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

[Nagol]

Settings always use the generic rules from the PHB and DMG, except for what is explicitly stated to be otherwise by the setting material.

Ah. It isn't discussed. Then it isn't setting lore. Especially since the setting predatss any discussion of where magic-users draw energy from or how they do it. Even if you take the general discussion from the 1e DMG as lore, there is nothing to state that other external factors (such as moon phase) don't play a role on practice.

 

[Teemu]

Astrology can very much be magical in nature in D&D. Dragon #340 has a treatment on supernatural/magical astrology for 3rd edition (3.5 specifically, I think).

 

[Manbearcat]

I haven't read the thread so my guess is either (a) this has already been discussed or (b) the premise has moved well on. So apologies in advance.

I think there is a grey area here regarding the integration of lore and rules. There are lots of modern Heroic Fantasy systems that use PC build mechanics and/or general action resolution mechanics as means to simultaneously stipulate backstory and often use that backstory either directly as mechanical augmentation/leverage or as a means to open up further action declarations/PC moves that change the situation beneficially for the PCs. The are either inputs to content generation or action resolution or outputs to action resolution that generates beneficial content (which then becomes firm backstory).

Dungeon World is full of them. Spout Lore is a basic move available to all. Most playbooks have moves that either force the GM to generate impromptu backstory that is helpful or allow the player to stipulate it.

In Skill Challenges, D&D 4e's Streetwise and Lore-skills definitely fit the bill here.

5e's PC Background Traits.

13th Age's Icon mechanics.

Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy's Specialties and Asset creation (especially in social conflicts).

Strike! has lifted a lot from Burning Wheel and PBtA systems with Resource resolution, Relationship resolution, Lore resolution.

Then there are transparent GMing principles and PC build aspects of games that inform or constrain GM situation-framing (which often precludes certain spontaneous generation of backstory in order to challenge the PCs right now).

---

So while lore is neither (in a fundamental way) PC build mechanics nor action resolution mechanics, there is sometimes a systemitized synthesis where the two become difficult to delineate. It isn't quite Nature vs Nurture where you can't pick out the specific ingredients after the cake of a person has been baked for 40 years, but the demarcation definitely becomes difficult due to the integration.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah. It isn't discussed. Then it isn't setting lore. Especially since the setting predatss any discussion of where magic-users draw energy from or how they do it. Even if you take the general discussion from the 1e DMG as lore, there is nothing to state that other external factors (such as moon phase) don't play a role on practice.

There's nothing to state that fighters don't have the ability to throw a sword and crack the moons in half, either. You can only go by what IS said when dealing with settings and lore, and what is said is that magic is drawn from the positive material plane. Unlike Krynn, FR and Darksun, Greyhawk doesn't alter that base magical lore, so it applies to that setting.

 

[Maxperson]

Astrology can very much be magical in nature in D&D. Dragon #340 has a treatment on supernatural/magical astrology for 3rd edition (3.5 specifically, I think).

It can be, sure. If specifically said to be that way. The Greyhawk passage neither states, nor implies that any such magic is present. The passage treats it like real world astrology.

 

[Nagol]

It can be, sure. If specifically said to be that way. The Greyhawk passage neither states, nor implies that any such magic is present. The passage treats it like real world astrology.

Absolutely! So far as that sage is concerned, the movement of celestial bodies influences or presages events in Eastern Oerik in much the way RW astrology has historically been viewed.

Adding a new effect linked to a previously unknown celestial body (or frankly adding a newly discovered effect to the known celestial bodies) does not violate the canon as presented. Heck every magic-user may be tied to the waxing and waning of the two visible moons and it wouldn't violate canon because the folio doesn't discuss how magic works at all. At that point the sage is simply discussing the more broadly applicable effects the celestial bodies inflict on everyone.

Though personally, I'm not sure what a true canon game would look like. The first time a PC does something with larger effect on the world that canon-status would be lost. So either the game limits PCs to operating below canon level (i.e. no toppling governments, assassinations, or notable exploration finds which is sort of how some of the advice for Pendragon works but hard to do in earlier versions of D&D) or the game is established as a canon start and the campaign's evolution "doesn't count". If the latter case a DM could launch an extraterrestrial invasion on the second day of the campaign and still claim a canon start.

 

[Nagol]

There's nothing to state that fighters don't have the ability to throw a sword and crack the moons in half, either. You can only go by what IS said when dealing with settings and lore, and what is said is that magic is drawn from the positive material plane. Unlike Krynn, FR and Darksun, Greyhawk doesn't alter that base magical lore, so it applies to that setting.

A Fighter can't crack a moon with a thrown sword because of mechanics, not lore. I could run a canon Greyhawk game using Ars Magica, Pendragon, or d20 Fantasy without issue -- the mechanics would change, but the lore would remain the same. Heck if I were to run a Greyhawk game with a more narrative/free power level game engine, perhaps in the right circumstances a Fighter might crack the moon with a thrown sword.

Again, magic being drawn from the positive plane didn't exist until 20? (assuming that justification started with 3E and not 4e or 5e) years after the publication of the folio. It's not part of the Greyhawk lore.

 

[Maxperson]

Adding a new effect linked to a previously unknown celestial body (or frankly adding a newly discovered effect to the known celestial bodies) does not violate the canon as presented. Heck every magic-user may be tied to the waxing and waning of the two visible moons and it wouldn't violate canon because the folio doesn't discuss how magic works at all. At that point the sage is simply discussing the more broadly applicable effects the celestial bodies inflict on everyone.

If a setting does not discuss how magic works, then it automatically works like the base books. If it were different, it would say so. That's how settings work. They use the base edition rules and lore, then tell you how the setting is different from that. There have been no exceptions that I am aware of.

Though personally, I'm not sure what a true canon game would look like. The first time a PC does something with larger effect on the world that canon-status would be lost. So either the game limits PCs to operating below canon level (i.e. no toppling governments, assassinations, or notable exploration finds which is sort of how some of the advice for Pendragon works but hard to do in earlier versions of D&D) or the game is established as a canon start and the campaign's evolution "doesn't count". If the latter case a DM could launch an extraterrestrial invasion on the second day of the campaign and still claim a canon start.

Players changing the game through their actions is perfectly fine. That's what the game is about. Those changes don't affect player expectations at all, except to fulfill them since I think the vast majority of players expect to be able to affect the world. If the DM changes canon, though, it can be disruptive by clashing with player expectations set by the setting. Especially if he makes major changes or doesn't warn the players ahead of time that changes have been made.

 

[Maxperson]

A Fighter can't crack a moon with a thrown sword because of mechanics, not lore.

I see no mechanic stating that fighters don't have that special ability. If he wants to throw the sword 100 yards at an orc, he's in trouble due to the thrown mechanics. If he wants to use the Moon Split special ability that the rules don't say that he doesn't have, that sword flies all the way to the moon and cracks it in half without dealing damage. That's how this ability that the rules don't say he doesn't have works.

I could run a canon Greyhawk game using Ars Magica, Pendragon, or d20 Fantasy without issue -- the mechanics would change, but the lore would remain the same. Heck if I were to run a Greyhawk game with a more narrative/free power level game engine, perhaps in the right circumstances a Fighter might crack the moon with a thrown sword.

That's not entirely accurate. Much of the lore would remain the same, but a lot would change. For example, if Pendragon doesn't have all the Mordenkainen, Bigby, Rary, etc. spells, then those suddenly vanish from the lore. Mechanics can also create lore and vice versa.

Again, magic being drawn from the positive plane didn't exist until 20? (assuming that justification started with 3E and not 4e or 5e) years after the publication of the folio. It's not part of the Greyhawk lore.

1e I think, but not sure.

Edit: Yes. 1e. I looked it up and it's in the DMG. Magic is powered by the positive and negative planes.

 

[Lanefan]

That lore is what determines that dwarves get +1 str, +1 con, and -1 cha. Change that lore and you set up a disconnect if you don't also change the mechanic. The lore is no more a guideline than the hard-coded mechanic is.

But what if the lore has no backing mechanic at all?

The later editions (3e and onwards) have tried to put mechanical backings behind more and more of the lore; and if that's where your experience lies then I can see how it would be easy to lump lore and rules together. In earlier editions this wasn't quite as prevalent...if I wanted to play a swashbuckler-type in 1e, for example, I could certainly do it but it would mostly be on the RP and 'lore' side; there weren't many mechanics for me to lean on to divorce it from a straight Fighter or Fighter-Thief. Some don't like this, and want the mechanics to more directly reflect (or allow for at all) the character they want to play. Personally, I'm not that concerned with the mechanics and don't mind just doing it through roleplay and lore.

Another example: the lore says that Dwarves are tough and stubborn. But without a mechanical backup that's all it is - lore: a guideline to what might make your Dwarf PC tick and what to expect when meeting Dwarves during the campaign. It's not a rule, nor a mechanic, nor anything else hard-coded...and this is my overall point in all this, I suppose: not all lore has or needs mechanical backup, and without it it's just...lore, to be used or ignored or amended as desired much more easily than a hard rule. It doesn't break the game if I decide to play a weak charismatic Dwarf - and as player I in theory have the right to do that - but it does break the game (or at least put some heavy cracks in it) if I arbitrarily decide my Dwarf has +5 to hit everything "just because". See the difference?

Lan-"does a swashbuckler swash buckles or buckle swashes?"-efan