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

Which is more important?

  • Lore

  • PC options


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone actually think anyone being this combative, not to mention derogatory, to the opposite side will contribute a single iota of productivity to this thread? The poll is a personal preference question, and not something with any sort of objective answer.
no I don't... TBH I think that this has gone way too far into the tribalism of edition wars, social skills, if a player can ask for a skill, if a player can add to a game world, if a DM is a type of player or above the players, and I am sure I am forgetting a dozen other arguments enworld is now famus for that basicly turn into unhelpful arguments were both sides are trying to score points...

but I feel insulted, I am sure at least 1 poster feels I have BEEN insulting, and as you say we have all not argued against each other so long that we are all dug in... that is the way it works...
Even when I take 48 hours away I come back to dozens of tags on posts like this. So if I left today for a vacation I would just come back to being in the same place I am not (feeling attacked and persecuted and like i need to defend myself) and the other side of the argument I am 100% sure feels the same (at least most are in good faith sure there may be a troll or two on each side)

but we broke ALL the rules long ago... we use insults we make thigns personal we put words in peoples mouths and I don't know how to stop the cycle...
The hyperbole, the insults, the putting words in peoples' mouths, the refusal to look at posts in good faith and with the benefit of the doubt, is it worth it? What's the point?
TBH the point was lost days ago. But like I keep saying I post on here 10 positive things I love about gaming and lore and get 1 or 2 responses... I post in this argument and have 3 tags before I hit post.

edit: when I typed this 2 people had already responded to other things and tagged me not 3 just to keep the record straight... still nothing on death dragons, soth, disintigration swords, funny stories though
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No you don't. It's no more needed than the DMG or Monster Manual.
okay show me where we get the rules for conditions, spells, multi class, heck just how to make a character
All the rules needed to play are available via free download.
hey look part of the PHB... that needs to be searched and downloaded...
No one had a 5e PHB when our group started. Now, about half the group have one. It's an optional extra like all the other books.
it is the base rule book
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
It's a bummer. I know you and I land on different sides of this debate, but I really don't care for the frequent mischaracterization of your posts, or the insults you've received by proxy. I really try to apologize if I misunderstand something, or respond in a way that misses their point.
 

HaroldTheHobbit

Adventurer
This isn't really a problem since I have a permanent table of players, and I present campaigns that both they and I find interesting, and if not we talk about modifikations to make the campaign. But there are almost always character restrictions in play, that's kind of a given, no matter what game system we use.

Maybe it's a thing nowadays with the explosion of young and new players with very different expectations. But if you present a character concept that are diametral from the campaign expectations, I will just say no. And I'm sure a creative player can make a fun and interesting character concept within any campaign restriction frames. At least that's what I as a perma-GM expect from a player at my table.
 

Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
okay show me where we get the rules for conditions, spells, multi class, heck just how to make a character

hey look part of the PHB... that needs to be searched and downloaded...

it is the base rule book
I actually did just look this up. To my surprise, the free basic rules available on WotC's website only include:
1668090842785.png
 


This isn't really a problem since I have a permanent table of players, and I present campaigns that both they and I find interesting, and if not we talk about modifications to make the campaign. But there are almost always character restrictions in play, that's kind of a given, no matter what game system we use.
that is y experience too
 

reelo

Hero
Which is why when you host a dinner party and a guest brings pie , you prevent the person and the other guests from having any because you don’t like pie.
My wife is Algerian: if she invites people for a North-African dinner and she's spent a whole day in the kitchen preparing an entire panoply of snacks, dishes, and beverages from back home, and one of the guests brings his leftover tuna-casserole, there's gonna be weird looks to say the very least!
 






Micah Sweet

Legend
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)
If I wanted to run Dragonlance I would let my players know ahead of time, including any restrictions. If they then come to the table with a PC that's outside those restrictions, I can't see that as anything other than being on them. Setting lore matters to me, so if a player disregards a pre-game discussion and won't adjust, then I won't run Dragonlance, and I'll probably be pretty salty that a player essentially lied to me.

But that's never happened in real life, so I'm not really worried about it.
 



Oofta

Legend
It's so bizarre. One would think that players are playing new PC's every week. Like allowing any option at chargen actually impacts the setting in any real way. Since the players are, over the course of a typical campaign, only going to play 1 or 2 PC's per player, the total number of "lore breaking" characters is miniscule. Who cares?

It really, really doesn't matter if Bob wants to play a plasmoid in a Dragonlance campaign. You find a simple background solution and move on. I just don't get this whole idea that if you allowed, again, a plasmoid PC, this would require anything more than 30 seconds work for the DM to slot in. There's a thousand possible ways to add that in.

It's such a bizarre hill to die on for me. It's almost like there's this idea that DM's have limited creativity. If we make the DM think too much, his creativity tank will be empty and the campaign won't be able to work because he won't be able to think of anything for the next NPC to say because he's totally out of creativity juice.

Again, if adding a single race to your campaign causes you that much angst, I really do think that this is indicative of far, far larger issues down the road.

If Bob survives his shock therapy and plays a plasmoid in my campaign that establishes the precedence that there are plasmoids in my world. A species needs a significant population to survive and I really dislike the "last of their kind" trope. Why has no one ever seen one previously in the history of my campaign? How many times can that happen? Beyond that, how are NPCs going to react to this bizarre blob person? How are other players going to react to the fact that there's now this weird creature they're just supposed to accept as normal when it's just plain weird to a lot of people.

Instead I'll work with the player and try to figure out what they really want out of that PC and why they thought plasmoid was the only answer. If they wanted to play someone that's a bit odd and out of the ordinary, cool. Let's see if we can come up with something. But no blob people have never existed in my world and I don't want to open the door to a kitchen sink campaign. There are other games out there that allow it if that's all that matters to you.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
no one is 'not going with the GMs pitch'
we said sometimes we would ask 'why' and if the answer wasn't something we and the rest of the table could agree to THEN it MIGHT be an issue

In another thread somewhere Umbran said something to the effect of, "We start off saying pineapple pizza isn't so bad, and end up arguing that anything without pineapple couldn't possible be pizza."

I suspect lots of us have basically the same opinion here: players should be willing to be flexible, GMs should take into account what players want, and if the two can't agree they should probably find other folks to play with.
Somehow tiny differences get magnified into bitter turf wars.

I think we just need One Playtest #3 to argue about.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
So they were excluded for arbitrary metagame reasons rather than something to do with the setting. And because the designers excluded halflings they inflicted Kender on the world; I think it's screamingly obvious that the designers made a huge mistake.

And when you start using that logic you are telling me that the assumptions of your campaign are not ones I want. Someone's ancestor did something bad and therefore their descendent is inexorably, inevitably evil? They are damned because of their blood and don't have free will?

Ideas by themselves are almost worthless. Creativity is all in the implementation.

This is something that should be applied first and foremost to the DM. If you get to set the constraints and the players followed the constraints then you do not have a leg to stand on when they subvert them and you start whining no matter how far outside what you expected they go. You set the constraints, they met them. The fault is entirely, completely, 100% on you simply because you can't handle creative players. The big difference here is that not only did the DM agree to the rules, they set the rules they agreed to and now are complaining about.

Alternatively you can stop treating the players like children and make setting the constraints a collaborative process. Instead of focusing on the constraints you focus on your vision. Let the PCs expand on that. Rather than trying to set constraints, set inspiration.

I've said in the past and I'll say again I've seen more entitled DMs than I have entitled players in terms of absolute numbers. And I've unsurprisingly seen way more players than I ever have DMs.
That doesn't make any sense to me. If the players agree to restrictions and then actively try to subvert them by trying to find a loophole, they are being disingenuous and shouldn't have agreed to the original restrictions (as is of course their right). Why wouldn't the unhappy player just tell the DM they don't want to play that way?
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
This isn't really a problem since I have a permanent table of players, and I present campaigns that both they and I find interesting, and if not we talk about modifikations to make the campaign. But there are almost always character restrictions in play, that's kind of a given, no matter what game system we use.

Yeah, see my previous post above.

Maybe it's a thing nowadays with the explosion of young and new players with very different expectations.

On the other hand, there are way too many "get off my lawn" posts in this forum.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top