Jester David
Hero
Literally 5 seconds on Google:
What's the point of playing in an established world if you're not going to take advantage of the lore?
Did you make up the location of Washington DC as well?
D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
- Status
What's the point of playing in an established world if you're not going to take advantage of the lore?
Did you make up the location of Washington DC as well?
How much experience do you have with sheering? (Or, for that matter, with handling animals more generally?)
In my case, some but not a lot. But when sheering a sheep with hand shears, yes, the shearer holds the sheep down and clips off the fleece. The sheep is not a cooperative participant in the endeavour.
A famous Australian painting depicts the endeavour:
Jester David
Hero
My preferences have no moral priority over yours, even if my preferences require you to do *significantly* less work than mine?
So, basically, your priorities have a moral priority over mine?
Just answering your question re: which post to believe. One could very well follow as a result of the other. There is after all a very famous answer to the question of how to make the second best selling RPG? First you start with the best-selling RPG.
I dont really know how much fraking you are doing in the Seattle region to know how much to blame you for the Seattle issue. Lets just assume you fit into the: little to none category.
I guess that Planescape was solely responsible for bringing down TSR, having nothing to do with Dragon Dice, Spellfire, Returned Novels or generally bad business practices. Nope, just Planescape and that is the chant berk.
Dancey does not comment on the presentation, or the boxed sets. He comments on the content, calling it "confusing" and "jargon-filled". Those aren't quite my reasons for disliking it - the "jargon" is mostly just silly to someone whose native variant of English is closer to English than American, and I don't find it especially confusing.
My reason for quoting Dancey is that this is yet another bit of evidence that there is no special correlation between preserving "canon" and commercial success. (Or critical success, for that matter, although what counts as critical success in RPGing is admittedly somewhat up for grabs.)
The thread isn't "advocating" anything. And even if it were, it would have no causal significance. The chance of this thread being of zero interest or relevance to WotC is 100%.
But if someone says that it is selfish of me to want stuff that might deviate from canon, I am going to respond.
And if someone tells me that preserving canon is a necessary condition of quality fiction, well I'm going to respond to that too.
The question I have repeatedly asked, but haven't really got much of an answer to, is why some RPGers value aligning their aesthetic endeavours to a commercial publisher's output. The closest I've received to an answer is "brand psychology", but that's an answer that makes sense from WotC's point of view, not from the RPGer's.
Of course not. Australian sheep are not stupid!
If you go to other countries though with a sheerer can go through a lot of sheep in a short time; Take Matt Smith for example. He takes an average of 44 seconds to shear one sheep and that is in the course of doing 731 over 9 hours. You can not do that if the sheep are trying to fight you off.
My preferences don't require you to do more work than yours of me.
If stuff is published that I like but you don't because it deviates from canon, you can ignore it and use what you already have. That might be emotionally demanding, but in terms of hours required seems to me like little work.
Conversely, if I have to make up all my stuff myself that is a fair bit of work. It's to save that time - and also because others are better at doing that stuff than me - that I buy material for use in RPGing.
But in any event, neither preference has any moral significance, let alone any sort of moral priority. They're aesthetic preference which have no impact on one another except that the contemporary commerical nature of RPG publishing makes them competing consumption preferences. And consumption preferences among leisure goods are not, as a general matter, a moral issue. (It's not as if, eg, satisfying my preferences will cause any more environmental degradation than satisfying yours.)
When I Google images for "New Zealand shearing shed" it looks pretty similar to Tom Roberts' painting, except for singlets rather than shirts and mechanical rather than hand shears.
Here's one of the first that comes up:
I think hobbits would find that hard to do, as the sheep would just get up and walk away, and the hobbits wouldn't be able to stop them.
Are you joking? I can't tell.
Washington DC is a real city. Latveria is a made-up country. That's my point. You said that the verisimilitude of Casbalanca depends upon adhering to the truth about the war. But you're wrong. They made up the urban geography of Morocco, just as Marvel Comics made up the political geography of Central and Eastern Europe.
EDIT: Maybe you were intending the phrase "established world" to carry weight. But I don't see how it can. There was a first appearance in the FF of Dr Doom, and that first appearance invovled the first reference to a fictional nation of Latveria.
That was not drawing on established canon. It was making something up - a fake country, that fights fake wars and has a fake internal political system - and it doesn't seem to have done the FF or Marvel more generally any harm.
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
The Shire was built near the great dwarf road, and Bree had a separate population of Hobbits that never moved on to found the Shire when the hobbits first reached Bree. It would make sense for the Shire to trade with both the dwarves and the the hobbits of Bree. Also, elves were known in the shire, so there would likely be trade with the elves as well.
- Status
Similar Threads
