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

[Campbell]

Is there any way we can unpack and really examine this dichotomy between change vs addition from a design perspective? What particular value does it bring? Why should we care about the distinction?

 

[pemerton]

Change canon, for any reason, and you have already incurred a not-insignificant cost.

If WotC change canon, they might incur financial cost (if people stop buying their stuff). Or they might not (if people like the new stuff better, and so buy more of it).

When I changed canon in my GH game (by making the GH vikings actual vikings rather than Suel refugees) I didn't incur any cost at all, because the number of people at my table who both (1) knew the canonical GH account of its vikings and (2) cared, was zero.

From these two points, I infer that sometimes changing canon incurs no cost (significant or insignificant).

 

[Imaro]

If WotC change canon, they might incur financial cost (if people stop buying their stuff). Or they might not (if people like the new stuff better, and so buy more of it).

When I changed canon in my GH game (by making the GH vikings actual vikings rather than Suel refugees) I didn't incur any cost at all, because the number of people at my table who both (1) knew the canonical GH account of its vikings and (2) cared, was zero.

From these two points, I infer that sometimes changing canon incurs no cost (significant or insignificant).

I think it's pretty clear from the context of the post you took this snippet from... WotC changing canon was what was being discussed. Whether your personal changes incur a cost for your particular group would vary so much by DM, players, playstyle, etc. that trying to pin down a generalization on it would be kind of pointless.

As for there being no cost to WotC I doubt there's ever been a change since the first edition switch over that everyone was onboard with... possible, but highly unlikely.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If WotC change canon, they might incur financial cost (if people stop buying their stuff). Or they might not (if people like the new stuff better, and so buy more of it).

In the end.

My point is that there is an inherent negative cost to WotC (in terms of "audience enjoyment," which doesn't always translate DIRECTLY to money, but has a pretty clear relationship to it) to changing a bit of lore. New lore always starts with a debt to be paid to old lore, when you decide what is Official Lore for millions.

When I changed canon in my GH game (by making the GH vikings actual vikings rather than Suel refugees) I didn't incur any cost at all, because the number of people at my table who both (1) knew the canonical GH account of its vikings and (2) cared, was zero.

From these two points, I infer that sometimes changing canon incurs no cost (significant or insignificant).

Yep, I'd agree that your group didn't incur that cost.

 

[Maxperson]

Adding an extra moon to GH doesn't change anything that is said about the two moons by the sage in the folio/boxed set.

And adding Suloise WoHS doesn't change any canon either - it conforms to the idea that the Suloise were powerful magicians with mysterious traditions!

You have specifically changed where magic comes from. Wizards of High Sorcery get their magic from god moons. Greyhawk wizards don't have god moons that supply their magic.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

That points, perhaps vaguely, towards an interesting debate. What is the 'game' part? To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, if rules are the defining characteristic of a 'game,' then we may as well sit around solving math problems. Alternately, the word 'game,' once again, suggests 'play' which carries with it associations like, I don't know, having fun, breaking rules, you know, playing.

<snip>

In the end, I would like to emphasize that the rules are there (at least in games like these) largely to solve mundane problems for everyone so there is not a time consuming debate regarding whether or not you can jump x casm or seduce y bar wench. All of the character, personality, meaning (whatever that is), and enjoyment comes from lore, or something like it. Granted, there is an animal satisfaction to be taken from success (yeah, I broke that ork's skull, etc.) but it is how the orc reacts, and how the rest of its tribe does, and what that means that offers the real magic.

A few years ago now, [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] posted something along the lines of "RPG = fiction --> mechanical resolution --> new fiction --> mechanical resolution --> [repeat the pattern]".

So there is no contrast between "playing the game" and working with the fiction. Working with the fiction is playing the game. And the mechanics are part of the apparatus we use to work with the fiction - they regulate what is or is not allowed to become part of the shared fiction.

I would say that breaking rules does not necessarily equal fun.

[MENTION=6873053]Simulocust[/MENTION] didn't say this - suppose it's true that part of having fun includes breaking the rules, it doesn't follow that any breaking of the rules will be fun.

Sure you could describe the Giants weapon as being a huge tree trunk but if you only use a 1d4 for damage does that really make any sense? No, you have a giant weapon and it does giant damage - lore and rules combining together.

What if the giant is cursed by the gods? Or is destined not to slay this particular hero?

Minions in 4d do half the damage a regular creature of their level would do, because this befits their place in the story (ie of little individual significance).

Consider that a GH wizard and an FR wizard are the same wizard - that if they were any different in flavor, they'd also be different in rules.

This is bare assertion.

Here's a rebuttal: wizards in FR draw their power from the Weave (per various bits of lore, the one I know best being the sidebar in the 5e Basic PDF); wizards in GH draw their power from the Positive Material Plane (per Gygax's DMG). You don't need different mechanics to reflect this, but that doesn't stop it being the case in the shared fiction!

 

[pemerton]

What if I was playing the son of a Cormyrean Noble though? I would expect some kind of mechanic to support that bit of background lore and that is what we find in 5e.

AD&D has no such mechanic (until the introduciton of cavaliers in UA, but that won't be relevant if your noble's son is a cleric, or a ranger, or some other non-generic warrior.

Neither 3E nor 4e has any such mechanic in its PHB.

So for most of D&D history, your expectation has not been met. Yet people have been playing PCs, some but not all of whom are nobles' sons.

(Which speaks also to [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]'s comment about wizards. For most of D&D's history, differences in the fictional background of PCs have not been mechanically expressed at all. 3E really starts to individuate fighting style, for instance, but that doesn't mean that, in the fition, all AD&D fighters were indistinguishable in their martial arts techniques.)

What about say African Lions? Where would I expect to find African Lions? The most obvious place would be Africa of course but say I was watching the Madagascar movie in which I discover that they could also be found in New York or even Madagascar.

This is weird for two reasons.

(1) D&D has had stats for lions in many editions, yet Africa has never been part of the core gameworld (the original MM has Sumatran rats, evil spirits from India, Japanese ogres and Chinese dragons, but no reference to Africa).

(2) Madagascar is part of Africa.

 

[pemerton]

We do not approach the initial fiction with a critical eye. I'm mostly looking at fans here. When we encounter new rules in a supplement we mull them over, consider the impact they will have on our games, what value they will add. This all stuff we should be doing for new rules. We should also be doing the same thing with new setting material. There is also the issue that criticism of rules and their impact on play is often considered valuable, but criticism of setting material is often seen as an affront to the setting.

<snip>

When we create or read setting material we tend to fall in love with it in a way that is entirely disconnected from play - often refusing to adjust material at the table if it would make for a better play experience.

<snip>

We assume more is better. Look at the debate over change vs. addition in this thread. There is an unspoken assumption that there is virtue in detail, and it has largely been unchallenged.

I enjoyed your post, but one needs to be careful with generalisations.

Speaking just for myself, I scrutinise setting material, sometimes criticise it (eg the Suel Vikings in GH, or my criticisms of aspects of The Plane Above lore in this thread.

And in this old thread, many of my posts were trying to explain why the light touch of the default 4e world/cosmolgoy, and its lack of detail, was a virtue rather than a flaw precisely because of its contribution to play. (See eg post 76 in that thread.)

 

[Campbell]

I enjoyed your post, but one needs to be careful with generalisations.

Speaking just for myself, I scrutinise setting material, sometimes criticise it (eg the Suel Vikings in GH, or my criticisms of aspects of The Plane Above lore in this thread.

And in this old thread, many of my posts were trying to explain why the light touch of the default 4e world/cosmolgoy, and its lack of detail, was a virtue rather than a flaw precisely because of its contribution to play. (See eg post 76 in that thread.)

I meant the quoted passage as criticism of general trends in mainstream traditional roleplaying culture as I saw it. I should have been more clear on that point. It is not universal - there is even some push back from Wizards on these issues. There is a reason why we saw the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and not a Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. There is also a reason why Volo's Guide utilizes the Unreliable Narrator trope.