D&D 5E Vecna: Eve of Ruin Coming May 21st!

[Micah Sweet]

I am not saying Goldmoon should have heard of them, I am saying us, the readers / players would have.

There are 200 DL books covering a large amount of time and places. We have a history of Krynn with, presumably, all the major events (and a lot of details around that war…). Yet this was not ever mentioned anywhere…

It clearly is a deviation from established lore, how much you care is entirely up to you however. I do not even care all that much myself, I understand why they did it and I can justify it in much the same way you did. I just do not like pretending that there wasn’t any change.

This is what I'm saying. I will pushback on any conflating of "I don't care about that change" with "There wasn't a change".

I have what I have to assume is an unusual relationship with D&D. I do not see the story of D&D's settings as the same thing as the game of D&D, and I certainly don't see the game as always more important, such that the lore needs to give way when there's a conflict. To me, the setting details, history, and narratives of Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Eberron, the Realms, etc., are their own universe, just like the Marvel universe or Star Trek. My favorite books in the world are encyclopedias, chronologies, and factbooks about settings like Star Wars, Middle-Earth, and Westeros, preferably from an in-universe perspective. That includes the worlds of D&D, and gaming those worlds, while awesome, is secondary. I love lore, but without an attempt at consistency it is meaningless. Retcons without in-universe explanation damage the thing about fiction I care about the most, and smacks of a lack of creative will to me, as such ideas can just as easily reside in a new setting.

Say what you wish about how wrong-headed you think I am here. I do not care.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And yet, every single one of those 200 DL books deviated from established lore and this was considered a good thing. Again, I've gotta go with a shrug. They did not contradict established lore. They added to it. Addititive lore is always acceptable according to every single lore bunny out there. We've been told over and over and over again, that it's perfectly fine to add to lore. So, I'm really not seeing the problem here.

Additive lore should make sense in the context of the larger setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And yet... that is exactly my Spelljammer campaign.

I dunno what to say. The changes seem pretty minor to me and don't actually make much difference about what kind of scenario you can design.

If you had just said, "There were changes, but they don't matter to me personally or negatively affect what I want to do with the setting", we could have avoided a lot of this.

 

[mamba]

This is what I'm saying. I will pushback on any conflating of "I don't care about that change" with "There wasn't a change".

agreed, by and large I am not beholden to lore, it is a background to drop ‘my’ story in, not the law.

I do acknowledge that there are changes however, some for the better (imo), some not, but I won’t argue about there not having been any changes or at least none that matter. The former is objectively not the case and the latter is entirely a personal opinion.

There are two TSR settings I kinda care about, DL and Dark Sun, and I liked where they started and did not like where the plot took them. I am perfectly fine with adding changes I like and ignoring changes or even original plot that I do not. Which is why for me the only ‘official’ lore is the first three DL books. If I were to play DL, it would either be a different time (Kingpriest, after the end of the war but not 5th Age, …) or the War as those three books establish it (as the starting point, with the players then deciding where they take the story)

I am ok with the adventure WotC published, as I said I understand why they made the changes and can handwave them when needed, I could even run it as is, but it still is making changes, and I acknowledge that it does, whether they matter to me or not

 

[Micah Sweet]

agreed, by and large I am not beholden to lore, it is a background to drop ‘my’ story in, not the law.

I do acknowledge that there are changes however, some for the better (imo), some not, but I won’t argue about there not having been any changes or at least none that matter. The former is objectively not the case and the latter is entirely a personal opinion.

There are two TSR settings I kinda care about, DL and Dark Sun, and I liked where they started and did not like where the plot took them. I am perfectly fine with adding changes I like and ignoring changes or even original plot that I do not. Which is why for me the only ‘official’ lore is the first three DL books. If I were to play DL, it would either be a different time (Kingpriest, after the end of the war but not 5th Age, …) or the War as those three books establish it (as the starting point, with the players then deciding where they take the story)

I don't even really play these settings. I purchase, read and enjoy them (at least I used to), and I like seeing mechanical representations of stuff from the books, but I use that material as fodder for my own homebrew games, not to play the setting itself. From a story perspective, I love setting material (love love love) and will happily pay money for it. From a game perspective, setting books are like adventures: sources of rules and inspiration for my own setting.

That being said, if I were to run or play in a game set in a particular place, I would want the history of that setting and it's rules to be as consistent as any setting I design.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Meh. Since you don't leave this specific area, and it doesn't actually change anything, who cares? But, sure, it's a massive change to the setting to have a couple of clerics wandering around doing stuff that no one actually hears about a couple of years before Goldmoon.

Yeah, that's certainly a "major" violation.

People get bent out of shape over the weirdest things.

While the timeline is vague, it's definitely not a few years before Goldmoon. At most, it's a month or two before, and it very well may be after. They obviously left it open to allow for both possibilities by not giving any firm dates.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Also, can we talk about the Vecna book here? In-depth discussions concerning the lore of DL and Spelljammer would probably do best in having their own threads.

 

[mamba]

While the timeline is vague, it's definitely not a few years before Goldmoon. At most, it's a month or two before, and it very well may be after.

No, it is maybe 6 to 9 months before Goldmoon, certainly no later than that. From the timeline for the year 351:

"Once more, in the spring, the dragonarmies begin skirmishes along the eastern border of Solamnia. The Blue Dragonarmy strikes across Dargaard Mountains, aided by goblins. The Knights of Solamnia, in recent disarray, cannot repel the attack. The Blue Dragonarmy occupies Kalaman, Hinterlund, and Nightlund [...]

By autumn, much of Ansalon has fallen to the dragonarmies of the Dark Queen. However, the Companions from the Inn of the Last Home reunite in Solace."

Kalaman was not yet taken in SotDQ, so it can be earlier than that spring, which makes it about 6 months, but not later.

 

[Demetrios1453]

No, it is maybe 6 to 9 months before Goldmoon, certainly no later than that. From the timeline for the year 351:

"Once more, in the spring, the dragonarmies begin skirmishes along the eastern border of Solamnia. The Blue Dragonarmy strikes across Dargaard Mountains, aided by goblins. The Knights of Solamnia, in recent disarray, cannot repel the attack. The Blue Dragonarmy occupies Kalaman, Hinterlund, and Nightlund [...]

By autumn, much of Ansalon has fallen to the dragonarmies of the Dark Queen. However, the Companions from the Inn of the Last Home reunite in Solace."

Kalaman was not yet taken in SotDQ, so it can be earlier than that spring, which makes it about 6 months, but not later.

Again, we can discuss this in its own thread (as I believe that's still vague enough to give wiggle room, as no firm date for Kalaman is given). This thread is for discussing the Vecna book.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sorry you were triggered, but Dragonlance seems to have been too subtle for some. The people being made fools of were those who discounted Fizban because of their biased ageism. Like many things in DL (Gully dwarves, for instance), the point is that those who think someone is lesser are exposed for their wrong thinking. Yes, Bupu is mentally challenged. She's still heroic in many ways. yes everyone thinks Fizban has bouts of dementia, he's showing the reader how wrong headed it is to discount someone based on their age or condition.

I think an entire generation had how woke DL was fly right over their heads.

Mod Note:

To all: regardless of the point you’re trying to make, regardless of your ethical valence…

PLEASE don’t use politically charged rhetoric on ENWorld. Such language virtually guarantees misunderstanding and hard feelings, which in turn makes work for the moderators.