Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm not going to spend too much time on this, but since you brought this up, my point in mentioning this is, in part, to show that someone took a comment of his, out of context, not having seen the whole however many hour session that was going on, and has extrapolated that every time his players get into trouble Elminster or some other powerful NPC shows up and saves them.

now it is you takeing it out of context, did you listen to the pdcast?
They asked about the fact that people complain about El...he answer was DMs are useing him wrong, then gave this example of how to do it right...

If he runs his game that way fine, if he doesn't fine...but I have major problems with him giving DMs 'advice' that goes against most DMs idea of good gameing.


I think every game (yours, mine, Ed's, Gary's) all run diffrent. How ever if giving advice you should becarful of how it comes off...I worry that DMs hear that type of thing and run Deus Ex Minster that way...

I don't think its fair to guess at Ed's DMing style based on the fact that he has said that, if you want to, you can once in a while use Elminster to push the plot in a given direction.

I don't care what his game is like...I never guessed what his game is like...his advice sucked...that is what I am targeting his advice...

For example, I'd probably walk out if the DM started with "Alright, guys, you're travelling from Silverymoon to the village of Hommlet to investigate some rumours about a cult of Vecna...".

Ok I know hommlet is a generic village, or atleast it was in retuern to temple of elmental evil....and I know the realms has plenty of room for acended gods, so vecna CAN be fit in...so what is the problem here???

Of course, if the DM only owns the Grey Boxed Set, I don't expect him to suddenly buy every book that has some lore about Town X. Absence of lore is not what usually troubles me (I *do* have a problem with DMs who don't detail the area at all, and generally don't do NPC descriptions)

but you had a problem with me taking the 1/4 of a page description of silverymoon from the campiang guide...

... rather, what really bugs me is glaring inconsistencies with the canon that are not explained in or out of the story (e.g. a Cormyrean town that's "alway's been a Zhentarim town"). And, of course, that the lore DM chooses to replace the canon with does not feel "Realms-y", e.g. local lords with RW names or homebrewed deities.

what if the DM has a problem with lack of 'rw' names in general. I see no reason why some people can't be Grant, Mathew, Justin, David, or John...iinfact I have used each of those names over the years...infact every edtion (sevral times in 3.5) I have had an NPC paliden named Mathew...it just fits so well

So, when you're running a game to FR "veterans", it's good to be familiar with the setting in general, and not just the local area, but I'm not advocating that you should read and own every book to be able to run a FR campaign. If you want to run a FR campaign set in 1357, I'd be totally cool with that.

yet you attacked my game idea like a rabid racoon cornererd...

 

[Bumbles]

yet you attacked my game idea like a rabid racoon cornererd...

Didn't seem particular rabid to me.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

For example, I'd probably walk out if the DM started with "Alright, guys, you're travelling from Silverymoon to the village of Hommlet to investigate some rumours about a cult of Vecna...". However, if the DM chose to have the bland and generic 8th level local lord replaced with a more interesting NPC, I'd have no objections to that; I do that myself in every campaign (i.e. I read the relevant supplements I own and then pick what I like and change the rest to better fit the campaign).

/snip

So, you're basically saying that because I am using a shared world, I, as DM, no longer have control over my campaign? That I cannot add material from outside sources to the setting that you do not personally approve of? Your response to a DM adding such material would be to walk about of the game?

Wow, and I got absolutely hammered for saying that DM's should not allow their personal pet peeves to limit player choice. Primal's flat out saying that if a DM deviates from FR canon in a way he does not approve of, he will not play, because, let's not forget, if I do replace a lord with something he does like, that's ok.

Since when do you, Primal, get to have final say over what's interesting or not in my campaign?

Well, I suppose voting with your feet certainly is your prerogative. My response would be probably fairly predictable. Be sure to close the door on your way out. Thanks.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

because, let's not forget, if I do replace a lord with something he does like, that's ok.

he even said (I belive it was a bit of a slip of the toug...er keyboard, al be it a tellign one) low level...he said "8th level generic" so again going back to my random pulled from my butt example...alustrial was off limits, becuse she was a power house chosen...


I want to use another example... I love this strip: I am still a dragon

now if I said that a chosen...lets just say Elminster fell in battle to the cult of the draagon, becuse they had 3 dragons, and an anti magic feild (Bye bye contingancies, magic buffs, and all magic items/spells) then they claw claw bit him to death...then they lower the field and use trap the soul or soul bind to insure he can not be raised...it is now the PCs job to rescue his soul. What would all the FR Fans say to that??

 

[Bumbles]

I say have fun, enjoy yourself. Hope you have a good adventure.

 

[JoeGKushner]

What would all the FR Fans say to that??

Why do you keep lumping in all FR fans as one group? For instance, in your first example I noted that you should run it as you wanted to.

I would say the same thing again here.

 

[Obryn]

as I said in an earlier post, I'm not against changes to canon *if* they benefit the campaign and also make sense (do not violate internal consistency and/or are believable).
....
However, if the DM chose to have the bland and generic 8th level local lord replaced with a more interesting NPC, I'd have no objections to that; I do that myself in every campaign (i.e. I read the relevant supplements I own and then pick what I like and change the rest to better fit the campaign).

But that's a problem, in my mind. Basically, you're saying that a DM should feel free to change stuff - so long as they don't change too much, or else only change the boring bits. I'm not good with that; if I'm given a detailed setting, I can guarantee it will be blown all to hell by mid-level.

I mean, in my Star Wars game, I had Jabba the Hutt assassinated by noghri under orders by Vader's apprentice Darth Nemesis (formerly Princess Leia) and replaced with a different, force-sensitive Hutt as part of a grand political power-grab against the Emperor. When I get a setting, I blow it up.

Of course, if the DM only owns the Grey Boxed Set, I don't expect him to suddenly buy every book that has some lore about Town X. Absence of lore is not what usually troubles me (I *do* have a problem with DMs who don't detail the area at all, and generally don't do NPC descriptions)... rather, what really bugs me is glaring inconsistencies with the canon that are not explained in or out of the story (e.g. a Cormyrean town that's "alway's been a Zhentarim town"). And, of course, that the lore DM chooses to replace the canon with does not feel "Realms-y", e.g. local lords with RW names or homebrewed deities.

But you're kinda contradicting yourself. If I only invest in the grey box, and I'm only interested in using the grey box as a source, I as a DM don't know if my changes will be internally consistent in the greater canon. I also, honestly, wouldn't care.

If that excludes canon-lawyers from playing in my games, I'd have to be fine with that. I think they could be missing out on a fun experience that violates their expectations, though.

-O

 

[JoeGKushner]

But that's a problem, in my mind. Basically, you're saying that a DM should feel free to change stuff - so long as they don't change too much, or else only change the boring bits. I'm not good with that; if I'm given a detailed setting, I can guarantee it will be blown all to hell by mid-level.

I mean, in my Star Wars game, I had Jabba the Hutt assassinated by noghri under orders by Vader's apprentice Darth Nemesis (formerly Princess Leia) and replaced with a different, force-sensitive Hutt as part of a grand political power-grab against the Emperor. When I get a setting, I blow it up.

-O

I think as long as the players know ahead of time it's a game taking place in the SW setting but not using any of the established 'history' as the baseline then you're good to go.

 

[JeffB]

I do feel there should be *some* internal consistency, for my own tastes- I'd certainly use the Hommlett map, and perhaps the general plot point surrounding it , but I'd change names and give it more Realms ..err.."flavor"? (I'd change the name of the Temple and pick a couple of appropriate Realms deities).

But thats me, other DM's of course are free to do what they wish

I think this Zeb Cook quote from a recent Grognardia interview fits here (though it was said regarding 2E in a general sense)

I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole.

 

[Bumbles]

But that's a problem, in my mind. Basically, you're saying that a DM should feel free to change stuff - so long as they don't change too much, or else only change the boring bits.

That may be a problem, but that's the reality of dealing with human beings, some of them may not agree with your changes. Fortunately, it's not mandatory that everybody enjoy playing in your games, nor do you have to enjoy having everybody in your games. You can be selective.

If that excludes canon-lawyers from playing in my games, I'd have to be fine with that. I think they could be missing out on a fun experience that violates their expectations, though.

Or they could be avoiding something that just wouldn't appeal to them. Believe it or not, I've had people say "Try it, you'll like it" and not understand that not only did I not like it, I'm upset at them for forcing it upon me. There are far more enjoyable games I'll never have time for than I'll ever play so I'm not going to fret over missed opportunities. It's the wasted time that bothers me.

Note, of course, I'm not applying this to you in specific, as I don't know your gaming that well, just addressing the issue of missing out. Which applies to many things, movies, music, books, food, etc...as an argument, "they could be missing out" is rather weak on its own, and just doesn't appeal to me. It feels far too coercive. So no thanks!