D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Maxperson]

So let me get this straight...

You consider the addition of the wizard order to the Grayhawk campaign 'poor GMing' (or 'a poor GMing call') because the game was specifically called out to be Grayhawk? If it'd been called a homebrew campaign with Grayhawk and Dragonlance as inspirations, that would not have been a poor GMing call? What if it had been described as a homebrew Grayhawk campaign? Homebrew Dragonlance but everything but the wizard order Grayhawk? Just plain homebrew, with no mention of a campaign setting?

Where does the line go for you when the addition of the Dragonlance wizard order into a campaign that uses the general geography & cultures of Grayhawk stops being a poor GMing call?

I've already answered this multiple times. It's about expectations. If someone tells me that they are running a Greyhawk game, I expect Greyhawk and nothing else. If they are going to add other things like Dragonlance, they need to be upfront with me and tell me that they are running a home brew setting mixing both. Then I'd expect things like Gully Dwarves in the Barrier Peaks and Wizards of High Sorcery in the Great Kingdom, so there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Maxperson]

( [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] also seems to think it's a big deal that he called the decision poor GMing but didn't call me a poor GM. I personally don't think that that is a distinction that carries a lot of weight. What is a poor GM, afterall, but someone who makes poor decisions?)

A poor DM would be one who consistently makes poor decision after poor decision after poor decision. You can feel like I called you a poor DM, but that feeling is 100% on you. I take no responsibility for you doing that. I have told you repeatedly that that isn't the case. I can't stop you from feeling that way, but the reality is that it isn't that way.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm arguing that it should remain distinctly within the bounds of that setting. A slightly different argument.

Why are you trying to force your One True Way on me? I happen to like it as a metasetting that enfolds the others.

 

[Maxperson]

How is this not Onetrueway-ism? Ie there are proper ways to play a GH campaign, and stuff that differs from that is not GH, and can't properly be described as such. When I describe my game as a GH game, Maxperson has a problem (his word, not mine) with that.

You should learn about context. The discussion was about why I had my OPINION. It only referred to me, not you. In context, nothing about those statements tells you that I think you should do things differently or that I want you to.

 

[cbwjm]

Why are you trying to force your One True Way on me? I happen to like it as a metasetting that enfolds the others.

Me too. I loved the fact that you could have a party with a wizard from Grayhawk, a knight of Solamnia from Krynn, a planar thief from Sigil, and an elemental cleric from Dark Sun. The ability to link everything together through the City of Doors was a cool concept.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You can feel like I called you a poor DM, but that feeling is 100% on you.

That is false. Your choice to bring the words "very poor DMing" into the conversation is a clear catalyst for the feeling in question. If you'd have never said it, then it would indeed be 100% "on" [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] that the feeling arose, but that isn't the case.

Saying that you can introduce a particular idea into a conversation and be completely free of responsibility for any effect that has is like saying you can introduce a particular hammer into the air and be completely free of responsibility for any damage it might cause along its trajectory.

 

[Imaro]

Me too. I loved the fact that you could have a party with a wizard from Grayhawk, a knight of Solamnia from Krynn, a planar thief from Sigil, and an elemental cleric from Dark Sun. The ability to link everything together through the City of Doors was a cool concept.

If we all just went with Planescape anything could show up anywhere in any setting... Now that's Alltruewayism!!

 

[Maxperson]

That is false. Your choice to bring the words "very poor DMing" into the conversation is a clear catalyst for the feeling in question. If you'd have never said it, then it would indeed be 100% "on" @pemerton that the feeling arose, but that isn't the case.

My words don't do that, though. They state and imply one single event is in my opinion, poor. They don't even come close to saying or implying that he is a poor DM. He's taking my words and inflating them all by his lonesome. I have 0 responsibility for his inflation.

Saying that you can introduce a particular idea into a conversation and be completely free of responsibility for any effect that has is like saying you can introduce a particular hammer into the air and be completely free of responsibility for any damage it might cause along its trajectory.

No. It's like me saying he bent a nail with a hammer, and then being accused of saying that he's incompetent and always bends nails.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My words don't do that, though. They state and imply one single event is in my opinion, poor. They don't even come close to saying or implying that he is a poor DM. He's taking my words and inflating them all by his lonesome. I have 0 responsibility for his inflation.

Words don't have the magical ability to convey to the person reading them the exact meaning you intended for those words, and none others - so acting like they do is a bit unreasonable.

And the words you used can mean what was read, even if it isn't what you actually meant to convey - because reading someone saying "I think you DMed that poorly" isn't as far from "I think you are a poor DM" as you are treating it as being, considering that it is logical to assume the most common cause of DMing things poorly is to be a poor DM.

Plus there is the other factor - the "you didn't even need to make a judgement to convey your opinion" factor. You didn't have to say "very poor DMing" to convey that you wouldn't have done it the same way, so the reader, if they are assuming you are putting words in your post for a reason, is left to wonder what reason was behind inclusion of those particular words that didn't have to be there. In this case, it seems the most obvious reason, and thus the most likely, is because the writer was intending to bring DMing skill into question rather than simply talk preference.

 

[Hussar]

Dragonlance Campaign Setting pg. 49

"The Graygem's influence lasted for centuries, it's powers eventually diminishing. the Scion's power waned as wizardry gained ascendance. During the Age of Might and the Age of Despair, the magic of the Scions was reduced until it nearly vanished entirely..."

So Wild Magic never completely vanishes from the world.

Introduction
After the defeat of Chaos during the Summer of Flame, his power permeated the world, amplifying the ambient arcane magic of the world. This magic became known as Wild Sorcery.

Wild Sorcery carries with it the taint of Chaos, producing random effects. Usually, the spell is either cast at a lower level or a higher one, or they may also produce an effect that was not desired.

From the Dragonlance Nexus http://www.dlnexus.com/fan/rules/11852.aspx

Also

With the passing of the Greygem, the power of Primal Sorcery was boosted to levels that mortals could use. Following that, the power faded until after the Chaos War, when the power of Chaos infused the world, bringing sorcery to levels usable by mortals once again.

From the Dragonlance Nexus http://dragonlancenexus.com/lexicon/index.php?title=Wild_Sorcery

This is the canon from the setting. Quoted, I believe, for the third time.