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

[pemerton]

A "good D&D orc story" to me is a story that is about D&D orcs, which means about them specifically, using their unique traits and predilections and lore elements to tell a story that could only be told about those specific creatures.

In Chainmail, and hence in OD&D, orcs are Tolkienesque down to the tribal names (Orcs of the Red Eye, Orcs of the White Hand, etc). And orc tribes fight one another when they come into contact - something clearly inspired by the fight between the Isengarders and the Mordor orcs in LotR.

In the 1st ed MM we keep the rule that orc tribes fight with one another, but we change the tribe names: Vile Rune, Bloody Head, Death Moon, Broken Bone, Evil Eye, Leprous Hand, Rotting Eye, Dripping Blade. And their alignment changes from Chaotic to LE.

Then some time later (1982) Roger E Moore makes up the orcish gods and publishes them in Dragon magazine, using the tribes from the MM as a source of holy symbols for those gods. (Also, the art in that Dragon magazine doesn't match the pig-headed orc art in the MM; it is closer to the style of Gruumsh in DDG.)

Then those orcish gods are made "official" in an appendix of Unearthed Arcana (1985).

In the 3 years from OD&D to the MM we see orcs change from purely Tolkienesque, and chaotic, to derivatively Tolkienesque, and lawful with possible pig heads.

Then, across one edition, in the space of 5 to 8 years (depending whether you draw the line at the 1982 Dragon Article or UA) we see the lore elements of orcs change (their tribal affiliations take on a religious significance), and we also see a high degree of instability in how they are depicted.

This idea of a "unique" D&D orc, central to a story about D&D orcs, is sheer illusion. It's never been true.

It's as illusory as wanting D&D to have a "unique" take on a girl wandering into a bear house and finding some porridge. I mean, you can't take the goldilocks out of that, even if merely as allusion; and the relationship between D&D orcs and JRRT's orcs is more than just allusion. It began as wholesale lifting - and even as the LotR elements have been purged, echoes of them (like the hostility between orc tribes) remain, unexpunged.

As an example, an AD&D hobgoblin would be the commander of an army of goblins, bugbears, and hobgoblins - and maybe other critters (carnivorous apes!). They'd be at least partially underground, and would have a special hatred for the elves of the realm. They'd be likely interested in material wealth, and they'd be aggressive. An AD&D orc would in contrast be expansionist, seeking to conquer. They'll attack at night, and in addition to the elves, they'll be targeting the dwarves.

From the AD&D MM, pages 52-53 (for hobgoblins) and 76 (for orcs)

Tribal bands of hobgoblins are likely to be encountered nearly anywhere as these creatures are equally at home in sunlight or subterranean setting. . . . Each tribe is jealous of its status, and if two tribal bands of hobgoblins meet there will be at least catcalls and derision (85%) and open fighting might break out (15%) unless a strong leader such as a powerful monster or fighter or evil high priest, etc. is on hand to control them. Similarly, the hobgoblins will bully nearby orcs or goblins given the opportunity, and hobgoblin leaders are sometimes used in bodies of goblins or orcish troops to keep them in order and drive them into battle. . . .

Hobgoblin lairs are underground 80% of the time and above ground 20% of the time. . . .

If elves are nearby, hobgoblins will attack them in preference to any other troops because of the great hatred they bear.

Hobgoblins are highly adept at miningand they can detect new construction, sloping passages, and even shifting walls 40% of the time.

*****************

Orc tribes are fiercely competitive, and when they meet it is 75% likely that they will fight each other unless a strong leader (such as a wizard, evil priest, evil lord) with sufficient force behind him is on hand to control the orcs. Being bullies, the stronger will always intimidate and dominate the weaker. (If goblins are near, for example, and the orcs are strong enough, they will happily bully them.) Orcs dwell in places where sunlight is dim or non-existent, for they hate the light. . . .

Orc lairs are underground 75% of the time, in an above ground village 25% of the time. . . .

Orcs are cruel and hate living things in general, but they particularly hate elves and will always attack them in preference to other creatures. They take slaves for work, food, and entertainment (torture, etc) but not elves whom they kill immediately.

Orcs are accomplished tunnellers and miners. They note new or unusual constructions underground 35% of the time and spot sloping passages 25% of the time.​

There is virtually no difference there. A few percentages are different, and hobgoblins can spot shifting walls.

The most memorable story difference between AD&D hobgoblins and AD&D orcs, as presented in this canonical text, is one that you didn't call out, namely, that for hobgoblins, "If the lair is underground, there is a 60% chance that there will be from 2-12 carnivorous apes as guards", whereas for orcs, "If the lair is underground, there is a 50% chance that there will be from 2-5 ogres living with the orcs." This has always remained with me. Without reading the entries I couldn't have told you what either monster's mining abilities or percentages were, but I could have told you that hobgoblins have carnivorous apes with them, and orcs have ogres.

Maybe this point is where I'm having trouble meeting you. What effort? "Hey guys, we're not going to use chaotic evil orcs, most of the orcs in our game are still lawful evil."

This. I don't see what the effort is either. It's de minimis.

The 4e gnolls that took over Nerath were a pretty cool take. The Volo version is way more interesting, though. I mean, to me, but I would hope it's obvious that some people would disagree.

I like the 4e Nerath-conquering gnolls. I've used them in my 4e game (also goblins and hobgoblins, but no orcs or kobolds). I'd happily use them again. It's not any sort of obstacle to that that some other book takes a different approach.

I see the 4e gnolls as broadly continuous with AD&D ones. From p 46 of the AD&D MM:

Gnolls travel and live in rapacious bands of loose organization, with the largest dominating the rest. These bands recognise no other gnoll as supreme, but they do not necessarily dislike other bands, and on occasion two or more such groups will join together briefly in order to fight, raid, loot, or similarly have greater chance of success against some common foe or potential victim.​

And Yeenoghu is the Demon Prince of 4e gnolls, just as in the original MM.

Others might prefer a different sort of extrapolation from those classic gnolls; or even think the Volo's take is truer to it. That's not a problem for me!

I guess you could have a book that has every version of gnolls ever published together, but why? If you want to use 2e gnolls, you already know about them. You don't need to be told again.

And honestly, once a story exists, how can it ever be invalidated? If you don't like Volo's gnolls (Volgnolls?), just use some other version.

Agreed. I've said these things several times upthread.

Of course, that's not my argument. I wish to stand awthart lore and yell "THIS IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE!" at those who would change it. This is a very different agenda, and is about making change more thoughtful.

When something is changed, it could be a change for the better or it could be a change for the worse. But it is almost always changing something that someone does likes. Because every part of the game is someone's favourite. There's a lot of gamers out there and no matter how much you hate something, someone loves it.

When you make a change, you're effectively gambling that the people who find the change to be positive will be larger than the people who find the change to be negative

What is the nature of the gamble?

Clearly, it is a commercial gamble: if people don't like what you write/publish, they won't buy it.

But you seem to be implying that the gamble has some other dimension as well. Which relates to "THIS IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE". The idea is that it matters to some people that WotC publishes a story (about gnolls, say) that contradicts some other story they once published about gnolls.

And this is where I ask Why?

Why is the existence of the new stuff, that you don't like and so don't want to buy, a burden on your enjoyment of the old stuff that you do like?

And if the only answer is "Because it's hard to change", then I'm just not seeing it. [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] has just reiterated the reasons why.

I think the answer must be something non-instrumental, but I haven't really seen it articulated in this thread (other than by [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION] in a recent post). I'm a Banana has talked about "brand identity", but that's something for WotC to care about, not something for a customer to care about. What is the value, to the individual D&D player, of coherence over time of published story elements? The language of "invalidation" almost suggests that people feel that their love of some story is put under some sort of cloud if WotC decides to publish a different, inconsistent story. But that seems very odd to me: why is one person's aesthetic judgement hostage to WotC's commercial (or even artistic) decisions?

 

[Maxperson]

I think we're in agreement!


Nonsense.

PF is at it's heart a re-release, by a different publisher, of the core 3E rules. 13th Age also uses the d20 SRD as it's core.

Here's a list of the non-d20 RPGs I have on my shelf that I can recall off the top of my head: T&T; Runequest; Rolemaster; HARP; Palladium; HeroWars, HeroQuest and HeroQuest revised; Burning Wheel; Maelstrom Storytelling; Stormbringer; Pendragon; Man-to-Man (GURPS predecessor); Dragon Quest; Chivalry and Sorcery (3rd and 4th eds only); Ars Magica.

None of these fits the description that [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] gave of the D&D paradigm. And that's because they're not D&D clones. (Unlike SRD games, which are.)

D20 doesn't make something D&D or not. That's just a system. I have the Wheel of Time D20 on my shelf and it is not D&D at all. It's Wheel of Time. Pathfinder can be argued to be based on D&D, since it uses a great deal of D&D as its base, but it changes a whole lot and they don't have the ability to put out editions of D&D. If it was simply another edition of D&D, 5e would be 6e.

 

[TwoSix]

D20 doesn't make something D&D or not. That's just a system. I have the Wheel of Time D20 on my shelf and it is not D&D at all. It's Wheel of Time. Pathfinder can be argued to be based on D&D, since it uses a great deal of D&D as its base, but it changes a whole lot and they don't have the ability to put out editions of D&D. If it was simply another edition of D&D, 5e would be 6e.

Something that is d20 isn't definitely D&D, but games that are D&D-like are much more likely to use a similar system.

I would agree with you that WoTd20 is not D&D. While "D&D" is hard to pin down, one of the easiest way to pin down "not D&D" is just by saying it's definitely something else. That's why Star Wars or Gamma World aren't D&D, despite sharing mechanical underpinnings.

I feel like that would be a pretty good poll, actually. List a bunch of systems, and see which ones people vote on as being "pretty much D&D". Pathfinder, ACKS, LL, LotFP all would fall under the D&D umbrella, for me. So would 13th Age, although it feels more tenuous. Same for DCCRPG.

 

[billd91]

And this is where I ask Why?

Why is the existence of the new stuff, that you don't like and so don't want to buy, a burden on your enjoyment of the old stuff that you do like?

At this point, if you haven't gleaned an answer for this out of all of the posts on this topic, you're either not trying to understand people with differing viewpoints or you just want to keep the argument going. Either way, I'm done.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jester David]

What is the nature of the gamble?

Clearly, it is a commercial gamble: if people don't like what you write/publish, they won't buy it.

But you seem to be implying that the gamble has some other dimension as well. Which relates to "THIS IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE". The idea is that it matters to some people that WotC publishes a story (about gnolls, say) that contradicts some other story they once published about gnolls.

And this is where I ask Why?

Why is the existence of the new stuff, that you don't like and so don't want to buy, a burden on your enjoyment of the old stuff that you do like?

And if the only answer is "Because it's hard to change", then I'm just not seeing it. @TwoSix has just reiterated the reasons why.

I think the answer must be something non-instrumental, but I haven't really seen it articulated in this thread (other than by @Shasarak in a recent post). I'm a Banana has talked about "brand identity", but that's something for WotC to care about, not something for a customer to care about. What is the value, to the individual D&D player, of coherence over time of published story elements? The language of "invalidation" almost suggests that people feel that their love of some story is put under some sort of cloud if WotC decides to publish a different, inconsistent story. But that seems very odd to me: why is one person's aesthetic judgement hostage to WotC's commercial (or even artistic) decisions?

D&D is a business. It's a corporate endeavor. The people who make the content are employees creating corporate mandates products. It's not art.

"Why is the existence of the new stuff, that you don't like and so don't want to buy, a burden on your enjoyment of the old stuff that you do like?"
It matters to people. Why? Because they LIKE the canon and continuity. Because they don't like it when it is changed.
What more reason does their need to be?

Why is WotC commercial judgement hostile to that? Because people won't like the change, and if they don't like the product they won't buy it. Because the game has a history - a legacy - that is worthy of being respected. Because changing things - whether it be a chunk of the lore or swapping from d20 to 3d6 - means the game is subtly less the D&D we loved. Because they're a business, and their job is to release products people like and want.

Just like comic book writers and movie franchise creators are bound by continuity, so are the writers of D&D material. The writer of the next James Bond movie might have an amazing idea for a spy movie where the protagonist is an old black woman. But that's not James Bond. That's not the movie they were hired to write. If they really want to do that movie, they need to sell it and do it on their own.
Similarly, if someone writing D&D has a really, really awesome adventure idea that involves LE orcs and non-feral gnolls, then they should just sit on that idea and make it for a different game system. Or make their own game system (like many, many ex-WotC did).
Fact of the matter, the people making content for D&D are not artists, they're employees. Employees and contractors hired to do a job. If they can't do the job, they can find work elsewhere. This includes writers and illustrators. If an artist is commissioned to do a piece and it comes back with a green World of Warcraft orc rather than a grey D&D orc, that dude isn't getting paid. Artistic licence doesn't matter. The art director will just laugh is "muse" or "aesthetic" is mentioned. That orc is getting repainted or that person won't be hired again.


Okay, questions for you:
1) You don't like canon and continuity. That's fine. But why does your dislike (or just apathy) matter more than our like? Why does our discomfort matter less than your neutrality?

2) Can you name one product that was worse for continuity? That was bad because the authors couldn't make changes. Because their creativity was limited.


Look, this thread is 163 pages of people mostly trying to explain to you why canon is important to them. At some point you just need to accept that it is a concept you don't understand. And will likely never understand. We're trying to explain love to a robot and there's been 800 posts of "does not compute, does not compute."

 

[Jester David]

Nonsense.

PF is at it's heart a re-release, by a different publisher, of the core 3E rules. 13th Age also uses the d20 SRD as it's core.

There are lots of RPGs that use the d20 rules.
I bet I could go to google.com and do a Bing search on my Apple Surface to get a list of dozens of them.

Here's a list of the non-d20 RPGs I have on my shelf that I can recall off the top of my head: T&T; Runequest; Rolemaster; HARP; Palladium; HeroWars, HeroQuest and HeroQuest revised; Burning Wheel; Maelstrom Storytelling; Stormbringer; Pendragon; Man-to-Man (GURPS predecessor); Dragon Quest; Chivalry and Sorcery (3rd and 4th eds only); Ars Magica.

None of these fits the description that [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] gave of the D&D paradigm. And that's because they're not D&D clones. (Unlike SRD games, which are.)

Right. But as I established, neither did 4th Edition D&D.

 

[pemerton]

D20 doesn't make something D&D or not. That's just a system. I have the Wheel of Time D20 on my shelf and it is not D&D at all. It's Wheel of Time. Pathfinder can be argued to be based on D&D, since it uses a great deal of D&D as its base, but it changes a whole lot and they don't have the ability to put out editions of D&D. If it was simply another edition of D&D, 5e would be 6e.

I think you're confusing commercial branding with the inherent characteristics of a system. I can't comment on WoT, but if someone walked up to a table of RPGers and heard one of them talk about blasing some trolls with a 6d6 fireball, who could tell whether it's PF or D&D? But everyone would know it was not one of those other fantasy games that I mentioned.

That's what [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] was getting at.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

Right. But as I established, neither did 4th Edition D&D.

Huh? Except that it has players of fighters rolling d20 to hit, then rolling polyhedral dice to determine the damage that is deducted from an enemy's hit points.

And it has the same monster list as classic D&D. And the same basic elements (Orcus, Vecna, the Rod of Seven Parts, the same humanoid enemies, etc, etc).