D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Remathilis]

That is an interesting take, but a couple of things about it seem problematic to me.

1. Which lore exactly are you referring to? You have given a few examples, but what else qualifies and how much of it do I need in order to be playing D&D™? Really, this just seems to circle back into an expanded and even less well-defined version of the debate that is already going on here (with no resolution in sight): how much of the lore of a setting must be present to still consider it the 'same' setting?
2. It appears to me that your definition runs counter to what is suggested by WoTC themselves:

1. All of it. D&D™ incorporates the world as laid out in all the various source-books and supplements. Its almost the platonic ideal: every word in every book is true and honest. The closest actual gameplay gets to this is something like Adventurer's League, which by the statutes of OP must not deviate from the book-lore (except only in places which are required to keep OP fair and balanced for all gamers, like char-gen rules). Its the kind of world where I can hear the name Lolth in Out of the Abyss, read about her in Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and in the Monster Manual, and none of those sources contradict, conflict, or over-ride the other, or where a DM can set a game in Neverwinter and I can read the entry of it in SCAG of SKT and they are true representations of the city the GM is using.

2. Now, WotC itself acknowledges that isn't the only way to play its own game, as one advantages of a TTRPG (over an MMO or MUD) is that the DM has true editor's freedom. WotC has tried to minimize this in the past (3e and esp 4e had very tight reins on what the DM could do in terms of rules and even lore) but WotC under 5e is backing off of D&D™ is the ONLY way to play "D&D". And there is nothing wrong with that. I've never argued that a DM shouldn't or can't change things; I argue though that the more he does, the less D&D™ his game is and the more "D&D" his game is. For example, playing Scarred Lands using the 3.0 PHB and DMG is as much "D&D" as using Pathfinder to play Eberron, but neither of them come as close to playing D&D™ as running Forgotten Realms with the v3.5 core books would.

AND THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING. If its fun for you and your group, do it. WotC's fun police isn't going to arrest you. The two concerns voiced by me repeatedly have not changed:

1.) Not all "D&D" carries the same weight as D&D™ when it comes to discussion or debate. Just as how RAW should be the starting point of any discussion on rules, Canon should be the starting point of any discussion on lore. Its an acknowledgement that their IS and Official version, whether you like, agree, or use it or not.
2.) The lore, like the RAW, changed with each edition and not all changes are considered "Good". The story of the gnoll has changed, much like how the role of gold in the game has changed, in every edition. For some, this is a good thing, for others, its bad. The ideal would be to keep things as internally consistent as possible while improving on things that haven't worked (creating a continuity of experience across editions) but obviously, conflict will arise.
(Tangent: I think a lot of the rejection of 4e comes from the fact it intentionally and willfully broke this "continuity of experience" in terms of both rules and lore. It may have created a game that was interesting or even superior, but the intention breaking of both traditions to the amount it did is the heart of the cry of "Not D&D anymore").

Really, the debate here and in the canon thread has been a mostly academic one poised around the notion of "does the lore matter when discussing D&D?" My point remains the same; it has to be the starting point for a discussion on the game, but you are always free to do what you want in your own game. Just don't tell me since you find it worthless, its worthless to everyone.

 

[Greg K]

WotC has tried to minimize this in the past (3e and esp 4e had very tight reins on what the DM could do in terms of rules and even lore)

Rem, did you read the same 3.0 DMG that I did? Monte, explicitly tells the DM that he or she is in charge of how the game is played at the table including which supplements are used and which rules are used or ignored and even changing the rules. The DMG also provides numerous variants for tailoring the game (e.g. tailored spell lists by deity or wizard school). The 3.5 DMG had most of the same variant rules and then introduced many more rules variants in Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Remathilis]

Rem, did you read the same 3.0 DMG that I did? Monte, explicitly tells the DM that he or she is in charge of how the game is played at the table including which supplements are used and which rules are used or ignored and even changing the rules. The DMG also provides numerous variants for tailoring the game (e.g. tailored spell lists by deity or wizard school). The 3.5 DMG had most of the same variant rules and then introduced many more rules variants in Unearthed Arcana.

True, but 3.0 did usher in the "there's a rule for that" era of D&D which intended to create a "unified experience" via consistent rule application. Its also the beginning of the "everything's core" mantra 4e wholly embraced and it slowly shifted to "player empowerment" as time wore on.

 

[Shasarak]

So the question of if the lore matters is partially a question of "does D&D™ matter?" Because there are dozens of ways to play "d&d", and many of them don't even require you to own a WotC or even a TSR book to do so. However, there is really only one way to play "D&D™", and that's how the game currently presents it* (demon-gnolls and all). I think its a far-more distinct difference than most would give credit for: when one person talks about D&D™ gnolls, while another is talking about "d&d" gnolls, they are talking about two different things.

* Currently, as in "whatever the latest edition is". There is a reasonable debate on the fact that as editions change, what constitutes D&D™ changes, and part of the backlash against 4e was that many people felt the changes "weren't 'd&d'" in their minds, even if they were D&D™ at that time.

I would disagree that DnD changes to match the "latest" edition. Sure that is what the current team of designers may want it to be but I would suggest that, like the 4e version of a Gold Elf, no plan survives contact with the players.

 

[Remathilis]

I would disagree that DnD changes to match the "latest" edition. Sure that is what the current team of designers may want it to be but I would suggest that, like the 4e version of a Gold Elf, no plan survives contact with the players.

“No Battle Plan Survives Contact With the Enemy”

 

[darjr]

I think D&D does change and it doesn't. I agree that there is a huge amount of inertia in D&D that is because of the players and community outside of its creators. But the current creators at any moment, especially at a new editions beginnings have a large fulcrum for changing some of that.

It's an interesting way to think about what is dnd. Thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree with that. You don't have to use every detail in every book. The PCs aren't everywhere and don't encounter everything, and I already said that filling in the blank spots works wonderfully. Blank spots are where canon doesn't exist and the DM can play around to his heart's content. He can also play around with canon, it's just more likely to disrupt things.

Where you'll run into problems with filling in the blank spots is when they've already been "officially" filled in by something else.

FR is the obvious example. I've got the grey-box version, which has enough structure and lore to run with and whole great whacks of blank or blank-ish space for me to mess with as I please.

Let's say I mess with the blank space, and add in a bunch of things - dungeon sites, towns and villages, even a few small-scale cultures and what-have-you - then start and maintain a long campaign on this basis. By your definition above I'm still running FR, right?

So, when the 3e FR book comes out and adds a pile of things to the maps/lore/etc. that I didn't (and, reasonably, couldn't) account for in advance, what then? Let's say for example that the new FR now has a great big town in what was formerly blank space which I'd filled with monsters and dungeons, most of which remain unkilled and unexplored. What then? Am I still running FR? And when a new player, steeped in FR lore, comes into my game does she have a legitimate beef or not when she finds that town doesn't exist? Clearly my FR doesn't match her FR...but it's still FR...right?

Lan-"guidelines, all guidelines"-efan

 

[Beleriphon]

So, when the 3e FR book comes out and adds a pile of things to the maps/lore/etc. that I didn't (and, reasonably, couldn't) account for in advance, what then? Let's say for example that the new FR now has a great big town in what was formerly blank space which I'd filled with monsters and dungeons, most of which remain unkilled and unexplored. What then? Am I still running FR? And when a new player, steeped in FR lore, comes into my game does she have a legitimate beef or not when she finds that town doesn't exist? Clearly my FR doesn't match her FR...but it's still FR...right?

Lan-"guidelines, all guidelines"-efan

I think that's a good point. And yes you would be, because up until a certain point the shared lore is the same. There's a divergent point for sure, but until that point its the same.

I'll share a story. I once ran Star Wars game set during the same period as Episode IV. The difference is Anakin defeats Obi-Wan (who is injured and flees) at the climax of Episode III, stabs Sidious in the face and raises Luke and Leia on his own as the heirs of his new Sith Empire. So, until the end of Episode III anybody familiar with Star Wars has the same basic understanding of the setting. Its still Star Wars, but its a very difference version than we see in the movies.

 

[Maxperson]

Where you'll run into problems with filling in the blank spots is when they've already been "officially" filled in by something else.

FR is the obvious example. I've got the grey-box version, which has enough structure and lore to run with and whole great whacks of blank or blank-ish space for me to mess with as I please.

Let's say I mess with the blank space, and add in a bunch of things - dungeon sites, towns and villages, even a few small-scale cultures and what-have-you - then start and maintain a long campaign on this basis. By your definition above I'm still running FR, right?

So, when the 3e FR book comes out and adds a pile of things to the maps/lore/etc. that I didn't (and, reasonably, couldn't) account for in advance, what then? Let's say for example that the new FR now has a great big town in what was formerly blank space which I'd filled with monsters and dungeons, most of which remain unkilled and unexplored. What then? Am I still running FR? And when a new player, steeped in FR lore, comes into my game does she have a legitimate beef or not when she finds that town doesn't exist? Clearly my FR doesn't match her FR...but it's still FR...right?

Lan-"guidelines, all guidelines"-efan

That's really not much of a problem. The odds of filling in the exact same space with something that can't share the geographical area is slim. It happening enough to ruin a setting is much less likely, and if it happens, you can just freeze the setting where you are at, like I did. You don't have to move on to the next edition's setting, since settings are fairly mechanics neutral.

 

[ProgBard]

So here's an intriguing question I've been mulling on, based on some of the conversation here and in the Other Thread. And partially it's intriguing to me because it doesn't have a right answer; there is inherently no "official" way to verify or disprove it.

The 5e PHB has this in its Introduction (emphasis mine):

The worlds of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game exist within a vast cosmos called the multiverse, connected in strange and mysterious ways to one another and to other planes of existence. such as the Elemental Plane of Fire and the lnfinite Depths of the Abyss. Within this multiverse are an endless variety of worlds. Many of them have been published as official settings for the D&D game. The legends of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara, and Eberron settings are woven together in the fabric of the multiverse. Alongside these worlds are hundreds of thousands more, created by generations of D&D players for their own games. And amid all the richness of the multiverse, you might create a world of your own.

Does your reading of this - in particular the bolded section - suggest to you that the multiverse contains Golarion? How about Aldea? The Scarred Lands? Freeport? Primeval Thule? The Lost Lands? Thieves' World? Nehwon?*

Note that the question isn't "Are these things D&D?" (which I'm not sure is a terribly interesting question anyway) - it's whether you feel their existence in the strange and mysterious web of hundreds of thousands of worlds in the D&D multiverse is implied by the way the PHB describes it. And as I say, there's no way there even can be a right or wrong answer - but I do suspect that the way you answer the question reveals much about the way you view the role of lore.

*The astute reader may have already noted that the examples given pass through a number of categories: Settings created for games that aren't officially D&D, but use rulesets explicitly based on the D&D engine; settings created by third parties for previous editions of D&D; settings with material written (or at least adapted) specifically for 5e; and literary settings that were once licensed as D&D settings, but aren't currently licensed for 5e. (And Golarion has a foot in a couple of places, given that the first materials written for it were third-party 3.5 adventures!) So do feel free to simply comment on whether those types of settings feel like part of the multiverse to you, if you find that's a more interesting approach to this subject than looking at settings on a case-by-case.