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

[pemerton]

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

OK. That's an interesting biographical fact aboyt you and your friends.

But I don't think it is establsihes any norm of how D&D is to by played, or to be talked about.

 

[pemerton]

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?

There seems to be some weird thing going on here with people's readings of necessary vs sufficient conditions.

A sufficient condition for someone playing D&D is that they are playing the game that Gygax and Arneson wrote. So any account of playing D&D that excludes that (eg because it excludes making stuff up, or dropping stuff into your world from some other world - like the way Blackmoor is dropped into GH) is too narrow.

That doesn't mean that playing OD&D is a necessary condition for playing D&D. And in general I don't think it's helpful to try and stipulate, in advance of any particular instance of play being described, what would be the necessary conditions of playing D&D. Because, like any cultural/creative activity, there's always the possibility, even likelihood, that someone will come up with a new and unanticipated way to do it.

Further, does running Star Wars d20 count?

I'll only respond to one of these questions, because my answer generalises fairly straightforwardly.

By default, probably not, because someone playing Star Wars d20 is deliberately eschewing D&D. It's a different genre and a distinctive setting. (Much the same as CoC is not RQ, even though the core mechanics are the same.)

But it's pretty easy to imagine departures from the default. For instance, there must be plenty of tables out there that used the d20 Star Wars rules to put Jedi PCs into their D&D games. Those tables are playing D&D, just as Murlynd is a D&D character who happened to travel to Boot Hill and pick up some six-shooters.

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.

But who do you think this is contradicting?

The thing is, if you change cantrips to be X/day rather than at-will, that doesn't mean you're not playing 5e D&D.

I never said that I'm playing strictly canonical GH. Which is to say that I didn't lie. I said I'm playing a GH game.

 

[Imaro]

OK. That's an interesting biographical fact about you and your friends.

But I don't think it is establishes any norm of how D&D is to by played, or to be talked about.

I'm confused was the post I replied to establishing a norm of how D&D is to be played or talked about... or was [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] posting about his own preferences around setting canon, published settings, creativity, etc... just as I did in the post you quoted?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You continue to act like this is binary. Either you don't depart from canon, or all canon departures are the same. There are degrees to departure, and those degrees make all the difference.

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?

They got there through the magic of Gygaxism. He created them to be like the ones from real Earth.

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.

Looking at the editions of D&D, 1e-5e, I don't see the palantir as a ranger item or ability. And fighters can fight like Aragorn, fight like Gandalf, fight like Gimli, fight like Michael from the Dresden Files, fight like Belgarion, and so on. Just because they can do something like someone else, doesn't tie them to that setting.

Rangers were inspired by Middle Earth, but are not themselves tied to that setting in any way.

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

Yes I did. I have also made bad DMing choices, as has every DM here. That doesn't mean I think you are a bad DM or that I'm calling you a bad DM. I'm saying I think it was a poor DMing choice.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, same page so far.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.

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.?

We're discussing canon from various editions. 2e created that canon, but I don't think it has been specifically said since then. Blind faith alone will let you cast 1st and 2nd level spells, so a cleric in another prime universe without his god could still cast spells up to that high.

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

Me, too. I don't think I've used that since 2e when it was explicit canon. I see no point in that limitation.

 

[Lanefan]

We're discussing canon from various editions.

True that; which doesn't make things any easier when canon changes with each edition (yes, FR, I'm looking at the many versions of you).

2e created that canon, but I don't think it has been specifically said since then. Blind faith alone will let you cast 1st and 2nd level spells, so a cleric in another prime universe without his god could still cast spells up to that high.

Again true; I've been playing for so long in a spell-points system (where recovery is kind of all-or-nothing) that I'd forgotten about it. Thanks for the reminder.

Me, too. I don't think I've used that since 2e when it was explicit canon. I see no point in that limitation.

Truth be told, I also have it that (most) gods gain their power from their followers...however, each deity has many different aspects; thus in my view the power-granting moons of Krynn may just be an aspect of Mystra (FR's deity of magic) who in turn is the same deity that on Greyhawk is known as Boccob (the GH deity of magic). The deity gains power from followers on all the various worlds.

This comes from my getting somewhat fed up with the uber-proliferation of deities many years ago, which led me to come up with my own "grand unified theory of divinity" and beat it all down to 21 actual deities; all the many others are but somehow aspects of one of these 21. Having done this once I can now apply it to every campaign I ever run...and my favourite type ot task is that which only has to be done once.

Lanefan

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Which is weird for me, because I think the exact opposite! My brother HAS a Camaro. If I or anyone else ask him what kind of car he has, he says "A Camaro". I know he's done a ton of modification work to the car, but he takes it to car shows and everyone agrees it's a Camaro, especially other Camaro owners!

I think there's a broader principle here that words can have both narrow meanings and broader categorical meanings at the same time, and we depend on context to suss out which usage is pertinent in each case. "D&D", as both the specific game AND as the primary genre example, is a good case of that.

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)?

You know we had this exact discussion in the other thread like a week ago? It's become a multi-front war!

 

[pemerton]

Looking at the editions of D&D, 1e-5e, I don't see the palantir as a ranger item or ability.

From the AD&D PHB, p 24:

At 10th level (Ranger Lord), rangers are able to employ all non-written magic items which pertain to clairaudience, clairvoyance, ESP, and telepathy.​

That is Aragorn's affinity for the palantir, right there.

Rangers were inspired by Middle Earth, but are not themselves tied to that setting in any way.

In much the same way that my WoHS were inspired by Krynn, I guess!

I think it was a poor DMing choice.

Why? What was poor about it? All "poor" means here is that you wouldn't have made the same choice. In what way did it in any way do anything to my game except make it better? How would my game have been improved by not making that choice?

 

[pemerton]

Which is weird for me, because I think the exact opposite! My brother HAS a Camaro. If I or anyone else ask him what kind of car he has, he says "A Camaro". I know he's done a ton of modification work to the car, but he takes it to car shows and everyone agrees it's a Camaro, especially other Camaro owners!

I don't even know what a Camaro is (I'm not really a cars person) but this makes sense to me. In other contexts (bikes, computers, cooking, RPGs) I hear people talk about the changes or enhacements or additions they've made to their X, and they don't think that that leads them into contradiction because their thing is not an X anymore. Sometimes it's even the opposite - look how good an X I've made this into!

 

[Maxperson]

From the AD&D PHB, p 24:

At 10th level (Ranger Lord), rangers are able to employ all non-written magic items which pertain to clairaudience, clairvoyance, ESP, and telepathy.​

That is Aragorn's affinity for the palantir, right there.

No it isn't. Aragorn could only use the one item, not all non-written magic items of that type. Nor did the palantir allow ESP. What you have is an ability based on Aragorn's ability, but different and not at all tied to setting. There is no setting specific lore in that ranger ability.

In much the same way that my WoHS were inspired by Krynn, I guess!

Incorrect. There is in fact setting specific lore and mechanics associated with the Wizards of High Sorcery.

Why? What was poor about it? All "poor" means here is that you wouldn't have made the same choice. In what way did it in any way do anything to my game except make it better? How would my game have been improved by not making that choice?

You've confused the image evoked by Krynn setting. You might as well rename the Greyhawk gods with all the names of all the Krynn deities while you are at it.