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

[Hussar]

Wizards of High Sorcery are from Dragonlance, so it is in fact Greyhawk + Dragonlance. The amount mixing is irrelevant. 10000000 + 1 is still 10000000 + 1. It doesn't remain 10000000 just because you want to win an argument.
/snip.

The irony here is strong.

It doesn't bleed into any other setting unless you choose for it to happen.



Please elaborate. How does my allowing it to bleed into MY campaigns in any way force you to play with Planescape?



You're being overly dramatic here. You quite literally cannot lose out. All you have to do is choose not to use the 2e Planescape campaign and *POOF* no bleeding into other settings in your game. You win!

That's true enough. The issue is that if I want to buy any module, supplement or whatever that deals with the planes, I know, before I even buy it, that it's going to be in line with Planescape canon. I know, before I even pick up the book, that it will be the Great Wheel. That archons will be in line with earlier canon, that the planar structure will be the old structure. So on and so forth.

Which means that I simply don't buy any of those supplements. I'd like to, but, I won't because I know that most of it won't be of any use to me.

IOW, I'll do what I've always done. Completely ignore it and go my own way and make up my own stuff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

::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

Maybe in some cases, but not this case. Eberron orcs are absolutely orcs. They walk, talk, and probably smell, like orcs. They use the same stats as orcs because they have all the same physical characteristics of orcs. They are far from civilized, and tend toward Druidic practices over clerics or wizards, and they trade and don't eat people or randomly rampage around the countryside, but if you read the Eberron campaign or players books for 3.5 or 4e, you'll see that they are definatley orcs, just with a different culture.

 

[Maxperson]

That's true enough. The issue is that if I want to buy any module, supplement or whatever that deals with the planes, I know, before I even buy it, that it's going to be in line with Planescape canon. I know, before I even pick up the book, that it will be the Great Wheel. That archons will be in line with earlier canon, that the planar structure will be the old structure. So on and so forth.

Other than 2e, there hasn't been any Planescape canon. The closest is the existence of Sigil in other editions, but that city can exist in any planar cosmology. Will those supplements have the Abyss and other planes that have existed since 1e and aren't Planescape specific? Yes, most likely they will.

It seems like you are just against the Great Wheel and are conflating that with Planescape. They aren't the same thing.

Completely ignore it and go my own way and make up my own stuff.

That works!

 

[Lanefan]

What happens is no great mystery. If you are playing FR, the gods pick up the dead. If you are playing Planescape, they go to the wall. If you are playing with both...

...the gods reach through the wall, pick up the dead, and annihilate them trying to pull them back through.

What? It sounded good to me.

Maybe in some cases, but not this case. Eberron orcs are absolutely orcs. They walk, talk, and probably smell, like orcs. They use the same stats as orcs because they have all the same physical characteristics of orcs. They are far from civilized, and tend toward Druidic practices over clerics or wizards, and they trade and don't eat people or randomly rampage around the countryside, but if you read the Eberron campaign or players books for 3.5 or 4e, you'll see that they are definatley orcs, just with a different culture.

Yet in every other version and setting of D&D plus vast amounts of other games - not to mention literature and general public perception - orcs are there as little more than cannon fodder (well, canon fodder in this thread) to be killed. Thus, on seeing them in an Eberron game my first reaction would probably be to roll initiative - entirely due to the overarching orc lore so fully established everywhere else.

Change the name to something else, however, and I'm more than cool with it; and they can certainly be described as "orcs with these differences" because in this case starting with the word 'orcs' saves using a few hundred other words.

Lan-"if it walks like an orc, talks like an orc and smells like an orc it's gonna die like an orc"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Wizards of High Sorcery are from Dragonlance, so it is in fact Greyhawk + Dragonlance. The amount mixing is irrelevant. 10000000 + 1 is still 10000000 + 1. It doesn't remain 10000000 just because you want to win an argument.

And a ranger lord's ability to use crystal balls etc is from LotR. The Blackmoor region of GH is from Dave Arneson's campaign. The Barsoom that Erac's Cousin travelled to (see eg the discussion with Rob Kuntz in Oerth Journal 5) is from ERB John Carter of Mars books. Dungeonland is straight from Lewis Carroll. Etc.

GH is, per se, something of a pastiche. That's deliberate (and has the same basic logic as REH's Hyborian Age, namely, to provide a ready backdrop for fantasy adventuring).

One reason you are getting pushback on this point is because you are not really explaining why you are so unconcerned about some aspects of that pastiche, but so concerned to police others.

There's nothing arbitrary about expecting something to be that thing. If someone tells me they are give me a car and then hand me a balloon, I'm not in the wrong for expecting a car.

What is arbitrary, or at least idisoyncratic, is your criteria for identity. For instance, most people probably wouldn't regard the difference between 10000000 and 10000000 +1 as being of the same degree as a car relative to a balloon. They might regard it as closer to quibbling over shades when someone tells you they are giving you (say) a red leaf and you argue that it is really closer to a maroon.

Your criteria for identity seem even more arbitrary when you regard the presence of Tolkien or King Kong or ERB-inspired elements in GH as not going to its character, but the presence of a Krynn-inspired element makes all the difference.

Other than 2e, there hasn't been any Planescape canon. The closest is the existence of Sigil in other editions, but that city can exist in any planar cosmology. Will those supplements have the Abyss and other planes that have existed since 1e and aren't Planescape specific? Yes, most likely they will.

This is another odd claim. The 3E MotP has Planescape all through it (eg the rules of the layers of Hell have been changed from the classic accounts to reflect PS-era material). Much of this is continued into 4e.

That's still merely an opinion. It has no force behind it whatsoever.

That's the case with most conversation between strangers outside arms' reach of one another.

But it has no bearing on the meaning of what you said.

 

[Aldarc]

Wizards of High Sorcery are from Dragonlance, so it is in fact Greyhawk + Dragonlance.

If that's your argument, prove it. How is it Greyhawk + Dragonlance as opposed to Greyhawk + Wizards of High Sorcery? That's what you haven't done. You just repeat "Greyhawk + Dragonlance" as if Maxperson's declarations made it so. All ipso facto. Would you be having this argument if the Wizards of High Sorcery went by some other name at this Greyhawk game? I doubt it. It's only because you recognize what you see as the Dragonlance brand that makes you declare that this is not a "true Greyhawk" game.

The amount mixing is irrelevant. 10000000 + 1 is still 10000000 + 1. It doesn't remain 10000000 just because you want to win an argument.

So let me get this straight. The Greyhawk content, per you in this example, is the "10000000" and the Dragonlance content is the "1"? So nothing has been removed or otherwise altered/retconned in regards to the original "10000000" apart from the addition of the "1"? So how does this "1," regardless of how noticeable it is for your palate, prevent you from playing Greyhawk at this table?

Ungrateful or not, it's not a Reuben if it's not made like Reuben's are made.

So a "true reuben" would never have Thousand Island dressing? Or pastrami? Or add any additional seasoning? I apologize in advance if my personal judgment crosses the line, but your food expectations are so incredibly detached from reality that it astonishes me that you can even function in life. It seems to me that out of a practical standard, almost the entirety of all culinary dishes and recipes are not concerned with following a non-existent "True Version" but with the idea of "main ingredients."

Watch Chopped or Top Chef sometime. Contestants often tell the judges that they made something, but used different ingredients or didn't cook it in the same fashion as it is supposed to. Those contestants receive negative marks for telling them that it was something that it is not. Then look at the other contestants that tell the judges that they made something inspired by, say a Reuben, and that this is their take on it. They get props if it is good. They've told the judges that it is something new.

It's clear through extended viewing that even "Top Chefs" don't know what they are talking about or that they have an unrealistic, detached-from-reality way of viewing food that can be contradicted from actual cuisine. "This isn't cornbread, because cornbread should be like this," except for all the varieties of cornbread that aren't made that way. And sometimes they don't apply the criterion that you mention fairly or evenly with others. On some episodes, they'll deduct points and in other episodes, they like it. Furthermore, professional chefs often add ingredients to dishes (without telling people) in order for purposes of adding intrigue, mystery, and layers to the flavor. In my experience, good chefs like having you explore the taste of what they prepared and guessing what you are tasting. Chefs don't just want you to taste; they want you to experience, savor, and appreciate. (And damn, I have now worked myself up into a hunger.)

But we are not dealing with professional chefs, Maxperson. This isn't trash reality TV, and you're no top chef. This is a gaming hobby. Unless you were running Greyhawk with Gygax every Greyhawk setting will inherently be "inspired by Greyhawk." (Hopefully you are not offended at how I now have the amusing image in my head of you accusing Gygax of deceit if he ran a Greyhawk campaign that added anything that deviated from published lore.) That is the inherent nature of running campaign settings. That's what settings are: inspiration materials for cooperative world-building possible through tabletop gaming. They have no life in themselves. They are not actual history. They are gaming toolkits.

There is nothing morally wrong with expecting something to, well, be that thing.

There's nothing morally wrong with disappointed expectations, but you didn't stop there, did you?

Here's some more. An Argument from Fallacy is an Argument from Fallacy. It's not a valid argument to just declare a fallacy and leave it at that. Why? Because fallacious or not, the argument can still be true. The sun is hot because it's the sun is circular, and also true. The sun is hot. What I said is also true.

How? Can you explain without circular reasoning and begging the question? What can one feasibly add to Greyhawk while still playing Greyhawk and not Greyhawk + X____? Warforged? Races from other settings? Adventure modules from other settings? Towns from other settings? People from other settings? Is the integrity of running a Greyhawk campaign so easily broken by an organization from another campaign setting? Do you get equally upset when people tell you that they are running X adventure module only for them to deviate from the written book by substituting or adding something else to the adventure? Has that GM lied to you?

There's nothing arbitrary about expecting something to be that thing. If someone tells me they are give me a car and then hand me a balloon, I'm not in the wrong for expecting a car. Reasonable form expectations based on what they are told.

How are you not getting Greyhawk? What exactly about Greyhawk are you not getting from this hypothetical campaign?

I'm always confused when I see or hear people express a desire to avoid everyone making characters together. I...strongly want for no one at my table to have already fully made a character when they get to the table. I've explicitly asked players not to do that, more than once.


It just seems less good, in every possible way, to have everyone make their characters as a group, in a session 0, and have me their to go back and forth with, and bounce ideas around eachother for backgrounds and all that. I can't even fThom what benefit here could be to everyone arriving at the table with a fully made character, with no discussion between them or with me about heir characters.

Agreed. I can sympathize with people wanting to jump into gaming as quick as possible. Gaming is fun, after all. But Session 0 is also fun for me as a player and a GM. Even if I were doing an online game, I would want that Session 0. I don't want the question "How do our/your characters know each other" to ever be an afterthought. It's also nice as a GM to see how players are building their characters. It's sometimes even required to say, "Just to let you know, I'm just worried that this (e.g. character option) will probably not see much use in the campaign that I have mind."

FR is still FR in my game where the conflict presented in the Sundering books went different ways, Netheril is still around, Myth Drannor is definatley not ruins again, and there is a University built around a new great library on the southern Dragon Coast, which accepts students and teachers from all the great powers of Faerun, and is home to a knighthood made up of sons and daughters of the nations that fought on both sides in the Sundering War. And there are still earhtmotes, a significant genasi population, etc basically all the handwaivy "totally not a retcon" crap either didn't happen, or happened in a way that didn't burn the 4e stuff off the map with extreme prejudice. Unther is returned, but less of it is, more of Tymanther remains, and Unther and Tymanther aren't in a weird Israel-Palestine conflict, because Tymanther is a good neighbor.
I reworked the recent changes to be more about moving the setting forward, and less about pretending 4e never happened.

Because nothing has been taken from he setting. It's no different from playing in the 4e era vs the 2e era vs the 3e era vs the 5e era.

Agreed again. In terms of my values when running a setting, I think it's far more important to adhere to the spirit of the setting than the letter of the setting. That would still feel like Forgotten Realms. Nor do I think that I could accuse you of dishonesty of whether you ran a Forgotten Realms campaign or not.

 

[Barolo]

Absolutely not. You enjoy it. It's good.

(...)

But, if you want to play in a Planescape game? Knock yourself out. Fill your boots. If you're having fun, then you certainly aren't doing anything wrong.

I do not actually run the Planescape adventures using a lot of other setting materials, the action is pretty focused on the outer planes (their "nature", dwellers and trivia), factions and Sigil intrigue. Berks come from the material planes, and that includes, in my table, the other settings. And once in a while some lore related to those settings also shows up in names, riddles, servants of gods, artifacts, etc. It is just interesting that this would bother you if it were to happen at your gaming table, but in mine my friends enjoy when they "catch some Easter eggs" from their favorite settings.

 

[Maxperson]

And a ranger lord's ability to use crystal balls etc is from LotR. The Blackmoor region of GH is from Dave Arneson's campaign. The Barsoom that Erac's Cousin travelled to (see eg the discussion with Rob Kuntz in Oerth Journal 5) is from ERB John Carter of Mars books. Dungeonland is straight from Lewis Carroll. Etc.

First, the ranger's ability is based on LotR, but was changed to include other objects that allow ESP, so is different. The rest doesn't matter since the person who created Greyhawk made those things a part of it.

One reason you are getting pushback on this point is because you are not really explaining why you are so unconcerned about some aspects of that pastiche, but so concerned to police others.

The above are part of the expectations by those who know Greyhawk. Changes by modern DMs are not. There's nothing wrong with making changes, but the players should be warned that changes exist.

What is arbitrary, or at least idisoyncratic, is your criteria for identity. For instance, most people probably wouldn't regard the difference between 10000000 and 10000000 +1 as being of the same degree as a car relative to a balloon. They might regard it as closer to quibbling over shades when someone tells you they are giving you (say) a red leaf and you argue that it is really closer to a maroon.

A mix is a mix is a mix. People might not care over something that minor, but that's not really the point.

This is another odd claim. The 3E MotP has Planescape all through it (eg the rules of the layers of Hell have been changed from the classic accounts to reflect PS-era material). Much of this is continued into 4e.

Based on something does not equal that thing. The portions of Planescape that make it Planescape like language usage, factions, Rule of Threes,and so on are not there.

That's the case with most conversation between strangers outside arms' reach of one another.

But it has no bearing on the meaning of what you said.

That meaning is exactly what I say it is, not what you say it is.

 

[Barolo]

What makes you think that Hussar is implying that you are doing it all wrong?

I just don't really get what is the matter. It is not as if anything I do when I DM ever influences the campaigns we have in other settings at my gaming table.

 

[Maxperson]

If that's your argument, prove it. How is it Greyhawk + Dragonlance as opposed to Greyhawk + Wizards of High Sorcery? That's what you haven't done. You just repeat "Greyhawk + Dragonlance" as if Maxperson's declarations made it so. All ipso facto. Would you be having this argument if the Wizards of High Sorcery went by some other name at this Greyhawk game? I doubt it. It's only because you recognize what you see as the Dragonlance brand that makes you declare that this is not a "true Greyhawk" game.

Wizards of High Sorcery were created for Dragonlance and Dragonlance only. Read the books and setting. As for the name, changing the name would make it better, but only little bit better.

So let me get this straight. The Greyhawk content, per you in this example, is the "10000000" and the Dragonlance content is the "1"? So nothing has been removed or otherwise altered/retconned in regards to the original "10000000" apart from the addition of the "1"? So how does this "1," regardless of how noticeable it is for your palate, prevent you from playing Greyhawk at this table?

That's just to show that something is a mix no matter how small one side is. As for whether it's Greyhawk or not, I've consistently said the same thing over and over and over. One small change won't do it, but you have to be careful with multiple small changes and with major changes. At some point the setting will cease to be your original setting to the players if you keep pushing it. That line will vary from player to player, but pretty much everyone will have that line somewhere.

How? Can you explain without circular reasoning and begging the question? What can one feasibly add to Greyhawk while still playing Greyhawk and not Greyhawk + X____? Warforged? Races from other settings? Adventure modules from other settings? Towns from other settings? People from other settings? Is the integrity of running a Greyhawk campaign so easily broken by an organization from another campaign setting? Do you get equally upset when people tell you that they are running X adventure module only for them to deviate from the written book by substituting or adding something else to the adventure? Has that GM lied to you?

That's all going to vary from person to person.

How are you not getting Greyhawk? What exactly about Greyhawk are you not getting from this hypothetical campaign?

Be more specific. Are we discussing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s stated campaign, or something different?