D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[pemerton]

You don't need monster lore when everything is encountered in 30' by 30' nondescript rooms.

You also don't need monster lore to help plant your vegetable garden. But I don't see what either of those propositions has to do with anything being discussed in this thread. Unless you are telling us that you run a game in which everything is encountered in a 30' x 30' non-descript room, and for that reason you have no need for monster lore.

 

[pemerton]

One is a zoological text to inform about a real state of affairs, the other is a zoological text to inform about a fictional state of affairs. Same difference.

Any actual zoological text will tell you about the bone structure, organ structure, dental structure - more generally, the taxonomy and physiology - of the creatures it deals with. What are the dental patterns of a doppelganger? Do doppelgangers sweat? How much do they weigh? How much do they eat?

The idea that a Monster Manual is a zoological text for imaginary creatures is too absurd for words. It's a game supplement. For playing games.

 

[Maxperson]

Any actual zoological text will tell you about the bone structure, organ structure, dental structure - more generally, the taxonomy and physiology - of the creatures it deals with. What are the dental patterns of a doppelganger? Do doppelgangers sweat? How much do they weigh? How much do they eat?

You don't need to go into that much detail for lore to be lore.

The idea that a Monster Manual is a zoological text for imaginary creatures is too absurd for words. It's a game supplement. For playing games.

The lore gives a brief zoological summary. It's not meant to be a freaking text book.

 

[Campbell]

This thread has been deeply frustrating for me to follow. We have fallen way too deep into the rabbit hole. I feel bewildered by all the specific breaking down of various editions' lore. I don't see much effort to break down what value continuity has, or why additions to lore are in any way less disruptive than carefully curated changes to lore.

Here's my take on continuity: it is a double edged sword. A player who started with any version of D&D should know what an orc is. In play it should feel like an orc. When reading the monster manual it should noticeably look like an orc. Any changes - whether through addition or transformation should attempt to stay true to the narrative hook and role of the orc so that it remains familiar to us. At the same time we should not force continuity to be etched in stone. When all change is verboten that means we must live with every bad idea every game designer who touches the thing has had. It leads to terrible creative stagnation. I want there to be some surprises and risk taking involved in any new edition. I also want creative risks to be weighed against what has come before. I want my cake, and I want to eat it.

Additive material can be just as disruptive to a game as transformative change. The God Machine Chronicle and Demon - The Descent introduce a unique adversary, an eldritch computer system that maintains the World of Darkness as it is, a sort of herald of the status quo that seeks too constrain active changes. This adversary is thematically powerful and relevant for Demon and God Machine oriented mortal games, but throws gigantic thematic wrenches into other game lines that are meant to address other questions. What's good for one game utterly trashes the meta setting for other games. That's why I'm a big fan of limiting cross over in New World of Darkness games.

Transformative change can also fit like a glove. The Lunar Exalted have never really had a solid footing in Creation. Thematically, the Lunar Exalted represent mankind's hidden bestial nature and are wolves in sheep's clothing. In First Edition, they were relegated to outsider barbarians. Second Edition attempted to address their relevance in exactly the wrong way, by introducing the 1,000 Streams project. Instead of outsider barbarian pastiches Lunars now sought to create their prefect societies on the edges of Creation. Now, they were not only not relevant, but shed much of their thematic gravitas. Third Edition places Lunar Exalted as a guerrilla resistance force to the Realm that no longer believes they need the aid of their Solar Exalted mates to crush their enemies. When I first read about this new take on Lunars I was overwhelmed with joy. It felt like this was what they were always meant to be. The Inner Beast to the Solar's Ubermensch. The shapeshifter enemy of the Realm that will never back down. A real wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[pemerton]

We have fallen way too deep into the rabbit hole. I feel bewildered by all the specific breaking down of various editions' lore. I don't see much effort to break down what value continuity has, or why additions to lore are in any way less disruptive than carefully curated changes to lore.

Before - or, perhaps, as part of - establishing what value continuity has, we need to establish what value lore has.

This is the point, for me, of the debate about doppelganger "lore" in the 2nd ed Monstrous Compendium/Manual. That is, whatever value lore has, being told that doppelgangers are grey and hairless and sometimes follow people to inns doesn't serve that value.

You said "A player who started with any version of D&D should know what an orc is. In play it should feel like an orc. When reading the monster manual it should noticeably look like an orc. Any changes - whether through addition or transformation should attempt to stay true to the narrative hook and role of the orc so that it remains familiar to us." I agree with this, but I simply don't think that the colour and hirsuteness of doppelgangers in their "true form" are relevant to their "narrative hook and role". (Googling turned up what seems to be a pirate website of the 2nd ed monster books. The illustration of doppelgangers - maybe by Tony DiTerlizzi - seems intended to depict them in their "true form" but neither has an exposed brain and one has a thick head of hair!)

If the value of lore is to provide a narrative hook and role, then that makes it clear how more can be less, because it dilutes what is salient (in my view being told about the "true appearance" of doppelgangars does this); why addition is not neutral or unproblematic vis a vis change; and why change can be worthwhile, if it better clarifies or hones in on that hook and role.

Lore should also sometimes be exciting or even confronting. It should make you think about some element of the fiction in a way that you otherwise woudln't have - to shed some new light on what it means to have a certain hook or role. It shouldn't just be a lullaby, or the written equivalent of comfort food.

 

[SkidAce]

Chuck Norris squares off against someone wielding a katanna....

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[SkidAce]

Ha! No one wields a Katana. Katana merely allows people to think they are part of the awesome.

...and Chuck Norris cannot hold a candle to the Quadtana.

Where's the 4th katanna?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[SkidAce]

Who wields the wielder?