Mess too much with the framework and it falls apart or distorts to the point where it no longer holds its original shape.
I don't mind messing with that framework, but I do so carefully so as to not destroy the setting
<snip>
Rarely I will try something radical with a setting and present it as an alternate universe.
In what way is a 3rd moon, or WoHS, radical? In what way does it mess with, or distort, the framework of GH?
I can see how the number and nature of moons is core to the framework of Krynn, given their centrality to the WoHS? But how is the exact number of moons core to GH? (When I asked you upthread to talk about a GH scenario you'd run or played in in which the astronomy was central, you couldn't name one; whereas I think it would be central - via WoHS, and perhaps also the gods-as-constellations - to nearly every Krynn campaign, and very many Krynn scenarios.)
And as far as having a wizardly order that draws power from moons, how does that mess with or distort the framework? The framework is one of ancient empires with ancient magical powers (the Suel Imperium and the Invoked Devastation that it called down; the Baklun Empire and the Rain of Colourless Fire that
it called down); and the treatise on the heavens tells us that the heavenly bodies exert astrological influences over the world.
It's all very well to say that
radical departures make a campaign no longer an instance of a campaign world. That's not bad as a basic proposition. But you have articulated no account of why the stuff I've talked about counts as a radical departure! The mere fact that it is an addition to astronomical facts doesn't make it so, at least until you have some account of why sticking to two moons is key to the GH framework. The mere fact that it is an element dropped in from another setting doesn't make it so, not in general and certainly not in GH, which - as published - already contains elements from Dave Arneson's setting (Blackmoor), from Boot Hill (Murlynd) and from Metamorphis Alpha/Gamma World (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks).
That is because Gygax would just steal any idea that he liked - ah, those wild woolly days when we used to walk to school up hill in the snow both ways.
It's not about nostalgia for the past. It's about the relationship between setting and RPGing as an activity.
Perhaps the reason was that your Players did not know enough about GH to know (or care!) how many moons there are? Maybe they liked the extra magic sub system?
Well they clearly liked the magic system, given that they engaged with it via PC building when they were under no obligation to do so. They also liked the story. (I think it's a fairly compelling one. That's why I put it into my game!)
But some of them were certainly quite familiar with GH. And even those who didn't know it very well would have seen the well-known cover of Unearthed Arcana with its two moons.
I think they simply realised that two visible moons doesn't preclude a third invisible one.
pemerton said:
I'm not saying that the 3rd moon is canon - of course it's not.
I'm saying that adding it doesn't make the game cease to be a GH game. Any RPGing will mean that the setting takes on non-canonical features/elements.
I think most Greyhawk GMs would agree with you there.
Maybe.
That said, this thread consists of a significant number of posts - from [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and maybe some other posters (eg I'm less clear about [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION] on this poiint) - stating that my GH game is not
really a GH game precisely because of addditional elements - like the 3rd moon, and the WoHS to go with it - that I have introduced.
there's a differences between grabbing someone's work whole cloth and dropping it into your setting, slightly modifying someone else's work and using another's idea as inspiration to springboard off of for your own creation.
This is not in dispute either.
In my case, the WoHS are dropped largely whole-cloth into GH, with only as many changes made (Suel origins, astronomical details, relationships to other sorcerous traditions) as are needed to have them fit into their new home.
My claim is that such a whole-cloth drop (with such slight modifications as are needed to make it work) doesn't make the game cease to be a GH one.
as more material got published for campaign settings as well as in Dragon Magazine and in novels, there were a lot more players cropping up with passing familiarity in the settings. They wanted to see a few more key elements of those settings in their games. It's pretty natural, after all look at all of the licensed property games and settings that have been out over the years from Thieves' World to Marvel Superheroes.
<snip>
The impulse to participate faithfully or with authenticity in well-known and loved IP is huge.
I think the notion of what counts as "faithful" or "authentic" participation can be pretty subtle. Likewise the notion of
participation.
When I was a boy in primary school we played Batman and Superman; we played Justice League more generally; we played Star Wars; I guess this was a type of participation (in that we imagined ourselves as Batman, or Han Solo, or whomever; of course someone always drew the short straw and had to be Robin, of Aquaman, or the Stormtrooper). But canon played only a modest role in establishing our expectations and framing our play.
When the setting has no existence or significance, as a work of fiction,
except as a vehicle for RPGing, what does it mean to faithfully participate? This is perhaps not a question that matters much to FR - which as far as I know has more life as a setting for novels than as a setting for RPGing. It's certainly not a question for the Marvel Universe. But Greyhawk, and OA/Kara-Tur - which are the two D&D settings that I personally have used extensively - and also Karameikos - which is a D&D setting I've used a bit - directly give rise to this question. They aren't existing cultural artefacts adapted to RPGing. They're RPG settings, first and foremost in the case of GH and (to the best of my knowledge) solely in the case of the other two.
This is why I feel that a conception of "authenticity" that doesn't recognise the basic purpose of these settings seems to miss the point. And tries to apply a standard of "canon" that has no application in these cases.
And a final thought (for this post) on faithful/authentic participation in a fictional world:
When shouldn't or wouldn't they decide what is or isn't their official product. And having something produced previously doesn't necessarily guarantee that a new owner will consider it that way once they own the product... for an example look at the previously official Star Wars expanded universe...
But what does
official even mean here? It's not a metaphysical concept, or an aesthetic one. It's a type of marketing/branding concept - about establishing, manipulating and responding to the expectations of the customers for one's commercial products.
