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

[Imaro]

If we want this thread to run about nine times as long as it already is, we could start to have a conversation about where the line between "deft pastiche" and "inventiveness and originality" is. Personally, I think trying to draw that distinction is a mug's game. (Again, see Hofstadter: "Variations on a Theme as the Crux of Creativity," in Metamagical Themas.)

Okay a few points...
1. I didn't set up any line between deft pastiche and inventiveness and originality, I stated what I prefered (homebrewing) and why (because I like it's originality and inventiveness). Nowhere do I even comment on the styles @pemerton alludes to only on what I prefer.

2.If it's a mug's game to draw the distinction then why did you do so? If you believe deft pastiche is original and creative as well... why not just state that or extole whatever virtues you like about it?

But for now, it may be sufficient to pass on a parable, as recorded by poster WillA over a decade ago in the comment thread to the post "'Fanfic': force of nature," on the site Making Light:

"Props to any writer who can make a story fly," says WillA. "None of us use our own dirt."

And here we have the not so slight implication that homebrewing, my preference, is not as creative or original as I might think. So instead of extolling the virtues of what you prefer you have decided to take a pot shot at what I prefer... why?

 

[Imaro]

The boundaries between influence, borrowing, pastiche, karaoke, etc certainly can be blurred.

There is another consideration here, too, that relates to creativity, authenticity, and the audience's enjoyment.

For my part, I think I'm creative in some spheres of my life (philosophy, certain aspects of law, teaching) but not in others (I enjoy playing music for fun, but can't write songs - either music or lyrics/poetry). When it comes to fantasy fiction, I think I do a reasonable job of basic pastiche and trope evocation, but I don't think JK Rowling needs to worry that I'm going to be encroaching on her royalties any time soon.

In some domains, authenticity can be as important as quality - eg there is a pleasure in watching a friend play music even if you have a recording of the same song by a better musician - but this still depends upon one's friend meeting the basic requirements of pitch, rhythm etc. When it comes to stories - which have less of a "performance" dimensions and more of an "intellectual" dimension to the way that they engage you, I think the capacity of authenticity to mitigate (lack of) quality is less than music.

Applying this to GMing: I think my players, on the whole, will have more fun with my pastiche and rehashing of tried-and-true tropes than any attempt I make at authentic (but likely rather crappy) originality!

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] I wasn't trying to claim you were unoriginal or lacking in creativity. I know from previous posts that you are not concerned to the degree I am with worlbuilding, exploratory play, etc and given the difference in our styles and goals for play it kind of speaks to why I believe I prefer the homebrew over the pastiche. To expound further I get much more use out of something like Vornheim(which helps me to construct my city in a way that I can keep track of, organize, etc. without dictating what's in my citry) than I do from a campaign book I might loot a city wholecloth from.

Now, given time restraints, or an unforseen need I have no qualms about grabbing something pre-authored and using it in my homebrew (and at times there are settings I enjoy playing and running in...i.e. Planescape) but... my preference is to create my own stuff because it is one of the aspects about GM'ing that I enjoy most and the reason I enjoy it is because I feel it is an outlet for creativity and originality.

 

[Maxperson]

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.)


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.

Whether or not there is some bit of unreliability isn't really the point. When you look at games, lore is lore. It's treated as the way things are unless the DM chooses for it not to be. Even the Realms with Elminster is the same way. Greenwood created Elminster to be a spin artist, but didn't say what was spin and what wasn't. The DM deciding which lore was wrong and changing it is no different with Elminster than it is with lore that is simply written down with no narrator at all. In both cases the DM is taking a bit of established lore and changing it. He just has a more convenient excuse for it with the lore presented by Elminster.

 

[Maxperson]

I have no idea where you get your definition of an unreliable narrator, but, insanity, while a perfectly good reason why a narrator might be unreliable, is certainly not required.

"An unreliable narrator is a narrator, whether in literature, film, or theatre, whose credibility has been seriously compromised. The term was coined in 1961 by Wayne C. Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction."

Neither Elminster, nor the sage from Greyhawk have been seriously compromised in credibility. Greenwood may have wanted Elminster to get things wrong in order to allow the DM to change thing, which the DM could do anyway, but he was wrong in calling Elminster an unreliable narrator.

I also take it that you are going to ignore the fact that you blatantly and falsely accused me of calling [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] a bad DM. That's really uncool man.

 

[Imaro]

The idea that "transporting them to another setting" makes them not WoHS pretty much puts the kaibosh on borrowing anything from one setting for another, doesn't it?

Was that the only reason I gave? If not then I'm not sure what you are addressing here. I didn't claim that what makes them not WoHS is "transporting them to another setting"... though in my oppinion it adds to the reasons (plural) that I do not find your version of the WoHS to match them as presented in DL canon. Since it is an organization found in the DL setting and, again IMO, removing them from that setting (among other factors) moves them further away from being canonical.

Otherwise - they are a powerful and ancient order (check), of wizards (check), whose headquarters are towers (check), who are divided into three sub-orders (check), who are white, red and black robes (check), who have control over semi-discrete spheres of magic (check), who each drawn their power from a different moon (check), with said power waxing and waning with the phases of the moon (check), each of which is on a different cycel (check), and who govern the order jointly via a conclave (check).

I didn't dispute any of this so I'm not exactly sure why you are listing them out. You have some major defining characteristics of the WoHS in your pastiche and as you admit below are missing some pretty major ones as well.

The only "defining concepts" that I have changed is that they don't attempt to enforce a monopoly over wizardry (as soon as they become an ancient Suloise order that is going to follow: the Baklun, at least, are obviously going to have their own traditions; and in any event the name itself suggests that there might be some other extant forms of sorcery that are not High), and the colours and cycles of the moons are not identical.

And the fact that you are missing these is enough, IMO, to change the nature of the order. In DL they are feared by wizards who aren't part of their order, being marked renegade is one of if not the major impetus for wizards to take the test in the Tower of High Sorcery... without the consequences of being marked renegade and hunted the test is taken because one wants to join not because one fears being marked as a renegade... it's a choice no longer enforced by the consequences the WoHS in DL lay upon one who chooses to forego it. Without the power to enforce their edict upon wizards who are not part of their order... they are just another order in GH not the WoHS as they are in DL.

It baffles me that that is enough to make the not WoHS. I don't think anyone who was familiar with WoHS from DL and who encountered them by joining, or observing the play of, our campaign would be confused. I think all the points I noted above would make it pretty clear to them.

As someone who is all about themes and tropes... does this really baffle you? The parts you left out change the themes and tropes of the WoHS in a major way.

As far as the name is concerned, AS I POSTED UPTHREAD, they were called, both at the table and in the fiction, Wizards of High Sorcery (quite often "Wizards" for short).

Okay...

The question of whether the hunting of renegades is as central to the concept of WoHS as being carnivorous is to a tiger is an open question. For instance, a tiger's whole physiology makes no sense if it is a herbivore (it has the teeth, body type, forward-facing eyes, etc of a carnivore); whereas none of the features of WoHS that I ran through, and which were features of the order in my GH game, depend upon the wizards claiming a monopoly over magic.

But the themes and tropes of the WoHS as presented in DL do depend on that. They change if that aspect is disregarded. Why even join (and risk possible death in the test) if they won't mark me as renegade and have no power to enforce their edicts... I'm sure there are other orders without such stringent requirements and ample magic knowledge that an aspiring wizard could join.

 

[billd91]

Is there anyone else in this thread who remember when a certain sort of deftness with respect to pastiche was regarded as good GMing? When RPGing magazines (not to mention the DMG itself!) would have advice on how to adapt and incorporate, into one's campaign, tropes, episodes, personages, organisations, etc from story and film?

Perhaps the reason that the players in my GH game seemed to like the way WoHS were incorporated was because they were mostly of that era, rather than (what I identify as) a late-80s/90s approach where the goal of RPGing seems to be to stick to someone else's published fiction - in details, events, unfolding timelines, etc - as closely as possible.

I find it's rarely one extreme or the other.

That said, as more material got published for campaign settings as well as in Dragon Magazine and in novels, there were a lot more players cropping up with passing familiarity in the settings. They wanted to see a few more key elements of those settings in their games. It's pretty natural, after all look at all of the licensed property games and settings that have been out over the years from Thieves' World to Marvel Superheroes. A chance to rub elbows with Tempus, Shadowspawn, Captain America, or Wolverine with your own character? Sure! Or take a look at the rise in fanfic (complete with Mary Sue characters standing in for the writers), cosplay, fan-made movies and other media. The impulse to participate faithfully or with authenticity in well-known and loved IP is huge.

 

[ProgBard]

Okay a few points...
1. I didn't set up any line between deft pastiche and inventiveness and originality, I stated what I prefered (homebrewing) and why (because I like it's originality and inventiveness). Nowhere do I even comment on the styles @pemerton alludes to only on what I prefer.

2.If it's a mug's game to draw the distinction then why did you do so? If you believe deft pastiche is original and creative as well... why not just state that or extole whatever virtues you like about it?

If I have the right end of your meaning here, I don't think we are in any sort of disagreement. I would be the first to say that a preference is not a virtue - indeed, it's kind of been my unspoken premise on this subject from the get-go.

Which was the point I was trying to make, in response to your framing of what you like as having inventiveness and originality - qualities I think we can all agree are positive (maybe even virtuous!), in contrast to the (by implication, uninspired and derivative) stuff other people like.

If that's not what you meant to say, I believe you! But connotation matters as much as denotation in the words we choose to discuss things, and I think, if we are going to agree that our preferences aren't virtuous, it's good to be careful to avoid seeming to elevate our own likes by assigning them virtuous qualities that other people's preferences lack.

And here we have the not so slight implication that homebrewing, my preference, is not as creative or original as I might think. So instead of extolling the virtues of what you prefer you have decided to take a pot shot at what I prefer... why?

That was indeed exactly what I meant to say, but it wasn't meant as a potshot. (And in the spirit of the above, I apologize if my own framing and connotative language didn't make that more clear!) My point is only that we are all, to one extent or another, recycling old ideas, ringing changes on them of varying impact and degree, and twiddling knobs (to call upon Hofstader's metaphor again) to transform them into new things. That's not a criticism; that's how creativity works. (Seriously, go read that essay. What I tell you three times is true.)

One of the emergent themes of this discussion - quite possibly one of my not-quite-conscious premises in starting this thread - is that canon, non-canon, and homebrew are categories with fluid and indistinct boundaries. I'm not trying to elevate one above the others; I'm saying we probably shouldn't do that. None of us are supplying our own dirt here.

 

[Imaro]

If I have the right end of your meaning here, I don't think we are in any sort of disagreement. I would be the first to say that a preference is not a virtue - indeed, it's kind of been my unspoken premise on this subject from the get-go.

Which was the point I was trying to make, in response to your framing of what you like as having inventiveness and originality - qualities I think we can all agree are positive (maybe even virtuous!), in contrast to the (by implication, uninspired and derivative) stuff other people like.

If that's not what you meant to say, I believe you! But connotation matters as much as denotation in the words we choose to discuss things, and I think, if we are going to agree that our preferences aren't virtuous, it's good to be careful to avoid seeming to elevate our own likes by assigning them virtuous qualities that other people's preferences lack.

I think this is moving towards the ridiculous... so now I should be careful in how I praise or describe what I like because I may by "framing" implicate that I don't attribute the same qualities to a non-preference. How about if I think something is derivative and uninspired I'll call it out as such but if I don't particularly feel one way or another about it I just won't comment on it either way (which is what I chose to do). Is @pemerton by exclusion implicating that other preferences are lacking in deftness because he doesn't attribute it to them them as he does the pastiche approach? I didn't take it that way because I assumed he'd have said so if that's what he meant.

EDIT: To expound my point in stating what I did was that I prefer the inventiveness and originality of the homebrew... pastiche can require a certain inventiveness, and originality but that (as well as the inventiveness and originality of taking someone else's work and using it... honestly I'm just going to say claiming this as inventive and original does feel like a bit of a stretch to me but whatever) is not the type I prefer... in the same way [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] prefers the deftness of the pastiche approach. this really feels like a weird splitting of unnecessary straws.

That was indeed exactly what I meant to say, but it wasn't meant as a potshot. (And in the spirit of the above, I apologize if my own framing and connotative language didn't make that more clear!) My point is only that we are all, to one extent or another, recycling old ideas, ringing changes on them of varying impact and degree, and twiddling knobs (to call upon Hofstader's metaphor again) to transform them into new things. That's not a criticism; that's how creativity works. (Seriously, go read that essay. What I tell you three times is true.)

One of the emergent themes of this discussion - quite possibly one of my not-quite-conscious premises in starting this thread - is that canon, non-canon, and homebrew are categories with fluid and indistinct boundaries. I'm not trying to elevate one above the others; I'm saying we probably shouldn't do that. None of us are supplying our own dirt here.

Well I think there's a differences between grabbing someone's work whole cloth and dropping it into your setting, slightly modifying someone else's work and using another's idea as inspiration to springboard off of for your own creation. But if you see it all as fundamentally the same with different names we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Lanefan]

Well I think there's a differences between grabbing someone's work whole cloth and dropping it into your setting, slightly modifying someone else's work and using another's idea as inspiration to springboard off of for your own creation.

And if there is, so what?

A good idea is a good idea regardless of whether it's someone else's, a modification of someone else's, or entirely your own. If what you end up with is a reasonably cohesive setting that provides a decent backdrop for a fun playable game, who cares where that setting's component parts came from or how they were mashed together? Ditto for rules and systems, for all that.

Lanefan

 

[ProgBard]

Whether or not there is some bit of unreliability isn't really the point.

It's very much the point to me! It recalibrates the lens through which we are invited to view the setting. The omniscient text of the game author is giving me "facts"; the voice of the in-world narrator is giving me a specific POV, one which encourages me to participate in the subcreation and weigh in with my own judgments. Which method, or combination of methods, the designer chooses to use tells you a great deal about how you're intended to interpret the information you get (or whether, indeed, there's meant to be an element of interpretation at all).

When you look at games, lore is lore.

I ... buh ... I don't even know what that means, man. I'm forced to conclude that the weight and value you attach to the word lore is intended to loan this tautology some gravitas that is non-intuitive to me.

To me (si componere magnis parva mihi fas est), it's as circular and empty of meaning as if you were to look at the works of Shakespeare and say "the text is the text," ignoring that the Henriad and the sonnets are utterly different genres and making no distinction between the quarto and folio versions of the plays.

It's treated as the way things are unless the DM chooses for it not to be.

Well ... yeah. To quote one of my favorite unreliable narrators, I think I have been telling you nothing else for the last hour.

But there's a, shall we say, qualitative difference between "The baseline assumption is that everything presented here is factual" and "It should be clear that you can't take everything this guy says for granted, but which is true and which isn't is up to you."

Even the Realms with Elminster is the same way. Greenwood created Elminster to be a spin artist, but didn't say what was spin and what wasn't. The DM deciding which lore was wrong and changing it is no different with Elminster than it is with lore that is simply written down with no narrator at all. In both cases the DM is taking a bit of established lore and changing it. He just has a more convenient excuse for it with the lore presented by Elminster.

Okay, but so what?

I mean, what is that assertion meant to imply about the greater worth and validity and authenticity of taking a strong canon-prescriptive stance on game settings? I feel a bit like you're flailing around here trying to be right about something while I no longer have a clear view of the point you want to make.

That said, would I be right in thinking you're hanging a great deal of weight on the word established there? Because I feel like a great deal of what I and others who don't take a strong-canon stance here have been saying is that "established" won't bear up to what you're asking of it. There's no there there. It's not quite, but nearly, unreliable Elminsters all the way down.