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

[MechaPilot]

I saw you make this point upthread as well.

It's an interesting one, that I don't think I've seen before. I don't know Eberron very well, but am I right in thinking that the basis for what you are saying is that Eberron assumes something like a "magitech" economy?

One of the themes of Eberron is magic as technology, with the 3e Eberron artificer class having been built with a level dependent pool of xp that it maintains solely for creating magic items.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Your whole argument was based on the fact that mechanics were held in a higher regard than lore... your supporting arguments have based around how much lore has changed throughout the editions and yet lore changing more than mechanics (i.e. being held in lower regard by the designers and developers of the game) doesn't summarize your argument...is that what you are claiming now?

Since you apparently missed some steps... Here, let me go back to some examples I used in a prior post and highlight the obvious.

Alignment (my mummies example) is both lore and game mechanics. Previous lore, prior to the mummy change, had mummies as being good-aligned and created through positive energy.

Grues were entirely different beings with no lore attaching them to the Far Realm in 3E. If I remember correctly, lore-wise they were attached to the elemental planes in some manner. I might be mistaken on this, but I know it had nothing to do with the Far Realm. This, in turn, was reflected in their game mechanics, which had them elemental creatures (again, if my memory is accurate; I don't feel like digging out the book and checking).

The lore of Eberron hasn't changed, and yet I cited the change in game mechanics as making that setting impossible to play. Citing this as an argument that lore has changed more than game mechanics makes no sense, and serves as proof you are completely mistaken about the nature of my argument.

Which weapons in 3e & 5e had the Brutal property again?

I thought you were going to point out piercing/slashing/bludgeoning.

I'll give you that one. You have me there.

SO the mechanics to determine AC were different.

Nope. It's still take the base DC, add the relevant bonuses, and then you have your result.

So your actual claim is that base AC didn't change because AC actually did...

My actual claim is that the mechanics of determining AC didn't change, just what goes into each category.

Yep and I've provided examples of mechanics changing...again what is your proof that they hold mechanics in higher regard as opposed to canon?

Already provided. Here are the posts where you can find it:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...quot/page132&p=6971286&viewfull=1#post6971286

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...quot/page133&p=6972087&viewfull=1#post6972087

Plus this very post. Unless, of course, you are arguing that Eberron lore has changed massively to account for the changes in 5E, you're going to have trouble with trying to explain how they could care about lore as equal to game mechanics when they make a game mechanics design choice that completely destroys one of the essential elements of one of their settings.

If your assertion is that they hold cannon in higher regard... your examples are all numerous ways in which cannon has changed... I think it's reasonable to assume you're trying to drive home the fact that it changes more often. But maybe I was totally off base if so then I've mis-stated your earlier assertion... what exactly is listing out changes to lore proof of again? especially since we have just as many changes to mechanics...

One of my examples is a setting that didn't change lore between editions and relied on mechanics that no longer exist in 5E. The purpose was to illustrate that they don't hold canon as important as game mechanics by demonstrating a setting which you cannot play in 5E without extreme alterations to the setting itself.

All of the other lore changes I cited in our conversation were also game mechanics changes; alignment is both lore and game mechanics, since there are game mechanics which require alignment to have certain effects. That is why the mummy change is important; it shows they considered the game mechanics of making all undead evil to be more important than the lore of mummies being good.

My citing of them not doling out further lore is more to show that, despite any words about lore being important they are making no effort to get it out to us within the game. That's how little regard their actions give it.

 

[Imaro]

Plus this very post. Unless, of course, you are arguing that Eberron lore has changed massively to account for the changes in 5E, you're going to have trouble with trying to explain how they could care about lore as equal to game mechanics when they make a game mechanics design choice that completely destroys one of the essential elements of one of their settings.

So your main proof that they have a higher regard for continuity of mechanics as opposed to lore is... that they changed the mechanics{/B] (in the core) to invalidate the lore a specific setting (which is not the default setting of 5e. Is that correct?

One of my examples is a setting that didn't change lore between editions and relied on mechanics that no longer exist in 5E. The purpose was to illustrate that they don't hold canon as important as game mechanics by demonstrating a setting which you cannot play in 5E without extreme alterations to the setting itself.

You do realize things like the Artificer, Dragonmark houses, etc. weren't supported in the 3core rulebooks of 4e or 3e either, right? That's what campaign setting books are for. At this point I'm not even sure what exactly you're claiming. You're citing changes in mechanics as proof that the continuity of them is held in higher regard then lore and using an optional setting not being catered to in core as "proof". This isn't making any sense.

All of the other lore changes I cited in our conversation were also game mechanics changes; alignment is both lore and game mechanics, since there are game mechanics which require alignment to have certain effects. That is why the mummy change is important; it shows they considered the game mechanics of making all undead evil to be more important than the lore of mummies being good.

Or it shows that the lore of making all mummies evil was more important than sticking to the same mechanics. That's why your arguments aren't making any sense to me. You admit they are changing the continuity of both lore and mechanics and then assume their reasons for changing lore is to accommodate the mechanics when it could just as easily be the other way around.

My citing of them not doling out further lore is more to show that, despite any words about lore being important they are making no effort to get it out to us within the game. That's how little regard their actions give it.

Have you read Volo's??

 

[Imaro]

Already provided. Here are the posts where you can find it:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...quot/page132&p=6971286&viewfull=1#post6971286

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...quot/page133&p=6972087&viewfull=1#post6972087

This isn't proof that they hold mechanics in higher regard than lore. It's proof that they change lore across editions... but then they also change mechanics across editions as well. You've yet to show why you claim they hold one in higher regard than the other. It seems neither is held to strict rules of continuity across editions.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

So you're main proof that they have a higher regard for continuity of mechanics as opposed to lore is... that they changed the mechanics{/B] (in the core) to invalidate the lore a specific setting (which is not the default setting of 5e. Is that correct?

Not just that setting, but correct enough.

You do realize things like the Artificer, Dragonmark houses, etc. weren't supported in the 3core rulebooks of 4e or 3e either, right? That's what campaign setting books are for. At this point I'm not even sure what exactly you're claiming. You're citing changes in mechanics as proof that the continuity of them is held in higher regard then lore and using an optional setting not being catered to in core as "proof". This isn't making any sense.

Eberron was still officially converted to 4E. The setting may not have been the official setting of 4E, but it also wasn't massively invalidated by that edition like it is with 5E.

And my claim is that game mechanics are held in higher regard than canon during game creation. That is not limited to one aspect of the game creation, such as changes or things that stayed the same, but to the whole of it. Thus, changes that completely ignore canon are as important as seeing the general trend of how much care they put into keeping certain traditions alive.

Or it shows that the lore of making all mummies evil was more important than sticking to the same mechanics. That's why your arguments aren't making any sense to me. You admit they are changing the continuity of both lore and mechanics and then assume their reasons for changing lore is to accommodate the mechanics when it could just as easily be the other way around.

The lore of mummies being evil didn't exist until after the mechanics change was made.

Have you read Volo's??

I have. While an interesting read, it's also a book by an unreliable narrator that has indications all throughout it that Volo doesn't entirely know what he's talking about (including a canon statement of "Some of what's in this book is true and can be trusted"). Considering this book actively indicates that Volo's accounting of the creatures cannot be trusted, it doesn't count as canon beyond the fact you're reading a book that actually exists within the setting and getting some stat blocks you can use for playing the game.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

This isn't proof that they hold mechanics in higher regard than lore. It's proof that they change lore across editions... but then they also change mechanics across editions as well. You've yet to show why you claim they hold one in higher regard than the other. It seems neither is held to strict rules of continuity across editions.

Eberron has not changed lore across editions, and I cited it in the second post. Your interpretation of my posts is disproven by that.

Edit: This may help.

It comes down to the differences between a static setting and a dynamic setting.

A static setting is like 1920s Call of Cthulhu; it doesn't change. No matter how much time passes, the canon of the setting and the lore involved isn't going to change. Someone who learned about the setting in First Edition Call of Cthulhu can play with someone just learning about it from Seventh Edition and have no differences. To deal with game mechanics for a static setting, you pretty much have to mold the rules around the lore.

A dynamic setting is a setting that changes as time passes, such as Shadowrun. Compare the first edition of Shadowrun to the current and you'll notice it's undergone massive changes. Nearly thirty years have passed in that setting between those editions, and it very much reflects that. A static setting is one where you can write the game rules, then alter the setting itself through canon lore events to match the alterations you have made.

The problem? Eberron is a static setting, and Faerun is a dynamic setting.

 

[Maxperson]

Yet, nothing you're saying is even attempting to refute my statement that there's no evidence they do consider canon during product creation or attempting to provide any evidence.

They very fact that the5e Eberron UA article includes the races, the artificer, action points to help reflect the larger than life heroes in Eberron, and Dragonmarks, is irrefutable evidence that they considered Eberron canon during product creation. Those things are all part of Eberron lore/canon. You may not like the end product, but it's absurd to claim that there is no evidence that canon was considered.

 

[Imaro]

Not just that setting, but correct enough.

It's just that... one of many settings for D&D that no edition catered to in totality until a campaign setting book was published for it.

Eberron was still officially converted to 4E. The setting may not have been the official setting of 4E, but it also wasn't massively invalidated by that edition like it is with 5E.

Huh? So it was officially converted in a campaign setting book... something 5e doesn't have yet... something that could include a magic items pricing table, or even a different way for the artificer to create magic items... So it hasn't technically been invalidated, it just hasn't gotten a campaign book yet. And it's no secret the publishing schedule for 5e is vastly slower than 3e or 4e.

And my claim is that game mechanics are held in higher regard than canon during game creation. That is not limited to one aspect of the game creation, such as changes or things that stayed the same, but to the whole of it. Thus, changes that completely ignore canon are as important as seeing the general trend of how much care they put into keeping certain traditions alive.

Yes but now you're getting into an area where unless you can read the minds of the developers and designers you just can't say. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, from official sources, lore and story were a driving force in designing 4e (whether one liked or didn't like the results)... the developers of 5e have also stressed the importance of lore and story being equal to if not surpassing that of mechanics... so are you claiming they are lying and you know the actual truth?

The lore of mummies being evil didn't exist until after the mechanics change was made.

Lol... so you were there when the decision was made?

I have. While an interesting read, it's also a book by an unreliable narrator that has indications all throughout it that Volo doesn't entirely know what he's talking about (including a canon statement of "Some of what's in this book is true and can be trusted"). Considering this book actively indicates that Volo's accounting of the creatures cannot be trusted, it doesn't count as canon beyond the fact you're reading a book that actually exists within the setting and getting some stat blocks you can use for playing the game.

So it's chocked full of lore and story... whether the fictional narrator is 100% true or not doesn't matter in whether the book adds to the lore and story of the game which it does. We've always been able to decide what was and what wasn't lore/story for our game...Another example is SCAG which has lore and setting information for the forgotten Realms... In fact every AP is added lore and story to the game... In other words claiming they aren't publishing lore and/or story for the game is blatantly false (and kind of hilarious given the cry from a minority of the fan base for more mechanical crunch).

Also I noticed you have switched to using the word cannon above... but if that is what you are speaking to then the only fair comparison is with mechanics changing over editions which you said wasn't your point when I addressed it.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

They very fact that the5e Eberron UA article includes the races, the artificer, action points to help reflect the larger than life heroes in Eberron, and Dragonmarks, is irrefutable evidence that they considered Eberron canon during product creation. Those things are all part of Eberron lore/canon. You may not like the end product, but it's absurd to claim that there is no evidence that canon was considered.

It's a beta test. Not a final product. As in, they just then got around to testing the mechanics to see if they fit within 5E, as opposed to testing that while writing the game mechanics.

The fact they've not taken it any farther than that in the time since should say a lot about how well it went.

 

[Imaro]

Eberron has not changed lore across editions, and I cited it in the second post. Your interpretation of my posts is disproven by that.

Uhm... no the lore did change in Eberron across editions... here are some of the changes in 4e that weren't in 3e.

Xoriat being moved out of orbit, and placed into the stars beyond.
Baator being added to the cosmology
"Siberys" planes becoming part of the Astral Sea. This includes: Daanvi, Irian, Syrania, Lamannia, Mabar, Baator, Shavarath. This is only a broad title, and does not change how the planes function.
"Eberron" planes now orbit closer to Eberron: Dolurrh, Thelanis, Dal Quor. Dolurrh also acts as the Shadowfell, Thelanis acts as the Feywild.
"Khyber" planes are considered the Elemental Chaos: Fernia, Risia, Kythri, and the Abyss (Though the Abyss is not an orbiting plane).
Dragonmarks now come in a single size.
The maps were rescaled.
Changelings and Doppelgangers are now the same race.
Things like Eladrin and the feyspires were written in.
The Stillborn were renamed the Skullborn.