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

[ProgBard]

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

Not AFAIK, but per my previous, I don't think we need it.

 

[ProgBard]

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?

Yes, every first-person narrator is by nature unreliable, because everyone is. That's one of the effects of using first-person.

(Now, as you point out, there's a particular trope of unreliable narrator that the label as such is usually reserved for in a literary context, though I'm not convinced the bar is as high for that as you describe it. That doesn't mean that all first-person POV doesn't carry some shade of the unreliable quality, and it doesn't dilute the term to recognize that when we only have one person's observations, we can't assume they're completely trustworthy. But even then, the cues that to me would signal UN in the literary sense beyond the standard limitations of first-person? Dude, they're all over the GH folio excerpt.)

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.

You don't think the sage's writing is loaded with clues that we need to be wary of whatever he assumes to be fact (or wants you to take for granted as fact)? I mean, my hat's off to the folio author (was that EGG?), because it's masterfully done - it conveys perfectly the voice of someone who might be an expert in what a premodern world understands to be science, but is limited by the biases and the tools of understanding available to him. He speaks with authority in the same way Aristotle spoke with authority to say that parrots and melons are in the same taxonomical category because they're both green. (Okay, maybe not that extreme. But you get my point.)

Now, I would guess that we're probably meant to be able to take what he says about astronomical phenomena at face value - mostly. He can probably be relied on for the information he's giving about the nature and observable patterns of Oerth's heavenly bodies - as far as it goes. But the context of his quote also gives you the information that his knowledge is circumscribed and subject to his biases, so it's not a stretch to say that there might be things he doesn't know because he lacks the tools to observe or understand them, in the same way that Renaissance astronomers, experts though they were, didn't know all the things we do about what's in the solar system. That's what makes him "unreliable," even if it's not quite the level of Ring-Lardner's-"Haircut"-unreliable.

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

I recommend Colville's whole series, but if you only watch one, that's the one to watch.

 

[Lanefan]

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

In the case of FR one could, I suppose, answer this in about 10 different ways, depending which version of FR one is using for one's game (and is thus basing their canon on). Further, it would depend on whether one considered the setting's creator or its current owner as the final arbiter.

This is an issue with Greyhawk in particular, where there was a deliberate (hostile) attempt by later owners to change or invalidate the creator's canon. Which one do you go with? Do you just take an average? Do you take the stance that because they can't agree there is no real canon, and do whatever you want?

In other words, there's probably not a hard-and-fast answer to your question - it'll again come down to each person's particular point of view.

My own view is that where there's a canon conflict between a setting's creator and a later owner, I'll default to the creator's version unless for some reason it seems batdung crazy to me.

Lanefan

 

[Shasarak]

An unreliable narrator is one of the tools that a DM or author can use and on the other hand when you are trying to detail exactly what Characters are seeing and experiencing to the Players you probably want to be as accurate as possible. So that means you would use it sparingly or the Players are just going to be second guessing everything.

For example the NPC "friend" that turns against the Party. Seems like a reasonable thing to happen right? But good luck getting the Party to trust any of the other NPCs after being burnt by one of them.

 

[Lanefan]

An unreliable narrator is one of the tools that a DM or author can use and on the other hand when you are trying to detail exactly what Characters are seeing and experiencing to the Players you probably want to be as accurate as possible. So that means you would use it sparingly or the Players are just going to be second guessing everything.

Question everything. Get a second opinion. Find a different narrator and see if the story holds up. Or best of all, go out into the field and see for yourself....

Narrator: "There are two moons. One is large and has an 80-day cycle; the other is smaller, on a 20-day cycle, and goes 'backward' across the sky."
PC Wizard (player making stuff up on the fly): "And what about the third one?"
Narrator: "Third one? There's no third moon!""
PC Wizard: "My trainer told me there's a third one that you can't see; the only way to notice it is when it blocks out the stars on its way across the sky."
Narrator: [...]

Here the player has opened the door for the DM to chuck in a hidden third moon if she likes, or to decide the wizard is out to lunch, or whatever.

For example the NPC "friend" that turns against the Party. Seems like a reasonable thing to happen right? But good luck getting the Party to trust any of the other NPCs after being burnt by one of them.

Depends. If they deal with lots of NPCs over time and only one or two turn against the party, the overall loss of trust should be minimal unless your party is really paranoid. If the only NPC they ever meet turns against them, however, you've dug a hole for yourself as DM.

Lan-"messing up canon is not just the DM's purview, players can do it too"-efan

 

[Imaro]

In the case of FR one could, I suppose, answer this in about 10 different ways, depending which version of FR one is using for one's game (and is thus basing their canon on). Further, it would depend on whether one considered the setting's creator or its current owner as the final arbiter.

This is an issue with Greyhawk in particular, where there was a deliberate (hostile) attempt by later owners to change or invalidate the creator's canon. Which one do you go with? Do you just take an average? Do you take the stance that because they can't agree there is no real canon, and do whatever you want?

In other words, there's probably not a hard-and-fast answer to your question - it'll again come down to each person's particular point of view.

My own view is that where there's a canon conflict between a setting's creator and a later owner, I'll default to the creator's version unless for some reason it seems batdung crazy to me.

Lanefan

Okay so given this... it seems there are things you would and wouldn't consider canon... so I'm unclear on how me expressing my opinion and explaining it as to what I consider canon is any different and yet I'm accused by @lowkey13 of trying to exclude, judge, etc. even though I've been quite careful to state it's what I consider canon. What's the difference (excluding criteria) here?

EDIT: Just to be clear I'm not singling you out since I feel the same way about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's criteria of fitting the tropes and themes (something pretty subjective) of a setting to be canon...

 

[Lanefan]

Okay so given this... it seems there are things you would and wouldn't consider canon...

If I cared about it, which I mostly don't. I see canon as just another bunch of guidelines to use when designing a game, and if what I do violates someone else's preconceived notion of how that setting works...well, tough. Same goes the other way - if my preconceived notion of Greyhawk has two moons and my DM adds in a third one made of Swiss cheese, so what?

so I'm unclear on how me expressing my opinion and explaining it as to what I consider canon is any different and yet I'm accused by <people> of trying to exclude, judge, etc. even though I've been quite careful to state it's what I consider canon. What's the difference (excluding criteria) here?

At a guess I'd say it's that you care about setting canon - what it is, what it isn't, its preservation, etc. - far more than I or some of these other people do. Canon isn't sacred...and thinking about it, 'canon' is probably a bad word to be using for it as it implies a certain sacredness or carved-in-stone-ness. 'Lore' is much better; as lore, when passed down through the ages, gains a certain amount of built-in inaccuracy which is very handy from the design point of view as it can be safely messed with.

Lan-"spinner of tales, weaver of yarns"-efan

 

[Shasarak]

Question everything. Get a second opinion. Find a different narrator and see if the story holds up. Or best of all, go out into the field and see for yourself....

Narrator: "There are two moons. One is large and has an 80-day cycle; the other is smaller, on a 20-day cycle, and goes 'backward' across the sky."
PC Wizard (player making stuff up on the fly): "And what about the third one?"
Narrator: "Third one? There's no third moon!""
PC Wizard: "My trainer told me there's a third one that you can't see; the only way to notice it is when it blocks out the stars on its way across the sky."
Narrator: [...]

Here the player has opened the door for the DM to chuck in a hidden third moon if she likes, or to decide the wizard is out to lunch, or whatever.

Sure and on the other hand you have DMs that choose what races and classes the Players can use so what is the chance the DM is going to let there be a PC created hidden third moon? Probably as much chance as that little old lady that needs help in the woods actually being a little old lady that needs help.

Depends. If they deal with lots of NPCs over time and only one or two turn against the party, the overall loss of trust should be minimal unless your party is really paranoid. If the only NPC they ever meet turns against them, however, you've dug a hole for yourself as DM.

Well that is human psychology right? You think you have a great story and then it turns out that Players dont like getting stabbed in the back for the sake of a good story.

Lan-"messing up canon is not just the DM's purview, players can do it too"-efan

No canon survives contact with Players.

 

[Shasarak]

At a guess I'd say it's that you care about setting canon - what it is, what it isn't, its preservation, etc. - far more than I or some of these other people do. Canon isn't sacred...and thinking about it, 'canon' is probably a bad word to be using for it as it implies a certain sacredness or carved-in-stone-ness. 'Lore' is much better; as lore, when passed down through the ages, gains a certain amount of built-in inaccuracy which is very handy from the design point of view as it can be safely messed with.

Lan-"spinner of tales, weaver of yarns"-efan

There are a lot of people in real life who believe in made up stories that would get plenty upset if you were to tell them that their made up story was wrong.

If I have spent time and effort reading and learning a story then chances are I am going to value it more then someone who has not bothered to do that.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure and on the other hand you have DMs that choose what races and classes the Players can use so what is the chance the DM is going to let there be a PC created hidden third moon?

Still, it's worth trying once...and if by sheer luck you blunder into the DM already having had ideas for a third moon you're set. If not, if nothing else you've stirred the pot a little and given everyone some food for thought.

Probably as much chance as that little old lady that needs help in the woods actually being a little old lady that needs help.

Perhaps, but there's no harm in trying.

Well that is human psychology right? You think you have a great story and then it turns out that Players dont like getting stabbed in the back for the sake of a good story.

If I'm stabbing my players in the back my jail sentence will outlast the game by a wide margin.

But to their characters, bad things can and inevitably will happen during the run of play even if there's a happy ending to it all...and any good story should leave the happy ending in doubt until the very end, if it's ever reached at all.

No canon survives contact with Players.

True. The issue here seems to be more one of whether or not it's allowed to survive contact with the DM.

Lanefan