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

[Barolo]

Hang on [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]. My issue with Planescape is that it bleeds into other settings. I have zero problem with Planescape in and of itself. My sole issue, and I've been pretty clear here, is that D&D has a singular setting for the planes and any changes to that are met with very strong opposition. I'm in no way saying that anyone who plays Planescape is making a poor decision or that it's badly written or anything like that. I'm arguing that it should remain distinctly within the bounds of that setting. A slightly different argument.

(...)

I play and DM in a table with people that DM several different settings, such as FR, DS and DL. When I DM Planescape for my group, they seem to be not bored at all with the interactions with their preferred setting I sometimes throw in, and they also seem very content on building some berks that come from those settings. Are we doing it all wrong?

 

[Maxperson]

It's barely mixing both though. Nor does the GM need to be "upfront with you," which seemingly implies that if they weren't or gave this addition little mind that somehow the GM would be dishonest in claiming they were running a Greyhawk campaign.

If someone tells me that they re running Greyhawk and gives me Greyhawk + Dragonlance, they were being dishonest with me.

I find that an argumentative stretch, to be honest. With the sheer amount of lore content in Greyhawk published throughout the years, complaining about the presence of the Wizards of High Sorcery in Greyhawk is complaining about less than %0.000001 of actual content that is otherwise Greyhawk

It's about like claiming that you are not drinking sweet iced tea because a drop of some impurities (e.g. citrus or peach juice) was added to the mixture.

There's a reason why when you order such tea, it's named Peach Ice Tea on the menu. That reason is it would be deceptive to call it Sweet Ice Tea, which gives the one ordering the expectation of ice tea with sugar, and then provide peach ice tea, which gives a radically different taste.

You are also making a very poor argument there. You are implying that .000001%(a statistic you pulled out of your rear) and "a drop of some impurities) makes adding content from other campaigns unnoticeable. The fact it, it will be noticeable to the players or it wouldn't be added to the mix.

How are you not playing a Greyhawk game?

Because a Greyhawk + Dragonance game is not a Greyhawk game, but rather a Greyhawk + Dragonlance game.

What about the presence of a Wizards of High Sorcery prevents you from playing a Greyhawk game at that table?

The fact that it's a mixed Dragonlance + Greyhawk game for starters.

How would your level one character at that table be any different?

Irrelevant. It's not about my character.

I also do not see how the presence of the Wizards of High Sorcery in Greyhawk means that you should expect Gully Dwarves or other things from Greyhawk. That would say something regarding your own wild logical leap of expectations and nothing about the GM's adventure or their establishment of the setting.

What it says is that the fallacy is strong with you. I never said that the presence of Wizards of High Sorcerery would cause me to expect gully dwarves. What I said was that a mixed Dragonlance + Greyhawk game would cause me to expect mixing of the two settings, and then I gave examples.

Additions are changes.

Not in the context of this discussion. There needed to be a way of differentiating between an addition that doesn't touch canon(change) and and a canon alteration(change), so those of us on that side of the discussion settled on addition v. change.

You can need to accept those definitions for this discussion if you want to be able to give any sort of meaningful contribution about additions v. changes.

 

[Aldarc]

By judging that the setting should not be able to extend past itself, you are saying that's the way it should be for everyone.

I don't think that the false equivalence here represents Hussar's argument accurately. It seems disingenuous to me to say that advocating for keeping chocolate and peanut butter separate as a consideration for those who may not like them mixed and advocating that chocolate and peanut butter should be mixed for everyone have the same level of OTWism. The former comes with the option to mix PB and Chocolate or consume separately, while the latter only presents the singular option. It's another spin of Henry Ford's "You can have any color as long as it's black."

That said, I think that it is not so much that he is advocating for "One True Way" in regards to Planescape. Instead, it's quite the opposite. He is voicing his contention with the fact that Planescape's meta-narrative has an imbalanced authority to impose its "One True Way" on other settings. Planescape's own OTWism regarding the planes, its inhabitants, and meta-narrative frequently permeates other settings by virtue of its self-imposed primacy on the metasetting and the cosmos. By no means does Hussar's judgment come with the implication that people who run Planescape in this manner are doing badwrongfun or playing the game wrong. I believe Hussar recognizes that people would be running the game as written.

No, you made a blanket statement about it that would result in it applying to everyone if true.

What are you even trying to say? It sounds like you are saying that if a statement were true then it would be true, and I'm not clear what you are trying to accomplish with that argument.

That's all about you telling us your issue with it and then saying generally that it should remain within the bounds of the setting so that YOU stop having a problem with it. You are trying to force your One True Way on people with that statement.

You have demonstrated what he has already confessed: he has a self-admitted problem with how Planescape (or more specifically its meta-narrative) affects other settings or core notions of D&D. What you have not demonstrated is your last sentence. How is [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] trying to force One True Way on people with that statement?

I play and DM in a table with people that DM several different settings, such as FR, DS and DL. When I DM Planescape for my group, they seem to be not bored at all with the interactions with their preferred setting I sometimes throw in, and they also seem very content on building some berks that come from those settings. Are we doing it all wrong?

What makes you think that Hussar is implying that you are doing it all wrong?

 

[Maxperson]

That said, I think that it is not so much that he is advocating for "One True Way" in regards to Planescape. Instead, it's quite the opposite. He is voicing his contention with the fact that Planescape's meta-narrative has an imbalanced authority to impose its "One True Way" on other settings.

It has no such authority, though. It's a setting, not core. As such the fact is that itt can only impact other settings if the DM that uses Planescape allows it to.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think that the false equivalence here represents Hussar's argument accurately. It seems disingenuous to me to say that advocating for keeping chocolate and peanut butter separate as a consideration for those who may not like them mixed and advocating that chocolate and peanut butter should be mixed for everyone have the same level of OTWism. The former comes with the option to mix PB and Chocolate or consume separately, while the latter only presents the singular option. It's another spin of Henry Ford's "You can have any color as long as it's black."

Sorry no... It's just as easy for a DM to keep Planescape or Spelljammer out of his Greyhawk, DL, or whatever campaign as it is for a DM to mix it in if he wants. Demanding things be one or the other for everyone is, at least in so far as some posters in this thread have argued, a form of Onetruewayism...

That said, I think that it is not so much that he is advocating for "One True Way" in regards to Planescape. Instead, it's quite the opposite. He is voicing his contention with the fact that Planescape's meta-narrative has an imbalanced authority to impose its "One True Way" on other settings. Planescape's own OTWism regarding the planes, its inhabitants, and meta-narrative frequently permeates other settings by virtue of its self-imposed primacy on the metasetting and the cosmos. By no means does Hussar's judgment come with the implication that people who run Planescape in this manner are doing badwrongfun or playing the game wrong. I believe Hussar recognizes that people would be running the game as written.

So use the 1e MotP for your cosmology, use the Dawn War cosmology from 4e... or better yet...stick to only the cosmology presented in a particular settings core campaign guide. How often is Planescape even mentioned in Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or DL campaign guides? I'm looking through the 3e Living Greyhawk guide as well as the 3e DL campaign Setting book and I don't see Planescape mentioned at all... (Admittedly not sure about FR because I was never a fan of the setting). Demanding that Planescape shouldn't be able to reference said settings in its own books (i.e. it should be kept separate) as a multi-planar setting is as far as I can tell... Onetruewayism.

You have demonstrated what he has already confessed: he has a self-admitted problem with how Planescape (or more specifically its meta-narrative) affects other settings or core notions of D&D. What you have not demonstrated is your last sentence. How is @Hussar trying to force One True Way on people with that statement?

He believes that Planescape should be changed to suit his particular way of wanting to play D&D (irregardless of the many others who enjoy playing PLanescape as a multiverse setting)... isn't that how Onetruewayism was defined when it came to @Maxperson's statement earlier? Again how prevalent is Planescape on any particular settings lore? Or is he saying he doesn't want Planescape as a planar setting of D&D? That's not having a problem with how it affects other settings that's not wanting it at all... in other words because I don't like it others shouldn't have their fun things...

What makes you think that Hussar is implying that you are doing it all wrong?

Uhm because the very thing he enjoys about Planescape is the bleed over between settings...

 

[Aldarc]

If someone tells me that they re running Greyhawk and gives me Greyhawk + Dragonlance, they were being dishonest with me.

There's a reason why when you order such tea, it's named Peach Ice Tea on the menu. That reason is it would be deceptive to call it Sweet Ice Tea, which gives the one ordering the expectation of ice tea with sugar, and then provide peach ice tea, which gives a radically different taste.

I'm not sure how the GM is being dishonest here though. They are not giving you Greyhawk + Dragonlance; they are giving you Greyhawk + High Wizards of Sorcery. The chassis, base, and just about everything else is still Greyhawk. They don't think that the change/addition made warrants mention or detracts from their own sense of a setting's integrity, in terms of "degrees of change" as gets thrown around in discussions here. It still constitutes Greyhawk for them (and possibly others at the table), so how are they lying to you? There is no deception. There is no attempt to cover anything up. I don't think their honesty is defined as being dependent on your tastes or preconceptions. It's their conception vs. yours. There does not appear to be any lying, dishonesty, or insincerity at play here.

We don't have to use ice tea as an example. We could use beer (with your imposition of a "setting Reinheitsgebot" in contrast with many craft beers making that an apt comparison) or sandwiches for other examples. A reuben sandwich is defined as having corned beef, Russian dressing, American Swiss cheese, and sauerkraut on rye bread. But if someone graciously made me a reuben with pastrami, Thousand Island dressing, Gruyere or Emmental cheese, or sourdough instead or with the addition of pickles, then I don't think that I would have a moral leg to stand on if I accused them of being dishonest in giving me a reuben. If anything, I suspect that I would come across as something of an ungrateful dick if I lobbed that accusation at them. Nor would I necessarily call it a "Homebrew Reuben." They made me a reuben, and I'm thankful for it. I may have initially expected a sort of platonic ideal of a reuben, but I still got a reuben sandwich and I don't think it's honest of me to accuse them of dishonesty for the sandwich.

You are also making a very poor argument there. You are implying that .000001%(a statistic you pulled out of your rear) and "a drop of some impurities) makes adding content from other campaigns unnoticeable. The fact it, it will be noticeable to the players or it wouldn't be added to the mix.

Except that it was not noticeable to the players as per pemerton. It's noticeable for you because of your own player knowledge, preconceptions, and sensibilities of what constitutes a "pure" game of a setting. It breaks your sense of immersion for Greyhawk. It seemingly causes you to break out into accusations of GM dishonesty! and establishing new settings called "Greyhawk + Dragonlance." That ultimately makes this a Maxperson problem and not a problem with pemerton's Greyhawk game or honesty as a GM.

Because a Greyhawk + Dragonance game is not a Greyhawk game, but rather a Greyhawk + Dragonlance game.

The fact that it's a mixed Dragonlance + Greyhawk game for starters.

Circular reasoning is indeed circular.

What it says is that the fallacy is strong with you. I never said that the presence of Wizards of High Sorcerery would cause me to expect gully dwarves. What I said was that a mixed Dragonlance + Greyhawk game would cause me to expect mixing of the two settings, and then I gave examples.

I don't think that my misunderstanding of your point should be construed as a fallacy. But your hardline preconceptions seem to be your problem and not that of the GM's Greyhawk campaign. You're setting those arbitrary expectations up yourself, and you have only yourself to blame when it causes you to expect further deviation outside of that.

Not in the context of this discussion. There needed to be a way of differentiating between an addition that doesn't touch canon(change) and and a canon alteration(change), so those of us on that side of the discussion settled on addition v. change.

You can need to accept those definitions for this discussion if you want to be able to give any sort of meaningful contribution about additions v. changes.

All additions are changes but not all changes are additions. I think we can all recognize that we are dealing with basic categorical logic and that our persistence at adhering to such confusing categories only obfuscates further discussion. If you need more apt terms, then might I suggest "addition" and "retcon"? A retcon being defined generally as "a retroactive change of pre-existing continuity or lore."

 

[Hussar]

Wait a minute... maybe I left that thread before all of this came to light but my argument was against you stating that the gnome was not a canon Dragonlance character. At what point did what age he came from even come into the picture? Did the DM even tell him what age the campaign was set in? At any rate I stand by my assertion that a wild mage gnome is a canon DL character now whether he was canon for whatever age the game was set in... well that's on the DM if he wasn't clear about when the campaign was taking place and instead called it out as a generic DL campign...

Then you misunderstood the argument. The argument was never about that. It was whether or not the character was canon IN THAT CAMPAIGN. Which was set during the War of the Lance. This was stated right at the outset, but, it was a fast moving thread, so, perhaps you missed it.

Obviously, from my own quotes, I couldn't argue that wildmages were not canon in the setting. That would be rather silly of me no?

 

[Hussar]

I play and DM in a table with people that DM several different settings, such as FR, DS and DL. When I DM Planescape for my group, they seem to be not bored at all with the interactions with their preferred setting I sometimes throw in, and they also seem very content on building some berks that come from those settings. Are we doing it all wrong?

Absolutely not. You enjoy it. It's good.

Now, I wouldn't enjoy it. I don't like blending settings, simply because I think it waters down the uniqueness of settings. But, all I can do is voice my personal preference here. I'd prefer it if Planescape material wasn't placed in such a preferential place when it comes to supplements and modules. Which means that every module/supplement that comes down the pipe that deals with the planes, must adhere to Planescape material.

I've posted earlier what I would prefer to see - more generic style planar books, perhaps with a chapter detailing how this functions in Planescape, that explores a variety of cosmologies and planar set ups. What would the Abyss look like if it were more like the Greek Afterlife, for example? What would the Dragonlance cosmology look like, completely divorced from the Great Wheel (after all, there is no Hell or Hades in DL)? I would prefer (note the statement of personal taste there) that planar supplements be less focused on a single vision of the planes and were more open. The same way that Prime Material settings work. No one expects all vampires to be Ravenloft vampires after all. Not all Drow have to be Forgotten Realms Drow. Nor all elves Dragonlance Elves.

But, if you want to play in a Planescape game? Knock yourself out. Fill your boots. If you're having fun, then you certainly aren't doing anything wrong.

 

[Hussar]

It has no such authority, though. It's a setting, not core. As such the fact is that itt can only impact other settings if the DM that uses Planescape allows it to.

It's not quite that cut and dried though. Because as soon as you step off that setting, and into the Planes, you get stuck with Planescape. Asmodeus rules Hell (despite Hell being home to numerous gods), Demogorgon rules the Abyss (despite several gods living in the Abyss), so on and so forth.

I mean, we had a discussion not that long ago on En World http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?472635-Forgotten-Realms-The-Wall-of-the-Faithless about the Wall of the Faithless. And during the discussion, numerous Planescape elements snuck in. What happens when you die? Do you become a Petitioner or do you, as per Forgotten Realms canon, go to the City of the Dead, be judged and either sent on to the applicable deity or be stuffed in the Wall of the Faithless.

It does get rather confused as to which canon should take precedence here, as evidenced by 700+ responses.

But, I do have a question [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]. You claim that if someone says they are running a Greyhawk campaign, you would expect it to be 100% Greyhawk. Does that include Planescape and Spelljammer? What if the DM adds in something from those settings later on down the road? Is he still running a Greyhawk game if a Spelljammer ship descends on the setting? Or a planar portal opens to the Beast Lands? Have I changed the setting?

Because I think I have. But, I'm curious to see where you draw the line. After all the Beast Lands don't exist anywhere in Greyhawk canon. Nor does Phlogiston. So, can I add those things and still be playing Greyhawk?

 

[Hussar]

By judging that the setting should not be able to extend past itself, you are saying that's the way it should be for everyone.

No, you made a blanket statement about it that would result in it applying to everyone if true.



That's all about you telling us your issue with it and then saying generally that it should remain within the bounds of the setting so that YOU stop having a problem with it. You are trying to force your One True Way on people with that statement.

Sigh. No. I'm stating my personal preference. I believe that allowing settings to bleed into each other water down the settings. Now, I've largely realized that I'm whistling in the dark here and I'm not going to get any traction whatsoever. Too many people do not share my preferences and I'm certainly not making any headway. So, by and large, I keep my mouth shut about this, because, frankly, it's not getting me anywhere.

As I see it, the problem is that your preferences are impinging on mine. You want settings to bleed into each other. I don't. One of us is going to lose out here, and, well, it's quite obviously me. I lost this argument a long time ago. Planescape is far too entrenched into the canon of the game to ever be removed. 4e proves that. I think it's a shame and it means that I largely ignore any and all planar supplements that get produced.

But, again, quite obviously, I'm wrong in this. The people have spoken and they want Planescape to be part of D&D. Fair enough.