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

[pemerton]

a third moon would not be invisible if black. It would be easily noticed by those watching the heavens for their living.

<snip>

But not a moon. A moon could not be.

<snip>

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

<snip>

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.

So we now have Maxperson as authority on what is consistent with GH canon, and as authority on what can or cannot legitimately be described as a moon.

I note that you don't acknowledge that you were incorrect about the boxed set treatment of astrological phenomena.

And I note that you have still not repsonded to my observation of you multiple false (and mutually incosnsistnent) paraphrases of my campaign.

 

[Hussar]

You're ignoring the nuance. It's not a question of being better skating by, it's being so much better. It pretty much has to really beat the hell out of the prior version to avoid frustrated blowback.

Bingo. How does something "beat the hell out of prior" versions? It's still all about YOUR personal preferences. You are gatekeeping changes based on whether or not YOU happen to like the changes. Continuity is simply an excuse.

As people, including me, have brought up in other threads, changes bring on extra effort and frustration. If the new paladin's a major change, ongoing campaigns may have to deal with new players coming in and needing more reeducation to replace their expectations. Or it may mean a bit of conversion on the GM's part or even reeducation of the players already in the game. The greater the change, the more the effort. None of that has anything to do with quality, per se. If it involves personal preference, it's borne from preferring to not have to relearn so much of the game every time the developers get it in their heads they want to reconcept the hell out of everything. Give me new rules? OK, how well does this work with what we've been doing? Give me new monsters? OK, how well do these fit in? Redesign the rules? OK, same as before but the bar is much higher since they may substantially change how characters play. Redesign the monsters? OK, same as with new monsters but again the bar is much higher since they may substantially change how parts of the campaign work.



Fortunately, we're not discussing quality here. We're discussing continuity and compatibility and the frustration and extra effort required when new changes conflict with older information. These contribute to why people put priority on what came before and the continuities from publication to publication, from edition to edition.

But, funnily enough, that "frustration" ONLY occurs when we're talking about changes that you, personally, don't like. Otherwise, you WOULD be complaining about the paladin or the boatload of other 5e changes. Yet, they all get the pass. Why is that? Why aren't you challenging 5e changes?

Again, that "bar" you talk about is simply YOUR PERSONAL PREFERENCES. That's it. The bar is "higher" is simply an easy way of saying, "Well, I have to really like it" for it to be ok. You even admit it has nothing to do with quality. Well, if you remove quality, what's left?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Verily, 7 shall be the number, and the number shall be 7.

Not 6, as 6 does not make unto 7.

Not 8, for 8 is but one too many and must perforce be pared down to become 7.

9 is definitely out.

 

[Maxperson]

So we now have Maxperson as authority on what is consistent with GH canon, and as authority on what can or cannot legitimately be described as a moon.

Silly me for taking what is considered to be a moon in real life and using that for D&D. Would you please provide me with the official alternative fact definition of "moon" that D&D gives us? I haven't been able to find it.

 

[billd91]

But, funnily enough, that "frustration" ONLY occurs when we're talking about changes that you, personally, don't like. Otherwise, you WOULD be complaining about the paladin or the boatload of other 5e changes. Yet, they all get the pass. Why is that? Why aren't you challenging 5e changes?

Mostly because I'm playing Pathfinder way more than 5e. But also because the several year interregnum of 4e borked the hell out of any campaign continuity extending back from 1e so we pretty much gave it up.
But even with the changes to the paladin, we're playing an Age of Worms campaign that plays more like the earlier days of D&D than anything we could have tried in 4e. Plus, there's enough back to basics lore in the general game that we're not working to relearn the mechanics and so much of the lore at once like 4e required. In other words, it's supporting my preference to not have to relearn so much of the game just to muddle through the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

Silly me for taking what is considered to be a moon in real life and using that for D&D. Would you please provide me with the official alternative fact definition of "moon" that D&D gives us? I haven't been able to find it.

Well, for the past several hundred posts you seemed to be talking about the moon that I added to my GH game, which is small and black and not visible to the naked eye, and whose existence is known only to a small number of wizardly types.

But now you're telling me that such a thing contradicts canon because it is impossible for it to both (i) be a moon, and (ii) be invisible to the naked eye. No doubt you think it was discourteous of me to describe this thing to my players as a moon, rather than - what - orbital space rock?

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I saw you posted this recently on a different thread:

No, it's not a design flaw. It's a design strategy that YOU don't like. Your dislike doesn't make it a flaw. Lots of people really enjoy finding out hidden secrets. That strategy is for them, not you. It's pretty arrogant for you to call their fun a design flaw.

Do you think the same principle might apply to describing someone else's call, which led to a rather popular, 7-year campaign, as very poor GMing? That perhaps such a description is arrogantly projecting the critics preferences onto the experiences and choices of others?

 

[Maxperson]

Well, for the past several hundred posts you seemed to be talking about the moon that I added to my GH game, which is small and black and not visible to the naked eye, and whose existence is known only to a small number of wizardly types.

It is visible to the naked eye. It might be dark, but it will block out whole groups of known stars every night as it wanders across the sky. Pretty much every astronomer and astrologer out there. Moons, even "small" ones, are quite large.

But now you're telling me that such a thing contradicts canon because it is impossible for it to both (i) be a moon, and (ii) be invisible to the naked eye. No doubt you think it was discourteous of me to describe this thing to my players as a moon, rather than - what - orbital space rock?

If it's so small that it can't be seen via blocking stars as it goes by, it's basically an asteroid. Think of the Death Star. That was a small moon. Make the Death Star black so you can't see it directly and it will still block out so many stars that people from the planet will see the moving hole that it makes.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I saw you posted this recently on a different thread:

Do you think the same principle might apply to describing someone else's call, which led to a rather popular, 7-year campaign, as very poor GMing? That perhaps such a description is arrogantly projecting the critics preferences onto the experiences and choices of others?

I never said or implied that you should do something differently because of what I believe. Calling something a design flaw does say that.

 

[Darkness]

I think it's time end this. At this point, it's neither particularly productive nor particularly friendly.

Good night, everone.