How do you deal with canon fanatics?

[jdrakeh]

Is that really the major selling point? It seems for jdrakeh the main selling point is that it greatly reduces the amount of prep work he'll have to do.

That's exactly right. I should also add that many settings (the FR 1e box set or the recent Wilderlands set, for example) specifically don't detail every nook and cranny of the setting, only the fundamentals, thus giving a busy GM a solid base to build upon with plenty of room for customization. There is a sizeable demographic for which having every setting detail spelled out in specifics is a deal breaker, rather than a selling point.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Greenwood saying that FR is really 'this way' despite the fact the the entire body of products portrays it 'that way' is kind of like the several White Wolf creators parroting the old party line about supernatural creatures being ultra-rare despite the fact that the actual products had them crawling out of every dark corner on Earth and running or protecting the whole damn world from behind a globe-spanning veil of supernatural conspiracy (actually, it's exactly like that).

Sorry to disagree, but I do think that's a flawed analogy. Greenwood isn't saying "high-level wizards are rare in the Realms" or "the forces of law and good are few and far between in Faerun" or anything that's expressly contradicted by the setting materials. He is saying "take everything written here with a grain of salt," which is something echoed consistently within the setting materials (check the NPC descriptions and comments about suggested NPC levels in the 1e FR boxed set, or discussions of the existence and powers of the gods in the same set, or the Volo's Guides, or FR1 (descriptions of the Lords of Waterdeep in particular), FR2, FR4, FR5, or... well, pretty much everything Ed wrote).

This doesn't point to a concrete statement about an element of the Realms themselves, but a more general attitude about the nature of Realms "canon": Namely, one that's directly opposed to the nitpicking setting-canon fanatic philosophy. This *also* happens to be something that you can "use" against nitpicking setting-canon fanatics, which is why I brought it up. And no: This meta-philosophy of FR design was extremely consistent up to 3e; to reiterate, check out the Volo's Guides and the commentary therein.

The point is, what Ed Greenwood says about FR is directly applicable to your issues with the canon-fanatics; to fight it is to support the canon-fanatic perspective in direct contradiction to the setting. So, to get to the point, if you ARE unfortunate enough to be dealing with non-sane, rational people (and I feel for you!), you may want to present them with Ed's statements to this effect, is all.

 

[jdrakeh]

Being slightly under the influence doesn't hurt either...

I've sworn a vow of abstinance, fortunately. As for writing my own canon, as mentioned earlier, my day job really doesn't leave me the time to do that. Writing little rule sets is one thing; developing a consistent setting is another thing entirely

 

[DonTadow]

If you're honest in the beginning of the campaign and tell hte player that this is "YOUR" version of forgotten realm then things should be fine. Leave the door open for discussion after game about differences but not during the game.

There's no reason why other communities can't exist in an established campaign. Some places just are not important enough to put on a map but still may be important in a regional sort of way.

From the player perspective, it may be good to meet them halfway some time as players use canon to live through their character.

Heck, even in my own homegrown campaign, i have players whom will remember some events better than i did and it helps with their immersion if i stick as close to it as possible.

 

[Hussar]

Well, where the Scarred Lands was concerned, this wasn't the situation. I wanted to insert a socialist city state into the setting. That's it. I didn't want to rewrite or remove anything that was already part of the setting. This intention was immediately met with incredulous disbelief (wanting to know why I would ever want to do such a thing in fantasy, let alone the Scarred Lands) and suggestions that such a structured government wouldn't function in the Scarred Lands (despite the fact that Calastia is just as structured, if not moreso, than a socialist city state would have to be).

Oh, well heck, that's no problem. I can't see why anyone would have an issue with that at all. I'm not sure that Calastia is structured as socialist given the material in the Calastia sourcebook - owning slaves is certainly NOT a socialist idea - but, I see no reason why you couldn't stuff one in somewhere.

That's not even an issue IMO.

 

[jdrakeh]

Oh, well heck, that's no problem. I can't see why anyone would have an issue with that at all. I'm not sure that Calastia is structured as socialist given the material in the Calastia sourcebook - owning slaves is certainly NOT a socialist idea - but, I see no reason why you couldn't stuff one in somewhere.

Oh, I know that Calastia isn't socialist, my point was that it contains as much rigid structure as a socialist state would require, however (if not more). I was bluntly told that a socialist state would never work in the Scarred Lands because no country or culture therein could meet the rigid structural demands of such a society due to the fact that they were (paraphrased) too busy trying to survive and/or rebuild.

This seemed like a very weird argument as socialism not only tends to thrive in post-war environments centered on rebuilding but, also, because Calastia (as a dictatorship) is every bit as rigid in terms of governmental structure as a socialist state would be. When posting this thread, I assumed that the reaction my plans elicited was one of canon purist though, in retrospect, it might have been a knee-jerk response to the mention of socialism.

That's not even an issue IMO.

Yeah, it shouldn't be, though stuff like this can really work canon fanatics into a tizzy, IME

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I can pretty much agree with you here Jdrakeh. Depending on what you view as socialist, ancient tribes certainly qualify as socialist. Meh, this is straying into politics, so I'll cut my thoughts short.

Changing minor setting elements is what a DM is supposed to do. What's wrong with owning the setting?

 

[Psion]

I'll distill my posts from elsewhere...


1) By generally avoiding settings which draw them. I don't often run a whole lot of games in setting based on media franchises.

There are a few I would consider running. Say, Farscape, which would pose an immediate problem in that it presumes that John Crichton is the ONLY man from Earth out in the cosmos. Which leads us to:

2) I have a general philosophy on "if nothing said that something didn't happen, then it might have." Further, just because common talk in a setting assumes something is true doesn't necessarily mean that what common wisdom holds is true. This is probably the biggest flaw with setting fanatics... they DO tend to assume that, until, of course, the author plainly contradicts themselves. Some fans aren't content to give the GM that much latitude. Which is too bad.

An example here is the common Wisdom that all Jedi but Obi Wan and Yoda died in the Rebellion era. Of course, it seems perfectly logical to me that there are OTHER Jedi hiding out... of course they aren't going to trumpet their presence, and some may have gone to extreme measures and went to extreme backwaters to hide out. Considering how kick-ass the Jedi are portrayed, it almost seems illogical to me that some wouldn't escape.

Anyway, some fans won't agree with me, and won't enjoy themselves playing in a game with my alterations, and I don't like playing in settings that don't give me enough latitude, and even I feel a bit dirty breaking with some canon. So I'd almost rather...

3) Make my own homage version of the setting which leaves me free of my own self doubt and that of others.


I have little respect for EU and none for FR novels. Though the chances of me running in the FR again are pretty close to nil, that latter is pretty much irrelevant to me.

In Star Wars, EU novels regularly contradict each other and any big details tended to get smashed by the release of new movies. When running SW, my general attitude is that EU is a great source of ideas, but nothing therefrom is considered to have really happened in the Caesar-SW-Galaxy unless I explicitly mention it has. Only stuff in the movies can generally be assumed to be canon (and that's less that absolute. Had did shoot first. )

I'm much less of a SW freak than some. It's a great series, but I see no need to devour every novel or collect every book about it. It's just one good movie series (well, the original) out of many. I don't memorize the setting with slavish devotion. I recently purchased the Star Wars Complete Visual Dictionary. Next time I run SW, I will probably assume (and let the players know) that material therein can be assumed to be true, all else is fair game.

One EU bit I explicitly throw out: After the events of RotJ, Boba Fett is deader than a doornail.

 

[Ry]

This thread is making me very interested in Murchad's Legacy.

 

[jdrakeh]

This thread is making me very interested in Murchad's Legacy.

I was interested in it for years before I actually picked it up. I wish I would have grabbed a printed copy when they were still around, though a printed and bound copy of the PDF will suit me.