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

[pemerton]

That doesn't fly. He doesn't ask for clarification on what is big or small, he simply equates them knowing that I am not saying that they are equal. And then he wonders why we call him disingenuous.

You said (post 315):

Significant departures from that canon alter the setting he gave to us called Greyhawk. Again, I'm not against such changes. I just feel that they need to be given to the players ahead of time and that they make that particular setting an alternate Greyhawk, not just Greyhawk.​

You haven't told me what you think counts as "significant". You think Ivid being a lich is not significant - why not? He's a major NPC in the setting.

On the other hand, you seem to think adding a third moon is very significant, and Ivid being a lich or Belvor a wereworld would seem at least as significant as that.

So, to help me get a clearer handle on your criteria, tell me about a time that the moons factored into a scenario in your GH game.

If someone says this GH game isn't really GH and that this isn't what they signed up for, they'd be pretty right about that.

<snip>

To some folks, a genre swap is a minor thing

Which GH game are you talking about? Mine? In which case, what is the genre swap? How is an ancient order of Suel wizards a genre swap? The genre of GH is S&S. Ancient orders of wizards, with their origins in fallen empires, fit right in to S&S.

Good grief, we've got [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] talking about how it would be fine to have Wizards of High Sorcery in Greyhawk, but only if we change the name. Yeah, because THAT'S the key point. The idea that I'd run or play in a 100% kosher canon setting makes me want to stick a pen in my eye. What happened to creativity and making the game your own.

Yeah, I'm baffled by this too - that what makes dropping WoHS into GH good or bad GMing is whether I keep the name (which is a cool name) or make up a crappier name (naming is not my strong suit).

And as [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] said, a rose by any other name . . .

 

[Maxperson]

You said (post 315):

Significant departures from that canon alter the setting he gave to us called Greyhawk. Again, I'm not against such changes. I just feel that they need to be given to the players ahead of time and that they make that particular setting an alternate Greyhawk, not just Greyhawk.​

You haven't told me what you think counts as "significant". You think Ivid being a lich is not significant - why not? He's a major NPC in the setting.

On the other hand, you seem to think adding a third moon is very significant, and Ivid being a lich or Belvor a wereworld would seem at least as significant as that.

Moons and entire pantheons are major changes that affect pretty much everyone and everything in the game. Ivid being a lich might never be known by anyone other than the DM. Further, we are discussing changes to canon and I sincerely doubt that canon said that Ivid is not a lich, or that he was human and nothing else. Canon has told us who the gods are, and it has told us that there are two moons.

Basically, it needs to change canon, not be an addition to it like making Ivid a lich. It also has to be major, having a setting wide effect. That "major" change can be a single change by the DM, like removing all the Greyhawk gods, including an entire pantheon of other setting specific gods, and so on, or it can be a bunch of smaller changes by the DM.

 

[TwoSix]

Moons and entire pantheons are major changes that affect pretty much everyone and everything in the game. Ivid being a lich might never be known by anyone other than the DM. Further, we are discussing changes to canon and I sincerely doubt that canon said that Ivid is not a lich, or that he was human and nothing else. Canon has told us who the gods are, and it has told us that there are two moons.

Are they, though? I mean, in Forgotten Realms, sure. The gods have a (recent!) history of taking an active hand in the world, and a lot of the major campaign events have been created directly through their actions. They're the power players of the setting, much like the dragonmarked houses in Eberron, or the sorcerer kings of Athas, or the factions in Sigil.

I would cautiously agree that there are elements that are more central and defining of a setting than others, such as the ones I mentioned above. If you change them, you're going to have look carefully at what some of the knock-off effects are. But I don't think cosmological elements such as gods are NECESSARILY definitional of a setting. Greyhawk seems (from my limited knowledge of the setting) to be a setting where some religious elements are at the fore, but activity by the gods isn't. I don't think changing Pelor's name to Paladine and St. Cuthbert to Kiri-Jolith (or even St. Huma!) is going to have a cascading effect where any other elements are not recognizable. But changing several members of the Circle of Eight would probably have bigger knock-off effects on the setting, despite them being "only" NPCs.

 

[Imaro]

Are they, though? I mean, in Forgotten Realms, sure. The gods have a (recent!) history of taking an active hand in the world, and a lot of the major campaign events have been created directly through their actions. They're the power players of the setting, much like the dragonmarked houses in Eberron, or the sorcerer kings of Athas, or the factions in Sigil.

I would cautiously agree that there are elements that are more central and defining of a setting than others, such as the ones I mentioned above. If you change them, you're going to have look carefully at what some of the knock-off effects are. But I don't think cosmological elements such as gods are NECESSARILY definitional of a setting. Greyhawk seems (from my limited knowledge of the setting) to be a setting where some religious elements are at the fore, but activity by the gods isn't. I don't think changing Pelor's name to Paladine and St. Cuthbert to Kiri-Jolith (or even St. Huma!) is going to have a cascading effect where any other elements are not recognizable. But changing several members of the Circle of Eight would probably have bigger knock-off effects on the setting, despite them being "only" NPCs.

Hmm... I would look at anything that potentially affects a player's character as a major change. If I say I'm running a Greyhawk game and a player decides to create a cleric of Istus and I've decided Istus no longer exists... well, at least as far as that players concept goes I've made a big change and invalidated their character concept...even though it's a Greyhawk-centric concept and I told them it was a Greyhawk game. Even if I decide to replace Istus with say the Raven Queen from 4e ... well now I've tied death and winter in with the god of fate and removed the divination and destiny stuff... this may or may not fit the players concept and could also invalidate their character concept... also from a worldbuilding perspective I need to decide what this new death god makes Nerull...and how he does or does not fit into the pantheon.

 

[Maxperson]

Are they, though? I mean, in Forgotten Realms, sure. The gods have a (recent!) history of taking an active hand in the world, and a lot of the major campaign events have been created directly through their actions. They're the power players of the setting, much like the dragonmarked houses in Eberron, or the sorcerer kings of Athas, or the factions in Sigil.

I would cautiously agree that there are elements that are more central and defining of a setting than others, such as the ones I mentioned above. If you change them, you're going to have look carefully at what some of the knock-off effects are. But I don't think cosmological elements such as gods are NECESSARILY definitional of a setting. Greyhawk seems (from my limited knowledge of the setting) to be a setting where some religious elements are at the fore, but activity by the gods isn't. I don't think changing Pelor's name to Paladine and St. Cuthbert to Kiri-Jolith (or even St. Huma!) is going to have a cascading effect where any other elements are not recognizable. But changing several members of the Circle of Eight would probably have bigger knock-off effects on the setting, despite them being "only" NPCs.

That depends. From an in-fiction point of view, there wouldn't be anything to notice. From a player point of view, if I'm sitting down to a Greyhawk game, I will have Greyhawk expectations. That means I'm going to expect St. Cuthbert and Pelor, not Paladine or St. Huma. Those gods may not be as critical to Greyhawk as Paladine and Takhisis are to Krynn, but they are still important to the setting.

 

[pemerton]

Moons and entire pantheons are major changes that affect pretty much everyone and everything in the game. Ivid being a lich might never be known by anyone other than the DM. Further, we are discussing changes to canon and I sincerely doubt that canon said that Ivid is not a lich, or that he was human and nothing else. Canon has told us who the gods are, and it has told us that there are two moons.

Basically, it needs to change canon, not be an addition to it like making Ivid a lich. It also has to be major, having a setting wide effect. That "major" change can be a single change by the DM, like removing all the Greyhawk gods, including an entire pantheon of other setting specific gods, and so on, or it can be a bunch of smaller changes by the DM.

Well, as I've already said, adding a third moon is addition, not change - nothing in the discussion of the heavens of GH (in the folio or the identical text in the boxed set) excludes the possibility of a third moon.

Second, as originally published (ie in the folio) GH had no pantheon. The GM had to do that him-/herself. Which I did. It hardly counts as a change to canon to introduce something to fill a gap.

Third, how does adding a third moon, or new gods, "affect pretty much everyone and everything in the game". I'll ask again - can you tell me about a GH scenario you've run in which the moons - or the number of moons - mattered?

 

[pemerton]

Are they, though? I mean, in Forgotten Realms, sure. The gods have a (recent!) history of taking an active hand in the world, and a lot of the major campaign events have been created directly through their actions. They're the power players of the setting, much like the dragonmarked houses in Eberron, or the sorcerer kings of Athas, or the factions in Sigil.

I would cautiously agree that there are elements that are more central and defining of a setting than others, such as the ones I mentioned above. If you change them, you're going to have look carefully at what some of the knock-off effects are. But I don't think cosmological elements such as gods are NECESSARILY definitional of a setting. Greyhawk seems (from my limited knowledge of the setting) to be a setting where some religious elements are at the fore, but activity by the gods isn't. I don't think changing Pelor's name to Paladine and St. Cuthbert to Kiri-Jolith (or even St. Huma!) is going to have a cascading effect where any other elements are not recognizable. But changing several members of the Circle of Eight would probably have bigger knock-off effects on the setting, despite them being "only" NPCs.

Well, as I just posted, as originally published GH didn't even have gods.

And there's also the Gygax/post-Gygax issue: Gygax intended that Veluna (a feudal theocratic state) should be ruled by an archcerlic of St Cuthbert. The TSR authors/editors instead decided to make the ruler a cleric of Rao - unlike St Cuthbert, a rather obscure god, not covered in the early Dragon magazine articldes on the gods of GH, nothing more than a name in the boxed set (whereas other deities got full DDG-style writeups) and not mentioned in the GH Adventures hardback, which wrote up a number of gods in 2nd ed style.

I would look at anything that potentially affects a player's character as a major change. If I say I'm running a Greyhawk game and a player decides to create a cleric of Istus and I've decided Istus no longer exists... well, at least as far as that players concept goes I've made a big change and invalidated their character concept...even though it's a Greyhawk-centric concept and I told them it was a Greyhawk game.

But this is not the reason that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is giving; which is the reason to which [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] was replying.

How does having a third moon change any "GH-centric" concepts? How does introducing WoHS change any GH-centric concepts? Suppose that a GM decides that Istus, as worshipped among the Baklun, is also known a Gilean and worshipped among the Oeridian peoples? Or that, among the Suel, the queen of evil dragons wasknown not as Tiamat but as Takhisis?

These are the sorts of things that Maxperson is saying make the setting not GH - and not for any reasons of playability, because none of these things are any sort of burden on playability.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, as I've already said, adding a third moon is addition, not change - nothing in the discussion of the heavens of GH (in the folio or the identical text in the boxed set) excludes the possibility of a third moon.

Second, as originally published (ie in the folio) GH had no pantheon. The GM had to do that him-/herself. Which I did. It hardly counts as a change to canon to introduce something to fill a gap.

Third, how does adding a third moon, or new gods, "affect pretty much everyone and everything in the game". I'll ask again - can you tell me about a GH scenario you've run in which the moons - or the number of moons - mattered?

I don't have to have a situation in which the moons mattered to know that adding a third moon or changing the established pantheon would alter the feel of Greyhawk for me.

 

[pemerton]

I don't have to have a situation in which the moons mattered to know that adding a third moon or changing the established pantheon would alter the feel of Greyhawk for me.

So is the test for "significant change" would alter the feel of GH for Maxperson?

That seems a fairly idiosycratic test, and also hard for other internet posters to apply even when they are not being disingenuous!

(It also seems to contradict your distinction between "addition" and "alternation" - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have pointed to so-called "additions" that alter the feel of things for us - in my case the incorporation of settings into Spelljammer and Planescape - and have been told that we have to suck these up as non-changing additions.)

 

[Campbell]

I think we can sometimes miss the forest for the trees in our obsession with setting details. We often forget about the thematic elements that make a setting unique.

I once played in a game of Legend of the 5 Rings where all the PCs were members of the Scorpion Clan. In a normal mixed clan game of L5R the tenets of Bushido loom large and are supposed to be a central source of conflict. Our game was focused on the limits of Loyalty instead. In fact, my character's central conflict was that he was considered too honorable by the other members of his clan. No house rules or lore changes were used, but it utilized extremely different tropes, and themes from a typical L5R game. I had a great deal of fun playing in that game, but I doubt someone outside of our circle would expect the sort of game we played from an L5R game.