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

[Maxperson]

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.

Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Zeta. It's irrelevant what sort of test it is. It's absolute proof that they are considering canon/lore when dealing with Eberron. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Wait... So you think they test the mechanics for every setting as they are creating an edition??

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

So now you also know what they are working on and how much manpower has been put into it?

 

[Maxperson]

So now you also know what they are working on and how much manpower has been put into it?

Yeah. I thought about bringing that up, but it's just way too speculative to get into an argument over. He's also grossly speculating that lack of work(if they haven't worked further on it) is due to it going badly and not because other things just have priority.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

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.

At this point, I think we've been arguing on something where I think we both actually agree on the total point, but disagree on the particular argument I used.

In which case, I'm going to have to go ahead and bow out. I am arguing out of pure stubbornness at this point.

 

[Hussar]

Well, it looks like this thread cooled down, so, I thought I'd add a few of my own final thoughts.

1. [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] has argued his point extremely well. I find myself nodding in agreement as I read his final posts or three. There is a cost to changing canon. Now, I do disagree about the amount of that cost, and I find myself thinking that the cost maybe is in a different place. For example, if you want angel eladrin in your 4e game, that's about 10 minutes of work. You already have all the lore from previous editions and we're talking about a system where the creature creation rules fit on a business card. Make your angel eladrin stat blocks, tell your players that there are two types of eladrin out there - mortal eladrin which are effectively high elves, and angel eladrin which live in the planes and you're pretty much good to go.

No, where I see the cost is in supplements. If you don't like a given change, it's still pretty much a given that any subsequent supplements are going to use that change, making that supplement less valuable to you. For example, I don't like the idea of dragon slave kobolds. I don't. It's not something that I find appealing. Fair enough, when I use kobolds in my game, they won't be dragon slaves. But, looking at the new Volo's Guide, we find that the idea of dragon slave kobolds is expanded upon with new stat blocks and new lore for the game. Again, it's something I won't use, so it makes that new Volo's Guide just that much less appealing to me.

Replace "dragon slave kobolds" with whatever change you happen to not like and I'm sure that the same applies to you. Whether it's demonic gnolls, eladrin, or whatever. And that becomes the cost. Every change will have those who don't like that particular change. Of course, then it comes down to pretty much numbers. If enough people don't like the change(s), then it will be ejected later on down the line. Demogorgon does not have hyena heads despite what the 3e Book of Vile Darkness claims.

So, in the end, yes, there are costs to be paid for lore changes.

2. There are a very vocal number of players for whom lore is very, very important. They like what they like and they make no bones about liking that. I remain unconvinced that this opposition isn't just a little bit disingenuous. The discussions throughout this thread, where people start pulling out dictionaries to try to prove their point pretty much holds up a giant sign that says, "I don't really have an argument here, but, I'm going to play semantic silly buggers and scream at the top of my lungs until I get my way". If you actually had a valid point, you wouldn't have to do this. D&D gets its lore changed all the time. Going back to Demogorgon again, what plane does he live on? Well, the 88th right? Well, that's from Planescape, but, now it's filtered down into the lore of D&D. Any description of Demogorgon is going to keep that lore, even though that lore was introduced in a specific setting that doesn't actually apply to any other setting. But, people like this change, or, at the very least, don't dislike it enough to comment, so, the change stays. Just like so many other changes to the lore of the game.

3. I wonder, if like a lot of these arguments if the gnome effect* isn't in play. It isn't so much that a given change is so unacceptable to the hobby at large, but, rather, that most people just don't really have a horse in the race, and don't care. But, since we play in groups, and if even one player is upset about the change, we'll tend to get upset too because, hey, they're piddling on my friend. While probably most of most groups couldn't give a fig about, say, demonic gnolls or, yes, eladrin, we tend to get agitated because someone in our playing circles is annoyed. Which, again, is a major cost of lore changes. Dropping gnomes from the phb, frankly, probably didn't affect too many players. It really didn't, did it? But, enough groups had that one gnome player in it to be up in arms about the change.

4. I'm really, really glad I don't have to write for D&D

*[sblock=Gnome Effect]

The idea behind the gnome effect is simple. Let’s say you’re planning on releasing a hypothetical edition of D&D. You want to determine which races are important to the game, so you conduct a poll and find that only 10% of gamers play gnomes. That might make it seem obvious that you can safely cut the gnome without much trouble.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that we don’t play D&D by ourselves. We play with a group, and when looking at rules changes or any other alteration to the game you have to consider its effect on the group. Let’s look back at our gnome example. One out of ten gamers plays a gnome. However, let’s say your data shows that the average group consists of five players (not counting the DM). That means, roughly speaking, half the gaming groups have one player with a gnome character. That number is likely lower, since some groups might have more than one gnome, but it’s a rough approximation that serves to illustrate the larger principle. You cannot measure change and its effects on the individual level. You must look at it on the gaming group level. Delete the gnome from the game, or change it in a way that gnome fans dislike, and you’ve given about half the gaming groups out there a good reason to tune you out.

With that in mind, we can quickly see how all of the options presented in a poll are important. In an ideal world, we would aim our design work at the most popular options but include the ability to slide along the scale from one extreme to the other. In this manner, you can be assured that in a diverse gaming group everyone has the options they’re comfortable with.

Even a topic such as the volume of content released per month falls into this category. Gamers who don’t want more content can easily ignore it or disallow it in their games. A theoretical D&D release schedule could focus on the middle ground of the audience, while something like the open gaming license would allow other publishers to fill in the gaps for those who want even more content. In many cases, the trick to keeping everyone happy lies in areas beyond game design.

[/sblock]

 

[pemerton]

where I see the cost is in supplements. If you don't like a given change, it's still pretty much a given that any subsequent supplements are going to use that change, making that supplement less valuable to you.

<snip>

Every change will have those who don't like that particular change. Of course, then it comes down to pretty much numbers. If enough people don't like the change(s), then it will be ejected later on down the line. Demogorgon does not have hyena heads despite what the 3e Book of Vile Darkness claims.

So, in the end, yes, there are costs to be paid for lore changes.

But isn't this a cost to WotC? (Lost sales.)

How is it a cost to the player who doesn't like the supplement?

 

[Hussar]

But isn't this a cost to WotC? (Lost sales.)

How is it a cost to the player who doesn't like the supplement?

Well, it means that a given player won't have any new goodies to buy. If you know that supplement X is using New Lore Y, then you are less likely to buy it, meaning that you have fewer new ideas for your game. I mean, a good example of this is modules. If, say, a new WotC AP uses Efreeti, I can be pretty much guaranteed that it's also going to have slave salamanders. Which makes me less likely to buy and use that module, since I don't like that idea. Same with slave kobolds. I'm less likely to buy Volo's Guide (I might still, there are some cool things in there) and use it in my game knowing that it's using lore that I don't care for.

Heck, that's the reason I won't buy any planar material from WotC and haven't bought any specifically planar material since 2e. I don't like Planescape. And I know that any planar supplement I buy will adhere strictly to that material, making a supplement like that pretty much useless to me. I actually picked up Lords of Hell on a sale years back. Read it. Fun read. Will never, ever use anything from it. I only picked it up because it was like 5 bucks used. It's well written, it's interesting, it's got great art.

Completely and utterly useless for me.

And I'm sure that people point to 4e supplements that were useless for them. If you don't like 4e Eladrin, then any supplement featuring 4e eladrin is pretty much a non-starter, no? And, as lore accretes, each subsequent supplement is that much less useful for that player. Eventually, if enough changes are made that people don't like, they drop out of the hobby, or go searching for greener pastures. And I'd rather not drop out of the hobby.

 

[pemerton]

Well, it means that a given player won't have any new goodies to buy.

<snip>

Eventually, if enough changes are made that people don't like, they drop out of the hobby, or go searching for greener pastures. And I'd rather not drop out of the hobby.

Thanks for the reply.

At the moment I'm playing only systems with no new goodies (4e, MHRP, Burning Wheel) and for a long time played a system pretty light on new goodies (Rolemaster - the flow of stuff really dried up around the mid-90s). So I personally don't see the lack of supplements to buy as a ticket out of the hobby. But I can see that for others it might be different!

 

[Hussar]

To be honest I'm in the same boat. My purchasing days are long behind me. But, considering that we have pretty much weekly threads bemoaning the lack of new material for 5e, I'd say it's a big deal for some.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Mirtek]

2. There are a very vocal number of players for whom lore is very, very important.

Not just players. There certainly are (or were, as the novel line seems to be officially dead for the moment) D&D fans who were not actually players but liked to follow the lore (aka primarily read the novels and maybe buying the supplements just for lore disregarding any rule content).

Now when game rules change that is usually of no concern, as the novels only superficially followed the rules anyway. However if a new edition too deeply changes the lore, this can create big problems in the continuity of the novels