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

[Imaro]

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.

But we have multiple demons and multiple devils... What you seem to be asking for is multiple wood elves... or multiple types of blue dragons (in other words multiples of a specific sub type of a group). Which is so niche... I don't think most people are willing to spend a significant amount of money on.

 

[Imaro]

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?

Actually the conversation was about expectations when a DM tells a player... I'm running an X game where X could be any setting from Middle Earth to Greyhawk to Star Wars. The contention was around when one should actually tell their players... hey I'm actually running a homebrewed version of X.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So have Vrocks, though. You have those who have that dance ability, and those who don't. Those with screech attacks, and those who don't. Not every edition had the spore attack. 1e Vrocks have 4 attacks, 3e Vrocks have 5 attacks, 5e Vrocks have 3 attacks. And so on. Also, setting specific creatures are a thing. There is only one type of ogre for D&D, UNLESS you play Krynn. Same with Drow. Same with liches. If you aren't playing the specific setting, you don't have access to those setting specific creatures. Unless you plan on mixing settings that is.

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?

The planes(not Planescape) have always been about absolutes. They are for the most part, unchanging. That holds true whether you are playing Planescape, using the FR cosmology, using the Krynn cosmology(which may not even have demons at all), or any other cosmology. As a result, you'll get many different types of celestials, demons, slaad, etc., but each type is singular.

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.

How are Eberron orcs different?

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.

It still boils down to feasibility and work. The setting specific monsters have always been very limited in numbers. It's not economical to re-create versions of every monster for specific editions, so you get a few unique monsters for a setting, and a few non-unique monsters with some lore changes. Demons have probably not been done due to the fact that the planes(not Planescape) have been portrayed as constant in flavor from setting to setting. Sure the FR Abyss is slightly different than the Planescape or Greyhawk Abysses, but all three are CE planes where demons dwell. The planes with the exception of Planescape, are also not a part of the setting, but are rather outside of it. A setting is only the world of Eberron, Greyhawk, Toril, Mystara, etc. Come to think about it, Mystara does planes and demons very differently than other settings.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

In MY OPINION, it would not remain the canon Greyhawk setting if you make the moons and wizards into the essentially the Krynn moons and wizards. It's too great a change for ME. I'm not saying that changing the canon to add a moon, turning the setting into alternate Greyhawk universe is a bad thing, or wrong to do.

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".

Seriously? In a discussion about canon and lore you wonder why I am discussing canon and lore, and what changing them means?

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.

That's wrong. It is to discuss canon, which includes what canon means and how the changes to canon affect things. Personal judgments are very much a part of that.

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?

I've never insisted he change the label. I've said that making that making enough changes will change a setting from being a canon setting into an alternate universe setting. I've also said that if you tell the players that you are running Greyhawk, you set their expectations as the canon Greyhawk, and that giving them a radically different version will be disruptive to those expectations. With that in mind, I said that if you tell them it's an alternate universe Greyhawk, those radical changes won't bother them since you have re-directed their expectations and they now expect those radical changes. I have not said that you re-label the setting according to how I view things. I have said that I think it's disrespectful to give players one set of expectations and then not deliver, but hey, if that's how you want to play it, it's up to you.

 

[Aldarc]

I hate the prospects of wadding into a minefield here, especially as I don't really have a stake in this fight.

Actually the conversation was about expectations when a DM tells a player... I'm running an X game where X could be any setting from Middle Earth to Greyhawk to Star Wars. The contention was around when one should actually tell their players... hey I'm actually running a homebrewed version of X.

When isn't a setting a homebrewed version? It seems to me, appropriating a popular fallacy, that as any campaign grows longer, the probability of breaking setting canon approaches 1. Characters themselves can often be a source of canonicity-breaking. For example, if you make your character a long-lost grandson of Baron Starrin d'Cannith - which is perfectly possible - then you are saying that your character has a potentially greater claim as heir of House Cannith than the pre-existing in-setting characters who are vying for that position. If your character gains control of House Cannith, then congratulations: you have established a new canon in the campaign. As such, I don't see why any DM would need to say that they are "actually running a homebrewed version" of anything given the nature of how running settings work. It's just a given. So adding "homebrewed version of X setting" seems somewhat redundant. If the GM, says that in their game of Forgotten Realms that X god is dead, and the campaign delves into addressing that, then is that homebrew or are we no longer in the Forgotten Realms? Were somewhat to call that an "alt setting," it can come across as a somewhat disingenuous, if not snobbish, attempt to delegitimize the (presumably positive) campaign experiences of a gaming group: "That wasn't 'true Greyhawk' you played." Please do not think that I am directing that accusation to you, nor I do not necessarily think that anyone in this thread is attempting to do that, but we should take caution that our assertions of canon don't come at the expense of others' gaming experiences within campaign settings.

How are Eberron orcs different?

Druidic hippies fighting extraplanar threats. No Gruumsh backstory at all.

 

[Imaro]

I hate the prospects of wadding into a minefield here, especially as I don't really have a stake in this fight.

When isn't a setting a homebrewed version?

When you start with canon and aren't adding anything ahead of time. Now once play begins it's a different story because it will naturally diverge but we are speaking to starting points here. If I say hey guys going to run a Star Wars game and you show up and Vulcans run the empire and the rebellion has the Federation backing them... well IMO, you've kind of mislead me here.

EDIT: No one has been arguing from the position that the canon of an official setting shouldn't change organically through play but what we have been debating is whether it's accurate to claim you are running a canon game while changing numerous things before the game has actually started. As I stated before FOR ME & MY GROUP stating that you are running a specific campaign sets the expectations for character types, backstory, etc. without having to talk it all through that is why I make the distinction.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

And as others have stated, for them, and for their groups, they don't honor or observe your distinction.

So ... yeah.

I think we all recognized that about 5000 comments ago in several prior threads.

You po- tay -to, others say po- tah -to, and so long as we aren't trying to force each other to agree, I think everyone is good. Whether or not we use bold and all-caps.

Whose trying to force anyone to agree?? Oh and the bold and caps is because it seems for pages now that this distinction, which I have made numerous times, has been lost on alot of posters... including you. Not once have I said someone else was doing it wrong only explained why I choose to do it the way I do... you know discussion, one which no one is being forced to be a part of.

 

[Aldarc]

When you start with canon and aren't adding anything ahead of time. Now once play begins it's a different story because it will naturally diverge but we are speaking to starting points here. If I say hey guys going to run a Star Wars game and you show up and Vulcans run the empire and the rebellion has the Federation backing them... well IMO, you've kind of mislead me here.

And if someone said, "Hey guys, I'm going to run a Forgotten Realms game, and Waterdeep has been conquered by X, the following gods are dead or missing, and I am allowing you to play warforged, changelings, or shifters," are you being misled that this is a Forgotten Realms campaign? The campaign has not started, but some things are being added and altered ahead of time. But how has this setting stopped being Forgotten Realms?

EDIT: No one has been arguing from the position that the canon of an official setting shouldn't change organically through play but what we have been debating is whether it's accurate to claim you are running a canon game while changing numerous things before the game has actually started. As I stated before FOR ME & MY GROUP stating that you are running a specific campaign sets the expectations for character types, backstory, etc. without having to talk it all through that is why I make the distinction.

I don't see how knowing the campaign setting absolves players from talking through "the expectations for character types, backstory, etc." for any given campaign.

 

[Imaro]

And if someone said, "Hey guys, I'm going to run a Forgotten Realms game, and Waterdeep has been conquered by X, the following gods are dead or missing, and I am allowing you to play warforged, changelings, or shifters," are you being misled that this is a Forgotten Realms campaign? The campaign has not started, but some things are being added and altered ahead of time. But how has this setting stopped being Forgotten Realms?

It's not canon FR... at least IMO. They've basically stated... I've homebrewed my FR with this, this and this...

I don't see how knowing the campaign setting absolves players from talking through "the expectations for character types, backstory, etc." for any given campaign.

Hmmm... well in our group if I said I'm running a 2e Dark Sun game... My players would know what character classes, races, etc. are acceptable and what isn't acceptable. In the same way if I say I'm running a 2e Greyhawk game I don't expect them to come to the table with half-giants and cannibal halflings... this is especially helpful in pick up/open games at the FLGS.

EDIT: My players know the lore of the settings we choose to play in well enough that they can pretty much make a character on their own and save us wasted time at the table.