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

[Maxperson]

So care to actually engage the point I made with my extreme?

In case you forgot it was about whether you were okay with adding gods, or moons or an evil emperor that has conquered the world etc.

The gods of Greyhawk are spelled out in canon, so adding more would change canon and not be an addition. Canon has two moons, so adding a third moon would change canon. We know from canon that no such emperor exists, so that is also a change in canon and not an addition.

Additions fit in-between canon without changing it. You need to come up with something else.

You say that you are okay with additions but not changes. But then anytime we mention an addition you think should have been noticed or expounded upon in the lore to have occurred then you have a problem with that too.

Everything you brought up changes canon. They are not additions.

Yea, that's your take. It isn't mine. 1 believe 1 moon could be missed. So at best we have a subjective example of "adding a moon" that I call an addition and you call a change because of subjectivity. That's what we keep trying to get across. There's no sole test for what is okay to do to the setting and still have it be Gray Hawk. It's not addition vs change. There's more to it than that. And it's subjective and will vary from person to person.

My take is based on facts and reality. They failed to miss a moving dot, but you expect them to miss a massive moving black hole that blots out masses of stars. If you really believe that they could have missed a moon that did that, I have several bridges to sell you, starting with the Golden Gate Bridge and ending with the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

[Imaro]

Lore is "what is". It often includes some discussion as to how it came to be, but to my mind that's not telling someone else's story. What is telling someone else's story is using the lore's discussion around motivations and animosities in place of your natural inclination. If lore says A is secretly in love with B, but copes with public hostility. If you role play that in-game, you're literally telling someone else's story. If lore says a war is being fought between X and Y along this coast and X is winning, then having the PCs encounter the war bands and discovering X is winning is literally telling someone else's story. It's not your story, you are conforming to the direction given by the creator. Perhaps, given all other inspiration, you'd have X and Y be allies against Z, but the lore says a war is raging. You subsume your story and tell the original creator's.

Again I am trying to understand the distinction being made... even using someones setting material as a guide, IMO, isn't telling their story since the author has not played through what has happened beyond what he has written in said book... and even if he had, your players would have to do exactly what his players did and you respond exactly as he did for you to be telling his story... otherwise you are telling a different story, your story.

 

[pemerton]

The gods of Greyhawk are spelled out in canon

Which canon? Not in the folio. First in a series of Dragon articles in 1982-83; then in the boxed set (1984). And there was no suggestion that these lists were complete (eg Gygax himself added new gods in his own play: the Silver Key of Dalt is just one example).

Canon has two moons

Which canon? The folio and boxed set have a sage describing the visible heavens. That's all.

The portion of the Greyhawk Boxed set that discusses astronomy mechanics discuss the two moons, also as if there are only two moons.

To be fair, given the context of the celestial article, the sage is discussing all notable celestial objects. He describes the stars, the zodiac, the 5 wanderers, and two moons. Contextually, he only knows of two moons and five wanderers. It doesn't mean there aren't more he hasn't noticed, but it would be poor reading to infer there are other visible objects in the sky that he didn't enumerate.

Nagol is correct here; hence Maxperson is wrong. There is no discussion of moons as if there are only two. There is a discussion of visible heavenly phenomena, as if there are only two moons visible.

This leaves open the possibility of a third moon that is not visible - perhaps even an invisible black moon!

a third hidden moon couldn't remain hidden from a population that pays attention to astronomy as Greyhawk does. It would block out stars as it travels, and a travelling hole would have been noted long before the time of the boxed set and been noted within it.

We could not have missed a moon, and neither could the inhabitants of Greyhawk. The ancients of our world noticed pinpoints of light that moved in a funny manner and discovered planets. It would not be possible for people who pay attention to the heavens to miss a huge black hole in the sky that wandered around hiding stars and planets.

They failed to miss a moving dot, but you expect them to miss a massive moving black hole that blots out masses of stars. If you really believe that they could have missed a moon that did that, I have several bridges to sell you, starting with the Golden Gate Bridge and ending with the Brooklyn Bridge.

There are planets that the ancients did not spot, because they are not visible to the naked eye (not quite the case for Uranus, but near enough.)

There are currently satellites that orbit the earth that are not visible to the naked eye.

Hence there is no reason why Oerth could not be orbited by a small black moon that is not visible to the naked eye. (I have no idea on what basis you are talking about a "huge black hole in the sky" when I have repeatedly referred to a small black moon that is invisible to observers.)

The boxed set does in fact discuss moons other than the observations of the sage. It discusses them under Astronomical Phenomena.

The boxed set has no account of astronomical phenomena other than the passage from the sage. It is the same as in the folio.

The folio, at least as you have quoted it, does not say "at least" two moons.

(1) It doesn't say "two moons", either. It doesn't enumerate the moons at all. It just describes two of them, with an implication that the sage has described all he is familiar with. Which leaves it open that their may be moons with which he is not familiar.

(2) I infer from this that you do not have a copy of the folio. Which reinforces my curiosity as to how familiar you are with Greyhawk, and on what basis you are expounding forth on what is or is not consistent with GH canon, especially GH canon c 1990.

Folio canon leaves this open. Later canon does not - it establishes that he is an Animus.

I was not aware of that. That means that yes, making him a lich would be a change in canon. Not sure why you'd want to make that change, though. I just Googled Animus and it's very much like a lich already.

This further reinforces my curisoity as to how familiar you are with Greyhawk. For instance, if you had to Google "Aninmus" that suggests that you don't have From the Ashes. We've already established you don't have the Folio. It seems you may not have the original boxed set. What is your basis for making all your confident assertions about what is or is not consistent with Greyhawk canon?

 

[FrogReaver]

The gods of Greyhawk are spelled out in canon, so adding more would change canon and not be an addition. Canon has two moons, so adding a third moon would change canon. We know from canon that no such emperor exists, so that is also a change in canon and not an addition.

All of those are additions to cannon not changes. Cannon rarely enumerates what is not present. It only states what is. Saying there are 7 gods doesn't exclude an 8th. Saying there are 2 moons doesn't exclude a 3rd. Sure context may dictate that the 8th god or 3rd moon is different due to their lack of mention in relation to the others but that doesn't mean they don't exist just that you have to be imaginative to explain how these things fit into cannon. Your lack of imagination doesn't mean they are not additions (though I will concede some versions of such objects and people could be incompatible with canon).

Additions fit in-between canon without changing it. You need to come up with something else.

Everything I mentioned was an addition. Just because you aren't creative enough to find a way for such additions to not change cannon is not my problem.

Everything you brought up changes canon. They are not additions.

Ummm... none of it does

My take is based on facts and reality. They failed to miss a moving dot, but you expect them to miss a massive moving black hole that blots out masses of stars. If you really believe that they could have missed a moon that did that, I have several bridges to sell you, starting with the Golden Gate Bridge and ending with the Brooklyn Bridge.

Your take is based on lack of imagination.

 

[Campbell]

Again I am trying to understand the distinction being made... even using someones setting material as a guide, IMO, isn't telling their story since the author has not played through what has happened beyond what he has written in said book... and even if he had, your players would have to do exactly what his players did and you respond exactly as he did for you to be telling his story... otherwise you are telling a different story, your story.

I view this as a sliding scale. The way we approach the impact a setting has on play is crucial. At one end of the scale the constraints on play are absolute and play becomes more about utilizing setting knowledge and exploring the setting. At the other end of the scale we focus almost entirely on the characters and play becomes about exploring our characters and the choices they make. Setting is subservient to the needs of giving players interesting choices to make while advocating for their characters. I can see where more character focused play can feel like more of our story than setting focused play.

 

[Lanefan]

Relating this discussion to another rather rampant thread going alongside it these days, if you're running a full-canon setting how much do you assume or allow the characters (as opposed to the players) to know about said setting? Does player knowledge equal character knowledge allowing an average-intelligence Fighter from a village 35 miles from Waterdeep to know all the ins and outs of goings-on in Silverymoon and nigh everywhere else just because her player does? Or do you assume/allow only knowledge of the immediate area, leaving the rest of the setting to be discovered during the run of play (and thus maybe changed beforehand if the story demands it)?

Ditto questions for history. Accurate knowledge of specific events, or vague legends that may or may not even be right?

I've been re-reading some of this thread, around the late 300s and early 400s.

You must have had a really boring day, to want to do that.

Lanefan

 

[Maxperson]

Which canon? Not in the folio. First in a series of Dragon articles in 1982-83; then in the boxed set (1984). And there was no suggestion that these lists were complete (eg Gygax himself added new gods in his own play: the Silver Key of Dalt is just one example).

I doesn't matter. After 1984 it was canon, so after 1984 the courteous thing to do would be to let people know if you were using old canon, new canon(1984), or a mix.

Which canon? The folio and boxed set have a sage describing the visible heavens. That's all.

Like it or not, that sage's words are canon. That's how TSR chose to convey canon to the players. Even if you want to misportray the sage as unreliable narrator, his words are still canon.

Nagol is correct here; hence Maxperson is wrong. There is no discussion of moons as if there are only two. There is a discussion of visible heavenly phenomena, as if there are only two moons visible.

This leaves open the possibility of a third moon that is not visible - perhaps even an invisible black moon!

A canon discussion of two moons, and a third moon would not be invisible if black. It would be easily noticed by those watching the heavens for their living.

There are planets that the ancients did not spot, because they are not visible to the naked eye (not quite the case for Uranus, but near enough.)

But not a moon. A moon could not be.

There are currently satellites that orbit the earth that are not visible to the naked eye.

Not any that are large enough to be considered a moon.

Hence there is no reason why Oerth could not be orbited by a small black moon that is not visible to the naked eye. (I have no idea on what basis you are talking about a "huge black hole in the sky" when I have repeatedly referred to a small black moon that is invisible to observers.)

False Equivalence. A planet too far away to be seen and satellites too small to be seen are nowhere near equivalent to something with the mass of a moon.

This further reinforces my curisoity as to how familiar you are with Greyhawk. For instance, if you had to Google "Aninmus" that suggests that you don't have From the Ashes. We've already established you don't have the Folio. It seems you may not have the original boxed set. What is your basis for making all your confident assertions about what is or is not consistent with Greyhawk canon?

I owned the box set and Greyhawk Adventures.

 

[Maxperson]

All of those are additions to cannon not changes. Cannon rarely enumerates what is not present. It only states what is. Saying there are 7 gods doesn't exclude an 8th.

Exactly! Canon says there are 7 gods. Canon is therefore not 6 gods, or 8 gods. Adding an 8th god changes the canon of 7 gods.

Saying there are 2 moons doesn't exclude a 3rd. Sure context may dictate that the 8th god or 3rd moon is different due to their lack of mention in relation to the others but that doesn't mean they don't exist

No, but it does mean that they alter the canon that is told to us.

 

[Imaro]

I view this as a sliding scale. The way we approach the impact a setting has on play is crucial. At one end of the scale the constraints on play are absolute and play becomes more about utilizing setting knowledge and exploring the setting. At the other end of the scale we focus almost entirely on the characters and play becomes about exploring our characters and the choices they make. Setting is subservient to the needs of giving players interesting choices to make while advocating for their characters. I can see where more character focused play can feel like more of our story than setting focused play.

Yes but now two different axis are being conflated... There's nothing about having a hard canon starting point that precludes games about exploring characters... if the characters are in line with the canon, and the setting is well designed, then the world itself will offer them interesting choices as thematically they will be connected with it. Just as there is nothing about a more soft approach to canon as a starting point that precludes exploration based games... and in fact this is very similar to techniques many in the OSR use when designing their own homebrew worlds.

 

[billd91]

Relating this discussion to another rather rampant thread going alongside it these days, if you're running a full-canon setting how much do you assume or allow the characters (as opposed to the players) to know about said setting? Does player knowledge equal character knowledge allowing an average-intelligence Fighter from a village 35 miles from Waterdeep to know all the ins and outs of goings-on in Silverymoon and nigh everywhere else just because her player does? Or do you assume/allow only knowledge of the immediate area, leaving the rest of the setting to be discovered during the run of play (and thus maybe changed beforehand if the story demands it)?

Ditto questions for history. Accurate knowledge of specific events, or vague legends that may or may not even be right?

You must have had a really boring day, to want to do that.

Lanefan

I'm pretty tolerant of this sort of engagement from the player, though I do remind them (as necessary) to keep their PC's knowledges in mind. Usually, it's not a problem because it's more the player sharing what they know among other players. And that saves me time and effort.