I Owe Wizards an Apology

[Barastrondo]

I want to see the thread were a publisher that mangled a setting had his favorite setting mangled and apologizes to the fans.

I've apologized to people for doing things they don't like with new World of Darkness games; I've always been sorry if people don't like a new take on Werewolf or Changeling or what-have-you.

On the other hand, I've never apologized so hard that I actually claim to regret doing the games I've done, or to claim that they're inferior to the original incarnations. I take pride in my writers, and I think we do good stuff, even if it isn't for everyone.

Does that count?

 

[Voadam]

Certainly you can just change things/ignore canon as a GM, but once you start doing that what's the point in running a game in an established setting? The players that really know the setting will be annoyed, and those who don't know the setting probably don't care. I just find it easier to homebrew unless I am very familiar with a setting.

The point? To have big picture common touchpoints. Gods, countries, races, etc. Little details are small stuff. Many feel it is appropriate not to sweat the small stuff or to use the setting but make it the DM's own.

Players who really know the setting may be annoyed by discrepancies from cannon or they may just roll with the game they are playing and have a good time.

Players who don't know the setting may not care but they may benefit from a DM who doesn't have to make up every detail of a world but uses one as a useful tool for the backdrop for his game.

 

[SkidAce]

Our group would just never stand for a DM doing something like that. We always had a rather adversarial relationship with our DM, however.

But our group always worked on the assumption that anything published in a book was LAW. Game books or novels alike. If the DM made a mistake and you pointed out the correct answer, the DM was obligated to follow the "correct" source. Even if it screwed over their game. If it screwed over their game, maybe they'd try harder to prepare for their game.

I was replying to the "player as a rules lawyer" point of view. If the DM had no clue and made a mistake, then he should own up to it. But that minotaur may have had a reason the player was unaware of. It's circular logic...

I have never had an adversarial relationship with my players...if I had said "ahh but this ones not afraid of water" they would eagerly begin researching such an oddity after the battle to learn more about the world. And "I" would have had a reason. But when they catch me in an honest mistake I say "oops, how do we fix this?"

 

[SkidAce]

For my group it would go

Me: That is odd...isn't it
And then the group would become obsessed trying to figure out that mystery, while I rewrite my notes to include this new plot.

And that is why, I put my dreams of being a writer to rest. I can do that as a DM, and make it a wonderful opportunity (or blow it completly).

RK

that's what I mean. Wish I had read your reply prior to posting above. You said it in less words.

 

[Bumbles]

I want to see the thread were a publisher that mangled a setting had his favorite setting mangled and apologizes to the fans.

Do we count how Kevin Costner apologized for the Postman on the DVD commentary?

Lisa: Ooh, I hear this really sucks.
[she presses a button for director's commentary and Kevin Costner
appears in a split screen]
Costner: I'm sorry. I am really sorry. Ugh, ah, I don't know what I was
thinking, but "Field of Dreams" was good, wasn't it? Made us all
believe again.
Lisa: Oh, poor Mr. Costner. He tries so hard.
Costner: Aw, thanks, you're sweet to say that.
Lisa: Uh ... where are you?
Costner: [steps out from behind the TV] I'm back here. Hi, will you bring me
a sandwich? Please? No, no crusts.

 

[Rechan]

Players who really know the setting may be annoyed by discrepancies from cannon or they may just roll with the game they are playing and have a good time.

Players who don't know the setting may not care but they may benefit from a DM who doesn't have to make up every detail of a world but uses one as a useful tool for the backdrop for his game.

Players who know the setting may not care that the DM is going off canon, as long as they are made aware that the DM may deviate from canon.

I like Eberron. But as a player, I'm going to act according to my assumptions based on what I know about the setting. If my assumptions are wrong in the DM's version of the world, I'd like to know. Going off script is cool as long as I have warning.

But then, Eberron does mark some things specifically as "This is up to yoru DM". There are Mysteries(tm) that will not have Answers(tm), so they're up to the DM to insert the answer to the mystery.

 

[Primal]

Good show.

Also, congratulations on the publishing stuff.

Personally I felt a reboot was necessary, not just for publishers, but for players and DMs. Getting into FR was difficult because there was just so much material out there. It was overwhelming. I feel that, with the FR reboot, they didn't erase anything that had come before - they just jumped ahead a century and changed how things are now (instead of retconning).

Actually, there was quite a bit of retconning ("it was always this way"), especially with the deities (e.g. elven deities being "proxies", Talos an aspect of Gruumsh or was it vice versa? And so on). If you only play either after or before the Spellplague, it doesn't probably matter... but if you're playing in both eras, I could see some issues there.

 

[Eridanis]

Can we de-dick this thread? It started off so nicely.

Agreed. Grandma is reading.

 

[Piratecat]

Whoops, simul-mod!

I'm removed all the thread hijacks related to the post on the first page. Please stay on topic.

EDIT: missed the first problematic post. Fixed, now.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Wow. The mods are really watching this thread. Guess I really need to be