D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[bedir than]

There canonically no dragonborn mercenaries in Baldur's Gate. The are not mentioned. Even Decent into Avernus, where we actually HAVE Flaming Fist Mercenaries outlined, does not have a single Dragonborn. IIRC, there is a single Dragonborn in the module, but, not in Baldur's Gate.

I want to bring this back up as I catch up on the thread.
If a player isn't mentioned in a game recap of a sporting event it doesn't mean the player doesn't exist. I don't know why the assumption is that every single possibility needs to be mentioned in a book for it to exist.
None of my characters are mentioned in official books, do they exist?

 

[Minigiant]

I want to bring this back up as I catch up on the thread.
If a player isn't mentioned in a game recap of a sporting event it doesn't mean the player doesn't exist. I don't know why the assumption is that every single possibility needs to be mentioned in a book for it to exist.
None of my characters are mentioned in official books, do they exist?

Because D&D rarely goes out the way to show the assumption that every possibility is possible.

If a player isn't mentioned, you can't assume a specific player is on the team if the team is mention.

A position of the team can be assumed but specifics not attached to the requirements of the time isn't.

The player characters are mentioned in the adventure so whoever is in the party is assumed to be there but specifics aren't. Unless the adventure has specifics required in the player party.

For example there is nothing banning a person who was from France from being on a professional football team. But unless you mentioned that they have a player from France on the professional football team you wouldn't assume that there is a Frenchman on the professional football team.

In order for a French footballer to be assumed frenchmen would have to be already tied to football or a football player on the team would have to be described as being French.

 

[billd91]

I think word order implies meaning and emphasis here. There's a difference between "no canonical dragonborn mercenaries in BG" vs "canonically no dragonborn mercenaries in BG". The former says there are none defined in present canonical sources vs the latter saying canonical sources say there are none. The former allows for them to exist, the latter does not.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I think word order implies meaning and emphasis here. There's a difference between "no canonical dragonborn mercenaries in BG" vs "canonically no dragonborn mercenaries in BG". The former says there are none defined in present canonical sources vs the latter saying canonical sources say there are none. The former allows for them to exist, the latter does not.

the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it is equally not evidence of presence, so while it is a different statement im not sure it's different in a way @Minigiant actually cares about

EDIT: oops wrong user my bad

 

[Corinnguard]

I think word order implies meaning and emphasis here. There's a difference between "no canonical dragonborn mercenaries in BG" vs "canonically no dragonborn mercenaries in BG". The former says there are none defined in present canonical sources vs the latter saying canonical sources say there are none. The former allows for them to exist, the latter does not.

At best there is the implication that there are Dragonborn mercenaries in BG. The characters know that they are out there by word of mouth. It's just that they haven't personally encountered said mercenaries during any of their past journeys nor do they expect to come across them in the present or the immediate future.

 

[Minigiant]

the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it is equally not evidence of presence, so while it is a different statement im not sure it's different in a way @Minigiant actually cares about

EDIT: oops wrong user my bad

Exactly.

D&D runs on the concept of the DM and the player having a similar mentality of what the world contains and how the rules within the world work.

You start with the base rules of the game and you pair down or add. Usually the biggest ad is the setting which adds specific aspects to the game and removes specific aspects to the game.

However even if not explicitly said if an important aspect to the game is not mentioned, does not appeared or necessary parts of existence are not described, by the DM then the player will not have the mentality that it exists.

You only get so much time of not showing something where people will still assume that because it's a base rule it's still exists in the game.

Core game aspects change from existing to non-existing to existing again based on description or mention. Session 20 if you haven't mentioned aboleths at all, I'm not going to be assuming aboleths exist.

 

[Hussar]

I want to bring this back up as I catch up on the thread.
If a player isn't mentioned in a game recap of a sporting event it doesn't mean the player doesn't exist. I don't know why the assumption is that every single possibility needs to be mentioned in a book for it to exist.
None of my characters are mentioned in official books, do they exist?

But, if you read the team roster of the team, and a player isn't mentioned on the roster, why would you assume that that player plays for that team? When we have multiple examples of various people in the mercenary guilds of Baldur's Gate, and have had several examples presented in other cities as well, and not a single time is a dragonborn even hinted at anywhere, it's not too much of a stretch to think that no, there really aren't any dragonborn there.

Your characters most certainly don't officially exist in Forgotten Realms. They have nothing to do with FR canon whatsoever. Why would you think that anyone outside of your table would think that they exist?

But, again, this gets back to the point of creating a setting that actually USES the PHB. It's not enough to just vaguely wave a hand at something existing and then telling everyone to just make stuff up. PHB options at a bare minimum should be given places in a WotC setting where those options exist.

 

[mamba]

But, if you read the team roster of the team, and a player isn't mentioned on the roster, why would you assume that that player plays for that team?

you do not have a roster of people living in Baldur’s Gate however, you have a few individuals.

More like knowing the CEO and CFO of a company without knowing all the employees. Those two are both white, would you assume that there are no non-white people working at that company?

 

[Parmandur]

But, if you read the team roster of the team, and a player isn't mentioned on the roster, why would you assume that that player plays for that team? When we have multiple examples of various people in the mercenary guilds of Baldur's Gate, and have had several examples presented in other cities as well, and not a single time is a dragonborn even hinted at anywhere, it's not too much of a stretch to think that no, there really aren't any dragonborn there.

The number of named and detailed NPCs in the FR id a miniscule fraction of the whole population.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

DM: “In the town square you see a crowd of people gathered round watching a juggler.”

Player: “Are any of them Dragonborn?”

DM: “You see the glint of scales at the back the crowd, but you can’t tell if they are a Dragonborn or other scaly species from this range, do you want to go closer?”