D&D 5E (2014) When lore and PC options collide…

[overgeeked]

Mu.

Fnord.

There are fundamentals of the setting and there are accidents of the setting. The fundamentals need to be kept, the accidents don't.

For example in Krynn (as you mention between the Cataclysm and the first novel) it is a huge plot and worldbuilding point that there are no true clerics. No clerics is right there in the elevator pitch.

Meanwhile, with the arguable exception of dragonborn it is an accident of the setting that there isn't a weird tribe of orcs somewhere in the mountains, or a couple of halflings somewhere or granddaddy sold their soul and so we have a tiefling.

Not so much. Orcs and halflings were specifically excluded by the authors as being too much like Tolkien. Dragonborn are definitely a no no considering that absence of dragons is also a huge plot point, the use of draconians as the bad guys, etc.

Any races introduced after AD&D2E are more likely to fall into your accidents rather than fundamentals. But those come down to whether it fits with the setting or not. Something like a changeling might, or it might not. But a rabbit-folk? Not likely. A tiefling? Maybe, sure someone's ancestor sold their soul, but in a setting that's explicitly about good vs evil on a grand scale, maybe...maybe not. A villain? 100%. A PC? Probably not.

In my experience the main creativity fostered by constraints is the creativity in subverting the constraint. And the more constraints you put out there the more peoples' inspiration and attention is going to be grabbed by seeing how they can subvert those constraints.

If you want people inspired by your setting point to that which is inspiring and treat them like adults. If you bang on about how "we shall have no wizards and arcane magic is feared, and no clerics because the gods are dead" then you'll get the situation I saw at one Dark Sun table where there were no wizards ... instead there was a bard, a pact of the tome warlock, a druid, and a paladin. Because every player had their inspiration grabbed by the restrictions.

Yeah, people spend a lot of time trying to get out of constraints rather than accepting them. I'm not sure how creative it is to be told "no" then knee-jerk fight against that. It's a common reaction, yes, but it's not particularly creative.

Also, maybe I'm weird but "treating people like adults" includes expecting them to follow the rules they agreed to and not whine about it. Setting up a game with constraints then having players rail against those constraints is functionally identical to a player complaining that they're out of spell slots and should get more. Sorry, you agreed to play this game and here are the rules you agreed to. You agreed to limited spell slots when you created your caster character just like you agreed to no orcs or clerics when you agreed to play this Dragonlance game set between the Cataclysm and the novels.

 

[Imaro]

since I was already told in this very thread that the player is a [badword] I don't see why I can't change the argument as much as that...

Well you should probably take that up with whoever said the player is a [badword].

Now, you have every right to change whatever examples you want in this discussion... doesn't mean I'm going to engage a curated example that seems specifically crafted to be some sort of "I WIN" button.

 

[Velderan]

I try to make these things clear when making the Game Pitch and again in Session 0.

I'm not really a fan of players coming to the table with a pre-made character in mind. I try dissuading players of that, usually by telling them that we will create characters as a group at the table and not at home. This gives players a chance to bounce ideas off each other. It helps prevent player characters from arriving wearing the same outfit so to speak. This also, IME, tends to kill the trend of five players with lonewolf characters.

We do something like that typically. At a minimum, we discuss what class each person wants to play to avoid having a party of 6 paladins. If someone just got done playing a class, they typically let someone else have a chance at playing it before they ask to play it again with a different subclass.

what then if it isn't just one... what if you sit down to play dragonlance and 5 players show up (1 with a half orc) and when you say know 3 of the 4 other players say "Just let it slide so we can all have fun"
then what?

6 people (DM plus 5 players) 1 wants to play something, 1 doesn't want them to play it and 3 other speak up to defend the 'want to play' (and just to round it out the last player doesn't care as long as we can get started before pizza gets here)

Depends on who the one objecting to the character is. If it's the DM and they have a reason (campaign theme or location or w/e), I've never seen a player tell a DM no if they're told why. Sometimes it's honestly just the player not getting the concept that was pitched. If it's another player, ask why they object and consider it the same way you'd consider the DM's objection. Maybe that person has a point and the person wanting to play the "offending" character may see something they hadn't considered. It's entirely possible in just talking it out, the right answer for your table emerges. It's also possible in discussing it you realize the DM's idea wasn't that great to begin with and they hadn't considered some things the player(s) see and maybe make some tweaks to their ideas so everyone enjoys it more.

Now if we're talking about a game you're DMing for random people at your local hobby shop out of the kindness of your heart, players coming to the table should be willing to play the game the DM has laid out though I'd be curious why the DM is running a game with restrictions for random people who may be new to the hobby. Asking a new player to play something with restrictions seems counterproductive to showing this new player "this game is great, you can do anything you can imagine".

 

[FrozenNorth]

in the novel "Kendermore", the assassin Denzil is a half-orc

I remember that book! And now that you mention it, I remember the character as well. He was the antagonist in the book, so one of the main characters.

 

[MGibster]

If your lore isn't good enough to convince the players to buy into any associated restrictions, maybe your lore isn't as interesting as you think it is. Maybe consider that their ideas might even be better than yours.

There are a few things to consider.

1. Is this actually my lore or are we in a published setting?
2. Maybe the lore doesn't actually matter, the player just wants to play what they want to play.
3. If they're ideas are so great, they're invited to try their hand at DMing.

 

[overgeeked]

I remember that book! And now that you mention it, I remember the character as well. He was the antagonist in the book, so one of the main characters.

Interestingly that character's race is called out as one of three continuity errors in the book. Two of which involve the author (who isn't Weis or Hickman) including things in Dragonlance that were explicitly not in Dragonlance the other is getting the race of one of the main characters wrong. Technically two of them include getting the race of one of the main characters wrong.

Kendermore - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Oofta]

I find it interesting that the "constraint fosters creativity" argument gets mentioned in these discussions. Not because I don't think there's truth to it, but because it's usually mentioned in conjunction with external constraint, right? Such as a GM telling players "these races are off the table"; that's external to the players, and constrains their choices.

Does it do anything for their creativity? It may. Sometimes a player may need to scrap one idea in favor of another, or to ditch a favorite go-to in order to come up with something new.

But it also may not. Maybe they have a really compelling idea for a tiefling... and then they realize no tieflings allowed, and so they scrap it and make a new character out of necessity rather than excitement, which turns out to be bland next to the old one.

I'd say that the idea of constraint fostering creativity doesn't really have a place in the discussion. Or, at least, not from the player perspective.

But what about GM creativity and constraint? Never really comes into play, does it? All these creative GMs and their creative worlds just disregarding any kind of constraint that player choice might place on them. No constraint on their decisions at all.

"But I don't like Tieflings" is about the least creative reason to exclude them. If that's all you got, then stop talking about creativity. That's as dull and basic a reason to exclude stuff. This is more a by-product of the common conception with D&D that it's "the DM's world" rather than the group's world. Don't like Tieflings? Find a way to make them work in your world. Surely this constraint would make one a more creative GM, no?

If constraint fosters creativity, then find a creative way to take the player idea and make it work. Or else stop pushing the idea that constraint fostering creativity matters to this topic.

Who gets to decide what's "dull and basic"? You? Because if a DM doesn't allow a kitchen sink campaign they're dull and basic?

I don't allow tieflings because they've never existed and I see no compelling reason to add them. I can come up with all sorts of reasons for that, not least of which is that most people are fairly xenophobic for good reason. Every time anyone has ever seen a devil or demon like creature, chaos and death have followed. It may be biased, it may be considered bigotry, but in a world where there are things that go bump in the night before they eat you and your family it's also a logical conclusion that someone that looks like a devil is dangerous.

It keeps getting thrown around that "lore should explain why something doesn't exist". For me, it's the opposite. I've given a lot of thought over the years and decided that lore needs to explain why something does exist. There's no lore in my world to support dragonborn, so there aren't any. I could create that lore, but if I create it for one race (which I've considered) then I would have to create it every time someone wants to play a race I don't currently have lore for.

The campaign world needs to make sense to me and I only add lore that fits logically with the type of campaign that I run.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But surely that mistake destroyed Dragonlance, forever, right?

Like it never recovered, no one printed any more material for it ever again and it is forever hated and reviled by the people who came to the setting purely for a lack of orcs, right?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well you should probably take that up with whoever said the player is a [badword].

Now, you have every right to change whatever examples you want in this discussion... doesn't mean I'm going to engage a curated example that seems specifically crafted to be some sort of "I WIN" button.

why engage to say you don't want to engage?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Depends on who the one objecting to the character is. If it's the DM and they have a reason (campaign theme or location or w/e), I've never seen a player tell a DM no if they're told why.

hey that is like the thesis's of my whole argument...