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

[Maxperson]

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.

Whereas with a different name and some changed defining characteristics, I would eventually discover that they are similar, but different, which would still not be all that great as far as I'm concerned, but much better than keeping the same name. With the same name there is no discovery period as the name instantly evokes the Krynn wizards and all of their characteristics, then that image gets broken again as he introduces changes.

 

[Imaro]

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).

Ah the thread is pretty long at this point and its getting hard to look for specific info... I thought he changed the name...

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Thanks! Do we have anything saying the same about the early days of Greyhawk?

 

[Maxperson]

Ah the thread is pretty long at this point and its getting hard to look for specific info... I thought he changed the name...

LOL Yeah. It can be hard to keep up at points.

 

[ProgBard]

Narrators are not inherently unreliable. There has to be something about them that makes them an unreliable narrator, like being insane. You don't just get to declare any narrator you feel like an "unreliable narrator".

I gotta disagree with you here. A narrator who's native to the setting is, to some extent, inherently unreliable - they have a certain point of view, an agenda, a stake in the world. They're telling you, at best, what they know, or what they believe to be true - which very well might not be the whole truth, if only because they necessarily lack a larger perspective.

The use of an in-world narrator instead of an omniscient author is a deliberate choice, and it carries weight. Part of that weight is the subtext that you need to take the speaker's word with a grain of salt. Look at that excerpt from the Greyhawk folio - it's full of cues that the speaker is giving you a very biased and slanted take on his subject matter; oh boy does he have an agenda, and he's not even making much of an effort to hide it. (Protip: As soon as your native narrator starts using words like obviously or naturally, your BS detector should be going off like anything.)

On this subject, check out Matt Colville's "Information" video from his Running the Game series, which I think is one of the most useful ones he's done and a vital perspective on the role of "lore" in the game.

 

[ProgBard]

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

I suppose it depends. But there's no reason to assume it does automatically.

 

[Imaro]

I suppose it depends. But there's no reason to assume it does automatically.

Hmmm... see I assume that once a new owner takes over a property they decide what it is and what it isn't... as an example... Gygax, TSR, dont decide what is or isnt D&D anymore.... WotC do. I am interested in a situation where a new owner wouldnt or shouldnt decide this if you have one...

 

[TwoSix]

Whereas with a different name and some changed defining characteristics, I would eventually discover that they are similar, but different, which would still not be all that great as far as I'm concerned, but much better than keeping the same name. With the same name there is no discovery period as the name instantly evokes the Krynn wizards and all of their characteristics, then that image gets broken again as he introduces changes.

OK. But I get the feeling that even under a different name, and even once the discovery period was past, it would still be a sore spot for you if you were playing in that game. Because the WoHS are fundamentally a DL thing, and crossing the streams with GH fundamentally alters the flavor, no matter if there's a development of lore to anchor the concept. It's a case of not being able to have pickles in your ice cream, even if you like both pickles and ice cream.

 

[Maxperson]

I gotta disagree with you here. A narrator who's native to the setting is, to some extent, inherently unreliable - they have a certain point of view, an agenda, a stake in the world. They're telling you, at best, what they know, or what they believe to be true - which very well might not be the whole truth, if only because they necessarily lack a larger perspective.

They are only inherently unreliable the extent that every man, woman and child who has ever lived is unreliable. That level of unreliability is not what it means to use Unreliable Narrator. Unreliable Narrator is for situations where the narrator is crazy or otherwise much more unreliable than usual. To use it the way you are using it renders it meaningless. What is unreliable narrator vs. other types of narration when every narrator unreliable?

The use of an in-world narrator instead of an omniscient author is a deliberate choice, and it carries weight. Part of that weight is the subtext that you need to take the speaker's word with a grain of salt. Look at that excerpt from the Greyhawk folio - it's full of cues that the speaker is giving you a very biased and slanted take on his subject matter; oh boy does he have an agenda, and he's not even making much of an effort to hide it. (Protip: As soon as your native narrator starts using words like obviously or naturally, your BS detector should be going off like anything.)

I disagree. By making the narrator a sage or expert in the field, you are granting that person extreme reliability on the subject. Can a sage or expert be wrong? Yes. Is it likely? No. It doesn't qualify as Unreliable Narrator.

On this subject, check out Matt Colville's "Information" video from his Running the Game series, which I think is one of the most useful ones he's done and a vital perspective on the role of "lore" in the game.

Bah. I have to leave for work now and I'll probably forget about this link. I'll try to remember it

 

[Maxperson]

OK. But I get the feeling that even under a different name, and even once the discovery period was past, it would still be a sore spot for you if you were playing in that game. Because the WoHS are fundamentally a DL thing, and crossing the streams with GH fundamentally alters the flavor, no matter if there's a development of lore to anchor the concept. It's a case of not being able to have pickles in your ice cream, even if you like both pickles and ice cream.

It would be a pinch, rather than a punch. Not too bad and has much less impact on the fabric of the setting.