top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 51 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Alright I'll bite. What did they do to it?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] 70 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    A game about combat needs a world full of things for the players to mow down but also not feel bad about killing, and sometimes you need a bunch of Violent Dungeon Fodder that can think and plan and make tactical decisions and potentially be negotiated with.

    I'm a bit confused by this. Why not have them be any other species, or combination of them? If they're capable of being negotiated with shouldn't the players feel as bad about killing them as anyone else? I feel like "self-defense" can do a lot of heavy lifting in dungeon crawls, I've never really noticed my players feeling bad about killing bandit dwarves or whatnot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Honestly, I'm a bit more confused now. I definitely agree that humans have a tendency to dehumanize others, but I wouldn't consider this a good or healthy thing that we should just accept. So having a ruleset that says, canonically, "this group of sentient creatures is inherently evil" and not "this group of sentient creatures is believed to be evil by this other group" you are encouraging the players to take an unnuanced view of the world.

    However, as a gamemaster you have to allow your players to make two choices:

    1. Are the monsters we are fighting people or not?
    1. Does my character agree with me?

    Isn't this what the lore changes encourage, by not making a factual statement about the groups, so the players should ask themselves this question on a case-by-case basis and not simply based on what type of creature they are? And I'm not sure how the changes would prevent the narrative approach you describe. Saying that goblins and orcs live in human-like societies doesn't prevent you from telling a story that's analogous to what has happened between human societies.

    Maybe we're working off of different data points, what WotC material are specifically referring to for the changes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago*

    I enjoyed reading through that, thanks!

    I think I more or less agree with where you're coming from. Part of the fun of roleplaying is getting to explore darkness in a safe way. Not everyone is looking for that and that's fine, but I definitely find it weird to have the core setting lean into a more "disney-fied" setting. Seems like it should offer options.

    It's probably a symptom of DND becoming so much more mainstream. You can't please everyone, so the best they can do is minimally bother everyone which can end up pretty... OK. Not great, not terrible, and mostly uninspiring.

    Those are my thoughts based just on what you said. I haven't heard about any of this before now so those are just off the cuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As a player, sometimes I want to settle down with an Orc and make a bunch of Half-Orc Babies, but seeing the word "species" gives me pause. I know in real life cross-breeding different species of animals rarely goes well and the children are as a rule sterile, so can i ethically bring a baby into the world that I know is going to be sterile and is probably doing to have serious health problems?

    I don't get your problem here. Either the world that has half orcs declares if they are fine, or you are free to decide for yourself. Why bother yourself with some "knowledge" about the "real world"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    the species thing isn't exactly what you said. there are 3 things that can happen that i remember:

    1: most cross-species breeding results in nothing.

    2: some, like horses and donkeys, or tigers and lions, results in babies that will grow up normally except that they can't breed themselves.

    3: and rarely, like in grizzlies and polar bears, the result is a baby that will grow up perfectly and still be fertile

    interbreeding in DnD would be the 3rd option.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The best lore is lore made at the table with the players. The rest is just gm inspiration.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah, my friends and I always used Forgotten Realms lore as a base in homebrew settings and then just do whatever on top of it, like that one time we had chocobos in a campaign LOL

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I read the Forgotten Realms books for 3.5 like books because most of them is lore and not necessarily rules, and I think it was pretty dope back then. I would always use it for the basis of my campaigns, but I would place it somewhere that didn't have a lot of stuff already written about it so I could kinda of do my own thing while still having all the content and the ability to use things I didn't create if it made sense to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Slightly unpopular opinion: All official lore is crap and should be generally ignored. (Even the stuff I kind of like) If I want to play in a world where what I can do is limited by the generic, inoffensive, middle-of-the-road, crowd-pleasing writers at some corporation I'll just play a AAA video game. The ability to be participatory in the creation and evolution of the in-game world is what makes TTRPGs different from consumer media. Why would you give that part up, but still leave yourself with all the cognitive load?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I disagree. I think having a base to work from is helpful, both to players and DMs.

    For example I don't want to create a pantheon of gods. I might want to create a few unique gods within my setting, and if they conflict I'll change some rules accordingly, but I want something to build off of. Similarly if a player wants to create a paladin or cleric they can just pull from the standard list.

    Also if the official lore is fun, it's more fun to build off of. I'll enjoy reading it more and I'll enjoy using it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Absolutely agree. I set a game in the real(ish) world once, so it was a setting where everyone knew the base "lore." It was so nice! I could reference things, name-drop countries, and introduce old grudges without having to exposition it all. People just got things. We've since done enough games on the sword coast that that works too, now.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    This is probably why Greg Stafford, the guy most responsible for Runequest and Glorantha's deep and wide lore came up with his sort of prime directive: "Your Glorantha Will Vary". He presented his version of the lore but wanted people to re-write it to their hearts' content.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm gonna need some context

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Play Pathfinder, like an adult.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Pathfinder is superior to D&D ethically, morally and mechanically. Fight me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'll fight you! In a game of Pathfinder of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Let people play what they want to play.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I have the same reaction with the gameplay as well.

    They somehow managed to add more crunch and complexity without improving neither the balance nor the turn-to-turn variety. I'm honestly impressed by their sheer incompetence.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Ergh, I always ignore the lore anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    I sometimes steal pieces of it, if only for inspiration, but I love worldbuilding and making up my own settings.

    I'm currently running an adventure in a Spelljammer setting where most of the previous D&D campaigns I've run over the years exist on different planets, with elements of all of them now able to make cameos or interact with each other. It's wild.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    I'm reminded of the story of Garg and Moonslicer, and I wish more publishers would lean in to this approach to good and evil. A purely lore approach would be enough to frame the conflict around, some races are naturally social creatures, and some races are naturally antisocial. Both have hierarches, but not all races have the same natural concepts of fairness and justice. Any individual can embrace either world view or a mix, but one comes more naturally to each race. Even if humanity is naturally a good race (debatable, but whatever), members can obviously deviate significantly.

    Ultimately it doesn't mater what race the slavers are, I'm not going to worry about the ethics of self-defensing a party of slavers to death as PC or GM.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›