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

[Deset Gled]

I see two things that are important: consistency, and communication. The game world must be consistent with itself. The DM and players must communicate with each other how it works.

Lore is simply a method of achieving consistency and communication. It gives players and DM a consistent backbone to built their game upon. Using a shared lore allows the consistency to be communicated through the group without all details being directly discussed.

PC options must be communicated between players and DM, and must not break the consistency of the game world. If a player wants a new option it is their responsibility communicate with the group, and ensure consistency is maintained. In that sense, going against "lore" is fine as long as the whole group is on the same page. At the same time "you can't do that, it goes against established lore" can be an efficient shorthand way of saying "we have a well defined, mutually agreed upon, and consistent world that we all play in, and what you're doing breaks those social contracts".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure, we're discussion opinions. But maybe you should consider how you're coming across to the rest of us with a statement like this:

That sounds awfully judgmental, which might be appropriate for certain types of people who are engaged in denying people their basic humanity in society at large... but may be a weeeeeee bit much for someone who prefers to keep orcs out of their Dragonlance campaign.

im not the guy who turned a discussion on lore vs pc options into a personal attack about how judgmental someone is on an internet form... the fact is that I may come off worse then I mean too, but that is not a reason to turn a thread into "lets all pile on GMforPowergamers. The very fact that I have REPEATEDLY stated why and how my judgement is, and somehow I still have to defend myself is (as far as I know) against the rules... but it was actually started by staff and as such makes this even worse...

but me saying I judge games based on if and how they align with how I want to spend time (and EVEN if that wasn't clear in post 1 it HAS been clarified since) and yet here I am going to defend it again and again instead of discussing cool things about the game.

It seems to me there's a pretty big gulf between "I really like to play orcs and your campaign doesn't have them, so I'll say no thanks" and judging THEM like your statement implies.

I will judge that we are not a fit, that I don't want to play...

 

[Velderan]

99% of my gameing right now is online with a circle of friends that are all DMs and we are all (Mostly) on the same page. I used to run and play at cons and stores as well (I just not too long ago helped my neice and nephew start playing too). MY judgment comes when I get to the table.
I was just up thread asked "Are you allowed to restrict stuff" and my answer is yes... no one is stopping you. I even encourage it IF it has a reason... so then I was asked what if I don't agree with the reason... and that's when my judgemnt comes into play...

notice my judgment is AFTER the information about the game... and the judgment is pretty simple and bianary (mostly) do I want to spend my free time playing this?!?

the only people I care about are (in this order)
1 The people I play with as both DM and player
2 The people at WotC who make the rules and shape the game
3 The people who put forward there own thoughts in a public squire for discussion, and I would assume saying "I don't like that" is part of that...

I have NEVER said anyone shouldn't do what they want at there games... I have said I WOULDN"T, and I DON"T WANT WOTC to SAY that is the defualt, and I don't like it... but somehow this argument comes up time and time again... I don't know where ANY of you play, I am not coming to your games and stealing your players (unless you are dave, in witch case I did do that in 2004 but half those people don't play with us any more)

I mean I push for what I like and push against what I don't like... it seems odd during a playtest in between (not edition)s when they are listening the most is when people are the most against shareing our thoughts and opinions... on a thread about opinions.

@billd91 already summed up my thoughts, but for the bolded part I meant why get so worked up by what WotC puts in a book that you need to judge the designers. There are things Schneider and Crawford have said about the upcoming DL book I like and other bits I don't but I don't judge either of them for their opinions. Just take what you like and leave the stuff you don't, easy enough. If enough of the promo info seems to indicate your table won't enjoy it, save your money and buy something your table will like.

Obviously we can and should discuss our thoughts on here, I can honestly say my opinion of the book has shifted more towards positive because of people on here's observations that I hadn't considered.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

@billd91 already summed up my thoughts, but for the bolded part I meant why get so worked up by what WotC puts in a book that you need to judge the designers.

what does the word judge MEAN in this world... we ALL judge if we want to play a game (system or table) I don't know how (this is what post 4 or 5) this entire discussion is now about me and not lore vs pc options...

There are things Schneider and Crawford have said about the upcoming DL book I like and other bits I don't but I don't judge either of them for their opinions.

when did I judge anyone named schneider or crawford... now you are making things up... (unless max or micha are schneidder and crawford)

Just take what you like and leave the stuff you don't, easy enough. If enough of the promo info seems to indicate your table won't enjoy it, save your money and buy something your table will like.

I do... and if at the table some DM pushes stuff I don't like I am not wasteing my time...

on a good week of gaming I game 3 times for 10-11 hours that week
on a bad week of gaming I game 0 times for 0 hours that week
on MOST weeks I game 1 time for about 3ish hours...

I do noy want that free time going toa game i dont find fun

Obviously we can and should discuss our thoughts on here, I can honestly say my opinion of the book has shifted more towards positive because of people on here's observations that I hadn't considered.

me too... but only when peopple adress the argument not me as a person.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

yeah it always seems odd to me that "hey I want this 1 thing" somehow turns into "so I have to make EVERYTHING"

if there were no wizards, artificers, orcs, or rangers on Estoria, and I said I wanted to play a wizard that may or may not be workabole... but it isn't an argument for "Now I have to build in artificers orcs and rangers"... nope just the 1 thing they asked for.

yup and most people will be reasonable "Okay for this campaign I have this reason that idea wont work". I just marvel at the "No Absolut not, and I can't tell you a reason that fits."

this doesn't make any sense... anyone is allowed to ristrict... but if your reason is flimsy I hold the right to JUDGE you and the table for making said restriction.

then I don't want to play at a table where me and a DM disagree on the fundamentals of the game, and I don't know that someone who thinks artificers are OP are going to like my games at all...

However you can present "here is why I don't like artificers" and the player gets to decied... and if more players pass on you, you don't get a game.

so again (to address topic not me and if I am judgmental)
Restrictions should come with reasons (IMO) and should make the table MORE fun for everyone not less (IMO)
I reserve the right to walk away from any table (rreal or virtual) where I JUDGE that the reason doesn't line up with me.
I reserve the right to discuss MY thoughts and opinions without being 'called out'

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

I agree that there is an excluded middle here (and possibly two or three). Let’s take some actual examples.

Excluded middle 1.
My buddy is running a three-shot pending the beginning of our next mega-campaign. If he were to say : “no wizards, no clerics”, this would probably go over with no problem. After all, it’s a mini-campaign, and we don’t have to commit several years to a character.

On the other extreme, on a level 1-20 campaign, I would expect the GM to be a lot more flexible in incorporating PCs, as it is more important for everyone to be happy with their PCs.

Excluded middle 2.
Last mega-campaign I ran. I provided the players with 6 different campaign choices with a great deal of different flavours and restrictions (which were disclosed). If the players chose a campaign with restrictions, I would expect them to be held to that.

On the other extreme, if a member of the group asks to run a particular campaign, I would expect them to be more flexible in incorporating other people’s character’s ideas.

 

[OB1]

I didn't vote because I can't choose one over the other. Lore that restricts PC options can lead to a wonderful story, and PC options trumping lore can lead to a wonderful story (and I've run both types of campaigns with wonderful results). In the end, all that matters is having a group of buddies to have fun playing D&D with.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

My apologies. Regardless of my intent, if it hurt, I shouldn't have said it.

Likewise, my apologies.

But, I have another theory. I don't think it is mutually exclusive to the We Really Want to be Playing Star Wars theory.

I think we* as players sit in front of the Dungeon Master's screen and watch him roleplay monsters, evil badasses, every other kind of creature and we become envious. I think this is true today but more so in the past.

In our envy**, we want to be able to do what the Dungeon Master does. So, we lobby for it with our dollars and the designers deliver.

* The Royal 'We', if that's a thing.
** Not the bad kind of envy.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm going to add a caveat to my previous post, although I really think the lore should dominate, and the DM's vision is important...

To fellow DMs, I would add that while I'm perfectly OK with a setting having limits, I think it's wise to ask yourself if those limits must be absolute.

For example, Yoon Suin has 4 races available (human, dwarves, slugmen, crabmen). So, as an example, there are no elves in Yoon Suin.

But Yoon Suin is not a planet! (it's more of a subcontinent). So one player wanted to be an elf... so he was. But he was the only one for hundreds of miles around. And that had consequences! It had impacts on the PC, but it also had impacts on my vision of the world - why aren't there any elves? And I wove that into the lore of the setting.

So don't define everything - leave "parts mostly unknown", so that "odd" PCs have a place to hail from. Yoon-Suin did this explicitly, and so did Drakkenheim now that I think of it - the creators openly said it.

Of course, some things limits are absolute and can't be bent. But not all limits have to be that way.

 

[Hussar]

Respecting and investing into player enthusiasm is more important than either one.

This quote, right here, is the correct answer. Whatever engages the players and their enthusiasm? That's the right answer for that table.