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

[payn]

ASOIAF would be a terrible D&D setting.

Birthright is awesome.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

On Westeros maybe, but the setting is far more than Westeros. There are sorcerer's that we see in the books that do magic. On Westerors we see multiple clerics with powers(Thoros and Melisandre), and druids(greenseers, Bran, and the one Bran went to meet). And does it matter where you are from if the classes are available?

Only bards and formal book wizards are absent from the setting and maybe paladins. @Snarf Zagyg would love it.

enemy variety would be very low and no dungeons.

Dragons, giants, undead, dire wolves, mammoths, misc. creatures from the other continent and in the north that we didn't see that the DM could add in if he wants.

And yes there would be dungeons. Why wouldn't there be?

ASOIAF would be a terrible D&D setting.

Only if you make it terrible. As it is currently set, it would be fantastic.

 

[Minigiant]

Birthright is awesome.

Birthright isn't ASOIAF.

That's my point on theme. ASOIAF and Birthright are the same theme.
But one can make a good D&D campaign reliably.
While the other would have a TPK or bored group by Session 6 if played straight due to the lores restricts and hard foci.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think a lot of people read how you used it in this sense. The capital letters especially lent it an emphasis that leans that way. That's how I initially read it, and probably why people are asking why you care so much about how other tables play, no less in a context where we are talking about hypothetical tables.

Saying "I'll judge how other tables play" comes across very different than saying "I'll judge if something is a good fit for me", if that makes it clearer.

Examining something and coming to a personal assessment is perfectly reasonable, and I'm glad that you clarified. Your posts read very different with that context.

even if (and I will give you maybe somone miss read what I meant in that first post) I clarified twice BEFORE the post you quoted...
edit: and we are still talking about me not lore vs pc options...

 

[Oofta]

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.


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.

If a DM decides to run a severely restricted choice campaign, at a certain point I'd wonder why they chose D&D. On the other hand as long as they're up front about what they're doing and why I don't see an issue. Either I'll decide to join or not. But the restrictions (or lack therein) are not inherently good or bad.

As far as theme and lore, the dictionary definition of theme that applies: "unifying or dominant idea, motif". The themes of a campaign serve the lore and set the tone.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

Ironicly me (the guy AGAINST restrictions with out purpose) ran a game based on aSoIaF (well I mixed in mortal kombat, yugioh and middle earth too), I used the Middle Earth 5e book with a bunch of homebrew combat maneuvers based on 4e and Bo9S but you had to find a teacher, and learn during down time (BTW short rests were 8 hours and long rests were week+)

It took a bit of a pitch, especially when I had an evil empire ruled by 'warlocks' (concept but not class) and I had orcs and ogers and goblins.

my race limit was 'everyone is human' but you could take the stats of human, variant human, half elf, half orc dragonborn teifling or aasimar but you were human with "I am descendent way back of _____"

my 5 players were 2 humans (1 reg 1 variant) 1 1/2 orc, 1 blue dragon born, and 1 teifling... so it worked out just fine. I didn't allow multi class (and remember we used the classes from middle earth)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure. But it can go two ways.

Where I don't respect them and make them play things they don't want to because I can't handle someone playing a gnome where I don't like gnomes?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Birthright is awesome.

I will not stand for insulting Birthright by conflating it with the blighted mold that settled over modern fantasy these past couple of decades.

 

[Maxperson]

no one is sticking to the lore "They were genocide along with other races" the other is "cause we said so"

I missed this post. "They were genocide along with other races" = "cause we said so." There was no other way that it was included. Well, unless it was because someone else above them said so. Both are ultimately "cause we said so."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I missed this post. "They were genocide along with other races" = "cause we said so." There was no other way that it was included. Well, unless it was because someone else above them said so. Both are ultimately "cause we said so."

no "because we say so" is the fall back of NOT having a reason.

Lets take my game of thrones/middle earth game (that I want to do again). Lets say someone said "Hey I want to use halfling stats and just be a short human" I had written a few hundred pages of lore that didn't include that. I could say "No those aren't an option" but if pressed with why I would have no good answer.
Lets say another player said they wanted to take the owil or aarakacra... (Iwould guess looking like stratos from heman)this one I WOULD have a good reason involving flight and the ability to fly being a key part of the game (there used to be dragons and dragon riders, and there are only a few flying options and all far off and frightening) and would change a big theme of even the first adventure planned...
so if my players came with both I would let a 'lucky' and 'brave' human in most likely but not a flying one... and I could not only explain WHY that no happened in general but after a session or 2 you would see it more and more.

edit: and if it matters by level 11 the party (down to 3 players due to covid) had an airship and an alliance with a set of knights that rode hipogriffs...and an oger based on Omega Red from Xmen comics... all through choices THEY made. They also had 3 of the 7 dragon hatchlings in the world and allied with 2 people who each had 1, so they controled 5/7 of the dragons... the biggest about the size of a weener dog.