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

[I'm A Banana]

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"?

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

What is good for one is good for the other (because they're not really different).

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.

Is telling someone that encumbrance is "core rules" One-True-Wayism? Because, if not, then telling somone that in Eberron, the Last War was two years ago in the "core lore" falls under the same logic: just because you can easily change it at your own table doesn't mean there isn't a baseline assumption that tells you how to play the game (including how to portray your character and how to account for all the gear they're lugging around).

 

[Imaro]

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?

Well first off he never used the word... must. What he stated was that settings use the lore presented in the core books unless it specifically contradicts it... which at least as far as I know is exactly how D&D settings deal with lore.

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

Huh? So are you trying to say there is no core game rules either? Rule zero applies to rules as well.

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.

I don't know if you're alone in this, but you've engaged in some questionable actions in this thread, mostly unfounded accusations you have chosen not to back up or present proof of when confronted by those you accused... the above just seems par for the course. I've seen [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] debate and discuss his views (some I don't necessarily agree on) around canon, what I haven't seen is this Onetruewayism you've accused him of.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

No it's not. That's how it works unless the DM changes it. The key there is "the DM changes it".

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

Rule 0 changes nothing. It just allows the DM to make changes to the core lore, or setting lore for that matter, if he wants to.

 

[Sadras]

We certainly have core mechanics and core lore in D&D.
When we say we are going to play D&D, as players we expect the PHB at minimum and then the house rules, limitations, exclusions are introduced by the DM and/or players - which is part of Rule 0.
When we say we are going to play setting X, the expectation is the table will be using the lore of that setting, unless there are major changes to the setting lore which are usually announced before play.

That is how I envision things usually running from table to table...with the notable exception being where the entire table is a bunch of players with no background knowledge on the setting - this is often the case when the players are fresh roleplayers.
As it happens in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s table most/all of the players are unfamiliar with the lore (if I recall correctly), so it's really not an issue for him. Sometimes that is great, sometimes its not.

 

[pemerton]

Does anyone else think that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is engaging in a fair bit of Onetruewayism here?

I've seen [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] debate and discuss his views (some I don't necessarily agree on) around canon, what I haven't seen is this Onetruewayism you've accused him of.

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has said (and reiterated) that my decision to include WoHS in my GH game, under that name, was an example of very poor GMing. The bases for that statement are (i) that he would do it differently, because (ii) he knows some players who might have some expectations upset by doing such a thing.

To me that looks like a massive projection of one's own experiences and assumptions onto someone else's game. Which I think is what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] means by "onetruewayism".

 

[pemerton]

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

No! I am discussing whether changing elementals (including by including elemental warriors called archons and forged in magical archon forges) is changing archons, the heavenly creatures that first appeared in the original MotP.

Here is the passage from p 62 again:

The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach.​

The elemental archons are described as new creatures. They are not "reconcepted" or reimagined creatures. They are new creatures.

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

They have created new creatures that happen to be called archons. Changing elemental creatures, and inventing new ones called archons that are made in archon forges, is not a way of reimagining creatures that (i) are not elementals, (ii) are not made in archon forges, and (iii) serve the gods and not the primordials.

It is a way of recycling a name. But recycling a name is not changing the canon about any creature.

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.

Can you provide a single example of a person who thought that archons in 4e - elemental beings forged in archon forges to be soldiers for the primordials - were a variant or development of the archons that Jeff Grubb invented, which are heavenly being show serve the gods of good and are (from memory) lanterns, swords, hounds and bears?

I have never encountered such a person, either in person or online. And I have no idea what piece of deceit you think you're referring to. I mean, who do you think WotC set out to trick? Where is there anything in WP:W&M or in the MM which suggests that 4e is going to publish a version of a Grubbian archon?

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

Except perhaps the bit where they describe the archons as new creatures. Given that they are obviously new creatures - D&D has never before had elemental soldiers manufactured in magical forges - and that the designers describe them as new creatures, I think the evidence that they are new creatures is actually overwhelming.

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.

So you are angry that they are nothing like the archons that Jeff Grubb invented (having, in fact, nothing in common but the name), and yet you're also angry that WotC told you that they are new creatures which have absolutely nothing in common with Jeff Grubb's invention.

And you also think that, in telling you this, WotC was lying to you, and trying to trick you into thinking they were different from Jeff Grubb's archons when really they're . . . different?

 

[pemerton]

The British Empire gave us at least two places called Victoria: the state of Australia in which I reside; and the west coast Canadian town in which (I believe) [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] resides.

Names get recycled. Occasionally this can cause confusion, although mostly it's avoidable. But in calling the then Australasian colony Victoria, no one in the Colonial Office was trying to "reconcept" the west coast of Candada; let alone trick the Canadians into thinking that it would be hot in January and cold in July. It's the same name for two different things. That happens, even when the same organisation is in charge of naming.

 

[Imaro]

No! I am discussing whether changing elementals (including by including elemental warriors called archons and forged in magical archon forges) is changing archons, the heavenly creatures that first appeared in the original MotP.

Here is the passage from p 62 again:

The elemental archons are a good example of a new creature born of this design approach.​

The elemental archons are described as new creatures. They are not "reconcepted" or reimagined creatures. They are new creatures.

They have created new creatures that happen to be called archons. Changing elemental creatures, and inventing new ones called archons that are made in archon forges, is not a way of reimagining creatures that (i) are not elementals, (ii) are not made in archon forges, and (iii) serve the gods and not the primordials.

It is a way of recycling a name. But recycling a name is not changing the canon about any creature.

Can you provide a single example of a person who thought that archons in 4e - elemental beings forged in archon forges to be soldiers for the primordials - were a variant or development of the archons that Jeff Grubb invented, which are heavenly being show serve the gods of good and are (from memory) lanterns, swords, hounds and bears?

I have never encountered such a person, either in person or online. And I have no idea what piece of deceit you think you're referring to. I mean, who do you think WotC set out to trick? Where is there anything in WP:W&M or in the MM which suggests that 4e is going to publish a version of a Grubbian archon?

Except perhaps the bit where they describe the archons as new creatures. Given that they are obviously new creatures - D&D has never before had elemental soldiers manufactured in magical forges - and that the designers describe them as new creatures, I think the evidence that they are new creatures is actually overwhelming.

So you are angry that they are nothing like the archons that Jeff Grubb invented (having, in fact, nothing in common but the name), and yet you're also angry that WotC told you that they are new creatures which have absolutely nothing in common with Jeff Grubb's invention.

And you also think that, in telling you this, WotC was lying to you, and trying to trick you into thinking they were different from Jeff Grubb's archons when really they're . . . different?

So the lore for Archons... was changed. Doesn't matter if that change was into a totally different creature or not there was an archon established in D&D lore... said lore was changed to accommodate a new Archon in 4e... it's a change. The level of pedantry and word wrangling necessary to try and call this something other than a blatant change is ridiculous. You keep using examples of two things with the same name... but there aren't two types of archons in 4e there's only one and that one was created by totally changing the old lore. appearance, etc. into the 4e Archon.

EDIT: I also find it interesting that all the information you cite as explaining the Archon is a "new" creature (which no one is debating though it is such because it has changed the lore of the previous editions Archon) comes from a non-core pre-release book which I highly doubt most groups have even read. Perhaps 4e should have put these explanations and lore in the actual MM...

This is akin to arguing that in using the spell points system instead of vancian casting in D&D... I'm not changing the spellcasting system, I am using a new system. At the end of the day I am changing the way magic works whether that's changing the details of how Vancian casting works or adopting a new spellcasting system... it's a change.

 

[TwoSix]

EDIT: I also find it interesting that all the information you cite as explaining the Archon is a "new" creature (which no one is debating though it is such because it has changed the lore of the previous editions Archon) comes from a non-core pre-release book which I highly doubt most groups have even read. Perhaps 4e should have put these explanations and lore in the actual MM...

Irrelevant. There doesn't need to be an explanation in the MM because there's no linkage of concepts between editions. The 4e archon is the 4e archon, which has no relation to the 3e archon, which has no relation to the 2e archon. Concepts often carry over between editions, but each edition's core books must assume a tabula rasa for lore explanations.

 

[Aldarc]

If you just define canons as "body of information considered authoritative for a given body of work" then you more or less can have infinite canons.

If you go by the colloquial use, as in the vast majority of dictionaries, then canon is reserved for the official publisher only.

Even if we apply your definition of nigh infinite canons, there's still only one of them refering to the official body of work while all other refer to unofficial works.

I would like to respectfully point out that you are leaving out a vital part of the definition of canon, namely "community." Canons are established by particular communities. And yes, I have said that one could have infinite canons, but this tends not to be the case in practice due to 1) the inherently communal nature of canon which places practical limits on the "infinite," 2) the disproportionate ability of institutes of power (e.g. publisher, voice of god, author, church, etc.) to more "authoritatively" impose their notion of canon among their respective communities, and 3) how #2 often generates a perceived "official" canon towards which most people will gravitate due to a variety of factors: e.g., recognized authority, ease of use, simplicity, desire to be part of the larger community, etc.

But there is no official publisher of any religion. There is only one official roman-catholic canon and that's what set by some group in vatican city. Any group can disagree with that and form their own branch of christianity with their own canon, but then they would no longer be roman-catholics under the pope in rome.

In this case "christianity" is like "roleplaying games", while roman-catholic and christian orthodox and protestant, etc. are different RPGs. Each one have their own canon, but each branch only has one official canon.

Mirtek, my mention of biblical canons was not intended to invite others to offer fallacious comparisons or religious discussion. It was only meant to demonstrate the factual reality that multiple canons for what constitutes a body of work do exist. I definitely disagree with your comparison in the second paragraph here, but I'm afraid that furthering your discussion along those lines would likely violate board policy.