D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
- Thread starter ProgBard
- Start date
- Status
This is true for performance - in music, in dance, in sports, perhaps even in spelling bees. Greater refinement in training techniques, and higher expectations, combine to produce continous improvements. (Also in some non-performance domains - look at the expectations for what a contemporary singer or actor who takes his shirt off should look like, in terms of build and muscle tone, compared to movies or concert footage from 30 or more years ago.)
I'm not sure it's true for composition, though - musical or otherwise. Nor for visual arts.
I guess I feel this is too strict as a criterion of identity for a fictional world, especially one whose function is to provide elements for others to use in creating their own fictions (ie by using it as an RPG setting).
For instance, West Side Story is quite recognisable as a retelling of Romeo and Juliet, even though the location and names are changed, it's a musical, and the ending is somewhat different. And it's not just at the level of theme: we can say that Maria = Juliet, that Riff = Mercutio, etc; and we can identify corresponding elements of the action of each (eg Romeo tries to stop the fight between Tybalt and Mercutio, Tybalt kills Mercutio, Romeo kills Tybalt, who is Juliet's kinsman = Tony tries to stop the fight between Bernado and Riff, Bernado kills Riff, Tony kills Bernado, who is Maria's brother).
Or a different example: Elementary is recognisably a Sherlock Holmes drama, even though it's set in a different city in a different country; in a different time period; and Watson is a woman rather than a man whose relationship to Holmes has a different origin and a different unfolding dynamic.
I don't think the criteria for identity of RPG settings are any stricter than those for these very well known fictions; especially given the purpose for which RPG settings are intended.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
I think that in an adventure, there is a general expectation that some things will be changed, especially in an older adventure where the players will likely know the traps and such ahead of time. Even in a tournament environment (which is different from just a public game), if it doesn't mechanically alter the adventure, it probably doesn't matter. I think if you remove Wave, Whelm and Black Razor that you'd run the risk of players complaining that it's no longer WPM, but it's easy enough to say that legends speak of three great weapons lost within, but the legends are wrong.
Really, you're right, communication is really the key, not sticking to canon. But, one of the advantages of using a published setting is that it is also a short-cut to communication. If you invite somebody new to play in your campaign set in Ravenloft, there's an expectation that it's centered around an atmosphere of despair. If you don't clarify anything, then that person might be annoyed to find that your "Ravenloft" is a domain based on Dungeonland and Land Beyond the Magic Mirror and that Strahd is more like the Cheshire Cat.
I think a tournament is more restrictive by the nature of the rules the DM is supposed to follow. I think the expectations are highest for a tournament adventure, with public play (particularly AL play) second, then a public adventure without further clarification, then a home campaign, which really can be just about anything.
Remathilis
Legend
By the same token though, you wouldn't advertise a production of Romeo and Juliet and then produce West Side Story and say "same difference". While clearly inspired by, the two productions are very different in execution. At best, you'd end up with the '97 Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes abomination.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
These are perfect examples. If I put up posters and sold tickets to West Side Story, and the audience got Romeo and Juliet, they would be getting something they didn't expect. Not something bad, just not something that matched the identity of what they were told about.
West Side Story is not Romeo and Juliet. You can't freely swap them. It's based-on, inspired-by, or retelling-in-a-different-period. All of those are also great for campaign settings. But just like the two plays they don't have the same identity and aren't interchangable.
Elementry as a campaign would be inspired-by and set in another period. It's recognizably Sherlock, but it's not also recognizably not Arthur Conan Doyle's books.
But please run variants, alt-histories, set-in-another-time-period, inspired-by campaigns. Just as valid, and lots of fun.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
No, significance is objective. What you are considering subjective is really relative. That is, the criteria for what makes something significant is not fixed, but it is measurable. So yes, what you find significant may be different from what I find significant, but whether you recognize it or not, there is objective and measurable (however nebulous) criteria that defines what you find significant.
In the context of something like Wagner vs Ringo Starr there are established criteria that have been written about, debated, and accepted as objective. In the realm of art it is typically measured by cultural impact and influence. Wagner had enormous cultural impact and influence. The Beatles as a whole also had significant cultural impact and influence. Ringo Starr, too, although less than the Beatles as a whole, and measurably less than John Lennon or Paul McCartney.
Sometimes this is a scholarly thing, such as musicologists defining a threshold of some sort of that identifies the significance of a given work, composer or performance. Other times it is a question of impact on a large proportion of the population, such as the significance of Germany's invasion of France in WWII compared to my going to the grocery store today. It's measured in many ways, but relatively common elements is the impact upon a large enough group of people, or upon a small group of influential people that it is noted beyond its mere existence.
D&D is significant in the context of RPGs in a way that GURPS isn't, even though GURPS may have had some influence on later iterations of D&D.
It's not a measure not necessarily of popularity, there are a great many things that are popular but not considered significance. It's really a shared agreement that one thing is important enough, often influential enough, to warrant it's being noted in a larger sense as significant.
You may or may not like McDonalds. And Ray Kroc didn't invent franchising. But there is no disputing the influence that Ray and McDonald's has had in the world, and that it is significant.
So you're right, any single person may not get to define what makes something significant (although some people have more influence than others). But the reverse also applies - if something or somebody, like Wagner, is noted as significant, then the denial of that significance doesn't make it so. It's a collective agreement, and in many ways a passive one as well.
Denying something's significance, whether by ignorance (such as a person who doesn't like classical music), or choice, does not negate something significance. Wagner's musical influence, for example, isn't limited to the sphere of classical music. Whether somebody recognizes it or not, his influence is found in many styles of music. The fact that somebody doesn't recognize that doesn't change the significance of Wagner.
Since you requested it, here's one essay with objective criteria that notes why Wagner is significant: https://www.quora.com/How-did-Richard-Wagner-change-the-face-of-music but there are many books that cover it better than this.
Scholarly dissertations on subjects such as these are part of what identify what is significant because of the requirement not only of objective study within the immediate context and the greater context, but due to peer review, where other established experts in the field comment, verify, and ultimately approve (or not) a given thesis. Significance is often attributable long before scholarly study, and the study doesn't inherently make something significant, but it often verifies and authenticates it, and clarifies, and upon acceptance generally confirms its significance.
And before this comes up, there is no doubt that significance is a cultural thing as well. Clearly, Wagner, Ringo, and D&D have no significance to the Aborigines of Australia. But the lack of true significance to one population or culture doesn't negate its significance in ours. I'm certain that there are
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
That isn't THE function of D&D settings, though. From the 5e DMG...
"Even if you're using an established world such as the Forgotten Realms, your campaign takes place in a sort of mirror
universe of the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital games are assumed to take place. The world is yours to change as you see fit and yours to modify as you explore the consequences of the players' actions"
The game assumes that if you are using a setting, you are using the setting lore. You can change it as you see fit, but the base assumption is that the setting lore is being used. The entire section on altering the game world doesn't talk about what you describe above, nor does the section on playstyles. It's like I said before, D&D isn't built with your particular playstyle in mind. You have to impose your playstyle upon it, which is absolutely fine to do, and not difficult from what you have said.
No it is not a retelling of Romeo and Juliet. It's loosely based ON Romeo and Juliet, like many "true stories" are loosely based on real world events.
Another story loosely based on a familiar story. It isn't Sherlock Holmes at all, but rather a story based on Sherlock Holmes.
Correct. You are free to create a Greyhawk game that is loosely based on Greyhawk. That's the result if you alter too much of the lore that makes Greyhawk what it is.
I would have thought the opposite - they're just MacGuffins. It's elements like the frictionless corridor, the platforms room, the inverted ziggurat, etc that make it WPM, isn't it?
But does this mean it's not GH, or FR, or Eberron, unless it follows a script? And what if WotC publishes something tomorrow that changes the script?
I don't think a setting is a script. It's a bundle of names, places, tropes, events - more-or-less canonical, more-or-less paradigmatic.
Sure, but what you're describing is something tantamount to a lie.
Whereas if someone on these boards says "I'm running FR, but I ignore Elminster, Drizzt and the other over-powerful NPCs" it's pretty clear what they're talking about.
I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks that the Suel origins of the vikings is essential to GH being GH, but I can't imagine that's a very common view. Compared to, say, the Suel and Baklun having fought magical wars that culminated in an Invoked Devastation and the Rain of Colourless Fire - which is a core conceit that underpins the whole pulp/S&S tone of the setting (fallen civilisations and ancient empires whose ruins are still dot the world).
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
That was a very good post. Just a few things I'd like to say about it. First, the established criteria are still somewhat subjective. They had to pick and choose from all possible criteria, and undoubtedly that was influenced by the biases of those involved in that selection process. Second, your post just backs up what I have been saying. The lore that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been dismissing as insignificant isn't insignificant to others, which as you pointed out, means that the lore he is dismissing is in fact significant. He's just doesn't view it as significant to him.
- Status
