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

[Ilbranteloth]

I still hold that they're different dials (and insist that what I'm playing is very much D&D, thankyoukindly ). That lore and rules influence each other is non-controversial. But consider that a Greyhawk wizard and a Realmsian wizard both use the default casting rules striaght out of the PHB; the lore provides flavor, but not extra mechanics (with, perhaps, some notable exceptions that are in practice optional add-ons). A wizard in Athas gets extra mechanics that come out of the lore, yes - but it's also trivially easy to take those mechanics and file off the serial numbers - i.e., strip away the lore - to port that into another setting. (Just as we've seen it's possible to do with the extra magic rules for wizards from Krynn.)

That said, I think we're getting at something like the same idea - that rules and lore are intertwined with each other (as, I would argue, they probably should be). I just look at it from a perspective that sees them as distinct streams, and that conflating them may produce undesirable results (like calling foul when a monster appears outside one of its listed environments). But if treating them as the same thing results in the game you most enjoy playing, then more power to you.

There's an interesting post on AngryGM that kind of talks about this very thing.

http://theangrygm.com/whats-a-meta-phor/

 

[Shasarak]

I still hold that they're different dials (and insist that what I'm playing is very much D&D, thankyoukindly ). That lore and rules influence each other is non-controversial. But consider that a Greyhawk wizard and a Realmsian wizard both use the default casting rules striaght out of the PHB; the lore provides flavor, but not extra mechanics (with, perhaps, some notable exceptions that are in practice optional add-ons). A wizard in Athas gets extra mechanics that come out of the lore, yes - but it's also trivially easy to take those mechanics and file off the serial numbers - i.e., strip away the lore - to port that into another setting. (Just as we've seen it's possible to do with the extra magic rules for wizards from Krynn.)

I would suggest that superficially it appears to be trivially easy but if you consider what the Defiling mechanics do then it becomes much more difficult to simply port it into another setting. It is like my example of fitting the DL Moon magic into the FR - it appears trivial to add but then you get all of these other questions arising.

That said, I think we're getting at something like the same idea - that rules and lore are intertwined with each other (as, I would argue, they probably should be). I just look at it from a perspective that sees them as distinct streams, and that conflating them may produce undesirable results (like calling foul when a monster appears outside one of its listed environments). But if treating them as the same thing results in the game you most enjoy playing, then more power to you.

I think that the best lore and mechanics are intertwined. Probably the worst thing to see is a designer with a set of mechanics to add to the game that has no lore associated with them. You saw it all the time in 4e and Mike has stated that monster design in 5e was a deliberate return to putting lore first.

As for the question of creatures out of their listed environments, what exactly is the DM expecting to happen? Is it something like a Dragon which logically could fly from place to place or is it an Ice Elemental ambushing the party in the middle of the Desert? Is it because the DM just wants to use a particular monster, did he just need any monster of a particular CR or is it because he has an adventure hook about an Ice Priest in the Desert? In the last example how is the DM going to feel if the players dont even notice that an Ice Elemental in the Desert is not normal?

If you are a Lore person then you most likely will not even think of putting a creature out of their accepted environment. If you are a Mechanics person then you may not even notice that wasted line in the stat block that does not even do anything.

Personally I enjoy reading the lore and also expect that there are mechanics to back it up.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I still hold that they're different dials (and insist that what I'm playing is very much D&D, thankyoukindly ). That lore and rules influence each other is non-controversial. But consider that a Greyhawk wizard and a Realmsian wizard both use the default casting rules striaght out of the PHB; the lore provides flavor, but not extra mechanics (with, perhaps, some notable exceptions that are in practice optional add-ons). A wizard in Athas gets extra mechanics that come out of the lore, yes - but it's also trivially easy to take those mechanics and file off the serial numbers - i.e., strip away the lore - to port that into another setting. (Just as we've seen it's possible to do with the extra magic rules for wizards from Krynn.)

That said, I think we're getting at something like the same idea - that rules and lore are intertwined with each other (as, I would argue, they probably should be). I just look at it from a perspective that sees them as distinct streams, and that conflating them may produce undesirable results (like calling foul when a monster appears outside one of its listed environments). But if treating them as the same thing results in the game you most enjoy playing, then more power to you.

I would argue that rules and lore are never actually distinct streams, even if you try and make them that way. Lore arises through rules interactions regardless. Games produce experiences through interaction with rules systems.

Consider that a GH wizard and an FR wizard are the same wizard - that if they were any different in flavor, they'd also be different in rules. A wizard in Athas isn't the same wizard, because she uses different rules! It may be easy to allow anyone else to use those rules, but those rules would still make them a distinct character - you wouldn't be a "standard FR wizard" if you used defiling. You'd be telling a much different story!

 

[Hussar]

I would argue that rules and lore are never actually distinct streams, even if you try and make them that way. Lore arises through rules interactions regardless. Games produce experiences through interaction with rules systems.

Consider that a GH wizard and an FR wizard are the same wizard - that if they were any different in flavor, they'd also be different in rules. A wizard in Athas isn't the same wizard, because she uses different rules! It may be easy to allow anyone else to use those rules, but those rules would still make them a distinct character - you wouldn't be a "standard FR wizard" if you used defiling. You'd be telling a much different story!

But, hang on. How can that be. I've been told in no uncertain terms that addition is not change. Athasian wizards can cast all the same spells as an FR wizard, uses all the same rules but, just has the addition of defiling added on. So, how can something that is not changed be a different character? How can to be telling a much different story when it is not changed?

Unless, of course, addition actually is change.

So, which is it? Is addition change or not?

 

[Imaro]

But, hang on. How can that be. I've been told in no uncertain terms that addition is not change. Athasian wizards can cast all the same spells as an FR wizard, uses all the same rules but, just has the addition of defiling added on. So, how can something that is not changed be a different character? How can to be telling a much different story when it is not changed?

Unless, of course, addition actually is change.

So, which is it? Is addition change or not?

You're not adding anything in this instance... you are changing the magic system (It works different now than it did before the change)... which has been pre-defined by both lore and rules.

EDIT: Of course now I'm starting to feel like you either are choosing not to "get" the distinction or you are trying to nitpick to find some corner case where you can proclaim "Aha... gotcha" as opposed to trying to have real discourse and discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

But, hang on. How can that be. I've been told in no uncertain terms that addition is not change. Athasian wizards can cast all the same spells as an FR wizard, uses all the same rules but, just has the addition of defiling added on. So, how can something that is not changed be a different character? How can to be telling a much different story when it is not changed?

It's not an addition, it's a change. Since page 1 or so, we've defined an addition as something added to the setting in one of the holes provided in the setting lore, and a change is something alters specific setting lore. I'm not sure why it has been 40 pages and you still don't get that.

Defiling magic CHANGES the base lore of wizards. It's not an addition as used by, well, everyone on the side that you are not on.

So, which is it? Is addition change or not?

Stop wasting our time. Use the appropriate definitions or stop trying to talk to us about it.

 

[Shasarak]

Now I am confused. Is changing the magic system a change or an addition?

I mean the wording kind of indicates that something is changing but on the other hand there was no defiling before we added it in so it must be an addition surely? That is a real head scratcher!

 

[ProgBard]

There's an interesting post on AngryGM that kind of talks about this very thing.

http://theangrygm.com/whats-a-meta-phor/

That is an interesting post, though it hasn't brought me around on the Angry GM - I find that his stuff usually has one toe over the line of BadWrongFun. And it's not clear to my satisfaction how he resolves the apparent contradiction he admits to, or what the actual difference is between the kinds of reskinnable mechanics he dislikes and the ones he approves of. I find that I come to the end of his columns wanting to respond with the "I Don't Like Thing" comic.

Which isn't to say that's not a potentially useful perspective, and germaine to our topic here, just that I am clearly not the audience for what he does.

 

[Maxperson]

Now I am confused. Is changing the magic system a change or an addition?

I mean the wording kind of indicates that something is changing but on the other hand there was no defiling before we added it in so it must be an addition surely? That is a real head scratcher!

An addition that changes lore is classified as a change. An addition that doesn't change lore is an addition. Otherwise it just creates confusion between the two different ways to change a setting. We need a way to classify the two methods, and addition v. change is the way it's being done in this thread. @Hussar likes to try and be clever with his, "But a change is an addition" crap, but it's really just an attempt to deflect away from arguments he doesn't have another way to refute.

 

[ProgBard]

I would suggest that superficially it appears to be trivially easy but if you consider what the Defiling mechanics do then it becomes much more difficult to simply port it into another setting. It is like my example of fitting the DL Moon magic into the FR - it appears trivial to add but then you get all of these other questions arising.

You really think so? Because magic that draws on the life-force of nearby creatures seems like a trope with a much, much older pedigree than DS, and I'm not really having any trouble imagining it in other settings (probably not as a replacement for the default spellcasting system, but as a nasty variant that might give a couple of extra bennies, absolutely).

I think that the best lore and mechanics are intertwined. Probably the worst thing to see is a designer with a set of mechanics to add to the game that has no lore associated with them. You saw it all the time in 4e and Mike has stated that monster design in 5e was a deliberate return to putting lore first.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

As for the question of creatures out of their listed environments, what exactly is the DM expecting to happen? Is it something like a Dragon which logically could fly from place to place or is it an Ice Elemental ambushing the party in the middle of the Desert? Is it because the DM just wants to use a particular monster, did he just need any monster of a particular CR or is it because he has an adventure hook about an Ice Priest in the Desert? In the last example how is the DM going to feel if the players dont even notice that an Ice Elemental in the Desert is not normal?

If you are a Lore person then you most likely will not even think of putting a creature out of their accepted environment. If you are a Mechanics person then you may not even notice that wasted line in the stat block that does not even do anything.

Could be any number of reasons! My point only being that "This creature is found in X environment" - unless worded in explicitly more restrictive terms - describes a general expectation from which it's reasonable to assume there are variants; it's not the same kind of statement as "STR 18 give you +4 to melee attack and damage rolls" - the kind of thing that if you're going to change it, you need to be utterly consistent, and careful not to bring down the whole mechanical house of cards.

(Now, as the designers have pointed out, lots of the rules of 5e aren't quite so fixed - they're designed to be "it works like this, except when it doesn't" mechanics. Lore operates much more like that kind of rule, though I would still hesitate to say they're the same thing. Which, as I mentioned waaaaaay back in the early pages of this thread, you are certainly free to see as a limitation of my vision more than anything else!)

As an aside: If I were DMing an ice elemental in the desert as an obvious plot hook, and the players weren't biting, I'd probably try and give them a more anvilicious nudge that they'd missed a clue. Maybe through an NPC, or maybe just by saying, "Sorry, guys, I meant that to be a biger flag than it clearly was." I've been around the screen enough times to have learned not to get my feelings hurt when my neon-outlined clues don't land as I expected.

Personally I enjoy reading the lore and also expect that there are mechanics to back it up.

I sometimes expect the same, but it depends on what it is. The list of the currently active Cormyrean noble houses doesn't need a mechanical widget to back it up. The idea that a demon lord's presence on the Prime Material warps the minds of creatures who come in contact with it probably does.