D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Shasarak]

One of us is extremely confused.

Come on man, you only have 43 pages to read to catch up.

*You can do eeett*

 

[Corwin]

Yeah... they were the Eladrin...

No. You miss the point.

 

[Corwin]

Who said that 4e did not have high elves?

Now I'm certain it is *you* who is confused. Whew. Had me worried for a second, there.

 

[pemerton]

What if you don't still have those books for whatever reason? Granted I guess I could re-buy them... but then on top of the added cost of the old books...I'm also paying for wordcount I don't want in the form of the new lore... why should I have to?

I don't know if I get this - you're saying that the reason WotC should never change lore, and should instead republish old lore, is because previous cutsomters might have lost their books and want to replace them with a new edition rather than rebuying the old version?

That's a new argument, I guess, but I don't think it's very strong.

I guess technically if you played in a home game and your DM was an agreeable sort you could re-skin an Elf as a gold elf... though it would still be a little off. Of course if you played in Encounters that wasn't really an option...

And so now the reason not to change canon is because all the people playing Encounters might miss the old canon?

I guess that might be a reason for WotC, because it has commercial significance - but for any particular player, all it comes back to is "I like the new stuff" or "I don't like the new stuff" - which has been [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point for most of the thread.

Also, maybe I'm wrong but I would have thought the number of people who hate 4e lore changes yet were playing 4e Encounters is fairly small. Certainly in all the many threads I read over the past several years, I don't remember anyone who was attacking 4e making this particular complaint (ie that it would all be fine if only I had an Encounters option other than (wood) elf or eladrin).

 

[Shasarak]

Also, maybe I'm wrong but I would have thought the number of people who hate 4e lore changes yet were playing 4e Encounters is fairly small. Certainly in all the many threads I read over the past several years, I don't remember anyone who was attacking 4e making this particular complaint (ie that it would all be fine if only I had an Encounters option other than (wood) elf or eladrin).

Could be a reason why 4e Encounters did not last for very long. Hard to say if it would have saved it though.

 

[Hussar]

NO, we're telling you (well, really, WOTC) not to take the chuck or porterhouse steak off of OUR plates and replace it with round steak, even though we're been eating the former for 40+ years, just because YOU personally think round steak is better and DAMMIT! We all need to get with the program, because chuck and porterhouse are SO last year! The WHOLE table has to eat round steak, it can't just be YOU eating round steak on a separate plate, even if your plate is just as big as ours. This is what 4e did, insist all players eat round steak. Whether round stake is "better" or "worse" than the other kind is irrelevant... what matters is our choice was taken away and replaced with another. 4e COULD have chosen to put the changes (new cosmology, elemental giants, new Eladrin and Tieflings, etc.) in a new "Netir Vale" campaign setting, thus allowing those who liked the new material to have it while leaving other campaigns untouched... but no, the changes were so "cool" that they had to be in the core material, where nobody could ignore it. You said that we could just change the monsters back. Well, let's turn that around... why should I have to have changed the 4e monsters? Why shouldn't it be YOU turning regular giants into elemental giants, regular Archons into elemental Archons, etc? Why should the burden be on the people who liked the original material?!?

Because you already have all that material? Did your books spontaneously combust when 4e came out?

Funnily enough, when I apply the same argument that you are using to 5e, I get told to get with the program. 5e makes all sorts of changes. Probably just as many changes to lore as 4e did. Broad, sweeping, and in some cases, pretty radical changes (paladins come to mind here), but, it's perfectly acceptable.

After all, all the things I liked were taken away from me. So, again, if changes are bad, why is it okay for you to tell me to get with the times, but, not okay for me to tell you the same thing?

 

[Hussar]

1) The issue isn't what they put IN, so much as what they choose to leave OUT, as I stated above. New Tieflings? Fine, as long as you don't kill off the originals (and YES, by presenting the new Tieflings as the only version in the books, you ARE killing off the original!)

2) McDonalds is free to change its menu, and it's true that I have a choice whether to eat there or not... but if they change the menu to the point that it's unrecognizable, it's not longer really McDonalds, and I no longer have any reason to eat there. Decisions like that have consequences: yes, it may attract new customers who never cared to eat at McDonalds before, but it also causes many long-time loyal customers to abandon the chain and buy their meals elsewhere, since their patronage and wishes are being ignored. Coca-Cola had to learn this lesson the hard way.

Heh. You do realize that a McDonald's menu today would be virtually unrecognizable to someone from, say, 1975. Other than a Big Mac, virtually nothing on that menu is the same. I can't be the only one to remember McPizza. And, of course, salad and muffins are now on the menu. Here in Japan, every September, we get egg burgers - a quarter pounder with bacon and egg. In Canada, we used to get the McLobster.

And, yup, the irony here is that you are arguing against change while pointing to something that has completely and totally been rewritten numerous times over the years.

 

[Hussar]

What if you don't still have those books for whatever reason? Granted I guess I could re-buy them... but then on top of the added cost of the old books...I'm also paying for wordcount I don't want in the form of the new lore... why should I have to?

So, why does that not apply to 5e? Or any other edition? Or any other publication?

Or, is it okay to pay for stuff only so long as it appeals to your personal tastes?

 

[Imaro]

I don't know if I get this - you're saying that the reason WotC should never change lore, and should instead republish old lore, is because previous cutsomters might have lost their books and want to replace them with a new edition rather than rebuying the old version?

That's a new argument, I guess, but I don't think it's very strong.

No weaker than assuming it's okay to change because those who want it must have access to it...

 

[Hussar]

There is a difference between having Eladrin in the PHB and making all Gold Elves into Eladrin.

One of those is a really stupid idea and the other allows you to play an Eladrin character.

This baffles me. You are completely okay with replacing Gold Elves with 5e elves, which are just as different as Eladrin. The only issue here is you can't seem to get around the noun. It's mind boggling. If Eladrin were bad because they were different from 3e Gold Elves, then why aren't 5e Elves also equally bad?