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

[Sadras]

Love the change to the Succubi. As for Vrocks, they can always in a supplement provide a page of distinct physical changes and/or abilities to the base class as presented in the MM. It saves on the page count and they don't need an illustration with every change.

As it is, whenever I introduce a monster I find I'm consulting 3-4 MM to get the thematics right.

 

[Lanefan]

A Greyhawk orc and a Forgotten Realms orc and an Eberron orc is different.

To begin with, maybe, but in the end they all end up the same:

Dead.

Lan-"the only good side to orcs being able to breed like rabbits is that there's more of them to kill"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Re: arguments around changes to Succubi, Modrons, etc.:

I've not seen that. Can you provide links?

If memory serves, you'll hit an argument gold mine if you dredge up some of the discussions in here from about 2008-9-ish. They're probably filed under Edition Wars, subheading Creature Changes.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

I don't think you'll find may players, even in this discussion, on the side of "Lore is stupid! No settings! Trash it all!" (Well, I mean, that's kind of where you are with Dungeon World, I guess, but that's probably orthogonal to a 5e-centric discussion anyway.)

Dungeon World is a game that contains a good amount of lore embedded in things like Monster Settings, Monsters, and Play Books. It also depends on a certain amount of assumed knowledge of the D&D Zeitgeist. The Campaign Map is also a critical component of play. It's just that the map and lore are meant to be established as the result of play. Dungeon World is a fiction first game. It cares very deeply about the details. It just tends to have a slightly different relationship to when things get established.

I think that, when talking about "indie"-style games like DW, Burning Wheel and the like - which rely on the creation of backstory via play, rather than the use of GM's secret backstory to adjudicate action declarations - one has to be careful not to describe what is going on in a way that assumes there is something deviant about such approaches.

To give an example from my own 4e game, which I run in a broadly similar style: the fact that details of the Raven Queen's backstory, or the question of whether or not the portents that herald the commencement of the Dusk War are occurring, are matters that are settled via play rather than via prior GM stipulation doesn't mean that they're unimportant to the campaign, or mere "set dressing" as opposed to "deep" backstory. In fact, I would say it's quite the opposite: the fact that they are such a keen focus of play, and are up for grabs in the course of action resolution and the narration around the framing of the in-game situation, is a marker of how important they are.

Lore serves the needs of the game vs. the game serving the lore. For me the idea is that the fiction exists primarily to be a fertile ground for players (including the DM) to play around in - a means rather than an end.

I agree with this, and I think have posted as much either in this thread or the other one: setting is not an end in itself; it's a tool, a means to an end of good RPGing experiences.

Hence why I feel no "pull" of fidelity to canon: that makes the setting, and conformity with the published material, an end in itself.

(I guess if someone counts was a canon-errific experience as an important part of was a good RPGing experience, they will come to a different conclusion from the above. I'm not such a person, though, and have never RPGed with such a person.)

 

[Hussar]

You know, I'm OK with but 1 flavor of vrock per edition.
If you want to claim that's because of some 20some year old product that I judged as "meh" & have ignored ever since? OK, whatever works for you. Me? I'm just happy that the designers aren't wasting time & page count detailing Red Vrocks, Blue Vrocks, etc etc etc.

Yeah. I'd rather have 6 types of demons, than 1 type of demon repeated 6 slightly different ways.

But, see, that's what I don't understand. You probably don't have any problem with several different kinds of Drow - Eberron Drow and Forgotten Realms Drow; several kinds of ogres - Dragonlance Ogres are not standard ogres; umpteen different liches; Rakshasa have had a few different takes; so on and so forth.

Why is it a good thing that we make creatures unique for settings, except when we go planar? Why is it a good thing that we have multiple different Rakshasa, but, we must not have alternative back stories for Vrocks?

Look, I'm not talking about totally different creatures here. I'm simply saying that single creatures can have multiple different back stories and canon that are linked to different settings. Thus the stat block for an orc in Greyhawk is pretty much the same as the stat block for any other orc. But, no one would mistake a GH orc for an Eberron one.

Maybe baseline Vrocks are soldier demons. Cool. Forgotten Realms Vrocks are attracted to magical battlefields and feast on mages. Eberron Vrocks carry plasma rifles. I dunno. I don't really care. Just so long as we are having one single idea for a creature constantly forced front and center and all other ideas discounted as Poor GMing Choices because they don't fit with someone's preconceptions.

 

[Hussar]

I've already said more than once that the name Wizards of High Sorcery evokes images and thoughts of Krynn, which when on Greyhawk can cause issues. That's the reason, not canon.

Now, does it also mess up canon? Yes. Adding something from another setting messes up canon, but it's okay to mess with canon. I've never said messing with canon is a bad thing. I've just said that if you mess with it too much, the setting ceases to be the canon setting and becomes an alternate universe, which I've also said is fine.



Incorrect.

It changes the setting. It might, depending on the player make it no longer Greyhawk, but rather an alternate Greyhawk universe.


Because I'm not telling him to change it, or even that he should change it. Having an opinion on good or bad is not the same as trying to get someone else to change their game. It's also not "trying to use canon" at all, since canon isn't the reason I think it was likely a poor DMing decision. Canon is a separate issue.

I'm sorry, the thread has been busy, but, weren't you, along with [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], arguing rather at length about the number of moons GH could have before it wasn't GH anymore? That adding a single moon, in your opinion, made it no longer GH?

One wonders why you were so adamant about arguing the number of moons if it's okay to mess with canon. Why it was so important to "properly" label [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game as an "alternate universe".

What's the purpose of insisting that Permerton's game wasn't canon kosher? This goes back to my question to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]. What's the end goal here? It's certainly not to simply discuss canon. If that was true, then value judgements wouldn't be a part of it. And it's certainly not simple curiousity as well. So, why? What's in it for you? Why insist that someone else's game, that you're not playing in, will never play in, and will likely never have any direct link to, be labeled according to your standards?

 

[pemerton]

claim that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s addition of the Wizards of High Sorcery to Greyhawk is a poor GMing decision (it's been a few pages, so, I'm not 100% sure on the quote, but, I believe that's correct in essence). Now, why do you claim that? Is it because WoHS thematically don't fit in Greyhawk? Well, that doesn't seem to be the issue, and, frankly, adding a cabal of moon worshipping wizards that draw power from the existing moons plus a moon only they can see, that hunts down other wizards to establish their dominance in the land seems a pretty decent fit to the setting AFAIC. Is it that WoHS have mechanical issues? Are they too powerful for the setting? Well, again, that doesn't seem to be the issue. The mechanics for WoHS seem pretty balanced on the whole, so, not seeing a problem here.

No, the issue is that he's made a poor GMing decision based solely on your personal preference for setting canon. It's not based on his preferences at all, because, well, obviously he's not having a problem with it.

I've already said more than once that the name Wizards of High Sorcery evokes images and thoughts of Krynn, which when on Greyhawk can cause issues. That's the reason, not canon.

I don't see the difference between because canon and because evokes non-canonical thoughts and images that are canonical for another setting.

Also, you still have not addressed the point that, while such evocations may (i) occur to you and your fellow players, and (ii) be an issue for you, you have no evidence that (i) they occurred to my players, nor that (ii) they caused any issue. And, in fact, all the evidence is that they caused no issue, given the number of WoHS PCs in that particular campaign.

Now, does it also mess up canon? Yes. Adding something from another setting messes up canon, but it's okay to mess with canon. I've never said messing with canon is a bad thing. I've just said that if you mess with it too much, the setting ceases to be the canon setting and becomes an alternate universe, which I've also said is fine.

It's great to be reassured that what I'm doing is fine!

You haven't explained, though, why it is an "alt universe" in any interesting or distinctive sense. Other than that your personal "canon meter" is triggered. But that does not seem like a very generalisable measure.

Having an opinion on good or bad is not the same as trying to get someone else to change their game.

You didn't express an opinion on "good or bad". You didn't say (simply) that you wouldn't care for it. You said it was a very poor GMing decision. That is not just an expression of your preferences for how settings are handled in your RPGing. It's a judgement about whether or not I did a good job in my RPGing. You don't get to make that sort of judgement and then hide behind "Hey, it's just my opinion, man."

EDIT: I just saw this post:

What's the end goal here? It's certainly not to simply discuss canon. If that was true, then value judgements wouldn't be a part of it. And it's certainly not simple curiousity as well. So, why? What's in it for you? Why insist that someone else's game, that you're not playing in, will never play in, and will likely never have any direct link to, be labeled according to your standards?

Good question.

And I would add - it's not just about value judgements. It's not just "I don't think I'd enjoy that". It's the applying of standards - very poor GMing. That's not just an expression of preference, or even of value. It's about criticising someone else's actions. The only basis for the criticism I can see that it is some sort of universal principle that one shoudn't use Krynn icons in a GH game. And I don't see how that principle can be asserted on any basis other than some sort of canon purity.

(I also don't see how that principle can possibly be asserted for a game that has Aragorn-rangers with their palantirs, King Kong and Wonderland in demi-planes, gates to Mars/Barsoom, etc. But that's a different point.)

 

[pemerton]

To me, it felt like an unnecessary change made for change sake

The reason for the change is explained on p 66 of Worlds & Monsters:

In previous editions, demons and devils were mechanically interchangeable, and attempts to differentiate their roles and game statistics didn't live u to the promise of either creature type. Consider the succubus and the erinyes. BOth creatures take the form of captivating women; granted, one has leathery wings and the other has feathered wings. Their function in the game is nearly identical, yet one is called a "demon" and the other a "devil". . . . Superficial or arbitrary rules distinctions, such as the demons' immunity to electricity or the devils' ability to see in darkness, don't make them any easier to separate. . . .

To create a clear line of distinction between devils and demons, an effort was made to identify the physical characteristics, roles, and behaviours that separate them. In the experiment of doing so, it became clear that some creatures formerly called "demons" would fit better in the camp of devils, and vice versa. The succubus, for example, is the D&D game's iconic seductress, and seduction is very much in keeping with the behaviour of devils. The succubus also hews very closely to the general description put forward for devils, which is to say that she's humanoid with some monstrous features (horns, tail, and leathery wings), and not a monstrous creature with some or no humanoid features (which is the barest physical definition of a demon). . . .

[W]e believe the new D&D game can withstand the succubus becoming a devil and leaving behind the rampaging hores of demonkind.​

affected other settings going back to 1e. If the designers had left the default Succubus as a demon and created a setting specific variant for the 4e setting that sat alongside the demon version, the change would not have bothered me.

I do feel that this was one of the easiest changes to ignore - just treat the "immortal" succubus as an "elemental" demon (or, if one prefers to make demons immortals too, follow the MotP advice and make all the "elemental" demons "immortal) and you're good to go. The change in lore can just be ignored (because anyone who notices the change as a change is, ipso facto, already familiar with the earlier lore).

 

[Aldarc]

To begin with, maybe, but in the end they all end up the same:

Dead.

Lan-"the only good side to orcs being able to breed like rabbits is that there's more of them to kill"-efan

You may want to be careful with killing off the Eberron orcs, since they actually co-exist quite peacefully with the humans in the Shadow Marches and a good chunk of them follow a druidic sect that protects the world from aberrations and extra-planar invasions.

 

[Imaro]

Re: arguments around changes to Succubi, Modrons, etc.:
If memory serves, you'll hit an argument gold mine if you dredge up some of the discussions in here from about 2008-9-ish. They're probably filed under Edition Wars, subheading Creature Changes.

Lanefan

Oh I remember people not liking changes to the lore that came with 4e and I remember them citing a variety of different reasons... what I don't remember is the main reason being... because of Planescape...