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

[pemerton]

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.

But this creates no reason not to change if across books. I can pick up the MM and go whether or not it says the same thing as an earlier (or later) versions says.

 

[Shasarak]

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.)

Not sure that I have ever noticed this nostalgia for the "Billy Goat Gruff" Troll.

What kind of things do you think it would add to the game? Of course you could start with Location: Under Bridges and Weakness: Goats. I wonder though, how long would we have to wait until we see the Return to the Return to the Return to the Temple Of Elemental Evil that has a Troll that not only does not live under a bridge but that does not have a weakness to Goats? Then the module writer can triumphantly point to their creative genius even though we will all know that they had to break several different kinds of natural laws in order to position the poor creature so far out of its natural habitat.

But by all means, let us go back to draw from the Fairy Tale well again, it tis a never ending well of inspiration.

 

[TwoSix]

Not sure that I have ever noticed this nostalgia for the "Billy Goat Gruff" Troll.

What kind of things do you think it would add to the game? Of course you could start with Location: Under Bridges and Weakness: Goats. I wonder though, how long would we have to wait until we see the Return to the Return to the Return to the Temple Of Elemental Evil that has a Troll that not only does not live under a bridge but that does not have a weakness to Goats? Then the module writer can triumphantly point to their creative genius even though we will all know that they had to break several different kinds of natural laws in order to position the poor creature so far out of its natural habitat.

But by all means, let us go back to draw from the Fairy Tale well again, it tis a never ending well of inspiration.

Troll is actually one of those cases where the constant variation of the meaning of "troll" from one source material to the next makes D&D having its own unique version provide more clarity, not less. The word "troll" with no D&D knowledge behind it forces me to consider Internet trolls, trolls under a bridge, big-haired Justin Timberlake sounding trolls, "Taz'dingo!" Warcraft trolls, and horror movie trolls which are actually goblins.

The more interesting question, to me, is if 6e trolls are 9' tall, green, ride giant bats, and have innate regeneration that can only be stopped by freezing them, is that a good or bad change? It it bad purely because it is a change?

 

[I'm A Banana]

But this creates no reason not to change if across books. I can pick up the MM and go whether or not it says the same thing as an earlier (or later) versions says.

For me the main reason it shouldn't generally change across books is if I run a game of D&D in 2017 and find that trolls in D&D are tall, lanky green things with pointy noses and powerful regeneration who hate fire and acid, and then I run a game of D&D in 2027 and trolls in D&D are warty, fleshy giants who turn to stone in sunlight and lurk under bridges, I can't use the new trolls in the same way I used the old trolls.

I can't, say, run this fun adventure I've had in mind for the last few years where a low-level party must cleverly use torches and bonfires to scare away a group of trolls that is far too powerful for them to fight directly. The old trolls don't exist in the new game anymore. I could make 'em, but that's burden and grist and trouble and time and effort and there's still be some confusion to muddle through when I mention that the old sage knows that fire scares trolls away (a player who has read the 2027 MM is like "What? Trolls? Surely, the old sage is lying to us...perhaps he's a doppelganger!").

Why isn't that a fun story that D&D wants to help me tell anymore in 2027? What was wrong with the old story? Why are they telling me through their design that I shouldn't use the old story? Is there some problem with regeneration in 2027? Why should that story be harder to tell now than it was 10 years ago?

If I read LotR in 2027, it's gonna be the same text it was in 1997. The story of Sam and Frodo remain the same and be just as good as ever, but the story of Trolls in D&D must change and be entirely different now because someone in Renton figured this was a better story? Clearly, they didn't know about - or care about - the cool stories that you could tell with trolls in 2017!

The more interesting question, to me, is if 6e trolls are 9' tall, green, ride giant bats, and have innate regeneration that can only be stopped by freezing them, is that a good or bad change? It it bad purely because it is a change?

I mean, by all means, add in these trolls. You could even call 'em trolls, if you really wanted to (you know, Bridge Trolls, Mountain Trolls , Bat Trolls! Being completely different creatures haven't stopped Ogres and Ogre Magi from being smooshed together!). But, you don't have to get rid of the old trolls in the process. That negation is what gives the change most of its problems.

Because you don't have to obliterate that old story, to do so anyway can seem at the very least like pointless change for the sake of change. Even spiteful if you're feeling especially wronged by it - like they went out of their way to destroy a perfectly good story just because they only want people to use the new one (like, if they described these new trolls as DRINKING AND SWIMMING IN ACID, because they love it so much!). Or like the 2027 designers just don't want you playing this new game, since they're not interested in supporting the stories you want to tell with it anymore. Why even bother to get invested in the game, if it doesn't want to support what you want to do with it?

 

[Hussar]

What version of D&D were you playing?

It couldn't have been AD&D 1e.
View attachment 79917

Or 2e.
View attachment 79918

Or Basic.
View attachment 79919

Or OD&D.
View attachment 79920

I'll wait for you post proof or retract.

No. You misunderstand. I meant that I never actually realized blue dragons lived in deserts. Mostly because every blue dragon I saw in modules didn't live in deserts.

I freely admit I was mistaken. That was my point.

 

[Hussar]

Give examples of modules* that directly contradict the Monster Manual

* Cavaet: the setting itself can't change the lore: so posting an Eberron module with Xen'drik elves or anything Dark Sun is off limits.

GDQ specifically leaves it to the DM whether Lolth is a demon or a goddess. Note that since Lolth was a demon first, that's a direct contradiction.

 

[pemerton]

I can't use the new trolls in the same way I used the old trolls.

I can't, say, run this fun adventure I've had in mind for the last few years where a low-level party must cleverly use torches and bonfires to scare away a group of trolls that is far too powerful for them to fight directly. The old trolls don't exist in the new game anymore. I could make 'em, but that's burden and grist and trouble and time and effort and there's still be some confusion to muddle through

<snip>

Why isn't that a fun story that D&D wants to help me tell anymore in 2027? What was wrong with the old story? Why are they telling me through their design that I shouldn't use the old story? Is there some problem with regeneration in 2027? Why should that story be harder to tell now than it was 10 years ago?

It seems to me that this reasoning - which it seems fair to call ultra-conservative vis a vis changes to the system - applies to everything. Letting dwarves be wizards (hello, 3E and onwards) "invalidates" stories that turn upon dwarves not being able to cast magic-user spells. Letting humans multi-class (hello, 3E again, though AD&D Lankhamar also allowed this) invalidates stories that turn upon humans having to be either single- or dual-classed.

It's certainly not very specific to "lore" or to setting canon. And the idea that the 4e changes to storm giants, eladrin and archons were more significant in this sort of fashion than the 3E changes - which basically rewrote the rules on class/race combos, racial stats (now half-orcs have no 14 WIS limit, so you can't tell a half-orc is magically enhanced simply from his/her 16 WIS), humanoid stats (as I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already pointed out), etc - is hard for me to credit.

Which is why I don't think, for most critics of lore changes (4e or otherwise), the sort of reason you describe is what is motivating them. I think they're motivated by some other consideration which is not affronted by letting dwarves be wizards, but is affronted by mucking about with planar details and eladrin. It's not a communicative/epistemic consideration, though, for the reasons I've just given - if you're worried about confusion in world-building and adventure plots, it doesn't get more confusing than pre- versus post-3E.

 

[pemerton]

Not sure that I have ever noticed this nostalgia for the "Billy Goat Gruff" Troll.

What kind of things do you think it would add to the game?

It would make it clearer to new players what a troll is. If one thinks that is an important thing.

Why do you think it's important to stick to the Poul Anderson troll? Or to put it another way: why is it better than new players have to learn what a troll is in D&D (and what a basilisk is, and how that differs from a cockatrice; and what a medusa is, and how that differs from a gorgon; and what a hill giant is, and how that differs from a stone giant; etc)?

You clearly think that this stuff is important. I don't think you think it's important because of any help or familiarity it provides to new players. I think you have some non-instrumental reason for thinking it is important. I'm wondering what that reason is? Eg do you think that D&D lore, as a consistent body of lore, is good in itself (eg as a work of art)?

 

[Hussar]

Oh and just as a point about Dragonlance. I did ASK if there was a desert in Ansalon. Been a while and I couldn't remember. The fact that it pretty much never comes up lets me know just how important dwelling in deserts is to the identity of blue dragons.

 

[Hussar]

And just to be clear.

I have zero problems with flavour text. If there's a monster called a Blafgnarb, I have no problem with the writer telling me what that is.

My beef is more with the idea that once we add something to a Blarfgnarb, then it must always be 100% true forevermore and we must never change it.