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

[pemerton]

Ahh, so YOUR opinions that are judgmental aren't one true way, but mine are. Got it.

As far as my GH game is concerned, you didn't merely express an opinion (judgemental or otherwise). You told me my decisions was a very poor one. That's not just saying you would run your game differently. It's expressing an opinion about whether or not I ran my game well - and, given that poor and poorly are opposites of good and well, the opinion is clearly that I did not.

"You did not choose well" and "I woudl have chosen differently in your situation" are not synonymous. They're not even close.

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

So are you still claiming that I deceived the players in my game? Based no doubt on your expert knowledge of conversations and other events that took place over 25 years ago in a place that I imagine you've never even been too and among people none of whom you've ever actually met.

(For a less brusque response with fewer rhetorical questions, I point you to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s post 1056.)

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't like Planescape very much, but have still found a use for quite a few planar supplements: Bastion of Broken Souls, Tales of the Infinite Staircase, Requiem for a God, and plenty of the 4e books, off the top of my head. Maybe others I'm forgetting.

I just ignore the PS elements and use the ideas that I like.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You may want to be careful with killing off the Eberron orcs, since they actually co-exist quite peacefully with the humans in the Shadow Marches and a good chunk of them follow a druidic sect that protects the world from aberrations and extra-planar invasions.

This was my thought, as well. My human Tharask Inquisitive from the Shadow Marches, whose cousin and best friend is an orc, would not take kindly to such a sentiment. And given his skill set...well, let's just say that you can't spell skill, without kill.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, let me step back for a second and see if I can explain myself without annoying people. Hopefully. At least give me points for trying.

What confuses me the most about all these canon discussions is how time can be considered a valid criteria for judging change. There are all sorts of ways you can judge a new idea - [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] outlined a number of excellent ones a few pages back, and I'm just going to piggy back on his ideas. You can judge the idea as to whether or not it makes sense, is it consistent, does it actually do what you are trying to do, does it interact in good or bad ways with other ideas. These are all perfectly valid and generally accepted criteria for judgement.

But, why is time considered valid? If the 4e archons, for example, had come first, then everyone's arguements in this thread would flip. 4e archons would be the "true" archons and the earlier edition ones would be bad changes. In other words, the criteria has absolutely nothing to do with the ideas themselves, but rather, which one came first. The quality of the idea doesn't matter. It could be great, it could be terrible, but, since it came first, it cannot be changed.

How can that be justified as a valid criticism? Yup, the Great Wheel came first. Absolutely. No one is arguing that it didn't. Does that automatically make it superior to the Astral Sea? Why?

Now, you can certainly dislike the Astral Sea (and I'm just picking one example, feel free to choose your own). And you can make all sorts of arguments about why it is a bad idea - it cheapens the ideas of distinct planes, it makes the planes less interesting, I just don't like it. Fair enough. But, saying the Astral Sea is bad because it comes after the Great Wheel doesn't seem like a particularly convincing argument.

And, again, this is where I really get twisted around. Because if change is bad, then why isn't all change bad? I brought up the Paladin as an example, which is a complete rewrite from earlier editions, that passes without comment. When do we decide when change is bad? WotC has plunked two of the most iconic Greyhawk adventures (Against the Giants and Temple of Elemental Evil) into Forgotten Realms. That's a pretty big change no? But, apparently not, because, well, these are also probably the best selling modules in decades.

Change has a cost? When? We've just seen several huge changes to lore in the past couple of years - Elemental evil added to Forgotten Realms, The Ordning, class changes out the wazoo - that are passed without comment. I'm quite frankly at a loss as to how this actually gets applied. How do you decide if a change is bad or not?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Wizards of High Sorcery are from Dragonlance, so it is in fact Greyhawk + Dragonlance. The amount mixing is irrelevant. 10000000 + 1 is still 10000000 + 1. It doesn't remain 10000000 just because you want to win an argument.

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.

Ungrateful or not, it's not a Reuben if it's not made like Reuben's are made. Watch Chopped or Top Chef sometime. Contestants often tell the judges that they made something, but used different ingredients or didn't cook it in the same fashion as it is supposed to. Those contestants receive negative marks for telling them that it was something that it is not. Then look at the other contestants that tell the judges that they made something inspired by, say a Reuben, and that this is their take on it. They get props if it is good. They've told the judges that it is something new.

There is nothing morally wrong with expecting something to, well, be that thing.

Circular reasoning is indeed circular.

Here's some more. An Argument from Fallacy is an Argument from Fallacy. It's not a valid argument to just declare a fallacy and leave it at that. Why? Because fallacious or not, the argument can still be true. The sun is hot because it's the sun is circular, and also true. The sun is hot. What I said is also true.

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.

There's nothing arbitrary about expecting something to be that thing. If someone tells me they are give me a car and then hand me a balloon, I'm not in the wrong for expecting a car. Reasonable form expectations based on what they are told.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No you don't. There are exactly 0 settings where if you step off the setting you are inherently in Planescape. The DM has to intentionally bring the Planescape campaign setting from 2e(the only edition with that setting) into play in order for that to be true.

Asmodeus has ruled Hell since 1e, by the way. That's not a Planescape thing, and the Demogorgon has never ruled the Abyss, in Planescape or otherwise. He rules a few layers of it.

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.

What happens is no great mystery. If you are playing FR, the gods pick up the dead. If you are playing Planescape, they go to the wall. If you are playing with both, the DM decides.

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

I find it hard to see where there is confusion. It's not as if the canon from one has anything to do with the other unless the DM brings the two settings into contact.

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?

Planescape and Spelljammer are metasettings. They fold around the others. Crystal spheres, flying ships, the blood war, etc. are all additions that fit in the blank spots of Greyhawk canon.

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?

Greyhawk has the Beastlands. In 1e it was called the Happy Hunting Grounds. Being referred to by a different name doesn't make it a different plane. Ysgard was Asgard, Arborea was Olympus, etc. In 3e which was set in Greyhawk, it's called the Beastlands.

The Phlogiston is an addition that exists OUTSIDE of the setting of Greyhawk. It does not intrude into that setting.

 

[Maxperson]

Sigh. No. I'm stating my personal preference. I believe that allowing settings to bleed into each other water down the settings.

It doesn't bleed into any other setting unless you choose for it to happen.

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.

Please elaborate. How does my allowing it to bleed into MY campaigns in any way force you to play with Planescape?

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.

You're being overly dramatic here. You quite literally cannot lose out. All you have to do is choose not to use the 2e Planescape campaign and *POOF* no bleeding into other settings in your game. You win!

 

[Maxperson]

As far as my GH game is concerned, you didn't merely express an opinion (judgemental or otherwise). You told me my decisions was a very poor one. That's not just saying you would run your game differently. It's expressing an opinion about whether or not I ran my game well - and, given that poor and poorly are opposites of good and well, the opinion is clearly that I did not.

That's still merely an opinion. It has no force behind it whatsoever.

"You did not choose well" and "I woudl have chosen differently in your situation" are not synonymous. They're not even close.

I'm going to be blunt here. I really don't care. Synonymous or not, it still amounts to merely being an opinion.

So are you still claiming that I deceived the players in my game? Based no doubt on your expert knowledge of conversations and other events that took place over 25 years ago in a place that I imagine you've never even been too and among people none of whom you've ever actually met.

Relax dude. That statement had nothing to do with you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

KATANAS ARE CANNONS!

This is across all settings and all tables, because KATANAS ARE CANNONS!

[sblock]If that doesn't kill the thread, what can? [/sblock]

Fixed

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But it hasn't stopped being Forgotten Realms has it? And what exactly has changed regarding your expectations in terms of "character types" and "backstory" with these changes? Would you not feel that you are in Forgotten Realms anymore? And is this really all that different between jumping around different eras of the Forgotten Realms canon? What if I said "Okay group, we are going to run Forgotten Realms during the 4e's Spellplague era but with the 5e rules"?



To me, it's not a matter of knowing the setting material well enough or not, but the particular expectations of any given campaign. I for one don't care how bloody well my players know Eberron or a campaign setting; I want everyone to be on the same page about the expectations of the campaign. Creating characters together is not wasted time at my table.

I'm always confused when I see or hear people express a desire to avoid everyone making characters together. I...strongly want for no one at my table to have already fully made a character when they get to the table. I've explicitly asked players not to do that, more than once.

And it's not because I don't stick to canon, because when I am making significant deviations, I generally tell the players about them, and in some games I have often stuck fairly close to canon, like in Star Wars and The One Ring.

It just seems less good, in every possible way, to have everyone make their characters as a group, in a session 0, and have me their to go back and forth with, and bounce ideas around eachother for backgrounds and all that. I can't even fThom what benefit here could be to everyone arriving at the table with a fully made character, with no discussion between them or with me about heir characters.

Idk.

I know I'm gen pages behind the thread, I just found that pretty strange, as an idea.

Also, yeah, come on, it's definitely still FR. No one is stopped from making he character they want. Even if their character is a Waterdhavian who worships one of the gods that is missing or dead, that is perfectly fine in such a campaign.

FR is still FR in my game where the conflict presented in the Sundering books went different ways, Netheril is still around, Myth Drannor is definatley not ruins again, and there is a University built around a new great library on the southern Dragon Coast, which accepts students and teachers from all the great powers of Faerun, and is home to a knighthood made up of sons and daughters of the nations that fought on both sides in the Sundering War. And there are still earhtmotes, a significant genasi population, etc basically all the handwaivy "totally not a retcon" crap either didn't happen, or happened in a way that didn't burn the 4e stuff off the map with extreme prejudice. Unther is returned, but less of it is, more of Tymanther remains, and Unther and Tymanther aren't in a weird Israel-Palestine conflict, because Tymanther is a good neighbor.
I reworked the recent changes to be more about moving the setting forward, and less about pretending 4e never happened.

Because nothing has been taken from he setting. It's no different from playing in the 4e era vs the 2e era vs the 3e era vs the 5e era.

Mine is a MUCH bigger change than yours! Yours is literally just a campaign setup!