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

[Maxperson]

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.

That's fine. We all have our opinions

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.

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.

There's really no point in discussing this for a few reasons. First, you can't even remember what you knew. How am I suppose to believe that you remember all of the expectations for all of the players? Second, the only thing that really matters here is if you met their expectations or not.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Oh, sorry, I thought I had been clear here.

My point in participating in these threads is to highlight the hypocrisy of the "canon is important" camp. That canon is only important when it coincides with someone's personal preferences. That people only argue that canon is important when they want to force their particular play style on other people.

So, we have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] telling Pemerton that he's made poor DM'ing decisions based solely on canon arguments. We have people shouting to the world that 5e lacks module support because of canon reasons. We have people insisting that X should not be part of 5e (Warlords for example) because of canon reasons.

On and on and on. People set up the canon argument as an unassailable position. You can't argue that something actually is canon when it obviously isn't. Eladrin aren't canon, for example. They are a change to the game. Sure. But, "This is different" is a far cry from "This is different, therefore it's bad and should be excised from the game, simply because it's different". The argument against Eladrin, for example, has nothing to do with the writing, or game balance or anything that can be discussed. No, the argument is, "It's a change, change is bad, therefore this is bad".

And you can see this argument being used for years. 3e wasn't really D&D because of the changes. 4e wasn't really D&D because of the changes. DM's Guild isn't really D&D because it's not official. Dungeon and Dragon aren't really D&D because they aren't official. So on and so forth.

There are no productive reasons to drop the Canon Bomb on a discussion. It's the last bastion of an argument that has nothing of actual value to add to the conversation and the last bastion of someone trying to win an Internet argument.

Now, is my position clear?

 

[pemerton]

So, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], you really are more confident that your assumption about people you've never met in a situation you weren't a party to is more likely to be accurate than my actual report of the situation, which contradicts your assumptions?

I mean, if 5 PCs in the campaign were built as WoHS, how can including WoHS under that name have been a GMing error?

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, sorry, I thought I had been clear here.

My point in participating in these threads is to highlight the hypocrisy of the "canon is important" camp. That canon is only important when it coincides with someone's personal preferences. That people only argue that canon is important when they want to force their particular play style on other people.

So, we have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] telling Pemerton that he's made poor DM'ing decisions based solely on canon arguments. We have people shouting to the world that 5e lacks module support because of canon reasons. We have people insisting that X should not be part of 5e (Warlords for example) because of canon reasons.

On and on and on. People set up the canon argument as an unassailable position. You can't argue that something actually is canon when it obviously isn't. Eladrin aren't canon, for example. They are a change to the game. Sure. But, "This is different" is a far cry from "This is different, therefore it's bad and should be excised from the game, simply because it's different". The argument against Eladrin, for example, has nothing to do with the writing, or game balance or anything that can be discussed. No, the argument is, "It's a change, change is bad, therefore this is bad".

And you can see this argument being used for years. 3e wasn't really D&D because of the changes. 4e wasn't really D&D because of the changes. DM's Guild isn't really D&D because it's not official. Dungeon and Dragon aren't really D&D because they aren't official. So on and so forth.

There are no productive reasons to drop the Canon Bomb on a discussion. It's the last bastion of an argument that has nothing of actual value to add to the conversation and the last bastion of someone trying to win an Internet argument.

Now, is my position clear?

Clear, but fairly misguided.

"That people only argue that canon is important when they want to force their particular play style on other people."

That portion is objectively false.

 

[Maxperson]

So, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], you really are more confident that your assumption about people you've never met in a situation you weren't a party to is more likely to be accurate than my actual report of the situation, which contradicts your assumptions?

I mean, if 5 PCs in the campaign were built as WoHS, how can including WoHS under that name have been a GMing error?

Did you read the second portion of that post?

 

[Shasarak]

I'm glad that's sorted out.

It is amusing that you were so many years ahead of the official policy of ripping other worlds into one, although in this case Greyhawk into the Forgotten Realms but I guess Tiamat into the Forgotten Realms could be considered a Dragonlance knockoff.

 

[cbwjm]

It is amusing that you were so many years ahead of the official policy of ripping other worlds into one, although in this case Greyhawk into the Forgotten Realms but I guess Tiamat into the Forgotten Realms could be considered a Dragonlance knockoff.

I thought that takhisis (at least her draconic form) was a knockoff of tiamat. Her an Llolth are part of the whole problem of what happens when you kill a god in one setting when they are also active in another.

 

[Shasarak]

I thought that takhisis (at least her draconic form) was a knockoff of tiamat. Her an Llolth are part of the whole problem of what happens when you kill a god in one setting when they are also active in another.

Depends on who you believe. A clueless Prime would say they were different beings but they dont know the dark of it.

 

[Lanefan]

... the Canon Bomb ...

Memo to WotC: please please PLEASE make this an artifact in 6e...or later in 5e if you can squeeze it in!

Lan-"boom"-efan

 

[Imaro]

Oh, sorry, I thought I had been clear here.

My point in participating in these threads is to highlight the hypocrisy of the "canon is important" camp. That canon is only important when it coincides with someone's personal preferences. That people only argue that canon is important when they want to force their particular play style on other people.

So, we have [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] telling Pemerton that he's made poor DM'ing decisions based solely on canon arguments. We have people shouting to the world that 5e lacks module support because of canon reasons. We have people insisting that X should not be part of 5e (Warlords for example) because of canon reasons.

On and on and on. People set up the canon argument as an unassailable position. You can't argue that something actually is canon when it obviously isn't. Eladrin aren't canon, for example. They are a change to the game. Sure. But, "This is different" is a far cry from "This is different, therefore it's bad and should be excised from the game, simply because it's different". The argument against Eladrin, for example, has nothing to do with the writing, or game balance or anything that can be discussed. No, the argument is, "It's a change, change is bad, therefore this is bad".

And you can see this argument being used for years. 3e wasn't really D&D because of the changes. 4e wasn't really D&D because of the changes. DM's Guild isn't really D&D because it's not official. Dungeon and Dragon aren't really D&D because they aren't official. So on and so forth.

There are no productive reasons to drop the Canon Bomb on a discussion. It's the last bastion of an argument that has nothing of actual value to add to the conversation and the last bastion of someone trying to win an Internet argument.

Now, is my position clear?

I think so... it sounds like your entire purpose is to crap on those who enjoy canon... their discussions of canon and so on, in other words setting your self up as some type of moderator of discussion through basically threadcrapping on conversations you don't like (which contrary to your protests seems to indicate that you do in some manner care about canon).

Wouldn't it be less energy, especially if you really don't care about canon to chose to abstain from conversations about something you don't care about as opposed to making it your personal mission to show those who do like canon or enjoy discussing it... the error of their ways. Wow does that sound douche-baggy and arrogant when I type it out.