Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"

[JoeGKushner]

Right, but the earlier the divergence in a fictional setting, the lower the amount of canonical material a prospective DM would have to familiarize themselves with. So it's not zero homework by any means - but after that point, there's basically no such thing as canon.

I've decided to toy around with the idea here.

-O

On the other hand, having a greater knowledge of the line, you can bring in elements that were unknown at the time of the original devergance in a different way.

For example, there's a world of difference between just using the characters and elements of the first three Star Wars movies than making changes to those time periods using the expansion of material outside that initial timeline.

Ditto for the Realms.

What if the Shades returned during the Avatar Crisis?

What if the Aboleth Soverignty returned during the Year of Rogue Dragons?

 

[Primal]

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.

Well, if the players are okay with that, where's the problem? I mean, I don't think I could run an Eberron campaign for hard core Eberron fans with 4E books alone, or replace Sharn or Xen'Drik with my own versions without at least some of them grumbling about it. Or organize a tournament of [American] football with my own rules that make the game resemble soccer more than football. And that's just how it is; you can't expect everyone to be okay with your style.

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

No, I'm not; as I noted, there are a lot of areas in FR that have been only superficially covered. If you're running a game for diehard fans, it'd be wise to place the campaign in one of those areas, or, quite naturally, you might end up contradicting the canon sources. It's not any different than me trying to run a campaign in Sharn or Stormreach without owning the books for players who own/have read those books.

I don't know what you expect from the players... to repeat, I wouldn't run an intrigue-laden, low-combat campaign for combat fans, just as I wouldn't run an Eberron campaign set in popular, detailed areas if the players already have run or played in campaigns set there. As I've said before, you need to adjust your style with each group you're running games in, because every group has different expectations. I don't think a good DM will just cram his campaign down their throats, regardless of what and where the players would like to play.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, I'm not; as I noted, there are a lot of areas in FR that have been only superficially covered. If you're running a game for diehard fans, it'd be wise to place the campaign in one of those areas, or, quite naturally, you might end up contradicting the canon sources.

how do I know what has and has not been covered???

 

[Bumbles]

how do I know what has and has not been covered???

Well, in the grey box, they specifically declared certain areas to be undeveloped, but I think this has been left by the wayside. Maybe not though, I haven't really looked through the 4e book or even the 3e one.

But anyway, the best way to proceed would be to ask your players for their input. Even without regards to coverage in official sources, it's possible they may be die-hard Drizzt fans, so messing with the Sword Coast area may offend them, but they couldn't care less about the Dalelands.

I do that sort of thing when making any changes to the base rule set.

 

[Obryn]

FWIW, I am, if anything, less familiar with Eberron than I am with the Realms. And so all of your Eberron examples seem dandy to me.

Well, if the players are okay with that, where's the problem? I mean, I don't think I could run an Eberron campaign for hard core Eberron fans with 4E books alone, or replace Sharn or Xen'Drik with my own versions without at least some of them grumbling about it. Or organize a tournament of [American] football with my own rules that make the game resemble soccer more than football. And that's just how it is; you can't expect everyone to be okay with your style.

No, and I don't. There are many, many reasons why FR is a poor campaign setting for the kinds of games I run and the kinds of players I run the game for. It would be silly for me to try and run a game for canon purists when neither my players nor I am willing to spend the kind of time it would take to learn the canon.

I don't know what you expect from the players... to repeat, I wouldn't run an intrigue-laden, low-combat campaign for combat fans, just as I wouldn't run an Eberron campaign set in popular, detailed areas if the players already have run or played in campaigns set there. As I've said before, you need to adjust your style with each group you're running games in, because every group has different expectations. I don't think a good DM will just cram his campaign down their throats, regardless of what and where the players would like to play.

I wouldn't ever ram a campaign down my players' throats. I don't even know how I could do anything like that, unless I was running some kind of D&D gulag.

So I'll pose a query to you - let's say I'm a DM and I'm only vaguely familiar with the Realms. Several of my players are huge FR fans and have read just about everything that has come out for it.

Clearly, I can't run a canonical FR game because I lack the knowledge and know less about the setting than my players. Apparently, I shouldn't run a non-canonical FR game, either, because it will violate their expectations.

What options am I left with? In my mind, assuming we all want to play D&D together because we're buddies and like gaming together, I should avoid the canonical setting entirely, or else blow it up so much that only bits and pieces of canon remain.

What other alternatives would you suggest?

-O

 

[JoeGKushner]

My view is that you should let the players know your weakenss with the 'canon', what type of game you're going to run, and ask them if there's anything they may be able to add to the campaign.

If they're all such experts, they may have resources that you didn't and you may find those resources make some great ideas that you'd never have thought of on your own.

Or you just pick up the dice and play.

FWIW, I am, if anything, less familiar with Eberron than I am with the Realms. And so all of your Eberron examples seem dandy to me.


No, and I don't. There are many, many reasons why FR is a poor campaign setting for the kinds of games I run and the kinds of players I run the game for. It would be silly for me to try and run a game for canon purists when neither my players nor I am willing to spend the kind of time it would take to learn the canon.


I wouldn't ever ram a campaign down my players' throats. I don't even know how I could do anything like that, unless I was running some kind of D&D gulag.

So I'll pose a query to you - let's say I'm a DM and I'm only vaguely familiar with the Realms. Several of my players are huge FR fans and have read just about everything that has come out for it.

Clearly, I can't run a canonical FR game because I lack the knowledge and know less about the setting than my players. Apparently, I shouldn't run a non-canonical FR game, either, because it will violate their expectations.

What options am I left with? In my mind, assuming we all want to play D&D together because we're buddies and like gaming together, I should avoid the canonical setting entirely, or else blow it up so much that only bits and pieces of canon remain.

What other alternatives would you suggest?

-O

 

[Bumbles]

I wouldn't ever ram a campaign down my players' throats. I don't even know how I could do anything like that, unless I was running some kind of D&D gulag.

Indeed, the freedom to leave is always there. But that doesn't mean it can't be perceived that you're forcing someone to choose between leaving or accepting the unacceptable.

Consider that point of view for a bit if you can.

What other alternatives would you suggest?

I'll second the suggestion of asking your players what they want. It may be that you'll have to accept as a group that you can't run a FR game that is mutually acceptable, but perhaps somebody else in it can. Fortunately, there's no requirement that you DM, or that you must DM a game in the Realms.

If you try to say there is, then I'll just say, stop coming up with absurd hypotheticals.

 

[jdrakeh]

So, for clarification, is everybody basically telling Obryn that he can't or shouldn't run a FR game unless he's willing to buy the entire game line, learn all of the canon, and adhere to it religiously? Because that's really what I'm getting out of the last few pages of the 'discussion.'

The attitude seems to be that if a DM can't be bothered to drop a few thousand dollars and years of their lives on learning a D&D setting inside and out, they should instead move on to another setting or let somebody else who can meet those 'requirements' be the DM.

Since we're speaking of absurdities, that is absurd.

 

[Obryn]

Indeed, the freedom to leave is always there. But that doesn't mean it can't be perceived that you're forcing someone to choose between leaving or accepting the unacceptable.

Consider that point of view for a bit if you can.

No, because that doesn't resemble any gaming group I've ever been a part of. We get together every week because we like playing RPGs, and every few weeks we decide what we're doing next as a group. (Right now, for example, it's Call of Cthulhu.)

I'll second the suggestion of asking your players what they want. It may be that you'll have to accept as a group that you can't run a FR game that is mutually acceptable, but perhaps somebody else in it can. Fortunately, there's no requirement that you DM, or that you must DM a game in the Realms.

If you try to say there is, then I'll just say, stop coming up with absurd hypotheticals.

Of course there's no requirement for either. I am saying in that situation, if I am DMing, I should not DM in the Realms. Which is, AFAIK, what I've been advocating - I should run games in a homebrew or a different setting entirely.

-O

 

[JoeGKushner]

Can you point out where I say that once since you say 'everybody'?

So, for clarification, is everybody basically telling Obryn that he can't or shouldn't run a FR game unless he's willing to buy the entire game line, learn all of the canon, and adhere to it religiously? Because that's really what I'm getting out of the last few pages of the 'discussion.'

The attitude seems to be that if a DM can't be bothered to drop a few thousand dollars and years of their lives on learning a D&D setting inside and out, they should instead move on to another setting or let somebody else who can meet those 'requirements' be the DM.

Since we're speaking of absurdities, that is absurd.