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

[Imaro]

But it hasn't stopped being Forgotten Realms has it? And what exactly has changed regarding your expectations in terms of "character types" and "backstory" with these changes? Would you not feel that you are in Forgotten Realms anymore? And is this really all that different between jumping around different eras of the Forgotten Realms canon? What if I said "Okay group, we are going to run Forgotten Realms during the 4e's Spellplague era but with the 5e rules"?

Well an easy example is the gods my cleric can follow... Whether it's Forgotten Realms or not (leaving aside the question of canon) is a line that's pretty subjective and I believe was called out as such by @Maxperson earlier...but that's why I see the different categories as Canon Realms... Homebrew Realms, and Homebrew with some Realms....

EDIT: To further expound... DM says... we are playing

Canon Dragonlance during the War of the Lance... I can choose to be Wizard of High Sorcery, red robes... and I don't need to confirm this with him and as for background/stories I know the WoHS are as I have read them in the setting book.

Homebrew DL during the War of the Lance... I can choose to be a Wizard of High Sorcery, red robes... but first I need to confirm if they are still in his version of the setting and whether there are any minor or major changes that don't fit the concept of my character.

Homebrew with some DL during the War of the Lance... I need to verify pretty much everything before assuming... even down to whether their power is tied to the moons...

Therein is the problem. I don't expect my players to come to the table with anything other than a willingness to play and a few possible character concepts. Although I may point my players to some places for preliminary reading about a campaign setting, I want my players to build and create their characters together. That's when I want to make sure that the players understand the expectations of the campaign.

And I can understand and respect the preference to create characters like that but... it's not a "problem" it's just not how everyone has the time or even wants to do it. For us, if we've chosen a pre-made setting and are going the canon route... not having to use a session to get all this together is a benefit... for you not so much. I can see why for you it's not an advantage, but for those that play/run differently can you see why it is an advantage?

To me, it's not a matter of knowing the setting material well enough or not, but the particular expectations of any given campaign. I for one don't care how bloody well my players know Eberron or a campaign setting; I want everyone to be on the same page about the expectations of the campaign. Creating characters together is not wasted time at my table.

Ok... for you it's not important... do you think in this day and age of virtual tabletop play, games made more streamlined, pre-packaged adventures, packed schedules, etc... everyone plays the way you do? Everyone wants to devote an entire session to laying out the changes in campaigns and creating characters together?

 

[TwoSix]

KATANA WILL CONSTRAIN YOU! And then kill you.

Saying I can be constrained by a katana?! You've got a real set of canon-balls on you.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Aldarc]

Well an easy example is the gods my cleric can follow... Whether it's Forgotten Realms or not (leaving aside the question of canon) is a line that's pretty subjective and I believe was called out as such by @Maxperson earlier...but that's why I see the different categories as Canon Realms... Homebrew Realms, and Homebrew with some Realms....

EDIT: To further expound... DM says... we are playing

Canon Dragonlance during the War of the Lance... I can choose to be Wizard of High Sorcery, red robes... and I don't need to confirm this with him and as for background/stories I know the WoHS are as I have read them in the setting book.

Homebrew DL during the War of the Lance... I can choose to be a Wizard of High Sorcery, red robes... but first I need to confirm if they are still in his version of the setting and whether there are any minor or major changes that don't fit the concept of my character.

Homebrew with some DL during the War of the Lance... I need to verify pretty much everything before assuming... even down to whether their power is tied to the moons...

That seems overly systematic. I suspect that most DMs will simply tell their players that they are playing in X campaign setting with Y set of expectations.

And I can understand and respect the preference to create characters like that but... it's not a "problem" it's just not how everyone has the time or even wants to do it. For us, if we've chosen a pre-made setting and are going the canon route... not having to use a session to get all this together is a benefit... for you not so much. I can see why for you it's not an advantage, but for those that play/run differently can you see why it is an advantage?

It's a problem in so far as that it appears to be a point of contention among a number of people in this thread.

Ok... for you it's not important... do you think in this day and age of virtual tabletop play, games made more streamlined, pre-packaged adventures, packed schedules, etc... everyone plays the way you do? Everyone wants to devote an entire session to laying out the changes in campaigns and creating characters together?

Your question seems pointlessly hostile in tone. Nowhere have I insinuated that people should play as I should. I will say that this day and age, perhaps more so than any age before now, has empowered gamers to play in a variety of playstyles, hopefully free of judgment or bickering of what constitutes setting canon or playing in X campaign setting.

 

[Imaro]

That seems overly systematic. I suspect that most DMs will simply tell their players that they are playing in X campaign setting with Y set of expectations.

Perhaps... even if they are only using a piece of said campaign setting?

It's a problem in so far as that it appears to be a point of contention among a number of people in this thread.

Is it... most people in this thread will never play games with each other or run games for each other. At the end of the day @pemerton can call his game whatever he likes, and I'll classify mine however I like. I enjoy reading other people's thoughts on stuff and debating my own. I don't expect to change everyones mind and I don't expect my own mind to be changed often. It's a discussion board though... so in the same way [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is freed to say what and why he considers his game to be canon, or a GH game, or whatever... I feel free to state my own opinions as well.

Your question seems pointlessly hostile in tone. Nowhere have I insinuated that people should play as I should. I will say that this day and age, perhaps more so than any age before now, has empowered gamers to play in a variety of playstyles, hopefully free of judgment or bickering of what constitutes setting canon or playing in X campaign setting.

I'm not trying to be hostile, I guess there's something about typing vs. speaking that's being lost... I was just showing examples of more and more movement towards quicker, easier play and, IMO, using the default canon of a setting is just another tool in my box to do that when I want to.

 

[Lanefan]

Is it... most people in this thread will never play games with each other or run games for each other.

Which is a shame, as there's people in here - even some who I frequently disagree with - who I'd love to share a table with just to see what they do and how they do it, and in full confidence that even though styles etc. might clash they're highly capable of running/playing a fun, interesting, and engaging game.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not trying to be hostile, I guess there's something about typing vs. speaking that's being lost... I was just showing examples of more and more movement towards quicker, easier play and, IMO, using the default canon of a setting is just another tool in my box to do that when I want to.

A jillion posts in, and it's only now beginning to occur to me what might be causing some of the disconnect here. So, a quick informal "poll" - please embed your answer whenever you next post, all of you:

Are you coming at this discussion from a basis of mostly home play with people you know, or
Are you coming at this discussion from a basis of mostly public/FLGS/convention play or play with people you don't know well, or
Are you coming at this discussion from a basis of mostly AL play?

It makes a bi-ig difference. Someone who's coming from an AL-primary perspective is probably going to be comfortable with and used to mostly-locked-in canon as it's expected to be the same everywhere. Public or FLGS games probably need to either hew close to established canon or make any changes abundantly clear going in. Home games are more likely to be fast and loose with whatever, as the end result only matters to that table.

Myself, I'm coming from a home-game-only perspective.

Lan-"canon fodder"-efan

 

[Shasarak]

Sorry, not quite tracking that. The reason we have 15 different types of elves, both in core and in various settings, is because no one version of elf is considered "true". We don't have fifteen different kinds of Vrock because there is apparently only one type of Vrock - a soldier demon in the Blood War, because Planescape is considered the "true" version of the planes, regardless of any other setting.

Eladrin were an attempt to modify one existing type of elf - High Elves - and give them a more distinct profile. Nothing was said that all elves had to be eladrin. In fact, the PHB DOES contain two kinds of elves right from the get go. It's unfortunate that they chose an existing name and I highly suspect, based on how well the 5e elf has been received, that had they chosen another name that didn't step on canon the way it did, we'd have a lot fewer issues with Eladrin. I mean, Magic Fairy Elf is perfectly acceptable - 5e elves are tied to fae and have innate spell casting. Had they called them something other than eladrin, say, simply, High Elf, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

See, you say that the Abyss is supposed to be infinite. Ok, fair enough. Then why is it that all Vrocks and all demons for that matter, must be tied to the Blood War? That's a campaign specific thing. Granted 4e tried to tie everything into the Primordial War, but, then again, that was supposed to be so far into the past that it really didn't have much of an impact on any ongoing campaign.

The main reason I have such an issue with the Eladrin thing is that the argument against Eladrin is based mostly on canon. It's not that Eladrin were poorly written, or a bad idea or too powerful or anything like that. They were bad because they were different. And, again, it's an argument you can't really counter. They really ARE different. That's the whole point. But, we're not allowed to have anything different because the canon police jump out and scream bloody murder as soon as something different, that they don't like, gets tried.

That is the real problem here, that you dont track the difference between 15 types of Elves and 15 types of Vrock. It seems that there was nothing stopping designers from coming up with all of those different types of Elves and yet somehow in a process that has no explanation those same designers were prevented in coming up with the 15 types of Vrock because of "Planescape".

If we look at it logically then 4e, which deliberately did not use Planescape, should have many different types of Vrock even if they are just your usual mix of skirmisher, leader, minion Vrock and yet with 3 different monster manuals and Planar supplements I could only find the one. So I am guessing that no one wants to make 15 different types of Vrock when they have a choice of making something else.

Now the best argument against Eladrin is not if they are canon or not but rather that they are an example of something being created to fill a gap - you have a new Plane the Feywild" and you need stuff to go in it and "wham" you start shoving in all the Fairy stuff that might plausibly fit. Personally I have no problem with just creating stuff to fill a gap, Planescape does this often enough. The biggest problem is that someone decided that they had to force their new toy into everyone elses game. It was not good enough to say here is this cool new Plane with this new PC race just fit it into your game however you want to. No it was bam now we break all of your toys and replace them with cheap plastic knockoff versions that are supposed to be exactly the same. Right even my four year old knows the difference .

Me, personally, I'd love to see a Manual of the Planes that shows about six different example planar concepts - The Great Wheel, maybe Eberron's cosmology, Norse Cosmology, Krynn Cosmology (for a greatly simplified one), the Astral Plane, and maybe something else and then a honking big section on how to build your own cosmology. Included in all those cosmologies would be variations on existing planar creatures so that those planar creatures fit within the framework of those specific settings.

I just can not see how this type of book is going to fill the "One book per year that is not an adventure" business model that we have at the moment. You would be better off going for the original Deities and Demigods book because I can not see how we are going to get a book that is not three quarters filled with Forgotten Realms stuff with an appendix at the back telling you how to convert it.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

::shrug:: An orc's an orc. Roll initiative.

More seriously, though - that raises a larger question and probably in so doing opens yet another big can o' worms: how far can a whole setting go in changing broadly established greater-community lore for a given element before that element should probably be defined - or at least named - as something different?

These Eberron orcs sound cool. But they're not orcs in the general sense of what we've all known orcs to be since forever, hence my silly comments above. Better perhaps to have renamed them, with a quick note somewhere in the setting guide saying "xxxx take the place of orcs, which do not exist in Eberron".

Lanefan

 

[Shasarak]

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 is the problem with acknowledging [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] as running his own version of Greyhawk? The Greyhawk game that I am playing in certainly does not resemble his version and, because it has Warforged added to it, my game does not resemble one run by say [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].