They've Fluffed the Fluff Already!

[mach1.9pants]

One of my little pet peeves is the relatively common innacuracies in fluff of various sorts that turn up in DnD products. This has gone on for ever and is easily sorted with some sort of reference to previous products.
For Example: my DnD involvement started with reading Time of the Twins from DragonLance and I have read many books and most rulesbooks related to DL. I must have read half a dozen different versions of Lord Soths story, to me thats very annoying. I think that in the first DL rulebook they even had Huma being alive a few hundred years before Solamnia was even founded; IIRC.

Now in the new edition we have ONLY 2 books out and the back story to the Dwarves is already mucked up. Now I don't mind when they say, one legend/myth/whatever says this. And in the other book, some stories say that. However we have 2 conflicting versions of the History of the Dwarves and Moradin. Basically:

Races and Classes: Moradin made the Dwarves; Moradin gave the Primordials their own Dwarves when they asked; nasty Primordials gave the Dwarves as slaves to their Giants; Dwarves lamented; Moradin could not hear them 'cos he was too busy hammering; when the Gods went to war with the Primordials Moradin saw the nastiness of Primordials/Giants and helped the Gods defeat them.

Worlds and Monsters: Primordials made Titans made Giants; Giants saw the Dwarves that Moradin had made and overwhelmed and enslaved them; Moradin too scared to help Dwarves vs all the Primordials etc;Moradin whispered support to Dwarves during their enslavement; During the God/Primordial war Dwarves rose up against the Giants.

Now these are 2 entirely DIFFERENT stories, both presented as History & FACT- not Myth, not Legend, not as a possible version. That annoys the hell out of me. Which story is right? Why didn't the editor of the second book read the first and either modify her version to be the same or give a reason for the difference.

As I said I don't mind when there are many stories about how things came to be (I love the multi-storied Warhammer idea, for example) but I think it is appallingly sloppy and unprofessional when they just make a balls of something this simple.

Is there anyone else out there to whom this really annoys, or am I just too pedantic!
Anyone else picked up other glaring 'errors' of editing/ sticking to a reference?
What do you think the best version is (myself: the first one) and which is the truth?
/RANT COMPLETE

ps I know it doesn't really matter but it is just soooo annoying!

 

[Leugren]

Lighten up, bro!

 

[mach1.9pants]

Lighten up, bro. Life's too short to get upset over such trivial stuff. Didn't you watch the John Stossel special about anger management last night?

Nah, I watched Transformers movie instead, don't need anger management when you can rant away on a message board and feel so much better afterwards; now its off my chest
kinda like electronic primal scream therapy

 

[Leugren]

Nah, I watched Transformers movie instead, don't need anger management when you can rant away on a message board and feel so much better afterwards; now its off my chest
kinda like electronic primal scream therapy

Serenity now...

 

[Wolfspider]

It is sloppy, but, then again, the entire D&D 4e Points of Light not-setting is in flux right now.

In fact, it's quite possible that nothing that appears in the preview books will actually make it into the core books when they are released.

So there's still a chance they'll get it right.

 

[Xethreau]

It's all about enterpritation of what 'actualy' happened

Well, I for one like the "different angle based on who you asked" fluff. It makes it feel a lot more like real world myth and history. You have an idea of what happened, the stories agree on that, but how or why it happened is based on the story teller. (Yes, I think the fluff differences are intentional.)

 

[pukunui]

Has it occured to you that perhaps the origin story of the dwarves might have actually changed between when R&C went to print and when W&M went to print? The game is still under development so while it may indeed be annoying that you've got two different versions of a particular origin story, I'd be inclined to take them both with a grain of salt and wait until the actual rulebooks are out. I know they've said that the preview books actually go into more detail than the rulebooks do, but they've also said that stuff in the preview books has changed since they were sent to print, so you really kind of have to take everything in them with a grain of salt.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think the worst Dragonlance related inconsistency was one of the main characters in one of the novels that come out was a Half-Orc. On Krynn. A world that doesn't have any Orcs.

I mean, c'mon. That's not even screwing up a timeline. That's like having a vulcan in some LotR fan-fic. Knowing what races are available in a given world is as basic as it gets. Where were the editors that day?

 

[ObsidianCrane]

*nod* The fact these are glimpses of development 3-6 months ago probably needs to be taken into account.

For example the new elven material on the WotC site is different to the material in R&C, but I expect the PHB to be much more like the material on the WotC site.

When you have the PHB, DMG and MM - then you will have the finla core fluff - when they release new books after that and it conflicts you can turn the rant on.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Myths in the Dnd game and real world ALWAYS have different versions - especially depending upon who is telling them...the whole how Gruumsh lost his eye comes to mind here

As mentioned above I suggest each could be true depending upon who you ask. The first sounds like a dwarven response (so I suggest it appeared under dwarf). The second sounds like a giant telling (and therefore I assume this appeared under giants). What better way to set player up of these conflicting races than to have them believe different things? Not even, 'oh this is another possibility', but flat-out stating this is how it is to a dwarf and then to a giant is great..in my mind.

C