D&D 5E Forgotten Realms: Rising from the Last Realms Shaking Event

[Hussar]

I think that's not a real problem.

Didn't you JUST complain about "Monte Cook's vandalism" of Planescape?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Didn't you JUST complain about "Monte Cook's vandalism" of Planescape?

Yes. That's not something from a Dragon mag 20 years ago. That's from a published and rather thick adventure, and Cook himself says he was intending to fix it in a second adventure. You may be thinking of some other Monte Cook thing?

It doesn't introduce any new ideas to Planescape, that's the issue. It's straight-up vandalism, in that it deletes literally the core of the setting. It's equivalent of going to Spelljammer and deleting the Spelljammers themselves, or Dark Sun and removing defiling and sorcerer kings and maybe the desert whilst you're at it.

Precise canon isn't the issue here. The basic concept of the setting is. Changing up the Factions or the like could have worked and was apparently Cook's ultimate goal. I wouldn't be complaining then. Deleting them entirely? Vandalism.

Canon makes it a problem because Cook's work was treated as canon in 3E and 4E. So it's actually kind of the reverse. The problem is treating every published book as canon, no matter how dire. You are pointing your own gun at yourself here.

TLDR: Obsessing over canon instead of what makes a setting what it is, is precisely what caused this problem. If canon doesn't matter, Cook could have been ignored. But 3E and 4E writers stuck to canon, despite it being trash.

 

[Hussar]

You're missing my point.

It's only "vandalism" because you don't like the changes. If you liked the changes, then no problems. That's the problem with canon arguments. It stops being about judging ideas based on the merits of that idea but rather a large bludgeoning club that you can swing about to bash people over the head with and they can't really argue. It is, after all, changing canon. That cannot be denied.

So, instead of "this is a bad idea because of X or Y" it's "We cannot accept this idea because it changes canon" - a completely different argument that basically shuts down all conversation.

I've seen far too many canon wanks to see any value in the argument. If the idea is bad, then tell me why the idea is bad. If your only reason is that it contradicts something from the setting? I really, really don't care.

Note, I have zero idea what you're talking about with Monte Cook by the way. None. I don't follow Planescape and haven't looked at anything Cook has written in years. So, if you want to be specific, you'll have to point me towards the source. I'm just pointing out that your argument is the one that gets trotted out every single time some writer tries to inject something new into a setting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So your position is one of pure ignorance here, Hussar, and you're assuming, out of ignorance, that I'm mad because "something was changed"? Despite me specifically saying in my post that change isn't the issue, outright deletion of the core elements of a setting is. Changing up the Factions, shaking up the political situation in Sigil, that could have been cool.

Specifically, right at the end of the TSR era, Monte Cook wrote a massive and not-great adventure, apparently intended to be the first of two, which wiped out all the Factions in Planescape, especially all the interesting, risky, or thoughtful ones, and replaced them with a handful of slapdash deeply generic organisations,. The Factions were the heart of Planescape, in that they made it more than a fancy MotP, and gave it a depth and artistry not often seen in RPG settings. He also wiped out most of the major NPCs in Sigil and reordered Sigil in a rather unfinished-feeling and ill-considered way.

Then apparently due to Wotc taking over and other factors he was never able to write the second adventure he claims he planned (his story has changed a couple of times).

You equate this deletion of the core of a setting with some arcane quasi-fact from an imagined Dragon article, then appear to blame me for your own ignorance. You defence appears to be "I know nothing and care nothing about Planescape so I can imply you're a pathetic canon obsessive and I can't be criticised because I'm ignorant on this and want to stay that way!". Do I understand correctly? That seems a rather audacious approach, old chap, I must say!

Again, to be clear, obsession over canon is the problem I am complaining about. Cook wrote an unpopular and forgotten adventure which deleted much of the core of Planescape whilst adding nothing. Okay, fine. If canon should not be obsessed over, that should be forgotten. We agree, I think. But 3E and 4E needlessly and bizarrely did obsessed over this obscure and forgotten adventure, because technically it was the dreaded "canon". Those authors are the people who you should be arguing with.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not audacious.

This paragraph identifies the very problem @Hussar just discussed.

Whenever someone tries to discuss something, instead of the merits of the issue being discussed, Super Canon Warrior comes in and says, "ACTUALLY, here's what happened in so-and-so time and how dare you possibly have an opinion on it when you're ignorant. You can't possibly discuss the merits of something when you don't the full history. THROAT CLEAR Let me tell you about the expanded universe ...."

Again, love of canon, the deep dive into material is awesome; people derive real joy from that! It's only an issue when people turn it into a hammer.

Hussar isn't trying to discuss this. He literally knows nothing about it and insulted the me, repeatedly, on the basis of assumptions he made, then used ignorance as a defence for insulting me.

I'm happy to discuss the precise changes, but suspect no-one else is. Apparently it's more fun to sneer and point at me for actually knowing about this? You are doing similarly, IMHO. I'm not a super canon expert like you claim. But defending changes you literally know nothing about isn't a canon issue at all, it's bad form in any setting, whether it's law, software development, a repainting of a house or whatever.

I assumed knowledge, not ignorance, note. I assumes Hussar was arguing because he knew a specific thing. But he was clear that his argument is based on not knowing about this at all.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

Well, if I was running the Realms I definitely would not buy that. Especially not the Dalelands, a place almost more generic and unmemorable than the Sword Coast, which is saying something!

You say that like it isn't a selling point. As just established, the Sword Coast is a big advantage for WotC publishing strategy precisely due to the generic nature of the region. The 3E FRCS had tons of material on the Dalelands, because it was the core of Greenwood's campaign.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Really.

So knowledge of, say, the history of the iterations of Star Trek is accorded the same deference as knowledge of the law, or software development? Same level of meaning and expertise?

You do realize that you keep reiterating a defense of canon. I mean, "changes you literally known nothing about," is just saying, "If you don't know the canon, you can't have an opinion."

Your argument is fundamentally wrong.

Canon is not a synonym for history or knowledge.

Canon is what is regarded as true or untrue in the current "official" version of a setting. You can know this without knowing the history of a setting or franchise or whatever. In fact you often see this today - many younger hardcore Star Wars fans know what is current "canon" whilst knowing very little about the history of SW.

Obviously you can have an opinion whilst being completely ignorant. Many people do! But that opinion is of low value if no knowledge backs it up.

You claimed you want to "discuss" these sort of issues. That cannot really happen if you are ignorant on the topic. If I want to discuss the October Revolution, but know nothing about the history of communism beyond "Stalin was a bad dude", I am not going to be very capable of engaging meaningfully in that discussion.

So far, you've simply joined in insulting me because I know stuff and have an informed opinion rather than an ignorant one. I don't think that's very cool.

So to reiterate. Yes, if you know nothing about Planescape you can have an opinion about changes you know literally nothing about. But you have a rubbish opinion. It would be like me discussing the Seattle Seahawks performance in 2007 or something. Yeah I can say they rock or suck, but I'm talking rubbish.