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

[Imaro]

Umm, nope.

Different editions, different takes on a setting, doesn't matter. The point is, you're still trying to tell everyone else that they are doing it wrong and that their version of the game (be that at the setting or edition level) isn't the OneTrueWay.

Be that as it may, where is the difference? It's okay to change lore across editions, but, not within specific settings? That doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny since so much sturm and drang has been spilled over changes between editions.

I mean, good grief, you're now telling @pemerton that he didn't actually add Wizards of High Sorcery to Greyhawk because his version doesn't include hunting down renegade wizards. You are actually telling someone else that the things they are claiming in their own game aren't actually true because they don't follow your specific take on canon.

Can you get any more Onetruewayism than that?

So your poiint is that anyone can claim anything and disputing said claim if you feel it is incorrect... is Onetruewayism... yeah not buying it. I think @pemerton's WoHS are missing fundamental and defining characteristics so I don't agree with his assertion that he added WoHS to his game... that's not Onetruewayism... that's disagreeing which we are all free to do and is kind of the point of a discussion forum. IMO he added his own homebrewed sect...cult...order (Not exactly clear on what it was) based on the WoHS.

EDIT: And for the record this is exactly what I posted...

So it had fundamental differences from the WoHS... you basically used them as a basis but created your own homebrewed sect. I wouldn't call that adding WoHS to Greyhawk.

As you can see I stated that I wouldn't call it adding WoHS to Greyhawk, doesn't mean [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]g can't, however claiming that I am spouting Onetruewayism because my opinion differes from his is incorrect.

 

[Imaro]

It is weird to have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] tell me that it was very poor DMing to include the WoHS, under that name, in my GH game; and and the same time to have [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] telling me that in fact I am misdescribing what I'm doing when I say that I added WoHS to GH.

As far as I can tell, Maxperson does not resile from his description of it as very poor GMing. And as far as I can tell, his reason for saying that it was very poor GMing is that he and his fellow players wouldn't feel it was consistent with being a "Greyhawk" game. He hasn't pointed to anything about it's actual effect on my game that suggests it was poor GMing. He seems to think it is irrelevant to the question of whether it was good or bad GMing that I had 5 (I think) WoHS PCs over the course of the campaign, and many more than that number of memorable WoHS PCs.

I've also got [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] telling me that by adding a 3rd moon I'm breaking GH canon and making my game some sort of Alt-GH whose "Alt-ness" is fundamentally different from the "Alt-ness" of his FR game; but is the same as the "Alt-ness" of a GH game with 12,000 extra moons blocking out the sky.

Whereas [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] seems to think that adding a 3rd moon is addition, not change - as I have been posting for the past several pages in response to his posts, but which he wouldn't accept until given an exact transcription of the folio that (apparently) he is not familiar with, and which I first read over 30 years ago!

It's hard for me to keep up with all the different arguments in this thread about the importance of canon - the only constant seems to be that, whatever exactly the argument is, it reveals some defect in the relationship of my GH + WoHS to canon (although said defect went unnoticed by me or my players, and I didn't learn of it until this thread and the other one helpfully brought it to my attention!).

Maxperson and I are not the same poster... so why would you expect our views to align perfectly on everything we are discussing. And yeah I'm sorry but I don't have access to the Greyhawk folio and I wanted to read it for myself before continuing the discussion... I've yet to hear why that was wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson, read what @Nagol posted at no. 466.

The sage doesn't say there are only two moons. He describes too moons (Luna and Celene). That's it. For all the reader knows the sage is quite aware that there is a third moon but is keeping it secret.

The folio does not make any sort of canonical statement that there are only two moons.

For all the reader knows, there are 12,000 moons, or even zero moons, and the sage is just pulling a fast one. The creator wrote in the sage voice to make canon delivery more interesting, not to screw with everyone.

 

[Maxperson]

So your poiint is that anyone can claim anything and disputing said claim if you feel it is incorrect... is Onetruewayism... yeah not buying it. I think @pemerton's WoHS are missing fundamental and defining characteristics so I don't agree with his assertion that he added WoHS to his game... that's not Onetruewayism... that's disagreeing which we are all free to do and is kind of the point of a discussion forum. IMO he added his own homebrewed sect...cult...order (Not exactly clear on what it was) based on the WoHS.

Whereas I'm saying that Wizards of High Sorcery evokes a mental image of the Krynn version when people who know about Krynn hear that name used. Using a name that evokes a specific mental image in a setting other than it was created for is what I consider to be poor DMing.

That he removed that one aspect of Wizards of High Sorcerery is as bad, or even a bit worse than keeping it would have been. It jerks that mental image around a bit more. The first mental jerk is when he uses it on Greyhawk instead of Krynn, evoking the image of the Krynn wizards. Then there is a second mental jerk when the players find out that there are further changes to the mental image.

 

[Imaro]

Whereas I'm saying that Wizards of High Sorcery evokes a mental image of the Krynn version when people who know about Krynn hear that name used. Using a name that evokes a specific mental image in a setting other than it was created for is what I consider to be poor DMing.

That he removed that one aspect of Wizards of High Sorcerery is as bad, or even a bit worse than keeping it would have been. It jerks that mental image around a bit more. The first mental jerk is when he uses it on Greyhawk instead of Krynn, evoking the image of the Krynn wizards. Then there is a second mental jerk when the players find out that there are further changes to the mental image.

Which is why I don't consider what he used in GH as the WoHS... he didn't use the name, changed some of the defining concepts of it and transported it to another setting. It's akin to saying Look at that Tiger... It's a big cat, with fangs and claws that hunts large prey. Well yes it's brown... ok it has a mane... yes we're in Africa... You're Onetruewayism is getting in the way of me enjoying this tiger.

 

[TwoSix]

Whereas I'm saying that Wizards of High Sorcery evokes a mental image of the Krynn version when people who know about Krynn hear that name used. Using a name that evokes a specific mental image in a setting other than it was created for is what I consider to be poor DMing.

That he removed that one aspect of Wizards of High Sorcerery is as bad, or even a bit worse than keeping it would have been. It jerks that mental image around a bit more. The first mental jerk is when he uses it on Greyhawk instead of Krynn, evoking the image of the Krynn wizards. Then there is a second mental jerk when the players find out that there are further changes to the mental image.

Can't say that I agree. If [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] had named his order of Wizards something like "Wizards of the Celestial Towers", and then explained all of their characteristics, I still would have arrived at "Oh, like the Wizards of High Sorcery, but on Greyhawk", but with a lot of wasted discussion.

 

[Imaro]

Can't say that I agree. If @pemerton had named his order of Wizards something like "Wizards of the Celestial Towers", and then explained all of their characteristics, I still would have arrived at "Oh, like the Wizards of High Sorcery, but on Greyhawk", but with a lot of wasted discussion.

See and if he said WoHS... I would have assumed that other wizards are considered renegades, they hunt other wizards down, and in order to do this are either pretty old and powerful, pretty widespread or (as the cas with DL) both. In other words for me this is a big part of their lore and characterization in DL. I mean earlier in the thread it was used as a reason the wild mage gnome character wasn't a canon DL character according to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]... so it has to be pretty defining.

 

[ProgBard]

...which in this case would be the setting's inventor (and thus its de-facto Keeper of Canon, if such a thing exists) saying outright that the narration - and thus the narrator - is intentionally made to be so; if post #504 above is correct.

I can't find the video I mentioned, but here's Ed in an essay from the Realms section of his site:

In the early days of the Realms as a published game line, however, I wanted to firmly establish the “unreliable narrator” as a way of maintaining maximum freedom for Dungeon Masters running D&D® campaigns to deviate from published lore, and to give future writers and designers as much elbow room as possible (as opposed to being “painted into a corner” by what had already been printed). So Elminster became our almost-sole source of information about the Realms—as in, all we readers and gamers in the real world saw and knew of the Realms was what he told us, and we had no guarantee that he was telling the truth, or the whole truth. He was a “spin doctor” before the world knew that term.

So there you have it.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is why I don't consider what he used in GH as the WoHS... he didn't use the name, changed some of the defining concepts of it and transported it to another setting. It's akin to saying Look at that Tiger... It's a big cat, with fangs and claws that hunts large prey. Well yes it's brown... ok it has a mane... yes we're in Africa... You're Onetruewayism is getting in the way of me enjoying this tiger.

I must of missed where he changed the name. He has been calling them Wizards of High Sorcery this entire time and was astonished that I would consider a name change as helpful. My understanding has been that he called it a tiger(same name), gave it orange and white stripes(red, white and black robes), put it in Asia(3 moons to power things), and then said they were vegetarians(don't hunt renegades).

 

[Imaro]

I can't find the video I mentioned, but here's Ed in an essay from the Realms section of his site:



So there you have it.

Serious question... does this change the minute someone else becomes the owner of said setting?