Actually, you could have read the exact same number, and the other player could remember something you didn't. All it takes is one source of information that each of you interpret/recall/whatever differently.
Last edited:
Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"
- Thread starter wingsandsword
- Start date
Actually, you could have read the exact same number, and the other player could remember something you didn't. All it takes is one source of information that each of you interpret/recall/whatever differently.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
that was my thinking, but you said it better
Sylrae
First Post
Hmm. Well, I'm one of those people. But only for things that are important. Sometimes for things important but obscure. Like How time-traveling magic has all sorts of extra restrictions in FR, due to a 2e book (Elves of Cormanthyr, I believe).
But I found it more stressful than any DMs have (due to every canon thing I could remember being ignored, and me not saying anything to be nice). So now I simply wont PLAY in FR and only run it. But I encourage the players to correct me if I messed up a plot detail, at which point the game takes a 5 minte recess for me to rework the plot~OR, I have something occur early enough in the game that they clearly are diverging from standard canon, and then nobody questions me. I've done the whole thousands of years in the past thing. Alternate Reality FR can be fun. elminster is Evil, or the cult of the dragon was actually right and they took over, or whatever. even when i dont do that, It usually doesnt happen, but I've only had a couple diehard realms players. Most of them didnt read anything more than the frcs and pgfr 3e.
I'm not a Canon Porn novel person though. But if its in the sourcebooks I tend to expect it to be there. Including from old editions... It wasnt fun to play FR with a DM who didnt know FR. And I wont touch 4e FR products after the Reset. Too many of the changes drive me up the wall.
-Dragonborn? Are they like Dragonkin? -> No, they're new. And the women have boobs. -> So what happened to the Dragonkin, which have been in FR for a long time then? -> they're still there, we're just never going to mention them again.
And the deity genecide and destruction of most of the cities made it less appealing too.
I do tend to expect continuity. it would be a hell of alot easier if there was condensed continuity guides of some kind.
Now, I dont expect to play in a published setting. Or a published setting that's well Defined. But if you're going to run the setting, I tend to want you to know a good chunk of material and be willing to adjust for inconsistencies you didnt accomodate in some other way. That's why I dont usually play in FR. Being someone who likes the Canon - at least as a starting point for a game, butchered campaign settings make me cringe.
Run Ravenloft, or some homebrew setting. I'll enjoy the game, and wont expect it to match canon. You can still easily use the feats/spells/class options in the FR books.
But I found it more stressful than any DMs have (due to every canon thing I could remember being ignored, and me not saying anything to be nice). So now I simply wont PLAY in FR and only run it. But I encourage the players to correct me if I messed up a plot detail, at which point the game takes a 5 minte recess for me to rework the plot~OR, I have something occur early enough in the game that they clearly are diverging from standard canon, and then nobody questions me. I've done the whole thousands of years in the past thing. Alternate Reality FR can be fun. elminster is Evil, or the cult of the dragon was actually right and they took over, or whatever. even when i dont do that, It usually doesnt happen, but I've only had a couple diehard realms players. Most of them didnt read anything more than the frcs and pgfr 3e.
I'm not a Canon Porn novel person though. But if its in the sourcebooks I tend to expect it to be there. Including from old editions... It wasnt fun to play FR with a DM who didnt know FR. And I wont touch 4e FR products after the Reset. Too many of the changes drive me up the wall.
-Dragonborn? Are they like Dragonkin? -> No, they're new. And the women have boobs. -> So what happened to the Dragonkin, which have been in FR for a long time then? -> they're still there, we're just never going to mention them again.
And the deity genecide and destruction of most of the cities made it less appealing too.
I do tend to expect continuity. it would be a hell of alot easier if there was condensed continuity guides of some kind.
Now, I dont expect to play in a published setting. Or a published setting that's well Defined. But if you're going to run the setting, I tend to want you to know a good chunk of material and be willing to adjust for inconsistencies you didnt accomodate in some other way. That's why I dont usually play in FR. Being someone who likes the Canon - at least as a starting point for a game, butchered campaign settings make me cringe.
Run Ravenloft, or some homebrew setting. I'll enjoy the game, and wont expect it to match canon. You can still easily use the feats/spells/class options in the FR books.
Last edited:
howandwhy99
Adventurer
From the OP:
Yes, canon lawyers are about as illogical as players who read game modules (thereby ruining the game) and then tell off the DM because he is not following the "plot" when presenting it.
Yes, canon lawyers are about as illogical as players who read game modules (thereby ruining the game) and then tell off the DM because he is not following the "plot" when presenting it.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
So in the last several pages, has anyone changed anyone else's mind here or it is a back and forth banter type deal now?
If somebody says yes, I personally will be amazed.
What strawman? If we apply the same logic to Eberron that’s been prevalent on this thread, it’s 2000+ or so pages to read until you “get it right” (note: I think it’s a silly argument, but that’s the common way for people to “attack” against FR).
Let’s think about this for a while… which sort of canon details are we talking about here? Official NPCs names/alignment/levels? Clothing, food, culture? History and maps? Religious lore? Because I know Eberron supplements have this kind of information, too… (and some of them, like religious tidbits, are here and ther, i.e. scattered in the whole array of books) which means that if I don’t have the right books, some Eberron diehard fan could point out, for example, that Breland does not have X or Y, and my version of Sharn’s city map is non-canonical or that Mror Hold dwarves don’t wage wars against the Warforged (which was supposed to be a major plot hook in my campaign). Whatever was the intention and selling point of the original designers doesn’t matter as much as how your players relate to the setting – that’s what’s more important.
No, I didn’t; please read the whole post (and each individual paragraph) carefully through before replying. Look at the sentence “and the book from the FR1-16 series for the area you’re running in”; a single book, not all. As for the supplements, see below.
I hate quoting myself, but that list is supposed to give you the sourcebooks I personally think are the most relevant for “a *detailed* campaign set in the Realms”. Now, as I’ve said before, people have different kinds of preferences… some want more details, while others do not. Some take notes, others do not. Some prefer combat while others do not. And so on. If your group (and that’s a generic “you”) hates details and “name-dropping”, don’t do it.
My point is, many groups do just fine with CS, but if you want to have some extra info on, for example, religions, organizations, history and FR-specific spells and magic items, it’s in these books. Is 4E FRPG absolutely necessary to run 4E FR? Of course not, but it’s a useful supplement, don’t you agree?
There’s nothing wrong in knowledge per se, i.e. doing research and being an expert in canon – if you flaunt it and use it to point out “errors” in someone’s campaign, then it’s another matter.
I personally do not know a single one; it almost seems like they’re an internet myth or something. Note that I don’t consider someone pointing out logical canon reasons for why the Spellplague couldn’t happen as written as “canon lawyering” – whenever RSEs take place, I assume the designers would play attention to internal consistency (which is another matter altogether, IMO). Hell, I wouldn’t consider someone pointing out that it’s not possible that the Mournlands is actually a country-sized Psionic entity I wrote into an official Eberron module (and this is just an example).
Just offer them a logical reason why X and Y are different in your campaign. You don’t need to “outsmart” such people.
And how often do you run into these situations during play? And how many people *actually* are such petty jerks that they’d point out during the session that some minor details is non-canonical? Anyway, he might remember one or two canon details that you are not aware of… however, you have creative control over your campaign. As I said above, tell him that Lord Lightlaughter was assassinated last year, and now (your NPC) Lady Moonshiver is the new local ruler in town X.
Again, that’s a GENERIC you, as in “someone” (passive form). What can I say? Do you think it would be any easier for me to grab ECS or ECG and run a game for a group that has read all the Eberron books and articles? I would have the same problem, *IF* the players are diehard fans who want everything to be 100% according to canon. And, it isn’t just about the depth of lore; I just don’t personally “get” Eberron or even like its steampunk-ish elements, so I don’t think it’s a good setting for me.
See above.
Well, your post implied that you had read about the city, since you “challenged” me with your “How would you feel… (and so on)” bit. So, I assumed you meant “How about if I replace a Chosen of Mystra with two DMPCs? Could you accept that?”. And I replied that I *might*, if the reason for these two dethroning/replacing/helping Alustriel was logical. And, I also assumed that if someone uses *only* the CS book to run FR, he’d read the *whole* book and spot Alustriel there.
Strawman? I think not. Look, haven’t people thrown around the idea of making major changes to canon? What if I thought it would be cooler that way? My point is, there are limits to our suspension to disbelief and how much we can accept changes to canon (changes that we’re aware of, that is); for example, some people cannot stand the “gamey” nature of 4E powers, but those same guys might very well be okay with replacing Waterdeep or Sharn with Greyhawk City (map and all).
Yes, exactly; the rest is up to what you and your group want out of the setting. For example, in one of the groups I used to play in the guys (DM included) would hardly ever read “fluff”, and I had a problem with that, but the rest didn’t. In my own group, you can’t just pick up FRCS and run with it – we all love details, so we use a lot of sourcebooks in our FR campaigns.
Um, now you’re probably confusing topics… I thought this thread was about having problems with players who have more knowledge about FR than you do -- *not* high-level NPCs or powerful organizations (and whether they ruin a DM’s campaigns or not)?
Well, I’m still not seeing it… more posters seem to be *AGAINST* FR and Elminster (and, sadly, Ed himself).
Then PROVE that I’m lying…
Well, kind of hard to prove without any hard numbers, right? If you have them, please post them. As for my anecdotal evidence, WoTC FR threads have almost died since 4E FR came out, and 95% or so of the posters in Candlekeep. And I don’t think I’ve seen much “FR love” around here… even less so in this thread (and the threads you pointed to). So, where are all the “new” fans? I also know that Rich Baker originally posted (on the WoTC boards) about upcoming FR supplements that would follow ‘Scepter Tower’, but later on when the books had been out for a while they announced that there would only be 3 books per setting. Furthermore, they have now reversed the order, i.e. publishing EPG before ECG, and that tells me that FRCG and the changes didn’t go over so well, which probably led to FRPG also selling far less than expected because of the outrage over the changes.
Well, show me your hard evidence then; prove me wrong. How do you know LFR is “going strong”? You try to refute my arguments with “You’re lying!” and “You’re wrong!”, but I don’t see any actual counterarguments from you…
We have? Who? Note that the OP is saying “I always hear these “canon lawyer" horror stories online but I never ran across them in real life.“ and “I've ran into them in message boards … but I really do wonder how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?”. So, he (like me) hasn’t EVER *met* them in RL. And how are these quotes related to my question? Please, feel free to point out the posts that said “if your group doesn’t do this well, play in another setting”, because I don’t recall a single one.
Last edited:
GMforPowergamers
Legend
see this is still the strawman...100,000+ pages compaired to 2,000+ pages...
Also ebberon in it's entire is based on it's 3.5 main book...you could take all the fluff from 3.5 book and still run 4e. If on the day ebberon's main book for 3.5 came out I bought the 1st fr books...the old grey box. would it have mostly the same fluff as the 3.0 book???
Yes...
but you are so not getting this...in ebberon the main part of the world is fully stated in the main book...everything else is add on. In the realms there are hundreds of thousands of things not mentioned or even hinted at in the main book...again silvery moon doesn't tell you it has a chosen of a god as it's ruler...I think that is important...
you mean the post that said "Who ever the current ruler is", and "He" ....??? how could you think I knew it was HER?????
and codzilla and assasin plot villians...
and If I don't know where you think someone would remember a city and an NPC 100 pages away?!?!?!?!?!?!?
so think here...
meaning the setting has made it to where you can not imagin some NPC beaten...
can you not see that problem??
there are things so overdone you can't imagin they can ever change...
the two go togather...you see these organizations, and high level NPCs are part of what is overly done...lets start with how many bits of chosen lore (You know lie who rules X city...). AND they are part of the problem with canon...
WOW... I like the world, and ed...elminster I hate...but hey, keep going makeing baseless claims..
sure...lets start with the high sales, even needing multi printing of 4e books. Then we will go with activity on the LFR boards...
lets see what you have for proof...here is a hint there is none
or they figured the better selling book (for all players intead of a sub set of DMs) might drum up more sales...like example (Player A) doesn't run or play in ebberon, but buys the PG for new races and classes and feats. If he likes it he might buy the setting book...
I am saying you are lying...prove me wrong...
I really feel for any GM who even dares to attempt to run a game in the modern world. There is a whole Library of Congress of information detailing that world......
Imagine, a GM that knows little about chicago, or dislikes undeclared aspects of it, or just wants to make it their own city by way of major changes, running a campaign in chicago.....
Player "Let's go to the top of the Sears Tower, we maybe able to see from there!"
GM "You get to the top and find your view blocked by a taller building."
Player "WTF?!?!?!"
Or something less offensive...
Player "I head to the nearest Portillos, I love their hot dogs"
GM "Portillos? Umm what's that?"
Player "Ummm a famous chicago restraunt?"
GM "That was taken over by McDonalds, and its now called McPortillos."
Player "Eh???"
Or
Player "Let's call Mayor Daley, he'll help us bust these drug dealers!"
GM "Well that ruins this adventure, whatever shall I do now...." "Umm he doesn't answer his phone"
Player "Well let's call Police Chief Weis!"
GM "No answer"
Player "Attorney General Madigan!?!"
GM "Died"
Player "Roland Burris?!?!"
GM "He answers, and wants money to help you..."
One of the significant benefits of a setting is that it allows everyone playing the setting a chance to come to the table with knowledge of the setting. This allows them to play characters that LIVE within the setting, rather than characters that experience one as it unfolds before them. While some players and GMs do not seek or some may not even desire this game play, you must accept without reservation that there are players that DO like this aspect of playing in a detailed setting. This doesn't intrinsically make the player BETTER, nor does it make the player WORSE.
It is what the player does with this information, that makes them a good or bad player. Believing that it is the setting that causes this problem is a failure in identifying the problem.... which isn't always the player with all this wealth of knowledge.
Now for an example on par with one of the stories of these "realms lawyers" that I found most annoying, as it shows a CLEAR example of a bad PLAYER, not a bad SETTING.
Back to chicago.....
Player "We're heading to Rosemont, and breaking into 410 McKinley St! The man that lives there is a mafia enforcer! We'll get him to talk!"
GM "WTF??! Who??"
Player "Tommy Two guns, he lives there. I read it in the Chicago Tribune yesterday!"
GM "No such person lives there"
Player "Yes he does, and you're a crappy GM, that just can't handle that I know more than you about Chicago!!!", goes buck wild..... storms the house anyway.... and promptly dies from a airliner that lands short at O'hare
Damn glad there aren't any RPGs played in the modern world. What to do with all the powerful figures that could so easily solve the players problems, and the endless amount of information about the world?
/sarcasm off
Yet somehow, we manage.... right?
A GM shouldn't have to know a setting down to the nitty gritty details, but they should be familiar with it via broad strokes of a paint brush. If a GM wants to remove Sears Tower from their Chicago, expect a player to be all "WTF??" and have an answer other than "GM Fiat"
Anyhow, if you have someone that knows a setting in more detail than you as the GM, use communication, communication, communication.... You could USE that player to enhance the game, if you care to try. Will that player shine a little brighter than the other players that know nothing? Most likely, but again... USE that player. Ask that player to help you create a player guide for the other players. During this creation, the two of you should come to a better understanding of just how close to the original setting you are wanting to run it, and you may learn more about the setting.
If this fails, again it isn't the setting that created this beast, it their mother and father.
The days of GM IS GOD and IT IS THE GM's GAME, should be placed in the past. Everyone at that table is contributing their time, energy and creativity to the game. It is everyone's game.
If you just don't like the setting, fine, whatever..... find a way to move on.
Imagine, a GM that knows little about chicago, or dislikes undeclared aspects of it, or just wants to make it their own city by way of major changes, running a campaign in chicago.....
Player "Let's go to the top of the Sears Tower, we maybe able to see from there!"
GM "You get to the top and find your view blocked by a taller building."
Player "WTF?!?!?!"
Or something less offensive...
Player "I head to the nearest Portillos, I love their hot dogs"
GM "Portillos? Umm what's that?"
Player "Ummm a famous chicago restraunt?"
GM "That was taken over by McDonalds, and its now called McPortillos."
Player "Eh???"
Or
Player "Let's call Mayor Daley, he'll help us bust these drug dealers!"
GM "Well that ruins this adventure, whatever shall I do now...." "Umm he doesn't answer his phone"
Player "Well let's call Police Chief Weis!"
GM "No answer"
Player "Attorney General Madigan!?!"
GM "Died"
Player "Roland Burris?!?!"
GM "He answers, and wants money to help you..."
One of the significant benefits of a setting is that it allows everyone playing the setting a chance to come to the table with knowledge of the setting. This allows them to play characters that LIVE within the setting, rather than characters that experience one as it unfolds before them. While some players and GMs do not seek or some may not even desire this game play, you must accept without reservation that there are players that DO like this aspect of playing in a detailed setting. This doesn't intrinsically make the player BETTER, nor does it make the player WORSE.
It is what the player does with this information, that makes them a good or bad player. Believing that it is the setting that causes this problem is a failure in identifying the problem.... which isn't always the player with all this wealth of knowledge.
Now for an example on par with one of the stories of these "realms lawyers" that I found most annoying, as it shows a CLEAR example of a bad PLAYER, not a bad SETTING.
Back to chicago.....
Player "We're heading to Rosemont, and breaking into 410 McKinley St! The man that lives there is a mafia enforcer! We'll get him to talk!"
GM "WTF??! Who??"
Player "Tommy Two guns, he lives there. I read it in the Chicago Tribune yesterday!"
GM "No such person lives there"
Player "Yes he does, and you're a crappy GM, that just can't handle that I know more than you about Chicago!!!", goes buck wild..... storms the house anyway.... and promptly dies from a airliner that lands short at O'hare
Damn glad there aren't any RPGs played in the modern world. What to do with all the powerful figures that could so easily solve the players problems, and the endless amount of information about the world?
/sarcasm off
Yet somehow, we manage.... right?
A GM shouldn't have to know a setting down to the nitty gritty details, but they should be familiar with it via broad strokes of a paint brush. If a GM wants to remove Sears Tower from their Chicago, expect a player to be all "WTF??" and have an answer other than "GM Fiat"
Anyhow, if you have someone that knows a setting in more detail than you as the GM, use communication, communication, communication.... You could USE that player to enhance the game, if you care to try. Will that player shine a little brighter than the other players that know nothing? Most likely, but again... USE that player. Ask that player to help you create a player guide for the other players. During this creation, the two of you should come to a better understanding of just how close to the original setting you are wanting to run it, and you may learn more about the setting.
If this fails, again it isn't the setting that created this beast, it their mother and father.
The days of GM IS GOD and IT IS THE GM's GAME, should be placed in the past. Everyone at that table is contributing their time, energy and creativity to the game. It is everyone's game.
If you just don't like the setting, fine, whatever..... find a way to move on.
Similar Threads
