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

[Hussar]

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.

But, all this tells us is that this is your personal preference. These are your expectations, not anything we can establish a general consensus on. By then adding a value judgement, you are extending your personal preferences onto someone else.

Nowhere is it written that if you announce a certain campaign setting, you may not make any changes to that setting. In fact, the opposite is most likely true since virtually no home run campaign never adds any additional material.

 

[Hussar]

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

Nice try. I've never pretended that my personal preferences are anything other than my personal preferences. I would never say that you are making a poor GMing decision for running a campaign the way you want to run it.

IOW, I make no value judgements on those who run differently than I do. I simply state my personal preferences, and never try to hide them or pretend that my own personal preferences have any real objective value.

Thus the difference.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Actually, I have no problems with that. That's groovy. And it is a cool concept.

My issue is that a number of elements of Planescape have bled over into core and because of that, we run into significant resistance to any attempt to change those elements. Resistance that is largely absent when we talk about other parts of the game. I mean, 5e paladins are at least as different from earlier edition paladins as, say, earlier edition archons are from 4e archons. But, despite all the hue and cry that change is bad, and that change must be backwards compatible, changes to paladins have gone largely uncommented on.

And the only real reason that I've been able to see is that people LIKE the paladin changes and people didn't like the archon changes. IOW, it's all about personal preference. The idea that change comes with cost doesn't seem to apply, or rather only applies when someone has a personal preference at stake.

As far as I'm concerned, it's all about personal preference. And I think the conversations would be a lot more productive if we could accept that as a given.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Ah, but does such enfolding also change the lore or canon of the others, is the question. If no, then everyone's probably happy. If yes...well...here we go again....

Lan-"someone who is currently designing a game-world city, please do me a favour and call one of the streets One True Way"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Then it's probably a good thing that I clarified it at LEAST a dozen times since then. He has no excuse. This is on him at this point. If he refuses to acknowledge reality, I bear no responsibility for that.

 

[Maxperson]

Nice try. I've never pretended that my personal preferences are anything other than my personal preferences. I would never say that you are making a poor GMing decision for running a campaign the way you want to run it.

You just did. You told us all how the setting should be.

 

[Lanefan]

My issue is that a number of elements of Planescape have bled over into core and because of that, we run into significant resistance to any attempt to change those elements. Resistance that is largely absent when we talk about other parts of the game. I mean, 5e paladins are at least as different from earlier edition paladins as, say, earlier edition archons are from 4e archons. But, despite all the hue and cry that change is bad, and that change must be backwards compatible, changes to paladins have gone largely uncommented on.

And the only real reason that I've been able to see is that people LIKE the paladin changes and people didn't like the archon changes.

The reason that immediately leaped to my mind on reading that is that nobody plays Paladins anyway and thus they can change 'em all they like without anyone noticing.

Lan-"that, and it would be hard to make Paladins much worse than they already were"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, but does such enfolding also change the lore or canon of the others, is the question. If no, then everyone's probably happy. If yes...well...here we go again....

It doesn't alter any other setting. It adds onto them, connecting them through the metasetting. Spelljammer is the same way.

 

[cbwjm]

Ah, but does such enfolding also change the lore or canon of the others, is the question. If no, then everyone's probably happy. If yes...well...here we go again....

Lan-"someone who is currently designing a game-world city, please do me a favour and call one of the streets One True Way"-efan

I hope that street either leads to a single large temple or, somewhat ironically, is the street with temples to multiple gods.

 

[Hussar]

You just did. You told us all how the setting should be.

For someone who gets so bent out of shape for others misinterpreting your words you seem to be going rather out of your way here.

I told you how the setting would be if I was king of the world. But since I'm not, all I can do is state my personal preference. But note the lack of value judgment or any attempt to make any claim of objective truth.

And please note the lack of redefining words to suit my argument as well.

I like blue is not a value judgement on your preference for green. Me, I'm just saying that I would prefer it if you stopped adding green paint to my blue paint.