Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"

[Bumbles]

I like to think of it as this: The fact that some people do not have a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist for other people. If a problem exists for some people, the problem exists.

Except the problem may not be what you think it is. Imagine you complain about being hot, so you turn down the thermostat. Now I'm cold.

Why?

Perhaps one of us is wearing a parka and the other in his skivies. Perhaps one of is a walrus, and the other a tortoise. Ok, so the former is a little more likely.

The alternative is telling people that they are the problem or telling people that something is wrong with them, and that's being more than a little presumptuous.

Except that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not wrong to have another preference, that people can differ. And if you think I'm saying that somebody is wrong in a sense of "bad wrong" as opposed to the "humans are imperfect and often have conflicts over things that amount to simple differences of perspective or preference" which is what I'm going for, then I'm sorry, but the former is not what I'm expressing at all. It's the latter.

You, to me, though, seem more like you're arguing to former, because saying that the problem is the Realms, and ignoring the conflict arising from people appears to itself be presumptuous, because you are saying that one person can be wrong for having another preference than yours. Because obviously liking something that's flawed is bad, isn't it?

Now perhaps you don't mean things that way, but it's how it is perceived.

Can't we just say some people like going along with canon, and that they're welcome to do so, without implying it's the fault of the Realms for encouraging that?

see here is the problem with the 'human nature argument"...

If the canon lawayers in my group where a problem all the time I would agree, but lets take them 1 at a time

And there's an unfounded conjecture, which if you look up further in the thread, I already talked about. Let me see where it was...I know I mentioned the Dalelands....so...post 254.

Perhaps I was a little oblique there, but I know what I was thinking at the time, that people's preferences to canon may not be monolithic. (I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I'm not sure enough of what words I used to bother looking, and I think this shows I did give consideration to the idea already.)

What's the point? People are often inconsistent. Their buttons can be pushed with one thing, or another. Go figure. I know folks who will critique every lame storyline in Professional Wrestling, but won't even notice when similar versions come up in their favorite Soap Operas. I know medical personnel who complain about authenticity on one medical show, but not another. I know some who complain about them all.

now I know I am not alone in saying when a common thread is the setting, human nature has got a bit of an albi

Could be pure coincidence. It happens. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy.

Honestly, I think we're back where we were a few days ago, with me suggesting that you go looking for some other examples. There's actually an interesting story on Slashdot right now featuring City of Heroes which may be illuminating.

 

[Bumbles]

Anyway, game on. And find ways to emotionally manipulate any canon lawyers who may annoy you.

Yeah, let's not demonize people here. Please? Perhaps you meant this as a joke, but you left out a smiley, so I don't know. I do find the joke in exceptionally poor taste however, so it really doesn't matter.

And I certainly can imagine people acting that way to screw with people's heads in real life, in fact, I know people who have, so I'm going to say please, find better ways to deal with people than that.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Except the problem may not be what you think it is. Imagine you complain about being hot, so you turn down the thermostat. Now I'm cold.

Why?

Perhaps one of us is wearing a parka and the other in his skivies. Perhaps one of is a walrus, and the other a tortoise. Ok, so the former is a little more likely.

I'm sorry, but I have to call this a strawman here. You are still dismissing of the possibility that people may have real issues.

Except that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not wrong to have another preference, that people can differ. And if you think I'm saying that somebody is wrong in a sense of "bad wrong" as opposed to the "humans are imperfect and often have conflicts over things that amount to simple differences of perspective or preference" which is what I'm going for, then I'm sorry, but the former is not what I'm expressing at all. It's the latter.

You, to me, though, seem more like you're arguing to former, because saying that the problem is the Realms, and ignoring the conflict arising from people appears to itself be presumptuous, because you are saying that one person can be wrong for having another preference than yours. Because obviously liking something that's flawed is bad, isn't it?

No, I'm saying that the reason for the conflict is irrelevant. Conflict is conflict. I could use FR and have conflict, or I could play something else and not have conflict. Not having conflict is better than conflict. The Forgotten Realms isn't god's gift to D&D, and putting in effort to overcome this conflict should be a choice, not an expecation. I don't owe it to FR to get over my issues. This isn't rocket science.

Now perhaps you don't mean things that way, but it's how it is perceived.

Can't we just say some people like going along with canon, and that they're welcome to do so, without implying it's the fault of the Realms for encouraging that?

The issue is that Forgotten Realms, for better or for worse, is the flagship setting of the D&D brand. It is the flagship setting by default, not by design, as if FR isn't the flagship setting, certainly nothing is. The issue with this is that there shouldn't be this level of conflict or baggage with the flagship setting of D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What's the point? People are often inconsistent. Their buttons can be pushed with one thing, or another.

yes, but when patterns are seen by people who have had no other communcation before...well then there might be something there...

Go figure. I know folks who will critique every lame storyline in Professional Wrestling, but won't even notice when similar versions come up in their favorite Soap Operas. I know medical personnel who complain about authenticity on one medical show, but not another. I know some who complain about them all.

I agree I know people who fall into each of those catagories...my fav is my mom who spet 7 or 8 years watching charmed, but thought buffy, angle, lost, heros, you name it were to dumb becuse they were soo unrealistic

Could be pure coincidence. It happens. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc is still a fallacy.

what??? I have no idea what you just said..

Honestly, I think we're back where we were a few days ago, with me suggesting that you go looking for some other examples. There's actually an interesting story on Slashdot right now featuring City of Heroes which may be illuminating.

not really, mostly becue any MMO hummor is lost on me and my hatred of the subject...

how ever we are compairing like things here...Person A likes canon...Person A knows more then the avrager person on X things...where X is atleast 3. His problems with canon only accure in games with B (witch is one of X).

Now if this was just my group, fine, but again I spent years thinking it was just us and human nature...then I herd others had the same problem. I thought we were the minority so I said little. I just moved on. I ran more homebrew, and bought next to no realms stuff... More years went on and I heard more and more of the same problem. Finaly WotC fixed the world in such away that over night our complaints went almost away...
I have since seen and herd more people happy with the realms.

Then people started to compair eberon and Realms...guess what? the setting with less canon, and NO CANON NOVELS had less of the issue. (i will not say none of the issue becuse again your human nature theory does hold some water...




Now I can looking back see where it all went wrong. The Novels. I c an read all the RPG books I want and still not 'get' why some people think the new mystra (called midnight when this argument accures nomraly) should be thinking like an adventurer not a god...
Or why the "Sage" should ever be a combatant...
Or why the chosen are so powerful....
or why any of a thousand things.

You say eberon might get so bad, and it might, but not as it is now. Right now we have a snapshot of the world up to 997...998...999...um what ever year it is. We have some non canon (and labled as such) novels, and some adventures.

now I will ask my roommate in the morning, but some one here probly knows. Starting from grey box #1 and running up to the day mystra died how many years have canonical events? ((((My guess is 10 or so)))

If they follow the trend and leave eberon at day 1, now it is yours to play with, I doubt it will ever be a problem.




Imagin a FR where no novels are cannon by defualt, where the time line has jumped less then 2 years in the last 20. It would be a major start.

I would also tone down the deus ex macnia NPCs. Since most games never reatch level 20, and few go above (although it is always the best that do )
imagin elminster, the 7 sisters, and black staff all in the 13-18 range for levels...and not optimized at that. SO a PC at level 12 or 13 could be there equals, great heros saving the realm...



[sblock=new 3e chosen]
Elminster Wizard 3/ Cleric 3/ Fighter 2/ Rogue 3/ Mystic theurge 6/ Lore master 2 wiz caster level 11, cleric cast level 9

Black staff Wizard 8/ Lore master 6/ Archmage 2...16th level caster

Symbol Wiz 3/ Sorcer 5/ Ult magus 7 10th level caster sorcer 10th wizard

now give each of them the spell fire feat, and god blessed/chosen powers more in line with what a PC can match...I think the spell imunity was a good idea, but not the COn boost or spell lie abilites... [/sblock]

now you might ask what about the bad guys... well bring them down a little, but not as much...then expalin in the setting that evil doesn't work togatehr well (Cult of the dragon, they, beholders, zents) all have big bad guys that could level any one of these guys, but not all of them. Good works togather so evil is held in check...

now when the rare PC gets to Wiz 3 /Master spec 8/ Lore master 4/ Archmage 5 (20th level) they CAN do what the NPCs can not, take the fight to the bad guys...one on one...well more like 5 on 1+minons

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The issue is that Forgotten Realms, for better or for worse, is the flagship setting of the D&D brand. It is the flagship setting by default, not by design, as if FR isn't the flagship setting, certainly nothing is. The issue with this is that there shouldn't be this level of conflict or baggage with the flagship setting of D&D.

You knw the fact that we have LFR more or less makes it the flagsip, allbe it unofficaly...and I will stand by my guess that 3e and 2e could not have had such a huge success with LFR as 4e is becuse of the retooling/timejump/massive purge of the problems...

 

[Hussar]

Ok, back to gaming. How do folks feel about multi-media productions, such as the Pool(s) of Radiance adventure, computer game, and Novel? In a sense, it was a way to have canon, yet somewhat flexible and blended? The same applies to Curse of the Azure Bonds and the Myth Drannon follow-ups.

I think that shows how beneficial developing a canon can be, and how interesting it can be to adapt the same things to different needs yet retain their familiarity.

And thought I've never played them, how do folks feel about the canon characters in the Baldur's Gate games? Were they faithfully represented and did they contribute to the game?

I thought the characters in Baldurs Gate became canon after the game was released. The whole Child of Bhaal thing became part of FR canon. Or do you mean the inclusion of FR canon in the game? The thing is, you couldn't do anything about 99% of the canon that was introduced into the Baldur's Gate game because the program wouldn't let you change things.

For example, I couldn't burn down Baldur's Gate, even if I wanted to. I couldn't even build a house. Nothing my group could do actually had any real effect on the FR setting. Most of the FR canon that was introduced was done so in such a way that it was just window dressing.

That's obviously not going to work in a tabletop game.

Again, I have zero problems with setting canon. If I want to play in FR, I should have a basic working knowledge of the setting. Of course. And I think everyone agrees on this point.

Where the issue lies is when I want to change a point of canon that the player disagrees with. Primal has twice in this thread talked about exactly that. That the DM should not be allowed to make changes to canon that the players do not approve of. Bumbles, you yourself have said that you would not play in a game where the DM has made changes to canon that you did not approve of. Or that you would be very disappointed in a game that did the same.

This is the problem in a nutshell. How can you balance the two issues? If I want to put the Temple of Elemental Evil in FR, it shouldn't be a huge deal. I change some proper nouns and maybe rework some elements and it's not too hard. TOEE is a very generic adventure that really isn't that hard to plunk down in any setting.

Yet, in this thread, I'm being told that I should not do so. That if I wanted to do this, I have to do lots and lots of work to make it fit. This is certainly not enticing me to play FR.

 

[Bumbles]

I'm sorry, but I have to call this a strawman here.

It's an analogy. Not a strawman. It's mean to illustrate what I mean so that we can understand each other more clearly, rather than to advance an argument.

Please examine it under those terms, thank you. See if it helps you better to look it like that. If it doesn't, then please tell me what you think I can do instead, since I don't think you understood what I said, and I would really like to be sure that you understand me clearly.

You are still dismissing of the possibility that people may have real issues.

Do you realize that it seems to me that you're dismissing the possibility that people may be the real issue?

I'm willing to say that there may be some real issues with some settings, but in the absence of a specific issue to discuss, I decline to assume it's an issue intrinsic to the setting as opposed to an issue of preference regarding the person. In this case, I see the issue as being that of adhering to canon such as it is, while difficult is not one I would consider to be an issue with the setting, any more than it's an issue with any other setting. That it may be difficult, is itself, an issue intrinsic to all developed settings where players may have expectations that exceed the GM's abilities to present. As I said in a prior posting, if your game has any connection to reality, somebody might well argue with it. This has been my experience, coming from cases involving the color of carrots and minor details of two short stories that were corrected because I got them backwards, and they weren't internally consistent. To me, it seems you think that the Realms is somehow exceptional in the problems of remaining canonical, whereas I see it as nothing more than the expected trend I see all the time. That's my experience. Has yours been different?

Anyway, I go over that again, when I do want to ask this:

Are you willing to say that some people's issues may just be a matter of preference, and that it may simply not be possible to reconcile them, let alone desirable, that the source of the conflict as it were, may not be in the thing being conflicted over, but the persons having the conflict?

No, I'm saying that the reason for the conflict is irrelevant.

That's what I'm saying, at least in regards to the game causing it.

Conflict is conflict. I could use FR and have conflict, or I could play something else and not have conflict. Not having conflict is better than conflict. The Forgotten Realms isn't god's gift to D&D, and putting in effort to overcome this conflict should be a choice, not an expecation. I don't owe it to FR to get over my issues.

I see nothing I disagree with here. Choice is good. Yet your prior words seem to declare the choice of choosing the canon to be less than desirable.

That is why I prefer to address the problem as one of personal interaction, as opposed to a flaw in the Realms.

This isn't rocket science.

Indeed. Rocket Science is in concrete terms. This is philosophy, which is considerably more subjective to being variably defined.

(Quantum Mechanics I leave for another day. )

The issue is that Forgotten Realms, for better or for worse, is the flagship setting of the D&D brand. It is the flagship setting by default, not by design, as if FR isn't the flagship setting, certainly nothing is. The issue with this is that there shouldn't be this level of conflict or baggage with the flagship setting of D&D.

That seems to be a different tact than what we've discussing before now. Would you prefer to discuss it in its own thread or continue it here? I would prefer to break it out on its own, since I don't even agree with the premise as of now.

I'm declining further response till I see your preferences. Apologies in advance for being so long-winded.

 

[Bumbles]

yes, but when patterns are seen by people who have had no other communcation before...well then there might be something there...

Or there might not, if you're simply ignoring or not experiencing such behavior even though it happens. It might be easier to point out if I were somehow able to stand over you and watch everything you've done, and show you the examples, but as I said before, that's simply not feasible.

All I can suggest if you try looking around a bit. I *know* that I *cannot* make you perceive something if you don't see it for yourself.

what??? I have no idea what you just said..

"with this, therefore because of this"

To put it another way, correlation does not imply (let alone prove) causation.

Just because you only see it happening with the Realms doesn't mean it's happening because of the Realms. I think it just happens because some people like consistency, and the more sources you have the more consistency you can have.

As such, I believe the first issue is to learn to deal with those concerns from the person, as it can and does pop up in unexpected ways.

not really, mostly becue any MMO hummor is lost on me and my hatred of the subject...

I can't help you with that then, as I can't do anything when your perceptions are tainted by your emotions. It wasn't about MMO humor though. It was about people's expectations of acceptable behavior.

(i will not say none of the issue becuse again your human nature theory does hold some water...

Well, you could have said this earlier. Might have helped spare us some of the discussion.

Me, believe it or not, I'm not saying that there's nothing involving the Realms that serves to provide issues, I just don't see it as an issue unique to the Realms, but really applicable to any gaming. You could forget, be wrong, or be mistaken about anything in the game, or make a change that's not acceptable to a player at any time. About all you can say about the Realms is that it has a lot to go through. Which may lead to some people being more understanding, not less.

I know I've had a problem with a GM changing something in a corebook. Not a supplement, but a corebook. It wasn't even a D&D game. It made me walk. Sometimes it happens. A minimum of books won't stop it.

 

[Bumbles]

I thought the characters in Baldurs Gate became canon after the game was released. The whole Child of Bhaal thing became part of FR canon. Or do you mean the inclusion of FR canon in the game?

I meant the inclusion of canon characters such as Drizzt, Elminster and Cadderly. Do you think they were faithful representations that added to the game?

The thing is, you couldn't do anything about 99% of the canon that was introduced into the Baldur's Gate game because the program wouldn't let you change things.

The limitations of a computer game, and the problems of creating sequels when you've got multiple possible endings are something I've noticed before, but let's not digress into that. They're different from Tabletop versions.

But that's why I suggested the older Gold Box games, which unlike Baldur's Gate, exist in all three forms, not just two.

Where the issue lies is when I want to change a point of canon that the player disagrees with.

Indeed, that is the crux of the issue. The disagreement, not the scope. People disagree. I expect that. Sometimes you can work it out, sometimes you can't. It's rarely the thing itself that's causing the conflict though.

Primal has twice in this thread talked about exactly that. That the DM should not be allowed to make changes to canon that the players do not approve of. Bumbles, you yourself have said that you would not play in a game where the DM has made changes to canon that you did not approve of. Or that you would be very disappointed in a game that did the same.

I'm not sure what posts of mine, you're talking about in particular, and I don't feel like digging through them again, so if you don't mind, I'll state my position anew. If this conflicts with what you think I've said, please reply to those things so that I can address any conflict you may perceive, or otherwise, take my words as they are:

I reserve the right to enjoy whatever game I'm playing. I can appreciate a good alternate history, I can appreciate a faithful attempt at canon. Do it badly, ignore it completely? I will probably go. What's badly? I'm not prepared to say in meaningful terms, as I don't believe I can articulate it even as well as Goldilocks did with the porridge of the bears. Best I can say is like this:

Radical, wholesale changes that make no sense to me? I'd probably go.

Don't like Elminster so you never use him?? Fine. Have him dead in a beard shaving accident? Whatever, he's not one of my sacred cows to have in a game. Have him evil? I may think your game is trite, but I might give it a try. I may walk out though, since I might not find it interesting.

Give me a long tirade on how you detest Elmonster and the other NPCs of the setting? Well, then that's you who has convinced me not to play with you because I just don't find that sort of thing conducive to a good game. Get a correction as to something not being how it was in the game, and get upset, using the spontaneous combustion tables? Bye!

Mostly it will be more about how you handle things than any idea I have for how things are supposed to be.

Which may not be the answer you're looking for, but it's how I roll. I also won't play with you if you smoke or drink alcoholic beverages at games, stay longer than I plan for, or have a romantic relationship between one or more players. But that's a subject for another thread, which I should start...

This is the problem in a nutshell. How can you balance the two issues?

Maybe you can, maybe you can't.

Yet, in this thread, I'm being told that I should not do so. That if I wanted to do this, I have to do lots and lots of work to make it fit.

Not by me. I could care less. If anything I've said has given you some other impression, then I'm sorry if I was unclear, but while I would have some concerns, I'd at least let you try it. It may develop that you don't do it in a way that I find acceptable, and I'll tell you. You may be willing to make changes. You may not. That may or may not be acceptable to me. I may walk. I may not.

This is certainly not enticing me to play FR.

I wasn't trying. Not my goal. I don't get paid for copies sold of any of it. I don't even see it likely we'll ever game together anyway.

Hell, I don't even enjoy selling people on my games. Or people trying to sell me on theirs.

 

[S'mon]

Wow, and I got absolutely hammered for saying that DM's should not allow their personal pet peeves to limit player choice...

Well, you actually said we were "asshats"