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

[pemerton]

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.

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has made many of the points I otherwise might have made.

I'll just reiterate that, in my personal experience, no player was harmed, shocked, confused or otherwise perturbed by my GH game including an order of sorcerers whose power waxes and wanes with the phases of the moons.

 

[cbwjm]

I've always referred to the archons in 4e as elemental archons, it differentiated them from the earlier archons which I had completely forgotten about by the time 4e came out. If I'd wanted to, I could have easily recreated the earlier edition archons myself and had them exist side by side, but really, I feel that the 4e angels filled the role of those earlier archons. It probably wouldn't have occurred to me to recreate them.

 

[cbwjm]

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has made many of the points I otherwise might have made.

I'll just reiterate that, in my personal experience, no player was harmed, shocked, confused or otherwise perturbed by my GH game including an order of sorcerers whose power waxes and wanes with the phases of the moons.

I'm sure that, had I been playing in your GH game the conversation would have been something along the lines of:

Me: They're like the Krynn wizards?
You: Yes.
Me: Cool. Can I be a white robe?

 

[Maxperson]

You do know that "cover story" is, in this context, a euphemism for "lie"? And that "pulling a fast one" means tricking/deceiving?

I should hope so! I said it.

They decided that hound, lantern etc archons were not worth reprinting with 4e stats. They did want some elemental soldiers. And they used the name "archon" to describe the latter. It's obvious that they did this - (a) because we can see the evidence, and

The evidence fits change more than it does some new creation.

(b) because they tell us as much in Worlds & Monsters! There's no cover story. No lie. No deception or trickery.

Ohhhhhhh! They told us. I guess that means I have to believe all corporations when they tell me stuff now. Are we still allowed to call them evil? They say they aren't evil. Global warming doesn't exist and cigarettes don't cause cancer anymore you know.

There is a linguistic change - to what is labelled by "archon". There is no cosmological change - no one is supposed to imagine that the archons PS talked about are the same creatures as are manufactured by primordials in archon forges.

And yet it happens anyway, because........expectations. They built up that name as meaning something specific in D&D and then pulled a fast one.

And those expectations were defeated.

As is the case with any poor change. Defeating expectations is very often not a good thing.

But anyone who insists Because they used the same name, they must be conceptual/thematic successors/reimaginings of the same creatures, is just being silly. It's obvious that they're not. And for those who can't recognise obvious, WotC even told as as much in W&M.

Right. It was a radical change, unlike the eladrin which was a much softer change. I doubt you'd find it satisfying if they gave you a goat in 6e and called it a dragon.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]:

Wizards Presents: Worlds & Monsters, p 62:

[T]he design for elementals themselves had to change. . . . The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach. THey were created by the primordials to be elite soldiers . . . In the elemental hierarchy, they form the basis of world-scouring armies.​

Emphasis mine... so we have the dev/design stating that they changed the design for elemetals in a general senses... and there is actually a question of whether this constitutes change (the actual word they used) or not... Yeah not understanding how there's a question around this...

The designers know that these are new creatures - they are not a reconcepting of Jeff Grubb's creation. It surprises me that this is even contentious.

According to their own words it seems the designers know they have made massive changes to elementals which includes changing what an archon is...

Again, contrast eladrin: from pp 40-41 of the same book:

Some of the existing good-aligned monsters did incorporate neeat designs that we wanted to preserve and improve upon. Most of the eladrins fell into that category. . . . [W]e noted their generally fey appearance, and this led to a natural association with the Feywild. . . . Eladrins were already powerful magical beings in previous editions of the game. Now they have a very similar role, but as mysterious lords and ladies of the Feywild.​

When they are reworking an existing creature, they tell us (and also tell us why).

No they are again stating changes to an already existing creature... just on lesser scale... than those of the Archons...

 

[Hussar]

95 pages in and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is STILL trying to tell @Permerton that he's having BadWrongFun and not playing in the OneTrueWay.

-----

I'm curious about something though. Every edition of D&D has strongly encouraged DM's to change mechanics. Either to add new mechanics or replace existing ones. Hundreds of books of new classes, variant classes, races, feats, spells, new mechanics to deal with waterborne adventures, or what have you.

And no one's ever tried to tell me that I'm not playing D&D if I add a Binder to my 3e game, despite the fact that this changes all sorts of stuff.

But, if I try to change some of the flavor of the game, then it's a bad thing?

So, let me get this straight. I can add dozens of classes, hundreds of player character races, thousands of feats and I'm still just playing 3.5e D&D. But, if I add a new kind of spell casting to Forgotten Realms (adding Dark Sun Defiling for example - not replacing the Weave, just adding), I'm completely changing the experience of the game?

Seriously? You folks are seriously trying to tell me that this isn't all tied to personal preference? That the "cost of change" to use [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]'s phrasing, isn't based 100% on personal preference? Of course it is. We've got three Adventure Paths set in Forgotten Realms that pull major elements from other settings and they're probably the best selling modules in decades. We've got a PHB filled with classes that are complete reworking of earlier version classes and no one is bothered one whit.

You don't think so? Really? Build a 5e paladin and take it to a 3e table that has never seen 5e rules. Tell them that's a paladin and watch the reaction. Warlocks that ganked Binders and stole their stuff? Flying barbarians? Monks that throw walls of ice? Fighters that can heal themselves? On and on and on.

If change came with a cost that was relative to the size of the change, 5e would have crashed and burned. But, instead, 5e is a huge success. Why? Because people LIKE the changes 5e made. The cost is only an issue when someone isn't happy with the change. In a group that like Eladrin, there was no cost to the change. In a group that had problems with Eladrin, the cost was high.

But, funny enough, you get 5e high elves, with largely the same back story and the ability to cast innate magic, and everything is groovy. 5e elves look pretty much nothing like earlier edition elves, but, get the pass because people LIKE the change.

AFAIC, that's the bottom line. It's 100% about personal preference. Everything else is just obfuscation and posturing.

 

[Maxperson]

95 pages in and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is STILL trying to tell @Permerton that he's having BadWrongFun and not playing in the OneTrueWay.

95 pages and you're still spreading these deliberate falsehoods about me. I don't appreciate it and explaining things to you doesn't seem to work. Do it again and I'll report it.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I have to admit, it is a rather textbook example of how these arguments go. Person A says X, Person B disagrees. Argue, argue, argue, Person A shows that he's right. Person B then moves on to the next point, argue, argue, argue, Person A shows he's right. Person B then moves on to the next point and continues to repeat until he can finally find some inconsistency and then say, "AHA! I told you you were wrong all the way along." Considering the canon is largely vague and unspecific, doing that is generally not all that hard.

But, ok, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What are you actually trying to prove then, if not that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is not actually running a Greyhawk campaign? That his addition of lore changes the setting so much that it's no longer truly that setting? Is that your point? Not truly that setting according to whom? You? Someone who has absolutely no connection to the campaign in question at all?

To put it another way, how is what you're doing to Permerton any different than what I was doing in the other thread to [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]?

 

[Maxperson]

But, ok, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What are you actually trying to prove then, if not that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is not actually running a Greyhawk campaign?

We're discussing lore, canon and what those mean to games being run. That's all. I'm not telling him how to run his game or that my way is the only way.

 

[Hussar]

Really? So lines like (I am paraphrasing here since quoting on the phone is a PITA) "setting lore must follow core lore unless it specifically contradicts " is not telling others how to play the game?

In a game with Rule 0, how can you possibly argue that there is any "core lore"?

But hey. I can be reasonable. Am I alone in this? Does anyone else think that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is engaging in a fair bit of Onetruewayism here? Hey if I'm totally off base then fair enough. To me it looks like someone going out of their way to be simply having a discussion. But I've certainly been wrong before.