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

[jmucchiello]

Same with setting. If you want to run ... Eberron but dragon marks and Houses don't interest you, of a happy shiny Barvarian for a better tomorrow, you aren't running those settings, just borrowing names from them.

Don't mean to beat up on you, Blue. But at what point does setting become name borrowing? What if I just remove one house? Or change the name of a house? What if everything in the book is exactly the same but I dismantle the railroad-- it no longer works -- am I no long playing in Eberron? Where is the line between being able to change stuff and still saying "This is Eberron" (James Earl Jones voice, of course) instead of "This is kind like Eberron"?

I will even go so far as to call this a grognard attitude. The preface to the 1e AD&D DMG said (more or less) the more one strayed from the rules as written the more likely you were no longer playing AD&D. For some, that attitude has since become rule zeroed out, I think. And that is the real line between treating fluff as rules, IMHO.

But, to answer my own questions above: my guess is the line is when the first player says "hey, this isn't Eberron." What's yours?

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

To my own concern, there's no difference between lore and other types of rules. If your DM says "there's no Waterdeep in my Forgotten Realms" or if he/she says "there's no opportunity attacks in my games", it's an intervention with the assumptions you bring to the table in any way. Still, you get rules that require almost no interpretation to work, such as "you must roll this high on a d20 to hit this opponent", but you also get rules that can have many different interpretations, such as "the elves of Darkwood shun the presence of other races". To me, a DM who use house rules is not different from one who changes what is generally accepted about a campaign setting.

I believe RPGs are quite unique in this, though. In no other game that I know of, you'll see lore influencing the outcome of play as much as any other kind of rule, and that's why I think you can disregard lore as a kind of rule in those games, but not in RPGs.

 

[Remathilis]

Don't mean to beat up on you, Blue. But at what point does setting become name borrowing? What if I just remove one house? Or change the name of a house? What if everything in the book is exactly the same but I dismantle the railroad-- it no longer works -- am I no long playing in Eberron? Where is the line between being able to change stuff and still saying "This is Eberron" (James Earl Jones voice, of course) instead of "This is kind like Eberron"?

I will even go so far as to call this a grognard attitude. The preface to the 1e AD&D DMG said (more or less) the more one strayed from the rules as written the more likely you were no longer playing AD&D. For some, that attitude has since become rule zeroed out, I think. And that is the real line between treating fluff as rules, IMHO.

But, to answer my own questions above: my guess is the line is when the first player says "hey, this isn't Eberron." What's yours?

Its a fuzzy line, to be sure.

I generally go with "when you're clashing with the core constructs of the setting". For Eberron, for example, the core constructs of the setting are: Pulp/noir feel, magic-as-commercial-venture, the Last War, Xen'drik, high magic, and 1920's sensibilities in a 1500's society. Saying something like "This is Eberron, but I've changed it to be a low-magic, grim-and-gritty setting" then I question the need to start with Eberron.

 

[Blue]

That's quite the wall of text. I'll jump through it - no one is judging you, I didn't appoint myself chief cook and bottle washer and am forcing you to play undiluted settings. This isn't a value judgement.

What it is an investigation of what makes a particular setting that setting. Or rather, when does deviation make it no longer that setting.

Let's try this. Come up with three sentences that really define your favorite setting between them. Now, take out every one of those and run it. Are you still playing in that setting?

 

[ProgBard]

Sod it all, [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION], it's no fair you come back showing yourself to be reasonable when we were in the middle of Someone Is Wrong on the Internet and all.

That's quite the wall of text. I'll jump through it - no one is judging you, I didn't appoint myself chief cook and bottle washer and am forcing you to play undiluted settings. This isn't a value judgement.

Srsly, tho, that clarification is much appreciated. Thank you.

What it is an investigation of what makes a particular setting that setting. Or rather, when does deviation make it no longer that setting.

Let's try this. Come up with three sentences that really define your favorite setting between them. Now, take out every one of those and run it. Are you still playing in that setting?

I agree that's a useful and interesting thing to investigate. And I think I agree with you that when you flip a switch that's closer to the ineffable soul of the setting, it does alter it beyond recognition. Maybe that's bad, or maybe that will be so much fun that no one will care, but you need to be aware when you're changing something truly fundamental.

The really interesting line of query, to me, is if you only alter one out of those three core aspects, are you still playing in that setting? I'm inclined to say yes, probably, but you've exponentially raised the need for buy-in from your group. Such a change might be a blast or everyone might hate it, but you gotta be clear about it up-front and give folks the chance to opt out.

Like I said before, I'm unqualified to say exactly how much you can futz with before $Setting becomes not-$Setting; that's a philosophical call above my pay grade. But I suspect different worlds have different tolerances. The Forgotten Realms and Golarion earn some robustness with their kitchen-sink nature - I think you can twiddle a lot of knobs there before you get to something that no longer feels like the setting you know. Middle-Earth, OTOH, seems a great deal more delicately balanced and fragile. So it's something that's going to vary a lot from setting to setting, not to mention group to group.

 

[jmucchiello]

1920's sensibilities in a 1500's society.

Well, most "fantasy" rpgs are run with modern sensabilities. We bring assumptions Newtonian and beyond physics to a time of Astotlean physics. We bring a sense of self above the group that was mostly flipped around back then. Probably far more liquid wealth than is natural to the time, etc.

Gun molls are far less out place than the other differences.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using EN World mobile app

 

[Luce]

I see cannon as snapshot in time of the in-game lore the PCs could find, be it by reading consulting with sages or barhopping. It may not be truth yesterday or the day after. Also while the validity is not assured, it is what the NPCs believe to the the truth. By taking this view (and I do share this stands of mine with the players) I feel that both the feeling of shared worldview is preserved as well as feeling free to make changes that can be justified in game.
Ogres(in my game) for example, are the same dimwitted, lazy and technology challenged bullies as the MM makes them to be.However, those under other creature (ex. fire giants) thumb may be using plate mail and great swords.

 

[ProgBard]

Well, most "fantasy" rpgs are run with modern sensabilities. We bring assumptions Newtonian and beyond physics to a time of Astotlean physics. We bring a sense of self above the group that was mostly flipped around back then. Probably far more liquid wealth than is natural to the time, etc.

Gun molls are far less out place than the other differences.

I recall many, many years ago seeing Bruce Baugh (being descriptive, not judgmental) characterize most fantasy RPG settings as "the modern world in fairy-tale drag." I love that, and find that embracing it is incredibly freeing in how I approach setting.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, most "fantasy" rpgs are run with modern sensabilities. We bring assumptions Newtonian and beyond physics to a time of Astotlean physics. We bring a sense of self above the group that was mostly flipped around back then. Probably far more liquid wealth than is natural to the time, etc.

Gun molls are far less out place than the other differences.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using EN World mobile app

Not what I meant. I mean, yeah, all fantasy RPGs end up bringing a much more modern view of the world than the medieval mind would have (on such things as gender issues or germ theory). But that isn't what I was referring to.

Eberron's main political component is its a world very similar to Europe after WWI. A gigantic war that had caused untold deaths and the loss of an entire generation had ended, great empires had been reduced to newly-formed splinter states vying for sovereignty, fanatical groups were on the rise which threaten the fragile peace, and a new world has emerged, but it is not the glorious new future anyone was hoping for. Politically, its a setting rife for intrigue, spies, saboteurs, assassins, old grudges, and new rivalries to emerge, rather than the squabbles between landed gentry and well-defined borders most D&D settings have.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

L

Its a fuzzy line, to be sure.

I generally go with "when you're clashing with the core constructs of the setting". For Eberron, for example, the core constructs of the setting are: Pulp/noir feel, magic-as-commercial-venture, the Last War, Xen'drik, high magic, and 1920's sensibilities in a 1500's society. Saying something like "This is Eberron, but I've changed it to be a low-magic, grim-and-gritty setting" then I question the need to start with Eberron.

I guess it depends what you mean by "core construct". Xen'drik is an important background element for many of the things in Eberron, but one can run a perfectly reasonable Eberron game with the PCs never setting foot on that continent. Although, I guess I'm not really a purist, since my Eberron has no Halflings in it.