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

[Maxperson]

Maxperson[/I] vs @pemerton. @Maxperson has zero problems with any change so long as it has the official stamp of approval from either TSR or WotC, but, sees even fairly relatively minor changes to the setting as a deal breaker if they don't have that seal of approval. And that's how every change to the game plays out. Whether it's things like Warlords, or Damage on a Miss, or planar makeups or whatever.

It's stuff like this that makes people view you and @pemerton as disingenuous. I have said repeatedly that change by players is fine. I have said repeatedly that change by the DM is fine, though the DM should be careful. I have also said repeatedly that if the DM makes such changes, he should warn the players. I know you can read, and I'm certain that you aren't retarded, so that only leaves you deliberately misconstruing what I have said.

I've included [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] there, because he uses the same tactic.

 

[Teemu]

I have also said repeatedly that if the DM makes such changes, he should warn the players.

I disagree. If I want to run a Forgotten Realms campaign themed around the Zhentarim and the Harpers, but I change it so that an important named Harper leader is actually a polymorphed dragon, not the human/elf/etc. that they are in the source books, I don't have to tell the players in advance that there will be changes to established canon. Changing canon is a DM's prerogative, announced or not. Similarly, if I decide that during the War of the Spider Queen Shar killed and usurped Lolth's domains -- in secret -- I don't have to tell that or even allude to that before session 1. The discovery could be a great campaign moment, and telling the players that there'll be secret changes to the gods doesn't serve a useful purpose.

 

[Mirtek]

BWhy is backwards compatibility such a major issue? We've had lots of evidence that most campaigns don't last more than a year or two.

because of the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. If I want to run a Forgotten Realms campaign themed around the Zhentarim and the Harpers, but I change it so that an important named Harper leader is actually a polymorphed dragon, not the human/elf/etc. that they are in the source books, I don't have to tell the players in advance that there will be changes to established canon. Changing canon is a DM's prerogative, announced or not. Similarly, if I decide that during the War of the Spider Queen Shar killed and usurped Lolth's domains -- in secret -- I don't have to tell that or even allude to that before session 1. The discovery could be a great campaign moment, and telling the players that there'll be secret changes to the gods doesn't serve a useful purpose.

That's up to you, but letting them know that it's not a pure canon game wouldn't even begin to allow them to guess at either one of those.

 

[Imaro]

I disagree. If I want to run a Forgotten Realms campaign themed around the Zhentarim and the Harpers, but I change it so that an important named Harper leader is actually a polymorphed dragon, not the human/elf/etc. that they are in the source books, I don't have to tell the players in advance that there will be changes to established canon. Changing canon is a DM's prerogative, announced or not. Similarly, if I decide that during the War of the Spider Queen Shar killed and usurped Lolth's domains -- in secret -- I don't have to tell that or even allude to that before session 1. The discovery could be a great campaign moment, and telling the players that there'll be secret changes to the gods doesn't serve a useful purpose.

Disagree... its all about setting expectations and transparency. Yes its the DM's right to change things as he sees fit... but its my right as a player to decide if I want to play in your homebrewed game vs. a game where I could trust my knowledge of FR without explicit DM affirmation of my assumptions. No one is claiming you have to list out all your changes (though I would expect any that affect character creation to be laid out in detail beforehand) but I fail to see the issue with simply stating to your players... this will be a homebrewed version of FR so expectations based on canon may not be true.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

So, here's the thing I keep trying to point out. We are all running alternate universes of Greyhawk. Every ... single ... one of us that runs it. Heck, even in ur-Greyhawk (Gygax's campaign) there were a number of alternate Greyhawks (Oerth, Aerth, Yerth, etc.).

So this simply becomes a question of labeling. You want to be able to label something as "Not Greyhawk," while others want to label something as "Greyhawk." I would say that the people at a table are at a better position to understand what is more, or less, likely to lead to confusion for that table.

There are "alternative" universes of Greyhawk, and then there are ALTERNATIVE universes of Greyhawk. A Greyhawk where a canon inn burned down isn't going to be a significantly changed as if you changed Iuz into a good guy fighting the evil Chartreuse Brotherhood for control of Waterdeep.

It's like the addition v. change discussion. Are additions changes? Yes. Are they the kind of change being discussed when my side says change? No. There is a very big difference between the two.

IMO, that puts @permerton in the best position to describe his campaign, and what works for his table. It also happens to jibe with what we do at my table- which is to say, we label the campaign with the name of the setting from which the most guidelines were borrowed (Greyhawk). And that's a salient difference for me; I don't think there's an issue with you stating that you wouldn't call your campaign "Greyhawk" if you borrowed the maps, but changed some of the history, because that's your call. OTOH, if you came to our table and demanded that we not use GH because in your opinion, we weren't doing GH right, then I think that would be problematic.

I wouldn't demand something like that. However, I would expect that history to remain the same if all you told me was that you were playing Greyhawk. The decent thing to do would be to warn me that Greyhawk is the base, but some things have been changed. Without that warning, as I encountered things that were changed, it would have a negative impact on my fun as I would be roleplaying based on the expectation that Greyhawk history would be in play for my PC to use. At some point as I encountered more and more of these instances, I'd stop and ask you what all the changes were.

I understand that different people have different desires and tolerances for deviations, for pastiche, for using more (or less) lore, for filling in blanks, and so on. But the key is that we accept that these differences in playstyle, at tables, in DMing, will naturally occur. Otherwise, we all end up arguing about arguing, and that's not fun for anyone.

Well, we accept them or go find a different game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

This is simply a matter of perspective. I respect the fact that you enjoy running other people's stories (I don't mean that as a pejorative, but as a description, because detailed lore is other people's stories). That you would desire to use your knowledge of canon/lore as much as possible within a campaign.

Pleas stop saying that... I run my stories, plain and simple... if the requirement for running someone else's stories is to use someone else's detailed lore... then anyone using any part of a setting that's not their own is technically running someone else's stories. The distinction makes no sense and does sound pejorative.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*