Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6056497" data-attributes="member: 6668292">It can go either way. In my 3.5e game, I ran based on the core 3.5 books, including the Greyhawk deities, planes listed in the 3.5 DMG, etc. So, I was using the basis of the setting there, but I made it understood that it was a springboard, as I wasn't familiar with D&D canon at all when I started to GM. The setting was basically made up by me (nations, technology, etc.), but I did use deities, planes, devil lords, some celestial rulers, monsters, etc.However, if I hadn't made it clear I was using it as a springboard, I can see someone getting a little upset if they found out that something they assumed -based on my description of the setting (Greyhawk setting)- was different from how it normally was. Like, say, Vecna and Pelor are actually Neutral, or that orcs  get a penalty to Strength. I'm changing the "canon" of the accepted setting.This gets more compounded when it comes to official D&D setting stuff (thus the complaints about the Eladrin, etc.). People (not my group) have played in official settings, using strict details, and even transitioned characters through the editions in those settings. When someone who has great influence on D&D canon publicly alters that canon, even for private use, I understand the wariness that is voiced. Again, it doesn't affect me, but I get it.I know this was to Hussar, but I'll give my input, if that's okay. I don't think Chris Perkins did anything wrong. It's his world, and he can run it any way he likes.Again, I get that people might feel he's misrepresenting canon. I mean, if Dispater is amazingly paranoid, but isn't acting that way, then he is indeed breaking from canon. So, valid complaint for the guy that values canon. In Mr. Perkin's world, though, he can alter stuff however he likes, and I respect that.Again, I think it's because of his influence on D&D canon. Some people get very invested D&D settings, and dislike the changes made. I think there was something with 4e and Forgotten Realms, but I'm not sure, since I don't read the books / know the setting. Or, like I said, the Eladrin change.These are canon changes that make people dislike where the game is going, because the game, to these people, includes heavy investment in the canon, rather than just mechanics. Up to this point, these people have loved the settings; it's why they're invested in them. They don't like the idea of seeing the canon "messed up" by the people with control over it.It's kind of like George Lucas tampering with the original Star Wars trilogy. A lot of people like the movies the way they were, and don't want Greedo shooting first, as it changes events in a meaningful way to them (by showing Han to be more defensive and reactive, rather than cunning and ruthless). They don't like Darth Vader yelling "nooooooooo" before killing the Emperor, because his silence with the music and sound of lighting was gripping already.People don't want things they like getting tampered with. So, theoretically, they wouldn't want the director of the new Star Wars movie talking about "and then I had Luke murder a guy in cold blood", even if it was just in his own fanfiction. Why? Because they don't want the fiction that they love "messed up" from how they like it, and they're afraid that the guy with authority might do it, as "he doesn't get it." Because they value "canon" and have invested in it.It's just how it is. I'm not invested in the settings; Chris Perkins can do what he likes, even if I were invested. But do I think it's weird, or do I have problems understanding why someone might get put on edge by it? No, not at all. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification