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

[cbwjm]

Why would they have even wanted the earlier edition versions of archons in 4e? They'd changed the layout of the planes and the history of creation, they no longer had the great wheel, all the gods were served by the new angels and they needed soldiers for the primordial. The name archon was just sitting there waiting to be used for these new elemental archons.

 

[Imaro]

Why would they have even wanted the earlier edition versions of archons in 4e? They'd changed the layout of the planes and the history of creation, they no longer had the great wheel, all the gods were served by the new angels and they needed soldiers for the primordial. The name archon was just sitting there waiting to be used for these new elemental archons.

Oh, I definitely agree the change to Archons was just a minor part of the overall changes to the planes, gods, angels, etc.

 

[Teemu]

If only Paizo wasn't publishing their own version of Jeff Grub's Archons in their bestiary forcing WotC to change something so drastically that oh...I don't know... they could possibly regain IP control over it... No that couldn't be it.

The Worlds and Monsters book that explained the 4e archons was published nearly two years before Pathfinder Bestiary. Did WotC even know about Paizo's plans when the 4e archons were conceived? Did Paizo know themselves?

 

[ProgBard]

A few general points, if I may.

I think the lore-adherents in this convo have interesting and worthwhile things to say, even if I don't always agree or connect with their point of view. Their kink is not my kink, but their kink is okay.

But I also think that picking at [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s old Greyhawk game, now these twenty years and more beyond mortal ken, is not a good, useful, or productive way of advancing these ideas. It looks petty. Whether it's intended as badwrongfun or not, it has the effect of saying, to someone who has no way of "fixing" it even if he wanted to (and there's no reason he should want to), "This thing you did was wrong, and this was wrong, and this was wrong too."

Would you want someone picking apart something you have fond memories of, just to make some kind of point?

Would you want the decisions you made in forheavenssake the 90s scrutinized to within an inch of their life and held up as an example of How Not To Do It in conversations about a hobby you enjoy?

It's a thread of discussion that by all rights spent itself a long time ago, but it's kind of passed the mark into Seriously Not Cool territory in the last few days.

 

[Imaro]

The Worlds and Monsters book that explained the 4e archons was published nearly two years before Pathfinder Bestiary. Did WotC even know about Paizo's plans when the 4e archons were conceived? Did Paizo know themselves?

They had to have known Archons were covered under the OGL... didn't they?

 

[Imaro]

A few general points, if I may.

I think the lore-adherents in this convo have interesting and worthwhile things to say, even if I don't always agree or connect with their point of view. Their kink is not my kink, but their kink is okay.

But I also think that picking at [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s old Greyhawk game, now these twenty years and more beyond mortal ken, is not a good, useful, or productive way of advancing these ideas. It looks petty. Whether it's intended as badwrongfun or not, it has the effect of saying, to someone who has no way of "fixing" it even if he wanted to (and there's no reason he should want to), "This thing you did was wrong, and this was wrong, and this was wrong too."

Would you want someone picking apart something you have fond memories of, just to make some kind of point?

Would you want the decisions you made in forheavenssake the 90s scrutinized to within an inch of their life and held up as an example of How Not To Do It in conversations about a hobby you enjoy?

It's a thread of discussion that by all rights spent itself a long time ago, but it's kind of passed the mark into Seriously Not Cool territory in the last few days.

Okay I think there is some confusion going on here... I don't think the sides are "lore adherents" vs. "lore non-adherents"... I think the discussion has been more about the labeling and categorizing of different game types. I homebrew more than I do anything else so I wouldn't call myself a lore adherent since I rarely use campaign settings... however when speaking to someone about their game I think the distinction between a homebrewed game vs. a homebrewed (inset setting name here) vs. a canon (insert setting name here) game are valuable to because they present a clear view, again IMO, of what exactly we are conversing about (in the same way narrative game vs. simulationist vs. gamist do for some people)... or sitting down to play. I don't put any value judgement on sticking to canon or not sticking to canon... but I do value being able to communicate what I or you have decided to run being clear and succinct. Now with that out of the way...

I think one of the issues with progressing in the way you seem to be pushing for is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] himself often presents and pushes for specific play examples (and if I am mistaken about this please correct me [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]), which IMO can often lead to a general discussion becoming more personal as well as that specific example becoming the focal point (remember this originally was a discussion about settings in general)... Once that happens it will be picked apart during the discussion. I'm also not sure how much we actually gain from the examples of a single gaming group... personally I think internet polls would probably provide better data (which is not to say valid ) than any one posters gaming group... but I could be wrong...

 

[ProgBard]

Okay I think there is some confusion going on here... I don't think the sides are "lore adherents" vs. "lore non-adherents"... I think the discussion has been more about the labeling and categorizing of different game types. I homebrew more than I do anything else so I wouldn't call myself a lore adherent since I rarely use campaign settings... however when speaking to someone about their game I think the distinction between a homebrewed game vs. a homebrewed (inset setting name here) vs. a canon (insert setting name here) game are valuable to because they present a clear view, again IMO, of what exactly we are conversing about (in the same way narrative game vs. simulationist vs. gamist do for some people)... or sitting down to play. I don't put any value judgement on sticking to canon or not sticking to canon... but I do value being able to communicate what I or you have decided to run being clear and succinct. Now with that out of the way...

You're quite correct, and I, for lack of a more precise and satisfactory term, tacked on a label that vastly oversimplifies the positions. But "Cavaliers" and "Roundheads" was even more confusing, so.

I think one of the issues with progressing in the way you seem to be pushing for is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] himself often presents and pushes for specific play examples (and if I am mistaken about this please correct me [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]), which IMO can often lead to a general discussion becoming more personal as well as that specific example becoming the focal point (remember this originally was a discussion about settings in general)... Once that happens it will be picked apart during the discussion. I'm also not sure how much we actually gain from the examples of a single gaming group... personally I think internet polls would probably provide better data (which is not to say valid ) than any one posters gaming group... but I could be wrong...

Well, if [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s doing the same sort of thing elsewhere (to the point of being a jerk about it, I mean), my feeling is he should probably cut it out too.

But I think you're right that there's only so much good you can wring out of one point of anecdata. It's illustrative, but not always of the things we like to think it is.

But whether pemerton brought this on himself or not, this particular pinata ran out of candy a long time ago.

 

[Imaro]

Well, if [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s doing the same sort of thing elsewhere (to the point of being a jerk about it, I mean), my feeling is he should probably cut it out too.

No I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is a jerk about anything... but he does tend to call out for personal examples when dsicussing things on the board and like I said earlier there is always the chance that those examples and comments about them become personal... Now I do think the personal examples are also oten used as a way to shut down conversation... Well my group doesn't have that issue... My group doesn't value canon so what's your point...

But I think you're right that there's only so much good you can wring out of one point of anecdata. It's illustrative, but not always of the things we like to think it is.

Definitely agre here...

But whether pemerton brought this on himself or not, this particular pinata ran out of candy a long time ago.

I honestly would have enjoyed the conversation more if it had stayed focused on settings in general as opposed to pemerton's Greyhawk...

 

[Maxperson]

A judgement that some decision was poor is a judgement that the person who made the decision should have done it differently. That's what poor means.

Don't you tell me what I meant. My statement was only a judgment that I would have done it differently. Nothing more.

So the answer to my question is, no, you cannot provide a single example of a person who thought that archons in 4e were a variant or development of the archons that Jeff Grubb invented.

You are simply conjecturing. But you don't actually have any example.

I provided many. My conjecture was the same as if I conjectured that people in China woke up this morning. There is a 100% probability that my "conjecture" happened many times. That's sufficient.

And I still find it strange that you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] think that WotC was lying to you when they said that archons in 4e were new creatures - because really they were such a radical revision of the existing archons that it's almost as if they were new creatures!

The bolded part is what is critical. Almost as if =/= new. Those archons were a radical change.

 

[Hussar]

In a game with Rule 0, how can you possibly argue that there are any "core mechanics"?

What is good for one is good for the other (because they're not really different).



Is telling someone that encumbrance is "core rules" One-True-Wayism? Because, if not, then telling somone that in Eberron, the Last War was two years ago in the "core lore" falls under the same logic: just because you can easily change it at your own table doesn't mean there isn't a baseline assumption that tells you how to play the game (including how to portray your character and how to account for all the gear they're lugging around).

No, but, telling someone they aren't using the encumbrance rules then they are making a "poor GMing decision" and they aren't really playing D&D, but, an Alt-D&D, is. Isn't it?