D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

Shasarak · Jan 14, 2017

Greg K said:
And when, new players come into D&D and hear troll, most are not thinking Poul Anderson's version which is the basis for the D&D troll. They hear the world troll and are probably are thinking of the troll in "Billy Goats Gruff", the war troll from The Lord of the Rings movie, or the trolls The Hobbit movie which are completely different from Poul Anderson's version. So, by the same token, perhaps we should rename the D&D troll to something else.

Since you have a new player that buys the Players Handbook 2 thinking that it is an updated version of the Players Handbook 1, I really could not tell you what a new player would think of a particular word.

However I would imagine that a DnD Troll would be more well known then either of the 2 LotRs Trolls and the "Billy Goats Gruff" version is completely useless as a Monster Manual.

Maxperson · Jan 14, 2017

TwoSix said:
That's actually a really good question. Why DO we value the implicit setting generated by those snippets of lore in the rules, especially when we know they're casually hacked into pieces by GMs of all sorts? They do have meaning to a lot of people, otherwise games with setting specific options wouldn't so heavily outnumber generic games. But I can't define, psychologically, what's being gained by their inclusion. I think it might be that a fantasy shared is more powerful than a fantasy known only to oneself. It's why people get more attached to Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings than a novel that no one else has read.

I think you're overthinking this. Most people don't have the time, desire and/or the creativity to create a setting and monsters with their own lore. It's really easy to just pick up the FR book and MM and go. It also helps that they are generally well done and cool.

Maxperson · Jan 14, 2017

Remathilis said:
D&D is one of the few games that doesn't give that.

Two V:TM players can discuss clans and rarely does one say "Well, it my chronicle, the Ventrue are pathologically insane, Gangrel are wiped out, and the Brujah are part of the Sabbat". Most V:TM players stick to the lore revolving around the Masquerade. Similarly, I don't think I ever met a Star Wars GM add Vulcans or re-write the Jedi into space-pirates. You get the idea. Only D&D, for some odd reason, has to be vague, nebulous system capable of running any type of fantasy or not contradicting any notion a DM can come up with.

I think the reason for that is that Vampire, Star Wars and Star Trek have only the one very specific setting. D&D is written with no setting, despite the claims of the last 3 editions(a few setting specific blurbs don't a setting make). That lack of a single focused setting means that DMs aren't highly encouraged to follow the lore of things exactly. GURPS would be another system where the DMs act similarly.

Remathilis · Jan 14, 2017

Maxperson said:
I think the reason for that is that Vampire, Star Wars and Star Trek have only the one very specific setting. D&D is written with no setting, despite the claims of the last 3 editions(a few setting specific blurbs don't a setting make). That lack of a single focused setting means that DMs aren't highly encouraged to follow the lore of things exactly. GURPS would be another system where the DMs act similarly.

GURPS however, is designed to be generic. D&D wasn't. At least, not as generic as some would like. The troll example above is a great example of this: D&D has one monster called "troll" and it has a certain look, attitude, and set of abilities. It's not meant to represent all varieties of troll in myth and fiction. It represents what a Dungeons & Dragons(TM) troll is, and its no different than complaining that Tolkien's trolls are tiny beings with gems on their bellies and wild-colored hair.

Actually, I think Pathfinder is a great example of what D&D should be; it has one unified setting (Golarion) and everything in PF ties back to it. It makes little effort to be generic, and its lore is very strongly tied to its rules (and vice-versa). It CAN be used generically, but I don't think anyone moans and complains how PF should be divorced from Golarion's lore or giving multiple variants of its monster's origins just to appease some GM who doesn't like pyromaniac goblins or incestuous ogres.

D&D is not a generic fantasy simulator. People need to quit demanding it should be.

Maxperson · Jan 14, 2017

Remathilis said:
GURPS however, is designed to be generic. D&D wasn't. At least, not as generic as some would like. The troll example above is a great example of this: D&D has one monster called "troll" and it has a certain look, attitude, and set of abilities. It's not meant to represent all varieties of troll in myth and fiction. It represents what a Dungeons & Dragons(TM) troll is, and its no different than complaining that Tolkien's trolls are tiny beings with gems on their bellies and wild-colored hair.

Actually, I think Pathfinder is a great example of what D&D should be; it has one unified setting (Golarion) and everything in PF ties back to it. It makes little effort to be generic, and its lore is very strongly tied to its rules (and vice-versa). It CAN be used generically, but I don't think anyone moans and complains how PF should be divorced from Golarion's lore or giving multiple variants of its monster's origins just to appease some GM who doesn't like pyromaniac goblins or incestuous ogres.

D&D is not a generic fantasy simulator. People need to quit demanding it should be.

Yes, I agree that GURPS was designed to be generic and that D&D wasn't designed the same way. The thing is, while D&D wasn't designed to be generic, neither is it very specific about what to do with the myriad of parts that it gives to you. 5e is supposedly set in the FR, but if you just have the core books, you really wouldn't know it. A few quotes from FR, Dragonlance and I think one or two other settings. Gods not just from FR, but from other settings AND generic mythology. Couple that with the encouragement by the rules for the DM to tinker with things and you end up with a system where you have a dozen DMs running the game in a dozen different ways.

Remathilis · Jan 14, 2017

Maxperson said:
Yes, I agree that GURPS was designed to be generic and that D&D wasn't designed the same way. The thing is, while D&D wasn't designed to be generic, neither is it very specific about what to do with the myriad of parts that it gives to you. 5e is supposedly set in the FR, but if you just have the core books, you really wouldn't know it. A few quotes from FR, Dragonlance and I think one or two other settings. Gods not just from FR, but from other settings AND generic mythology. Couple that with the encouragement by the rules for the DM to tinker with things and you end up with a system where you have a dozen DMs running the game in a dozen different ways.

True, the 5e PHB give a lot more nods to "the multiverse of D&D" than the 3e or 4e ones did; and so far two products (TotYP and CoS) have had multiversal ties beyond Faerun. However, I think D&D is best when it takes the core assumptions and flavors them (such as pulping them up for Eberron or gothicing them for Ravenloft) than it does trying to emulate other types of fantasy (such as being retrofitted into a GoT style world).

pemerton · Jan 16, 2017

billd91 said:
you're fixating on one set of specifics - in this case, blue dragon habitat. But there are other bits of lore that I'm sure people use more frequently and consistently like mind flayers generally being underground, drow being matriarchal, storm giants being good, frost giants living in northern or high alpine climates, fire giants lving in and around volcanoes, etc. All of that helps shape the shared experience of D&D.

I only focused on the blue dragon because the "change" in 4e (which, as far as I can tell, is really an addition - because there is no contradiction between arid/desert and coastal) had been mentioned as deterimental.

The change to mind flayers was in a 3E module. I don't know who you have in mind as having changed frost or fire giants.

pemerton · Jan 16, 2017

Remathilis said:
Why limit kobolds to 1 HD? Why not have a version in the MM that is CR 20

<snip>

Why should all fireballs be 8d6? What about printing a version that does 24d6?

Well, 3E had CR 20 kobolds.

And a fireball is canoncially 6d6 (eg that's it's size from an AD&D wand of fireballs or fireball spell on a scroll). And in classic D&D it can raise to 24d6 (and does 20d6 from a death knight). 8d6 is a 5e change.

This is why I have a lot of trouble identifying the criteria some posters use for what counts as continuity vs what counts as change.

pemerton · Jan 16, 2017

Greg K said:
And when, new players come into D&D and hear troll, most are not thinking Poul Anderson's version which is the basis for the D&D troll. They hear the world troll and are probably are thinking of the troll in "Billy Goats Gruff", the war troll from The Lord of the Rings movie, or the trolls The Hobbit movie which are completely different from Poul Anderson's version. So, by the same token, perhaps we should rename the D&D troll to something else.

Remathilis said:
The next version of D&D shouldn't just exercise lore, it should exercise the monster names as well!

Remathilis, your post doesn't address Greg K's point.

The D&D troll doesn't help new players orient themselves in the gameworld. I remember finding it weird (and not very Billy Goat Gruff) 30 years ago. I don't think Anderson's work is any more familiar today.

So my question is - why are you, and [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], and [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION], insisting that the reason you value lore is because of the epistemic function it serves? Whereas examples like this show that in many cases there is no such epistemic function. Likewise, the fact that module writers don't feel beholden to it undermines its supposed epistemic function (eg players of RttToEE can't infer that they won't meet any blue dragons, and hence don't need to memorise lightning resistance spells, simply because they are not entereing into a desert).

Despite these cases where lore apparenlty doesn't serve any significant epistemic function, you nevertheless still seem to value it! Why not articulate those reasons, instead of setting out a purely instrumental account of its value which doesn't seem to do justice to your evident passion for it? (A conversation that [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] tried to kick off not too far upthread.)

pemerton · Jan 16, 2017

Remathilis said:
I think Pathfinder is a great example of what D&D should be; it has one unified setting (Golarion) and everything in PF ties back to it. It makes little effort to be generic, and its lore is very strongly tied to its rules (and vice-versa).

I thought you hated 4e for trying to do exactly this!

D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

Shasarak

Banned

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Remathilis

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Remathilis

Legend

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Similar Threads