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

[TwoSix]

In the full knowledge that I am not a mod, and have the weight of exactly no authority in this matter, I nonetheless make the following request:

Guys, please be civil to each other.

If that's not possible, may I meekly suggest that maybe it's time to walk away from this argument that has now spilled, or maybe splashed, across multiple threads. And consider the possibility, given the b***h-eating-crackers nature the discourse has come to, that by now the argument you're having is no longer about the subject it purports to be.

You've missed the REALLY exciting threads over the years if you feel this is uncivil.

Although, I do agree this discussion has already run its course. Arguing over what significant means is just semantics, and not worth the debate. If I have to whip out Inigo, it's already gone too far.

 

[pemerton]

There is no objective criteria that makes Wagner more significant than Ringo Starr. It's all about who likes what more and who places more importance on what. If someone doesn't like classical music, Wagner is about as significant a composer as the cat yowling on the fence outside.

Arguing over what significant means is just semantics, and not worth the debate.

I don't think that the discussion is semantic.

It's about whether the notion of value or quality has any work to do in discussing creations.

But I agree that the conversation has run its course, if it's got to the point of someone comparing one of the most important and influential composers of all time (to point to something that most posters on tihs thread might care about, the modern film score - eg John Williams, Shore's LotR score, etc - owes its existence to Wagner) to a cat yowling on a fence.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't matter if it is or it isn't. YOUR criteria do not determine what is or is not significant to other people. So long as something is significant to at least one person, it is significant.

To that one person, yes. To the greater community reading and-or participating in this? Maybe, maybe not; and the answer there is probably the determinant of significance overall. (gawds, that sounds scientific - completely unintentional, I assure you!)

Yes it is just subjective opinion. There is no objective criteria that makes Wagner more significant than Ringo Starr.

Again, yes there probably are. Which one produced more works by number? Who composed for the longer (career-length) time? Compare the musical complexity between their works, which I believe *can* be scientifically done. These answers will give a guide as to importance, and thus a probable read on overall significance.

Which one a person *likes* more, on the other hand, is completely subjective; and note that popularity is not part of my equations above.

Lan-"no horse in this race as I'm not a big fan of either one"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

What's so civil about war, anyway?

If you looked at the other thread, you'd notice that this "lore" thing is the third rail of this site; seems to inspire more passionate nerd rage than Picard v. Kirk (first, Kirk, second, what about Sisko, third, /duck).

Don't you mess with Kirk!

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think that the discussion is semantic.

It's about whether the notion of value or quality has any work to do in discussing creations.

But I agree that the conversation has run its course, if it's got to the point of someone comparing one of the most important and influential composers of all time (to point to something that most posters on tihs thread might care about, the modern film score - eg John Williams, Shore's LotR score, etc - owes its existence to Wagner) to a cat yowling on a fence.

It wasn't a comparison. It was an illustration to show how significant Wagner is to someone who doesn't give a rats behind about him.

 

[Maxperson]

To that one person, yes. To the greater community reading and-or participating in this? Maybe, maybe not; and the answer there is probably the determinant of significance overall. (gawds, that sounds scientific - completely unintentional, I assure you!)

Again, yes there probably are. Which one produced more works by number? Who composed for the longer (career-length) time? Compare the musical complexity between their works, which I believe *can* be scientifically done. These answers will give a guide as to importance, and thus a probable read on overall significance.

But the criteria for comparison are somewhat arbitrary. Which one appeals more to the modern audience? Which one is more well known to people alive today? Which one has reach more people in the last 30 years? Which one has won more Tonys? Which has sold more albums? Which has earned more money?

Which one a person *likes* more, on the other hand, is completely subjective; and note that popularity is not part of my equations above.

But which a person prefers will often guide the criteria used to determine which is more significant.

 

[Blue]

Which is fine, but I'd be interested to hear you elaborate a bit more what your conception is. And also what, exactly, is at stake.

Nothing is at stake in regards to your game. I have repeated again in again in this thread tat you can and should run and play in whatever you want. I have never been trying to say "you're not playing this right".

What I've asked is "What is the definition of a setting?". It's a question of identity. My position is that the lore (including non-word lore like the maps) are the identity of a setting.

You say you run a GH game. If I was an avid GH fan and you invited me in, would you need to tell me anything about the setting or would my assumptions be fine including the "everyman" knowledge about politics and culture that my character displays in game? That might be a valid test.

But that's still not at stake - it's all good whatever you run. Saying "It's Greyhawk but the Circle of Eight has mysteriously disappeared years ago, Iuz has never been a demigod, and in campaign Furyondy just had a coup." Sounds like fun!

 

[Shasarak]

But I agree that the conversation has run its course, if it's got to the point of someone comparing one of the most important and influential composers of all time (to point to something that most posters on tihs thread might care about, the modern film score - eg John Williams, Shore's LotR score, etc - owes its existence to Wagner) to a cat yowling on a fence.

I remember listening to Nicholas McCarthy who said that the historical great artists (specifically the piano players) would have struggled to be good enough to be admitted into the current day famous music schools. So personally while I think it is a little strange to compare Ringo and Wagner both of them had great achievements in their field.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing is at stake in regards to your game. I have repeated again in again in this thread tat you can and should run and play in whatever you want. I have never been trying to say "you're not playing this right".

What I've asked is "What is the definition of a setting?". It's a question of identity. My position is that the lore (including non-word lore like the maps) are the identity of a setting.

You say you run a GH game. If I was an avid GH fan and you invited me in, would you need to tell me anything about the setting or would my assumptions be fine including the "everyman" knowledge about politics and culture that my character displays in game? That might be a valid test.

But that's still not at stake - it's all good whatever you run. Saying "It's Greyhawk but the Circle of Eight has mysteriously disappeared years ago, Iuz has never been a demigod, and in campaign Furyondy just had a coup." Sounds like fun!

This.

 

[ProgBard]

You've missed the REALLY exciting threads over the years if you feel this is uncivil.

Having belonged to the tribe of gamers for some small time now, I readily believe it. Still, I'd have us hold to a higher standard of civility than "not as bad as at our worst," were it my call to make.

Although, I do agree this discussion has already run its course. Arguing over what significant means is just semantics, and not worth the debate. If I have to whip out Inigo, it's already gone too far.

Yes. And once again, when it gets to that point, you're likely no longer (only) arguing about the topic; you're having the forum equivalent of a Post-It war with your roommate over who's been drinking whose beer.