And people like me are saying that this is too much. If i want to change Comyr into a Bane-worshipping tyranny because that´s what i like in my Campaing, i´ll do it. I don´t have to explain anything to anyone. See also: Gygax talking about you being the "final arbiter of your campaign." I´m really not a viking-hat DM, but if i had to work in such constraints when refitting campaign worlds to my liking, i wouldn´t even use them.
Well, as I said, if everyone is okay with that in your group, go for it! But I don't subsicribe to the idea that DM doesn't need to communicate with the group, if you suspect someone might have a problem with your changes or if they voice their concerns about them. Sure, I could say that I want to have Asgård motherships from Stargate zipping all above Eberron and show the door to anyone who's not okay with it, but I would probably feel like a jerk (and likely gain the reputation as one in the local RPG circles).
I don't think Gary meant that a DM is a tyrant; that would be counterproductive anyway. Yes, I agree that the DM has the "final word" on things (although 4E has apparently consciously moved away from this - -at least that seems to be the general consensus on the WoTC boards) but just as I listen to my players' wishes, opinions and preferences about the nature of my adventures and campaigns (for example, whether they prefer social interaction and intrigue over combat, or vice versa) I try to listen what they settings they want to explore and how much they know about them. Even though I bought the CS, I wouldn't force them to play in Golarion if they felt it's not their "thing" -- likewise, if they said that they're huge Eberron fans and have read every book, I'd discuss my ideas with them before I ran any campaigns there, i.e. is it okay if it's not 100% faithful to canon? And if I knew someone likely has an issue with my new Paladin King Gladiator of Karrnath, I'd try to come up with a plausible reason how he's ascended to power (e.g. maybe there is a secretive vampire cabal that wanted to get rid of the real king, and this paladin is the perfect, unwitting puppet on the throne?).
I may be wrong, but I gather you essentially pick up stuff from a number of game books, and then "drag'n'drop" it all into the setting you've chosen for that campaign; for that purpose I personally think homebrewed settings suit better, and nobody even gets to bitch about what is canon and what's not. Although we're not "canon nazis" in my group (we use what we like and ditch the rest), there are some "tolerance levels" that would prompt us to ask the DM why A has replaced B, or why C has never existed.
I'm not sure anyone is trying to say that you shouldn't have fun your way.
I think what most people in the thread are trying to say is that a player demanding strict adherence to canon is not fun for them. That a player telling a DM what they can and cannot do with their campaign is antithetical to the usual DMing process. That there's no inherent value or good in canon adherence, and that changes are good and allowable and that second-guessing them seems very much not the individual player's place.
There was dancing in the Dark Ages, but that doesn't make living like a medieval peasant a generally good idea. Not that you can't go do that if you really want to, just don't expect everyone to agree with you.
I never suggested that my own opinions reflect the "only" or "best" way to DM the Realms.
Yes, I get what people are saying, and I suggested that communication is key; if some players have issues with your DMing style (whether in general or in regard to a setting), you should discuss it in the group instead of instantly kicking them out. There's the middle road, here, but if you just can't reach any compromise, it might be best to consider if there are players in the wrong group or maybe you're not the right DM for that particular group/setting (if everyone has issues with your style). For example, I tried running intrigue-laden, roleplaying-heavy campaigns for a group of "powergamers" who only wanted to kick down doors and slay monsters; it just didn't work, and when I switched to playing in the group, I found their version of FR to be, well, a bit too different for my taste (see the 'Cormyrea' example above). We split ways, eventually.
Some people love the vast amount of details and want the DM's campaigns to be as faithful to the canon as possible -- nothing wrong in that, right? It's only problematic when tastes clash. I just think it's very counterproductive and antithetical to tell the players that "It's my way or the highway!" -- if there's a conflict of interests, you either end up with disruptive players or lose some of them (and they'll likely be bitter at you). If you ignore a player's questions -- or the fact that there's something that disrupts his immersion -- you'll practically signaling that his concerns and opinions are of no relevance to you (and likely he'll walk out sooner or later).
I'm not saying you need to bend all the time, or that the DM shouldn't have fun -- on the contrary, but you're running the game to your players, not amusing yourself with a prescripted story. You need to compromise sometimes if a player has a problem.
I think that with FR the problem lies in the very "hook" of the setting, which I think has always been the massive amount of details. While it may have prevented more "casual" DMs from running games there (at least if the group has included vocal FR fans), it has attracted mainly people who *want* to adhere to canon and want to know as much as only possible about, well, everything. I don't think it's the fault of the setting per se, if people feel there's too much to absorb; rather, it's about when you feel insecure because other people (in your own group, but also outside of it) would protest against your non-canonical changes. To me it's the same kind of situation as belonging to a book circle in which a HP fan insists that everyone has to read the whole series before discussions, while others think Rowling should have cut 90% of the details and dialogue and published it as a single volume.
I understand what you're saying but, again, what you're describing in the context of a D&D campaign (i.e., a game actually being played) is not internal consitency — it's simple rote adherence to canon as prescribed by the publisher (an entirely different thing).
If you're referring to the setting as it exists apart from a given game of D&D then, yes, what you describe would be internal consistency (as it is confined to the setting itself). That kind of internal consistency has nothing to do with the DM, though, and everything to do with the publisher as only they control what goes into the books and, thus, what changes can be made to the setting as it stands apart from a given D&D campaign.
As soon as a setting becomes part of an actual game being played, it's only one component of a larger whole known as the campaign — which, as we both agree and already have discussed, is internally consistent or inconsistent in its own right. In this context, an individual DM is free to make any changes to a setting as he or she sees fit and, so long as they are applied in manner that begets steady continuity, such changes are consistent.
In the context of the setting as a component of the campaign, the only time that changes are inconsistent is if they break continuity as established in the campaign. All of your numerous examples, as odd as they would be, would also all be internally consistent if applied in that manner. The only way they would be inconsistent is if:
A. The DM changed them from one session to the next willy-nilly.
B. You're talking about the FR setting apart from a campaign, in which case you need to direct your ire at the publisher, not DMs.
Exactly; that was what I intended. However, what you seem to disregard is that the consistency to the setting remains alongside consistency in the campaign; for example, at some point the DM might introduce a new element that conflicts what the players know of the setting (i.e. their image of Luskan might be very different from your take because they've read the Drizzt novels).
It all depends on what they've played or read, i.e. their prior exposure to the setting.
I don't know that you have to take my word for it. For starters, just look at the amount material considered canon. It's vastly more than any other game setting.
-O
Well, the amount of canon lore -- in itself -- does not automatically mean everyone is fanatical about it. I personally know more Eberron and Dune diehard fans than FR fanatics (i.e. guys who would throw a fit if you replaced, say, the lord of Hluthvar with your own NPC).
Yet I can understand why FR fans are generally perceived to be more fanatical about canon (see above what I wrote about the "lure" of the setting).
)
