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

[Hussar]

One True Wayism requires me to believe that you have to do it my way, which I don't. Having an opinion about a decision that you made isn't even remotely enough.

"What you are doing is a very poor choice. I would do it a completely different way and what you are doing is resulting in something that is different than what you claim it is"

This is not OneTrueWayism? What exactly do you think OneTrueWayism is?

Or, to put it another way, why attach such a negative value judgement to something that you don't think has to be done your way? "My way is good, your way is very poor" is hardly a neutral assessment.

 

[Maxperson]

No, but, telling someone they aren't using the encumbrance rules then they are making a "poor GMing decision" and they aren't really playing D&D, but, an Alt-D&D, is. Isn't it?

It's probably a good thing that nobody in this thread has made that argument, then.

 

[Maxperson]

"What you are doing is a very poor choice. I would do it a completely different way and what you are doing is resulting in something that is different than what you claim it is"

This is not OneTrueWayism? What exactly do you think OneTrueWayism is?

How about you read what you quoted instead of asking lame questions that you already have the answer to.

Or, to put it another way, why attach such a negative value judgement to something that you don't think has to be done your way? "My way is good, your way is very poor" is hardly a neutral assessment.

Because I'm human and therefore have opinions.

 

[Hussar]

It's probably a good thing that nobody in this thread has made that argument, then.

Sure it is. You've flat out told Pemerton that his campaign is an Alt-Universe Greyhawk game. That my campaign, Savage Tides, was also an Alt-U Greyhawk game. Apparently because we've "changed" the setting.

But, when we start drilling down, using your definition of "change", suddenly it doesn't make any sense.

Look, virtually every edition has added new base classes at some point during the run. Which means new magic types, new mechanics and whatnot.

So, if I run a 3e Forgotten Realms game with Warlocks, is it a canon-FR game or not? What if I add Psionisicists? After all, that's an entirely different magic system (maybe, depending on whether or not the DM decides magic is different or not). Or how about Binders? They come with a complete set of new magic rules, and a pretty extensive addition to a setting's cosmology.

So, is it a FR game or an Alt-U FR game? And if it's okay to add warlocks and binders and psionicists and this is not a change why on earth would adding Wizards of High Sorcery be a change?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it is. You've flat out told Pemerton that his campaign is an Alt-Universe Greyhawk game.

Not over something like encumbrance I didn't.

That my campaign, Savage Tides, was also an Alt-U Greyhawk game. Apparently because we've "changed" the setting.

You're engaging in a Strawman. Changing the setting was not the criteria. How about you argue what I said, rather than the changes you keep tossing my way.

Look, virtually every edition has added new base classes at some point during the run. Which means new magic types, new mechanics and whatnot.

So what.

So, if I run a 3e Forgotten Realms game with Warlocks, is it a canon-FR game or not? What if I add Psionisicists? After all, that's an entirely different magic system (maybe, depending on whether or not the DM decides magic is different or not). Or how about Binders? They come with a complete set of new magic rules, and a pretty extensive addition to a setting's cosmology.

Fairly sure both Warlocks and Psionicists are included in FR material. Not sure what a binder is.

So, is it a FR game or an Alt-U FR game? And if it's okay to add warlocks and binders and psionicists and this is not a change why on earth would adding Wizards of High Sorcery be a change?

If you need to ask this question, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Hussar]

Not over something like encumbrance I didn't.


You're engaging in a Strawman. Changing the setting was not the criteria. How about you argue what I said, rather than the changes you keep tossing my way.



So what.



Fairly sure both Warlocks and Psionicists are included in FR material. Not sure what a binder is.

If you need to ask this question, you haven't been paying attention.

Binders were added in 3.5 in the Tome of Magic. They're more or less the base for the 5e Warlock, at least a large amount of the flavour of the 5e warlock owes its DNA to the 3e binder. One of my absolute favorite classes.

But as far as your "so what" goes, well, I'm not quite sure what you're not understanding. If adding a completely new class - Binders, Warblades, Hexblades, Warlocks, Psionicists, Wild Magic casters, etc. isn't changing the setting, then why is adding a Wizard of High Sorcery such a huge change that it makes Greyhawk no longer Greyhawk?

-------

See, this is why I have such a problem with the distinctions being made here. Sure, we can all agree what homebrew means, as far as a campaign goes. If you're playing in a homebrew campaign, then the setting you are using is likely your own creation and exists only at your table. It might resemble other settings, or not, but, it's largely the creation of that particular table. Fair enough? Everyone on board with that?

But, as far as the idea of a homebrew/hybrid and canon game goes as a distinction, it's largely pointless IMO. The only really canon campaigns you'll find are Organized Play. As soon as you go outside of Organized play, the odds of a campaign being canon are virtually zero. What's the point of arguing over which campaign is "more" canon? If one campaign adds Warblades, Warlocks, and Psionicists to Forgotten Realms and a second campaign adds (not removing existing casters, just adds) defilers, what's the point of trying to say one is "more" canon than the other.

Again, it's arguing over who is more blue. What difference does it make? You're both bloody smurfs. And even within a given edition, the canon of a setting changes, sometimes with complete retcons (wild mages are added to Dragonlance in a retcon to make them fit in the setting - they've always been there, just in the deep history, only making a reappearance in the final age of the setting).

Sure, I agree that canon is a good place to start. You guys had a very interesting campaign kernal starting with the idea of one of the dead FR gods bringing Defiling to Forgotten Realms. Very cool idea. That's what canon is best for - inspiring cool ideas. But, this idea that you can make value judgements about other people's games based on canon privileges canon to an uncomfortable degree. Never minding the inconsistencies that this brings out - is it a "change"? What does "change" mean? ((Hell, what does "can" mean? ))

If you need to invent new definitions to words in order to defend your point, perhaps, just perhaps, your argument isn't quite as strong as you might think.

 

[Maxperson]

Binders were added in 3.5 in the Tome of Magic. They're more or less the base for the 5e Warlock, at least a large amount of the flavour of the 5e warlock owes its DNA to the 3e binder. One of my absolute favorite classes.

But as far as your "so what" goes, well, I'm not quite sure what you're not understanding. If adding a completely new class - Binders, Warblades, Hexblades, Warlocks, Psionicists, Wild Magic casters, etc. isn't changing the setting, then why is adding a Wizard of High Sorcery such a huge change that it makes Greyhawk no longer Greyhawk?

I understand just fine. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between an addition, a change, and a setting specific edition/change added to the wrong setting. I've explained it all repeatedly, so I'm not sure where your failure is.

See, this is why I have such a problem with the distinctions being made here. Sure, we can all agree what homebrew means, as far as a campaign goes. If you're playing in a homebrew campaign, then the setting you are using is likely your own creation and exists only at your table. It might resemble other settings, or not, but, it's largely the creation of that particular table. Fair enough? Everyone on board with that?

Sure.

But, as far as the idea of a homebrew/hybrid and canon game goes as a distinction, it's largely pointless IMO. The only really canon campaigns you'll find are Organized Play. As soon as you go outside of Organized play, the odds of a campaign being canon are virtually zero. What's the point of arguing over which campaign is "more" canon? If one campaign adds Warblades, Warlocks, and Psionicists to Forgotten Realms and a second campaign adds (not removing existing casters, just adds) defilers, what's the point of trying to say one is "more" canon than the other.

Because degree of change matters to a whole lot of people, that's why.

Again, it's arguing over who is more blue. What difference does it make? You're both bloody smurfs. And even within a given edition, the canon of a setting changes, sometimes with complete retcons (wild mages are added to Dragonlance in a retcon to make them fit in the setting - they've always been there, just in the deep history, only making a reappearance in the final age of the setting).

Well, like it or leave it, the company can change canon like that.

Sure, I agree that canon is a good place to start. You guys had a very interesting campaign kernal starting with the idea of one of the dead FR gods bringing Defiling to Forgotten Realms. Very cool idea. That's what canon is best for - inspiring cool ideas.

I agree. I use canon for inspiration all the time.

But, this idea that you can make value judgements about other people's games based on canon privileges canon to an uncomfortable degree. Never minding the inconsistencies that this brings out - is it a "change"? What does "change" mean? ((Hell, what does "can" mean? ))

It's an opinion that I have, not a law. My opinion goes about as far as my front door, and if I'm talking to my wife, sometimes not even that far

I can look at something someone else does and say, "Wow. I think that was great!" or "Wow. I think that was bad". Neither instance is me trying to dictate to them how they should run their game. Ultimately, if the group is having fun, you're doing it right, even if you're doing it "wrong".

 

[pemerton]

I'm actually not sure which came first...my town or your state.

Well, knowing that they were both mid-19th century, I checked Wikipedia before making my post!

Fort Victoria is 1843; the Port Phillip settlement becomes separated from NSW as the colony of Victoria in 1851.

Both named in honour of Queen Victoria, of course. We still have a statute of her in (or, technically, adjacent to) our botanic gardens; I don't know about you lot.

 

[pemerton]

It's an opinion that I have, not a law.

<snip>

I can look at something someone else does and say, "Wow. I think that was great!" or "Wow. I think that was bad". Neither instance is me trying to dictate to them how they should run their game. Ultimately, if the group is having fun, you're doing it right, even if you're doing it "wrong".

OK, but this is true for anyone. So are you saying that there is no such thing as OneTrueWayism?

And I notice that you put "wrong" in square quotes at the end there. You didn't put very poor in scare quotes.

 

[cbwjm]

I feel like this thread would have been shorter if only the words poor GMing hadn't been used.