D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[pemerton]

This thread is about canon, so I am arguing from the viewpoint of official settings and canon. The DM of course can do whatever he wants, and if you want Wizard of High Sorcery in Greyhawk, that's your prerogative. It just breaks the official Greyhawk setting to do so.

All that "breaks" means here is departs from canon. Every campaign world will depart from canon, insofar as it will contain events or elements that are non-canonical; and will not include every canoncial event/element (eg because, to quote you, "Canon didn't freeze with the original booklet."

The fact that a campaign departs from the canon of some setting doesn't meant that it's not a campaign set in that setting. I've seen many posters on these boards post "In my FR game there is no Drizzt!" or "In my FR game the Time of Troubles didn't happen" or other things like that. Those are not self-contradictory statements. A game can be a FR game although it departs from canon in these or other ways. That doesn't "break" anything.

Likewise my GH game. It departs from canon at various points. It doesn't "break" anything. And it's a GH game, just as those games are FR games. Just as someone might play a Middle Earth game in which Bilbo didn't find the ring. Or play a Marvel Heroic RP game in which Nightcrawler and Wolverine aren't buddies.

The stats on dinosaurs in the D&D editions I have looked at indicate that they are the same as the ones that went extinct on Earth many millions of years ago.

Literally the same ones? So how did they get there? What did they evolve from? What are your criteria of identity, such that beings with similar taxonomy but (presumably) very diferent actual histories still count as dinosaurs, but an order of wizards with similar practices and relationships to astronomical features as the WoHS, but a different actual history (ie on Oerth, not Krynn) and related to different moons (ie GH moons, not Krynn ones) does not count as WoHS? Why is concrete history and moon identity crucial to WoHS, but concrete history and evolutionary identity not crucial to dinosaurs?

Rangers are not tied to setting like Wizards of High Sorcery are. We have them here on Earth for Pete's sake.

To the best of my knowledge, no one on earth can use a palintir. Which is a defining feature of Aragorn the ranger, and of rangers as defined in classic D&D. In other words, the classic D&D ranger (not the 2nd ed AD&D class, which has little in common but the name), who is a somewhat woods-y soldier who also studies with wizards (like Farimir) and can track (like the rangers of the north and of Ithilien) and who, upon becoming a Ranger Lord, can use palintiri (like Aragorn), is extremely setting specific.

The original version in The Strategic Review makes this specificity even more apparent, because it also includes the ability to heal (unlike the AD&D version):

Ranger-Knights are able to employ magic items which heal or cure disease, including scrolls.

Ranger-Lords are able to employ all devices which deal with Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Teleportation, including scrolls.​

The Aragorn-esque foundations of the classic ranger is, to be frank, notorious.

No. I have never said or implied that you were doing anything wrong by using things from one setting in another. I have been saying that it breaks canon and can't be done without breaking canon.

You said it's bad DMing! Here's the quote, in case you've forgotten:

you might argue that those similar, but different wizards who get power from Greyhawk moons can also call themselves Wizards of High Sorcery. That's true, but that's very poor DMing in my opinion.

That is quite unalloyed. There's no equivocation. You've described my decision, in the running of my GH game, as very poor DMing.

I didn't accuse you of poor DMing since I didn't know you kept the same name. I sort of assumed you changed the name like you did with the knights.

Well, now you know. Which way are you going? Are you owning your comment - or have you changed your mind, having seen an instance of the practice which (in my humble opinon) refutes the contention beyond doubt.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

All that "breaks" means here is departs from canon. Every campaign world will depart from canon, insofar as it will contain events or elements that are non-canonical; and will not include every canoncial event/element (eg because, to quote you, "Canon didn't freeze with the original booklet."

The fact that a campaign departs from the canon of some setting doesn't meant that it's not a campaign set in that setting. I've seen many posters on these boards post "In my FR game there is no Drizzt!" or "In my FR game the Time of Troubles didn't happen" or other things like that. Those are not self-contradictory statements. A game can be a FR game although it departs from canon in these or other ways. That doesn't "break" anything.

...

And from another post:

To give a practical example that relates to edition-variations: I know Night's Dark Terror pretty well. Whenever it comes up on these boards, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] summons me into the conversation. But I ran it in 4e, not B/X. And I changed bits of the module - eg I replaced the module's ancient culture with minotaurs, because that fitted in with some 4e stuff I wanted to use; and the final, plateau encounter area was very different at my table from the published module.

Was that a "genuine" NDT campaign? By [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s standards, I would think not. But if someone wants advice on how to handle the encounter with the bandits on the river; or how to enrich the details of Threshold (one of the module's towns); or what might some good "side quests" look like, if they wanted to dilute the focus of the module a bit; or how to handle the story elements if you scale it up for higher level PCs; then I think I've got some useful advice to offer. And in that context, what would be the point of denying that I've run NDT? Of insisting that I've only run some alternative or adapted version?

I think this really covers things pretty well. Canon is important as a baseline for conversation. For example, the Forgotten Realms Wiki and the Candlekeep Forum both define what Canon is in order to frame the conversation. The Wiki uses it to make it clear that all content comes from a canonical source, available to anybody, and references those sources. The definitions are, in part, designed to resolve conflicts among sources as to what is considered "official" or "canon" by the group of people compiling the information, for the benefit of their audience.

In your NDT example, your knowledge of the published version makes you a useful resource for others that have questions. Those same people might be interested in your non-canonical material, but many will not be. Clarifying that is probably important to the people that ask questions of you, simply because if your answer refers to the minotaurs, they will be confused and not be able to place that into context without more information. Otherwise your expertise has value to those sticking to the published adventure as a whole.

Canon gives a common reference point to frame conversation and helps maintain consistency and prevent contradictions when used as the base source for new authors. "Official" authors and products have some importance in the sense that it adds to what is canon, and therefore alters that baseline.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

To me, lore is important because it gives us a common frame of reference It also means I need to ask less questions and less time can be spent explaining. This is why rules are handy. You don't have to ask the DM which die to roll each time you make an attack.

Lore provides a similar function when playing a game. You can make up a character with a background and personality that fits in with the campaign setting you are playing in without needing to ask your DM if it is ok or it fits in with their world.

But the more house rules or the more lore changes your DM makes the harder and harder this process is. Which is why I agree that the baseline for discussing anything should be RAW and Canon.

"I'm playing 5e D&D" should mean that you are following all the rules in the book with no house rules unless house rules are specified. "My game takes place in the Forgotten Realms" should mean that all the current canon is true in your game.

If your game is a variant, it's probably best if you say "I'm running a game in a modified version of FR where a bunch of things are different." Both for the purposes of your players, so they know not to assume anything and for discussions on forums so other people know not to assume anything.

 

[Lanefan]

The moons are gods and Krynn has a different cosmology than Greyhawk or the other settings. It stands to reason that the Wizards of High Sorcery would be able to function anywhere within the Krynn cosmology, since that's where their gods can function.

OK, same page so far.

However, D&D mechanics and lore have held that gods can't function in prime planes where they have not appeared and gathered followers

They do? I guess I (maybe intentionally) missed that memo. To me, the Astral/Ethereal planes kinda join everything - and I do mean everything - together, and this includes all the various official settings along with most of anything that anyone else has dreamed up. The prime universe is infinite, after all.

so Greyhawk is right out.

Whereas I'd prefer to open up - at least to some extent - the cross-pollenation possibilities rather than shut 'em down.

Side question: if some Cleric has an Amulet of the Planes and winds up on "alternate Prime Material" (i.e. a different world), does your take on this mean they're screwed for getting spells etc.?

Lan-"sometimes I fear that cosmology arguments could, if given free rein, rank right up (or down) there with alignment arguments"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

To the best of my knowledge, no one on earth can use a palintir.

Well, that might only be due to nobody finding one yet...

Which is a defining feature of Aragorn the ranger, and of rangers as defined in classic D&D. In other words, the classic D&D ranger (not the 2nd ed AD&D class, which has little in common but the name), who is a somewhat woods-y soldier who also studies with wizards (like Farimir) and can track (like the rangers of the north and of Ithilien) and who, upon becoming a Ranger Lord, can use palintiri (like Aragorn), is extremely setting specific.

The original version in The Strategic Review makes this specificity even more apparent, because it also includes the ability to heal (unlike the AD&D version):

Ranger-Knights are able to employ magic items which heal or cure disease, including scrolls.

Ranger-Lords are able to employ all devices which deal with Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Teleportation, including scrolls.​

The Aragorn-esque foundations of the classic ranger is, to be frank, notorious.

Not sure "notorious" is the word I'd use here; I might substitute the less-negative "obvious".

And then they had to go and ruin it by - ironically enough, given this conversation - taking what amounts to lore from one setting (Drizz't, from FR) and redesigning the whole class in all settings to function like that one example. Bleah! But, I suppose this does show how lore and mechanics can both interact with each other and blissfully ignore setting boundaries in their wanderings.

Lan-"in my view the big miss in Ranger design from day 1 has been the lack of Robin Hood lore/examples/influence"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Sounds like with canon at least they they have an idea of what to expect... with your way it's [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] may I... to determine whether you beat the players about the head and ears with the Hussar's interpretation bat and tell them that their creativity is just not welcome here or accept it. Not seeing how having to spend time convincing you and still possibly being turned down is necessarily better then knowing upfront what bis and isn't acceptable.

Which is very much why we should likely not sit at each other's tables. For me, forcing players to observe limitations set down by the publisher, as understood by the DM is far, far too limiting to play. I'm just not interested in that. Canon is the starting, not finishing point, AFAIC.

Done my way, you have the opportunity to create canon and exercise your own ideas in my campaign world, subject to some limitations, rather than having to, as I see it, paint by numbers your character into a narrow mold set out by someone who isn't even sitting at the table.

......

edit to add...
[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] I'll take it a step further with a real example. You've been in the other Lore thread where we've talked about the wild mage gnome. This is a character that by your definition cannot exist in that campaign because it violates canon. And that would be an amazing shame. Adding that character has opened up all sorts of really interesting elements that otherwise could not be explored if we slavishly adhered to canon. I'll take interesting role play over adherence to canon every single time. The point of playing is interesting role play. Obeying what some writer dictates in order to maintain setting fidelity is so low of a priority for me that it's not even a consideration. Heck, there's a reason I've never DM'd an official D&D setting. Thirty plus years of gaming, most of it as a DM, and not once have I used an official setting. I've certainly borrowed from settings, sure. But play one? No thanks.

D&D is about creativity IMO.

 

[SkidAce]

If you really think it's bad GMing to borrow evocative stuff from one setting and drop it into another setting, then I don't know what to say - I've been doing that since I first started GMing, following the advice in Moldvay Basic and Gygax's DMG; and to that extent seem to have been following in Gygax's footsteps (the Martians in the original D&D encounter tables are dropped from the John Carter stories into the original D&D worlds). It's never occurred to me that using interesting ideas to make my game more interesting and engaging was some sort of error!

Quoted for truth!

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro I'll take it a step further with a real example. You've been in the other Lore thread where we've talked about the wild mage gnome. This is a character that by your definition cannot exist in that campaign because it violates canon.

This is a disingenuous representation of my stance in that thread since I have from the beginning of the thread argued the gnome does fit cannon. It is your limited interpretation of canon, regulated to the first trilogy that has caused you to mistakenly claim the gnome does not fit DL canon.

EDIT: Oh and to take it a step further creativity within bounds can be just as, and often more, interesting (as well as alot less silly) than creativity without any bounds.

 

[Imaro]

Which is very much why we should likely not sit at each other's tables. For me, forcing players to observe limitations set down by the publisher, as understood by the DM is far, far too limiting to play. I'm just not interested in that. Canon is the starting, not finishing point, AFAIC.

I and my group on the other hand are only going to select a setting because we are interested in creativity within the bounds of said setting... otherwise we'll play in a homebrew.

Done my way, you have the opportunity to create canon and exercise your own ideas in my campaign world, subject to some limitations, rather than having to, as I see it, paint by numbers your character into a narrow mold set out by someone who isn't even sitting at the table.

Yeah... either way it looks like there are bounds around the creativity... it's just a matter of who is deciding them. You like to enforce your boundaries and limitations on players in your games while I prefer, when using a pre-constructed setting, to use the setting itself to do that. Not seeing much of a functional difference here except in who is creating the boundaries.

......

edit to add...

Obeying what some writer dictates in order to maintain setting fidelity is so low of a priority for me that it's not even a consideration. Heck, there's a reason I've never DM'd an official D&D setting. Thirty plus years of gaming, most of it as a DM, and not once have I used an official setting. I've certainly borrowed from settings, sure. But play one? No thanks.

Yep because for some reason it's objectively better to obey your particular boundaries in your homebrew setting as opposed to those laid out by a WotC writer/developer because... why exactly is that again if I'd rather play in their setting than yours?

D&D is about creativity IMO.

Yep... so is the Toon rpg... and since it has less boundaries on said creativity, by your logic it must be better... sorry but I disagree.

 

[Remathilis]

I made the point because it seemed to me that [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], by insisting that all discussion must begin from "canon" - which, in practice, seems to mean FR + "the multiverse" but not a multiverse that includes peoples homebrews - seemed to be implying that playing the game that Gygax and Arneson wrote, by making your own stuff up and picking and choosing as seems like fun, is not a paradigm instance of playing D&D.

Since you insist on tagging me, I have to ask:

Basic D&D was written by Moldvay, Metzner, and Cook. AD&D by Gygax alone. David Cook wrote 2e. 3e was by Williams, Monte Cook, and Tweet. 4e by Collins and Wyatt, and 5e by Wyatt, Schwalb and Cordell. None of them are, technically, "the game that Gyga and Arneson" wrote. Are they not D&D?

Further, does running Star Wars d20 count? (Its derived from D&D's mechanics)? How about 5e The One Ring? Monte Cook's World of Darkness d20? Or How about good-old d20 Modern, complete with bugbears, fireballs, and saving throws? On the flipside, does Dragonlance Fifth Age (which used the SAGA card system) count? What about TSR's Spellfire (which was a card game that used D&D's IP)?

As I've said before, Cannon : Lore :: RAW : Rules. Its the starting point. You don't need to stick with it; you are allowed to change it. Lots of games change both. However, if I change how cantrips work in my game, I don't say I'm still following the Core Rulebooks as written. Likewise, if I change where blue dragons live or the alignment of gnolls, I can't say I'm following the Core Rulebooks as written either. I'm not doing anything WRONG, but I'm not playing under default assumptions.

Put another way, lots of people take Stock cars and turn them into awesome custom vehicles. The results are usually pretty amazing, but they aren't the same car as the manufacture has defined it. Its not a Camaro as GM thinks of one, but that doesn't mean its a bad car. Its probably a lot better, but it comes with the downside that it no longer can be described as just "A Camaro." When I tell my friends I drive "A Camaro" and they think I'm talking about a stock Camaro but I'm talking about a supped-up one with a high-capacity engine, enhanced soundsystem, custom paint and high-end tires, we're not talking about the same thing, even if they are built on the same chassis.

So that's my point; you can't call a supped up custom and a stock car the same thing, even if they are built on the same frame. The same is true for games that are supped up or custom. You can't say they're the same thing as stock games (with RAW or Canon). They aren't bad, wrong, or whatever, but they're not the same.