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

[Lanefan]

It means this. If I am a game creator, I have lore for the game. All that remains is how that lore is given to you. I can decide to give it to you through a narrator, creating the canon lore that way. I can also decide to give it to you directly, with no narrator, creating the same canon lore. There is no difference in the canon lore imparted by the two methods. Changes made to narrator canon have the same meaning and impact as changes made to direct canon.

If you are the setting's creator and nobody else is really going to use that setting other than you and your players, then your word is law no matter how you present it.

However. As soon as you put that setting out there for others to use, who may or may not know or care what you had in mind when designing it, it doesn't matter how you present your lore - the chances are near-unity that said lore is going to be messed with. With any published setting it's up to each individual DM/table to decide what bits of it they're going to keep, what to trash, what to expand on, and so forth.

Further, there isn't (or IMO certainly shouldn't be) any expectation for there to be any but the very broadest consistency between tables/DMs/campaigns based in the same setting.* If you've just left a FR campaign where Waterdeep was blown up and the Moonshae Isles drifted with the tides instead of staying in one place, and jumped to another FR campaign you've no reason at all to expect wandering Moonshaes even if that's somehow a vital element to your character design. One DM might hew close to Greenwood's original FR and include only those changes he makes. Another might use the 3e hardcover version as written. A third might use gray-box, only without Waterdeep and with wandering Moonshaes. They're all FR, and like it or not neither Mr. Greenwood nor WotC/Hasbro - nor me, nor you - can legitimately say otherwise. And the best thing? Nobody is doing it wrong.

* - except in those wonderful instances where two or more DMs share a setting or universe.

Lan-"now I'm wondering how many xp a wandering island is worth"-efan

 

[ProgBard]

I think it makes a huge difference whether the lore is presented in the voice of an omniscient author - in effect, the setting book is intended to have the same relatioship, vis a vis the fictional world, as an atlas or encyclopedia is intended to have vis a vis the real world.

Wheresas when, as in GH, we are given an extract from an in-fiction treaties, then the lore that is established is not the content of the treatise but the treatise itself.

Thank you, this, yes - you've pinned down something that I was flailing at without quite being able to bracket so neatly.

Omniscient-author text provides (establishes, even!) some aspect of the lore. But an in-world speaker is part of the lore. This in itself should alter, if subtly, the way we engage with it while making decisions about what can be taken for granted and what can't.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair Maxperson, since I'm probably being lumped in here, I never, ever made my intentions secret. I think that these lore discussions are completely disingenuous. I think that those who claim that lore is important are always doing so to act as gate keepers for the one true way of playing the game.

Because, the thing is, you will never, EVER, hear someone say, "Well, this new idea is really cool and I really like it and it's really a better idea than what came before, but, y'know, we have to preserve canon, so, we'll keep this older idea, even though it's not really as good".

The importance of canon is directly proportional to the degree the person likes that canon.

So, no, I've never been trying to set anyone up for a knockdown. Just pointing out how incredibly hypocritical most people are being when they try to claim the importance of canon.

That seems very closed minded to me. I have been arguing the importance of lore, and at the same time talking about changing it to varying degrees myself. I very much don't agree that viewing lore as important leads to One True Wayism.

 

[Maxperson]

In what way is a 3rd moon, or WoHS, radical? In what way does it mess with, or distort, the framework of GH?

I can see how the number and nature of moons is core to the framework of Krynn, given their centrality to the WoHS? But how is the exact number of moons core to GH? (When I asked you upthread to talk about a GH scenario you'd run or played in in which the astronomy was central, you couldn't name one; whereas I think it would be central - via WoHS, and perhaps also the gods-as-constellations - to nearly every Krynn campaign, and very many Krynn scenarios.)

I don't see how adding seven invisible moons to Krynn that have nothing to do with magic is any more of an alteration than adding the third one to Oerth is. If they are "unknown" and "invisible", how does it alter Krynn canon more than the Oerth change?

And as far as having a wizardly order that draws power from moons, how does that mess with or distort the framework? The framework is one of ancient empires with ancient magical powers (the Suel Imperium and the Invoked Devastation that it called down; the Baklun Empire and the Rain of Colourless Fire that it called down); and the treatise on the heavens tells us that the heavenly bodies exert astrological influences over the world.

The framework of Oerth is very much about traditional D&D. Wizards and clerics are the PHB versions. Adding a type of wizard that is linked to the moons tweaks that framework a bit. Naming them directly after the Krynn versions tweaks it even more. Adding a third moon tweaks it even further. It's like a game of Jenga. Eventually the framework is going to collapse.

It's all very well to say that radical departures make a campaign no longer an instance of a campaign world. That's not bad as a basic proposition. But you have articulated no account of why the stuff I've talked about counts as a radical departure! The mere fact that it is an addition to astronomical facts doesn't make it so, at least until you have some account of why sticking to two moons is key to the GH framework. The mere fact that it is an element dropped in from another setting doesn't make it so, not in general and certainly not in GH, which - as published - already contains elements from Dave Arneson's setting (Blackmoor), from Boot Hill (Murlynd) and from Metamorphis Alpha/Gamma World (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks).

Those additions are canon, though, so they are built in as part of the Greyhawk setting. Adding further settings that are not canon tweaks the established framework, and for me that sort of tweak is fatal to the framework.

 

[Lanefan]

The framework of Oerth is very much about traditional D&D. Wizards and clerics are the PHB versions.

Er...which PHB? There's been 5 now, plus a few splat-ons in between. And various classes are a whole lot different now than their 1e versions (I'm looking at you, Bard).

Adding a type of wizard that is linked to the moons tweaks that framework a bit.

So would putting 3e Sorcerers - and 3e everything else - into the 1e version of Greyhawk (which, by the way, is exactly what I played in for my 7-year 3e run: original Greyhawk using 3e [later, 3.5e] rules). It didn't collapse.

Lan-"despite our best attempts to break it, it didn't collapse"-efan

 

[Hussar]

That seems very closed minded to me. I have been arguing the importance of lore, and at the same time talking about changing it to varying degrees myself. I very much don't agree that viewing lore as important leads to One True Wayism.

Eh, maybe. But, I think between this thread, the other thread that shall not be mentioned, and the past fifteen years of threads, I'm going to stand by it.

I mean, you've just stated that not following canon would be doing a disservice to your players. That changing canon is using a "bastardized" version. Which means you do think that there is a true version that can be bastardized. IOW, you are privileging canon above change. You have the "true" version of Dark Sun and then you have everything else that isn't the "true" version of Dark Sun and is thus a "bastardized" version.

I mean, the implications of the language you're using are pretty clear. Calling something bastardized is hardly complimentary is it? By changing the lore of a setting you are disrespecting the players? Seriously?

So, anyone who changes the lore of their setting is disrespecting their players?

 

[pemerton]

I don't see how adding seven invisible moons to Krynn that have nothing to do with magic is any more of an alteration than adding the third one to Oerth is. If they are "unknown" and "invisible", how does it alter Krynn canon more than the Oerth change?

Because the whole raison detre of moons, in Krynn, is to be gods of magic who power magical orders.

Likewise the constellations are the gods.

If you put in seven new moons that have no connection to magic or the divine, you radically change the significance, in the setting, of astronomical phenomena.

Whereas introducing a 3rd moon into GH, in the context of adding WoHS, is not changing any conceit of the setting. It's actually taking seriously, and building on, the comments about the importance of the secrets of the heavens to human affairs!

The framework of Oerth is very much about traditional D&D. Wizards and clerics are the PHB versions. Adding a type of wizard that is linked to the moons tweaks that framework a bit.

From the get-go GH had clerics that could use blunt weapons, had access to special spell and other magical abilities, had access to thief abilities (clerics of Olidammra), etc. Gygax wrote about this in various Dragon articles, and the details moved from magazines to "official" status when the boxed set was published.

GH also always had impermissible class options and combinations (another example is Riggby the true neutral cleric of Boccob - called out as a special campaing exception in the pre-gen section of Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure; likewise the note explaining that Mordenkainen and Bigby aren't bound by the normal "spells known per spell level" INT limitations).

That's one reason why a special order of wizards is entirely consistent with the tenor of the world!

Naming them directly after the Krynn versions tweaks it even more.

How?

What is the nature of the tweak?

It's like a game of Jenga. Eventually the framework is going to collapse.

<snip>

Adding further settings that are not canon tweaks the established framework, and for me that sort of tweak is fatal to the framework.

Your mixing of metaphors isn't helping me - Jenga is about removal, not addition.

And you haven't actually told me what the fatality consists in. You're just asserting it. What actual essential component of the framework has been removed? (Given that I've just shown that GH is not about traditional D&D clerics and wizards, that's certainly not it.)

 

[Shasarak]

I asked (a version of) this question on the other thread.

[MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION] answered - roughly (but I hope not too loose a paraphrase) the answer was that the setting is a work of art, and departure from canon is a type of "affront" to the artwork. ("Affront" is my word, not Shasarak's - it's not quite right, becuase the artwork doesn't itself have feelings, but for present purposes hopefully it conveys the general idea in a comprehensible fashion.)

I am not sure that was me. I certainly agree that a setting is a work of art but I was also the one that thought you would be able to add an extra apostle to the painting of the last supper. So I guess if I did use the word "affront" it could be in regards to adding something inappropriate or nonsensical to the art like perhaps changing the apostles to Eladrin each bearing one of twelve different Christmas gifts.

 

[Harzel]

Much as no plan survives contact with the enemy, no setting's canon lore survives contact with a gaming group. Every gaming group playing in Greyhawk will have a different campaign, in some the circle of Eight may have been replaced by their PCs or perhaps it is now led by an archmage named Elminster. Perhaps the city of Greyhawk was conquered, perhaps a group of wizards from another land draw their magic from the three moons of Greyhawk, two of which are known about, the third cannot be seen by naked eye.

Any of these individual changes wouldn't matter, the campaign would still be set in Greyhawk.You could add in the entire continent of Alphatia from the Mystara setting and have their wizards lead their armies to conquer the rest of the world and it would still be Greyhawk.

What if I start with Mystara, remove everything except Alphatia, and then add in all of Greyhawk. Is it still Mystara?

I dunno. What's the quintessence of Mystara-ness? Is it geography or something else?

It's an intriguing philosophical question in a white-room theory kind of way, but the chance of encountering it in the wild seems astronomically small.

As with genre, it's probably a mistake to try and define the center by its edge cases.

With only that information, it's impossible to tell.

One way to think about it, though, is - how would the participants' describe it, and for what reasons? For instance, why would some who adds "all of GH" into a game which otherwise resembles Mystra only in one respect, think of it as a Mystra rather than a GH game?

Here's one possible answer to that question - by parallel to @cbwjm's example, if the game is "Alphatia defends itself against a Suel invastion", then the answer is quite possibly that the participants would think of it as a Mystara game, because it is a game set in, and dealing with, events in Alphatia.

On the other hand, if by starting with Mystara you work your way towards the campaign cbwjm gave - and so most of the action takes place on Oerth and in Oerik, and Alphatia figures purely as an element in the backstory to explain where the attacking wizards came from - then to me it seems more of a GH game than a Mystara game.

If a D&D campaign starts in GH, but then moves to Boot Hill, and then for 10 years of play all the action is "paladins and wizards in the Wild West" is it still a GH game? Or has the D&D/GH game transitioned into a variant Boot Hill one? Again, there's not obvious answer, but relevant considerations would include the mechanics being used (D%D converted to Boot Hill? Or Boot Hill converted to D&D?), what the detailed tropes are that are in use, how the participatants themselves think of it, both unreflectively and under prompting and questioning, etc.

@ProgBard and @pemerton, although I am not 100% sure, I think you may have missed my point (which wouldn't be a big surprise since I failed to state it explicitly). In the original quote, @cbwjm appeared (to me) to be asserting a fairly open-ended (perhaps unlimited?) ability to modify setting X and still reasonably call it an X game. While not particularly wanting to weigh in on either side of that contention, I did think it was interesting that it could lead to the conclusion that some hybrid setting might simultaneously be described as an X game and a Y game and a Z game.

So the question that I posed was not the question that I really wanted answered. (I think there is a lesson for me here. Wait, let me see if I can figure it out...) What I meant was something more like this.

@cbwjm, it appears to me that you are asserting a fairly open-ended (perhaps unlimited?) ability to modify setting X and still reasonably call it an X game. Did you mean that broadly, or am I extrapolating too much from your example? If you meant something more narrow, what was it you meant? If you indeed meant it broadly, what do you think of its leading to the conclusion that some hybrid setting might simultaneously be described as an X game and a Y game and a Z game (since the process of deriving a mashup of X, Y, and Z can be described as starting with any of the three, making desired deletions and then introducing elements of the other two)?

 

[Shasarak]

That said, this thread consists of a significant number of posts - from [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and maybe some other posters (eg I'm less clear about [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION] on this poiint) - stating that my GH game is not really a GH game precisely because of addditional elements - like the 3rd moon, and the WoHS to go with it - that I have introduced.

We can definitely call it your Greyhawk game and that would obviously just be the beginning of the conversation where you describe the main beats where your game differs from the original. I think it would be quite important to me to know that the magic system worked differently then I would expect if I was to make a Wizard or that you hate Dragonborn and have banned them in perpetuity would be a handy thing to know also.

I think it would be disingenuous to try and claim an invisible moon that boosts magic spells as canon simply because there is no mention of it in the original material and on the other hand it is absolutely fine for you to add that moon to your Greyhawk game. But those are two separate discussions really.