Imaro
Legend
How about because I was interested in reading it for myself?? I never said it would change anything but since I don't have access to the folio I was interested in reading it... is that a crime?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
- Thread starter ProgBard
- Start date
- Status
How about because I was interested in reading it for myself?? I never said it would change anything but since I don't have access to the folio I was interested in reading it... is that a crime?
A crime? Of course not.
All the pertinent information had already been posted. Continuing to ask for someone to give it to you verbatim -- in back to back posts no less -- gets close to whining however. I'm sure you can acquire a copy of either folio if you are that interested.
ProgBard
First Post
Incidentally, something that I think deserves some light on it, since variations on it have come up a couple of times in this discussion:
Some of the canon-descriptivists (for want of a better term, and by which I mean the folks who don't take a relatively hard-line stance about canon) have objected to the idea that certain changes mean they're not running the "real" setting any more, and some of the responses to this from canon-prescriptivists run along the lines of "But I never said that!" But the thing is, you don't need to use those exact words to convey that meaning.
Part of what's going on here is that several folks on the canon-prescriptivist side of the line believe that when [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] describes his campaign as a "Greyhawk game," he's using that label incorrectly, to point to something that isn't what "Greyhawk game" really means. The whole point of this objection is that narrowing the scope of the meaning of "Greyhawk game" has virtue attached to it, that it's a term that needs defending from lexical slippage, that it ought to be reserved for something that hews as close as possible to published canon (which itself, as we have seen, is a problematic yardstick, but set that aside for now). It implies that there's a special, valuable property of canonically-proper campaigns that allows them to use the "right" name. It's not an illogical leap to infer that this means the more you adhere to canon, the more "real" your GH campaign is, because you're using the term for what it "really" means.
As I mentioned before, I use the terms descriptivist and prescriptivist advisedly here, because I'm seeing an exact parallel to the evergreen usage debates in the linguablogosphere, and the folks who have a visceral squick reaction to singular they or the use of decimate to mean something other than "kill one in ten" - including the reductio ad absurdum that if we let those meanings slip, then I guess just anything goes and we'll all be reduced to grunting in a century or so ("Why not 12,000 moons?"). And my answer in both cases is the same: You don't get to police usage changes, and telling other people what language they can and can't use is a violation of Wheaton's Law.
AND, I think the rulings about what isn't canon and therefore disqualifies the setting from being worthy of the name are also visceral squick reactions,* around which canon-prescriptivists are very good at building a lot of logical-seeming justification that is essentially, yes, arbitrary and subjective and boils down to "That just doesn't feel right to me." So we get a lot of flailing around on whether it's "change" or "addition" that makes the difference, but it all more or less boils down to what are essentially reverse-engineered justifications for, if pemerton says, "My Oerth has three moons," that pings your personal doesn't-feel-like-Greyhawk-any-more meter.
(As an aside, the subject of Barrier Peaks is entirely relevant here, because whether you think an alien spaceship "belongs" in your S&S setting is also a visceral gut reaction much more than any argument you can make about it based on "logic.")
Meanwhile, canon-descriptivists are here going, "I run a game. It's set in Greyhawk. It draws significantly on at least some of the published setting materials, even though I've added some things, ignored others, and made a couple of changes to better suit my group and my vision. It's therefore a 'Greyhawk game.' Stop trying to take away my permission to call it that based on standards I don't care about."
_____
Were I god-emperor of these things - and you have cause to be glad I'm not - I would, along with getting usage peevers to stop embarassing themselves with the etymological fallacy, institute a rule against telling other people they're not doing what they say they're doing, even if you define it differently. But, look, this is easier than you think it is. Instead of "That's not x," try recasting it as "In my x." That's making an offering instead of trying to - futilely! - police a boundary that isn't yours to define and collect on a debt that isn't owed you.
Try it yourself:
"In my Greyhawk, I ignore everything that was released after the 2e adventures."
"In my Greyhawk, the Duke of Geoff is a werewolf."
"In my Greyhawk, there's a hidden third moon and a secret cult of wizards that draws power from it."
"In my Greyhawk, the dungeon in the Barrier Peaks isn't a starship; it's an incursion from the Far Realm caused by the eldritch servitors of a Great Old One."
"In my Greyhawk, Furyondy is occupied by an extraplanar invasion from Shou Lung and ruled by a literal Dragon Emperor."
"In my Greyhawk, the canonical pantheon was mysteriously replaced a thousand years ago by the Tuatha de Danaan, who are secretly Primordials in disguise."
... And so on. You get the point. Maybe some or all of those sound intriguing or exciting to you; maybe some or all of those elicit your visceral squick response and no longer feel like the Greyhawk you know and love. It doesn't matter; we can still call them all "Greyhawk games" without the term dissolving into meaninglessness. But the thing is, at least we're sharing something instead of trying to take it away, or being self-appointed arbiters of each other's thing-ness according to how close or far it is from some imaginary, numinous ideal.
*Which, to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s great credit, he has copped to several times, observing that the line between Greyhawk and not-Greyhawk is going to be different from gamer to gamer. I'd frame it differently than he does, but it's a point on which we are essentially in agreement.
Some of the canon-descriptivists (for want of a better term, and by which I mean the folks who don't take a relatively hard-line stance about canon) have objected to the idea that certain changes mean they're not running the "real" setting any more, and some of the responses to this from canon-prescriptivists run along the lines of "But I never said that!" But the thing is, you don't need to use those exact words to convey that meaning.
Part of what's going on here is that several folks on the canon-prescriptivist side of the line believe that when [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] describes his campaign as a "Greyhawk game," he's using that label incorrectly, to point to something that isn't what "Greyhawk game" really means. The whole point of this objection is that narrowing the scope of the meaning of "Greyhawk game" has virtue attached to it, that it's a term that needs defending from lexical slippage, that it ought to be reserved for something that hews as close as possible to published canon (which itself, as we have seen, is a problematic yardstick, but set that aside for now). It implies that there's a special, valuable property of canonically-proper campaigns that allows them to use the "right" name. It's not an illogical leap to infer that this means the more you adhere to canon, the more "real" your GH campaign is, because you're using the term for what it "really" means.
As I mentioned before, I use the terms descriptivist and prescriptivist advisedly here, because I'm seeing an exact parallel to the evergreen usage debates in the linguablogosphere, and the folks who have a visceral squick reaction to singular they or the use of decimate to mean something other than "kill one in ten" - including the reductio ad absurdum that if we let those meanings slip, then I guess just anything goes and we'll all be reduced to grunting in a century or so ("Why not 12,000 moons?"). And my answer in both cases is the same: You don't get to police usage changes, and telling other people what language they can and can't use is a violation of Wheaton's Law.
AND, I think the rulings about what isn't canon and therefore disqualifies the setting from being worthy of the name are also visceral squick reactions,* around which canon-prescriptivists are very good at building a lot of logical-seeming justification that is essentially, yes, arbitrary and subjective and boils down to "That just doesn't feel right to me." So we get a lot of flailing around on whether it's "change" or "addition" that makes the difference, but it all more or less boils down to what are essentially reverse-engineered justifications for, if pemerton says, "My Oerth has three moons," that pings your personal doesn't-feel-like-Greyhawk-any-more meter.
(As an aside, the subject of Barrier Peaks is entirely relevant here, because whether you think an alien spaceship "belongs" in your S&S setting is also a visceral gut reaction much more than any argument you can make about it based on "logic.")
Meanwhile, canon-descriptivists are here going, "I run a game. It's set in Greyhawk. It draws significantly on at least some of the published setting materials, even though I've added some things, ignored others, and made a couple of changes to better suit my group and my vision. It's therefore a 'Greyhawk game.' Stop trying to take away my permission to call it that based on standards I don't care about."
_____
Were I god-emperor of these things - and you have cause to be glad I'm not - I would, along with getting usage peevers to stop embarassing themselves with the etymological fallacy, institute a rule against telling other people they're not doing what they say they're doing, even if you define it differently. But, look, this is easier than you think it is. Instead of "That's not x," try recasting it as "In my x." That's making an offering instead of trying to - futilely! - police a boundary that isn't yours to define and collect on a debt that isn't owed you.
Try it yourself:
"In my Greyhawk, I ignore everything that was released after the 2e adventures."
"In my Greyhawk, the Duke of Geoff is a werewolf."
"In my Greyhawk, there's a hidden third moon and a secret cult of wizards that draws power from it."
"In my Greyhawk, the dungeon in the Barrier Peaks isn't a starship; it's an incursion from the Far Realm caused by the eldritch servitors of a Great Old One."
"In my Greyhawk, Furyondy is occupied by an extraplanar invasion from Shou Lung and ruled by a literal Dragon Emperor."
"In my Greyhawk, the canonical pantheon was mysteriously replaced a thousand years ago by the Tuatha de Danaan, who are secretly Primordials in disguise."
... And so on. You get the point. Maybe some or all of those sound intriguing or exciting to you; maybe some or all of those elicit your visceral squick response and no longer feel like the Greyhawk you know and love. It doesn't matter; we can still call them all "Greyhawk games" without the term dissolving into meaninglessness. But the thing is, at least we're sharing something instead of trying to take it away, or being self-appointed arbiters of each other's thing-ness according to how close or far it is from some imaginary, numinous ideal.
*Which, to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s great credit, he has copped to several times, observing that the line between Greyhawk and not-Greyhawk is going to be different from gamer to gamer. I'd frame it differently than he does, but it's a point on which we are essentially in agreement.
Imaro
Legend
Well thanks for posting it...
TwoSix
"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
For only having 100+ posts, a really nice-sized proportion have been truly excellent. Cheers, mate.
Well, it's questionable whether Spelljammer material is really part of Greyhawk, or an optional Greyhawk add-on.
Questions I don't need to wrestle with, because it was written after 1985.
Well it is either that or Selvor the Elder's SECRETS REVEALED or Yestro Blinigd's ASTROLOGY, DIVINTY, and MANKIND. So take your pick I guess.
ProgBard
First Post
Aw, thank you for your kind words. I'm prone to lurking and assuming I have nothing interesting to say, then deciding I do and, uh, unleashing the verbal floodgates all over the convo. Knowing that something I've spewed forth here is of value to someone else means a great deal.
Hussar
Legend
Well, in case you missed it, in just this thread we have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] telling [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] that he is a bad GM for not following canon.
Does that count?
Imaro
Legend
I thought you were talking about canon being used to de-legitimize lore people dont like... Someone not agreeing with your DM style is a different subject... even if its because they like following canon and you dont.
TwoSix
"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
It's purely selfish; encouraging good posters to make more posts means I have more good posts to read.
- Status
Similar Threads
D&D General
When to know a rule?
