L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."
- Thread starter ProgBard
- Start date
- Status
Flattering as it is to be the object of such attention, it would be even more flattering if the account of what I do was a little bit accurate!
About half-a-dozen posts upthread I re-posted my characterisations of my GH game, and what I think GH is about. If you think that it is not GH because I'm departing from something written somewhere in a book, the burden on you is to offer some account of why.
Adherence to everything in every book, after all, can't be the test of using a setting - because that would entail that no one can ever run a game in a setting unless they use every detail in every book, which would be absurd. (Eg someone who bought the Grey Box FR, who made up stuff to fill in the blank spots, and is still running that game, is playing FR even though his/her game departs from "canon".)
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I disagree with that. You don't have to use every detail in every book. The PCs aren't everywhere and don't encounter everything, and I already said that filling in the blank spots works wonderfully. Blank spots are where canon doesn't exist and the DM can play around to his heart's content. He can also play around with canon, it's just more likely to disrupt things.
Brandegoris
First Post
LORE is the Realm of the DM. As with ANY D&D product created since the beginning of time they all say " the DM is the final Arbiter". 
So assume that Lore is malleable. It what the common person living in that Game world setting accepts as the "truth", But Players may come to find out that the reality is somewhat different.
Maybe the common LORE is that Bruenor Battlehammer died and anyone that's heard the tale repeats it and passes it on and everyone accepts it as Truth.
DM decides NO, and makes a Plausible explanation of Why that is, then BAM..Bruenor is back! Whatever makes the game more fun for the Group, that's what works.
So assume that Lore is malleable. It what the common person living in that Game world setting accepts as the "truth", But Players may come to find out that the reality is somewhat different.
Maybe the common LORE is that Bruenor Battlehammer died and anyone that's heard the tale repeats it and passes it on and everyone accepts it as Truth.
DM decides NO, and makes a Plausible explanation of Why that is, then BAM..Bruenor is back! Whatever makes the game more fun for the Group, that's what works.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
LORE is the Realm of the DM. As with ANY D&D product created since the beginning of time they all say " the DM is the final Arbiter".
So assume that Lore is malleable. It what the common person living in that Game world setting accepts as the "truth", But Players may come to find out that the reality is somewhat different.
Maybe the common LORE is that Bruenor Battlehammer died and anyone that's heard the tale repeats it and passes it on and everyone accepts it as Truth.
DM decides NO, and makes a Plausible explanation of Why that is, then BAM..Bruenor is back! Whatever makes the game more fun for the Group, that's what works.
I did that with King Azoun. He never died, because I like him too much. That's the one flat out changed piece of lore in my game. I'm also in 3e stasis with my FR. The 4e spellplague is, well, just dumb in my opinion and since they are just going to build on top of that, I don't get to use any lore from FR products past 3e.
Brandegoris
First Post
AND... There is not a Damn thing wrong with ANY of that!
If I have ONE critical thing to say about the Forgotten Realms universe it is this. I find it flat out SILLY that they change their LORE to match Game system design changes! LOL
The Time of Troubles stories were to "explain" the changes to the D&D system at that time for example.
There are several Examples of the Lore explaining edition changes etc and they never really should've dome that because the stories that explain the changes are weak and weird and don't add anything that's really awesome to the history of the Realms. It just makes things silly.
Granted, this is just My Opinion of course so if you don't feel this way then that's awesome!
Remathilis
Legend
I think part of the problem with this debate is the difference between "d&d" and "D&D™"
Much like how gelatin is casually referred to as jello (even if its not Jell-o™ brand) or facial tissues are called kleenex (even if its not Kleenex™ brand) or someone "googles" something (even if they aren't using Google™ Search), "d&d" can refer to a lot of games that are similar games (retro-clones, homebrews, and d20 derivatives) without being Dungeons & Dragons™. Part of what makes D&D™ is the lore and flavor of the game. Pathfinder, for example, can mimic D&D rules 99% of the time, but it can't mimic Lolth, Faerun, the Hand of Vecna, or other parts of the D&D™ brand.
It is this lore, in fact, that makes D&D™ what it is; rules cannot be copyrighted and much of the cat is out of the bag as far as terminology thanks to the SRDs. I mean, what separated the Pocket PHB (which was the SRD in digest form) from the regular D&D Player's Handbook? Lore. Really, its the only thing WotC really CAN control and market.
For most of us, this is a distinction without meaning. Just as nobody cares whether you google, search, or bing a result so as long as you find what you're looking for, few care if they call their heavily modified homebrew game d&d so long as they have fun. But for the Trademark holder, it IS a big deal. And Wizard's is wise to leverage their brand names (via lore) as much as they can; Pathfinder might be "d&d", but the Neverwinter MMO is more "D&D™" than Pathfinder is.
So the question of if the lore matters is partially a question of "does D&D™ matter?" Because there are dozens of ways to play "d&d", and many of them don't even require you to own a WotC or even a TSR book to do so. However, there is really only one way to play "D&D™", and that's how the game currently presents it* (demon-gnolls and all). I think its a far-more distinct difference than most would give credit for: when one person talks about D&D™ gnolls, while another is talking about "d&d" gnolls, they are talking about two different things.
* Currently, as in "whatever the latest edition is". There is a reasonable debate on the fact that as editions change, what constitutes D&D™ changes, and part of the backlash against 4e was that many people felt the changes "weren't 'd&d'" in their minds, even if they were D&D™ at that time.
So, when someone takes a campaign setting and re-writes it, or modifies and house-rules the mechanics, he is still playing "d&d", but he is no longer playing D&D™. For most games, that is not a concern, but it does become a concern when a bunch of different people discuss the game, as one might be discussing it from a "d&d" perspective and another from a D&D™ perspective.
Much like how gelatin is casually referred to as jello (even if its not Jell-o™ brand) or facial tissues are called kleenex (even if its not Kleenex™ brand) or someone "googles" something (even if they aren't using Google™ Search), "d&d" can refer to a lot of games that are similar games (retro-clones, homebrews, and d20 derivatives) without being Dungeons & Dragons™. Part of what makes D&D™ is the lore and flavor of the game. Pathfinder, for example, can mimic D&D rules 99% of the time, but it can't mimic Lolth, Faerun, the Hand of Vecna, or other parts of the D&D™ brand.
It is this lore, in fact, that makes D&D™ what it is; rules cannot be copyrighted and much of the cat is out of the bag as far as terminology thanks to the SRDs. I mean, what separated the Pocket PHB (which was the SRD in digest form) from the regular D&D Player's Handbook? Lore. Really, its the only thing WotC really CAN control and market.
For most of us, this is a distinction without meaning. Just as nobody cares whether you google, search, or bing a result so as long as you find what you're looking for, few care if they call their heavily modified homebrew game d&d so long as they have fun. But for the Trademark holder, it IS a big deal. And Wizard's is wise to leverage their brand names (via lore) as much as they can; Pathfinder might be "d&d", but the Neverwinter MMO is more "D&D™" than Pathfinder is.
So the question of if the lore matters is partially a question of "does D&D™ matter?" Because there are dozens of ways to play "d&d", and many of them don't even require you to own a WotC or even a TSR book to do so. However, there is really only one way to play "D&D™", and that's how the game currently presents it* (demon-gnolls and all). I think its a far-more distinct difference than most would give credit for: when one person talks about D&D™ gnolls, while another is talking about "d&d" gnolls, they are talking about two different things.
* Currently, as in "whatever the latest edition is". There is a reasonable debate on the fact that as editions change, what constitutes D&D™ changes, and part of the backlash against 4e was that many people felt the changes "weren't 'd&d'" in their minds, even if they were D&D™ at that time.
So, when someone takes a campaign setting and re-writes it, or modifies and house-rules the mechanics, he is still playing "d&d", but he is no longer playing D&D™. For most games, that is not a concern, but it does become a concern when a bunch of different people discuss the game, as one might be discussing it from a "d&d" perspective and another from a D&D™ perspective.
Hussar
Legend
Ok. Let's take a real example. The first three Adventure Paths that Paizo did were all ostensibly held in Greyhawk.
Now the Savage Tide AP starts in Sasserine, a completely new addition to Greyhawk and then takes you to The Isle of Dread, which started out as a location in Mystara.
So is it a Greyhawk adventure or not? It certainly was heralded as such. It's certainly meant to be a Greyhawk adventure. But is it by your criteria?
Hussar
Legend
Doesn't that mean you're not actually playing a Forgotten Realms game though? By your criteria?
- Status
