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

[ProgBard]

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.

As an aside: I don't know about anyone else, but I really, really want a print of this painting now.

 

[Shasarak]

As an aside: I don't know about anyone else, but I really, really want a print of this painting now.

Well it does not say there are no Eladrin so....

 

[pemerton]

I think it would be disingenuous to try and claim an invisible moon that boosts magic spells as canon

I'm not saying that the 3rd moon is canon - of course it's not.

I'm saying that adding it doesn't make the game cease to be a GH game. Any RPGing will mean that the setting takes on non-canonical features/elements.

I'm glad that's sorted out.

 

[pemerton]

It's not at all about you, man.

You told me that I had made a very poor GMing decision by including WoHS in my GH game.

The closest you have come to giving a reason is that you think changing the setting while still calling it a game set in that setting (rather than "alt setting) is disrespectful to players.

If that's not the reason you think that I made a very poor GMing decison, than what is the reason?

Players have expectations when you say simply that you are running Greyhawk, FR, Dark Sun or any other official settings.

Which players? All players? Your players? My players? Do you think you know better than me what expectations my players have? If not, do you think my knowledge of their expectations is more important than your conjecture about it more than 25 years after the event?

As for whether I think the inclusion of WoHS was disrespectful or not, that would depend on whether you told them about it in advance or not

<snip>

Did you know that in advance? Did that player tell you in advance that they were fine with canon changes and wanted to discover them through play?

I have no idea what I didn't or didn't know in advance - it was March or April 1990, so nearly 27 years ago. One PC at the start of the campaign was a magic-user/illusionist type of some sort, and the character's NPC mentor was a Black Robe wizard on the run from Nyrond, but I have no idea whether the mentor's Black Robed-ness was established at the start of the campaign, or whether it was introduced at some later stage.

As far as explaining the setting, I will have made assumptions based on what was typical for playing a fantasy RPG in my community at that time. In 1990 the sort of modern obsession with canon that one encounters didn't exist, at least in my RPGing community. There were not reams of FR novels - perhaps a dozen or so (as per this website) and I doubt that any of my players had read them. As far as FR sourcebooks are concerned, there was the Grey Box and the hardback FR Adventures. (And two others, according to Wikipedia - I don't recall ever seeing these at the main RPG shop in Melbourne, but maybe they were in circulation.)

Outside of the classic modules (plus Fate of Istus and Vale of the Mage, which again I don't recall seeing in shops at the time - I'm not counting as GH canon the ones like Child's Play and Gargoyle that had nothing to do with setting itself), at that time canon GH was the folio, the boxed set and the CoG boxed set, plus some articles in Dragon magazine most of which I'd never read, let alone my players. (No RPGer in that part of the world, at that time, would assume without asking about it that stuff in Dragon was being used in a game, given that most players and GMs would at best be casual readers of the magazine.)

DL was the most canon-errific setting around, and I wasn't running that. Some of my players had experience with ICE's Middle Earth, and so were quite familiar with an example of building a setting around canon.

In other words, the norms around what "setting" meant at that time, in that place, among those players, were absolutely nothing like what you seem to be assuming. I suspect that I would have said something like "I'm gonna run a game set around GH city - whose interested?"

Do you want to revise your criteria for what it would mean to be disrespectful in those circumstances?

I don't think Maxperson and I hold lore and canon in quite the same regard, but he's not saying "it should never be changed." He's talking about managing player expectations, and respecting players enough to communicate clearly when you're taking significant liberties.

What he talks about is not the only way to manage expectations. And he makes assumptions about expectations that, as I said, seem to project his experiences onto the population of RPGers in general.

 

[Sadras]

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.

Yes, but according to some in The thread that shall not be Named, that would make the person affronted a lazy viewer. There is also the consideration that the painter could only paint Eladrin and nothing else so is it fair for that person to be affronted.

 

[Maxperson]

You told me that I had made a very poor GMing decision by including WoHS in my GH game.

The closest you have come to giving a reason is that you think changing the setting while still calling it a game set in that setting (rather than "alt setting) is disrespectful to players.

If that's not the reason you think that I made a very poor GMing decison, than what is the reason?

Which players? All players? Your players? My players? Do you think you know better than me what expectations my players have? If not, do you think my knowledge of their expectations is more important than your conjecture about it more than 25 years after the event?

I have no idea what I didn't or didn't know in advance - it was March or April 1990, so nearly 27 years ago. One PC at the start of the campaign was a magic-user/illusionist type of some sort, and the character's NPC mentor was a Black Robe wizard on the run from Nyrond, but I have no idea whether the mentor's Black Robed-ness was established at the start of the campaign, or whether it was introduced at some later stage.

As far as explaining the setting, I will have made assumptions based on what was typical for playing a fantasy RPG in my community at that time. In 1990 the sort of modern obsession with canon that one encounters didn't exist, at least in my RPGing community. There were not reams of FR novels - perhaps a dozen or so (as per this website) and I doubt that any of my players had read them. As far as FR sourcebooks are concerned, there was the Grey Box and the hardback FR Adventures. (And two others, according to Wikipedia - I don't recall ever seeing these at the main RPG shop in Melbourne, but maybe they were in circulation.)

Outside of the classic modules (plus Fate of Istus and Vale of the Mage, which again I don't recall seeing in shops at the time - I'm not counting as GH canon the ones like Child's Play and Gargoyle that had nothing to do with setting itself), at that time canon GH was the folio, the boxed set and the CoG boxed set, plus some articles in Dragon magazine most of which I'd never read, let alone my players. (No RPGer in that part of the world, at that time, would assume without asking about it that stuff in Dragon was being used in a game, given that most players and GMs would at best be casual readers of the magazine.)

DL was the most canon-errific setting around, and I wasn't running that. Some of my players had experience with ICE's Middle Earth, and so were quite familiar with an example of building a setting around canon.

In other words, the norms around what "setting" meant at that time, in that place, among those players, were absolutely nothing like what you seem to be assuming. I suspect that I would have said something like "I'm gonna run a game set around GH city - whose interested?"

Do you want to revise your criteria for what it would mean to be disrespectful in those circumstances?

What he talks about is not the only way to manage expectations. And he makes assumptions about expectations that, as I said, seem to project his experiences onto the population of RPGers in general.

Look. I have my opinion about using things explicitly tied to one setting in other settings as far as DMing decisions go. You can't tell me what you knew or didn't know, so I can't give you a clearer answer on your situation. I'm not going to discuss it further.

As for respect, it's disrespectful to give the players certain expectations and then not deliver. If you're going to make changes to canon, the players should know that changes are going to be made before the campaign starts. You don't have to tell them specifically what changes if you don't want or need to, but they should be made aware that it's not going to be a canon game.

 

[Imaro]

You don't have to tell them specifically what changes if you don't want or need to, but they should be made aware that it's not going to be a canon game.

This pretty much sums up what all this started about... is this really that controversial of an idea?

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro - you claim that the purpose of bringing up canon is to promote discussion. Ok. But, that's a bit vague. What discussion are you thinking will be generated here? By telling Pemerton that he's not really playing in a Greyhawk game, what productive discussion do you think will be had?

Or, conversely, by ignoring the quoted canon of a setting, and then claiming that you have superior knowledge of the setting, what productive conversation do you think will be had?

When someone claims that there are not enough short modules for 5e and 5e needs more module support, the DM's Guild gets pointed to. The response is a canon argument - the modules are from 3rd party publishers and thus are not "official". The fact that there are hundreds of shorter 5e modules out there gets swept under the rug because they aren't "canon".

And it's an unassailable position. It's true. 3rd Party modules aren't canon. So, in order to be able to keep making the claim that WotC is a terrible business and out of touch with gamers, the canon bat gets wielded. Sure, you could play those 3rd party modules, but, then, you wouldn't be playing "real" D&D would you? After all, if it's not official, if it's not "canon" then it's not really real D&D. It's knock off off brand D&D that's good enough for those who like it, but, for the true fan of D&D, only official canon will do.

And that is very much the sense I get from EVERY one of these conversations. @pemerton's game being dismissed with a sniff as being just a home-brew game. It's not really Greyhawk as any true Greyhawk fan would know.

** Note, I do realize that the DM's Guild argument goes straight out the window as soon as you realize that WotC has released all the Adventurer's League modules. 100+ short modules, all 100% official. Pretty much shoots that argument down in flames nicely. ***

You know what, I have answered your questions so far but I've asked you a couple of questions and you keep ignoring me but continuing what's starting to feel almost like an interrogation... so before I answer anything else how about you tell me what is your reason, as someone who has proclaimed they don't care about canon, for participating in this thread? What was your point in the other thread... to teach some type of lesson to those who do enjoy canon... to show them how their preferences were Badwrongfun according to Hussar? Exactly why does someone who doesn't care about canon want to discuss it?

 

[Shasarak]

Yes, but according to some in The thread that shall not be Named, that would make the person affronted a lazy viewer. There is also the consideration that the painter could only paint Eladrin and nothing else so is it fair for that person to be affronted.

Are you trying to draw an analogy between Paintings and lazy DMs?

 

[pemerton]

Look. I have my opinion about using things explicitly tied to one setting in other settings as far as DMing decisions go. You can't tell me what you knew or didn't know, so I can't give you a clearer answer on your situation. I'm not going to discuss it further.

With the greatest of respect, telling someone that the made a very poor GMIng decision, and then declining to explain that judgment or engage with them about it, is (in my view), very poor posting.

As for respect, it's disrespectful to give the players certain expectations and then not deliver.

But you seem to have no interest in actually considering what the expectations may have been of my players, despite me setting out the context in which they arose in some detail over multiple posts. All the wolrd is not Maxperson.

This pretty much sums up what all this started about... is this really that controversial of an idea?

In my view it's controversial to tell someone that they made a very poor GMing decision, on the basis of assumptions that are almost certainly false, and then just ignore subsequent invitations to explain or revise the opinion.

If I tell a group of propsective players I'm going to run a GH game, in a context in which the published canon for GH (outside of Dragon magazine, which in any event is mostly detailing troop movements in various countires) is 5 sourcebooks plus some modules, and in which (partly as a consequence of that state of affairs) the notion of adherence to canon has zero meaning or purchase outside of (perhaps) Dragonlance, it is not "disrepsectful" to have a 3rd moon. End of story.

What is disresepectful is for [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] to assume that he knows better than me what is or isn't a good GMing decision in the context of setting up a campaign 27 years ago among a group of people whom he has never met, in a gaming community that he is not part of, in a city and country that I suspect he has never even visited. And then to reiterate his claim (ie not only has he not resiled from it, he's reiterated it) while refusing to discuss it.