and a different topic. Tons of house rules work for some people, not sure it would work for me.

A DM should always be open to feedback of course. Sometimes the answer will be "no" in my game because I accepted long ago that I can't be the right DM for every player, just like I'm not the right player for every DM. It has little or nothing to do with how enjoyable a campaign will be as well. I've had games that had every option available that were utter crap because there was no lore or grounding for our characters and no thought put into the campaign. In general if a DM has some restrictions that make sense to me it's a positive sign, they've put some thought into the game and what's going to be fun for the players as a whole.

Last, but not least, you can have multiple themes to support lore. Swashbuckling is one theme behind the stories you mentioned but it's hardly all inclusive. There's a big difference between 18th century Caribbean with ghosts and real world legends theme and pigs PCs in space themes. Themes can be additive, they aren't always mutually exclusive.