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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

"Aha! But your plans have failed, because what you don't know is that the Duke of Geoff is a werewolf, and has betrayed you to his master Iuz!" might be a moment of exciting dramatic revelation, or egregious DM wangroddery, and the context it occurs in makes all the difference.

As a general proposition, I agree.

In the context of my own GMing, though, I would use that as part of the narration of a failure result. Perhaps, in the right context (as you say, context is virtually everything here), I might use the werewolf revelation to frame a situation. But I wouldn't use it to resolve a player action declaration.

 

[pemerton]

I actually asked for the folio information as it was presented so that I could see if the two moons were stated definitively but no one has actually posted what is in the folio... only descriptions of what is in it.

But what exactly does it say...

If the folio states there are 2 moons... then it is.

Why is it so hard to post exactly what the folio states about the moons of Oerth?

I'm not posting it because I don't have access to my books at present.
[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] and I already told you what it says, though: it's an in-fiction treatise describing the heavenly bodies as they are known to that in-fiction author. As someone else ( [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]? no, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]) pointed out, that in-fiction treatise itself refers to other books that exist only as an act of authorial imagination on Gygax's part.

And I see now that Nagol has posted the text. Which (surprise, surprise) is just as it has been described to you!

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.

Have you read the thread? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] didn't say that he has a different GMing style from me. He said that my decision to include WoHS in my GH game (which also meant including a third moon), and to use the lable WoHS for that magical order, was very poor GMing.

I don't go around telling people they're poor GMs because they run their game on a different basis from me. I just talk about how I run my games, why I do it that way what I think some strengths are of my approach.

I don't think someone's a poor GM just becuse I don't favour their approach, and perhaps wouldn't want to play in their game.

So are they the WoH or have they been morphed into a secret cult you added (because the WoH weren't secret and hunted all wizards who weren't part of their order)? Also they (or is it one faction?) draw power from a moon they can't see and are unaware of... ok, I guess. These examples seem to change and contort as the conversation progresses...

This has all been discussed upthread.

They're an ancient Suel order. Of wizards. Based in the Great Kingdom and satellites. They can be mysterious without being (literally) secret - qv Yara, the wizard antagonist in The Tower of the Elephant. They don't hunt down all wizards who aren't part of their order. It's been awhile - as in, well over a decade - since I ran the game in which WoHS figured prominently and several PCs were wizards. So I can't remember how widespread the knowledge was, outside the order, that they draw power from the moons. But as best I recall the GH-based PCs (who weren't WoHS, because not in the GK) didn't know about the third moon until they learned of it from Black Robe wizards.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not posting it because I don't have access to my books at present.

No worries someone else already did...

@Nagol and I already told you what it says, though: it's an in-fiction treatise describing the heavenly bodies as they are known to that in-fiction author. As someone else ( @Hriston? no, @lowkey13) pointed out, that in-fiction treatise itself refers to other books that exist only as an act of authorial imagination on Gygax's part.

And I see now that Nagol has posted the text. Which (surprise, surprise) is just as it has been described to you!

I wanted to read it for myself... what's the issue with that?

Have you read the thread? @Maxperson didn't say that he has a different GMing style from me. He said that my decision to include WoHS in my GH game (which also meant including a third moon), and to use the lable WoHS for that magical order, was very poor GMing.

I don't go around telling people they're poor GMs because they run their game on a different basis from me. I just talk about how I run my games, why I do it that way what I think some strengths are of my approach.

I don't think someone's a poor GM just becuse I don't favour their approach, and perhaps wouldn't want to play in their game.

Ok but that still doesn't have anything to do with @Hussars post... it was about using canon to de-legetimize lore you don't like... not about using canon and whether it's good or bad DM'ing to do so.

On another note @pemerton I have definitely seen you comment negatively on certain DM'ing techniques (such as secret backstory or exploration focused games) that others enjoy and use... maybe not going so far as to state outright you felt they were bad DM's but definitely expressing your disdain for said DM'ing style...

Anyway I certainly haven't said you were a bad DM for changing canon only that I wouldn't consider certain things a Greyhawk game... which, just as it's your right to call it Greyhawk because it falls into such category for you, is also my right... In the same way you may judge something "not Greyhawk" if it violates what you consider the tropes and themes of Greyhawk.

This has all been discussed upthread.

They're an ancient Suel order. Of wizards. Based in the Great Kingdom and satellites. They can be mysterious without being (literally) secret - qv Yara, the wizard antagonist in The Tower of the Elephant. They don't hunt down all wizards who aren't part of their order. It's been awhile - as in, well over a decade - since I ran the game in which WoHS figured prominently and several PCs were wizards. So I can't remember how widespread the knowledge was, outside the order, that they draw power from the moons. But as best I recall the GH-based PCs (who weren't WoHS, because not in the GK) didn't know about the third moon until they learned of it from Black Robe wizards.

So it had fundamental differences from the WoHS... you basically used them as a basis but created your own homebrewed sect. I wouldn't call that adding WoHS to Greyhawk.

 

[Hriston]

If the folio states there are 2 moons... then it is.





Why is it so hard to post exactly what the folio states about the moons of Oerth?

So now that you've read for yourself what the folio says, do you consider [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s inclusion of a third moon an addition or a change?

 

[Imaro]

So now that you've read for yourself what the folio says, do you consider [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s inclusion of a third moon an addition or a change?

I said earlier if he wasnt contradicting previously established lore it was an addition so yes to folio greyhawk canon it is an addition.

 

[pemerton]

I have definitely seen you comment negatively on certain DM'ing techniques (such as secret backstory or exploration focused games) that others enjoy and use... maybe not going so far as to state outright you felt they were bad DM's but definitely expressing your disdain for said DM'ing style

Not disdain.

I explain my preferences.

And I don't call people's approach very poor GMing just because it's not something I would do.

 

[pemerton]

I wouldn't call that adding WoHS to Greyhawk.

I call it adding WoHS to GH because (i) I got the idea from reading about WoHS in DL (especially the DL Adventures hardback); (ii) like the WoHS, they hang out in Towers (of High Sorcery), meet in Conclaves, admit members by way of a test, etc; (iii) in determining permitted/prohibited achools/flavours of magic I followed the DLA rules pretty closely; (iv) I added an extra moon to give black robes a source of power (Red Robes already had Luna, White Robes Celene).

I'm not sure what more someone might do to make it count as "adding WoHS to a GH campaign".

 

[Hussar]

So how is telling someone that they are a poor DM for the lore choices they make not de-legitimizing lore choices?

 

[Maxperson]

But this is like me saying "Because you've changed one thing about your FR game, why not change it all and still call it FR?" That is, it's silly.

For instance, if the moons fill the night sky then they would be visible to the sage (or alternatively would block views of the stars) and hence would be mentioned (or the stars wouldn't be mentioned).,

A 3rd, small, close-orbiting moon is compatible with canon in a way that 12,000 moons that block the night sky is not. Which is my point.

Writing canon from the point of view of a sage is just a fancy way of delivering the canon. It doesn't make it more prone to being wrong.