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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

You realize that Greyhawk had people STORING CLONES ON THE MOON?

Probably safer. My dog keeps chewing on mine when I keep them in the basement.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

Well ... it's now 2017. I said that I've played in the same GH campaign world since 1983. What do you think?

Cool I can't imagine playing in one setting continuously for that long...

If WoTC released brand new GH- The Rehappening! And this new GH had a completely different pantheon, is it GH? Or is old 1983 GH, GH? Or is something else GH? Is there an essence of GH separate and apart from EGG's home game?

I don't think they would. Have they done that to a setting ever?? If not it's a pointless hypothetical.

Why? Why do you get to be arbiter of what changes make something more or less GH? Why not me? Why can't I say, "If you run anything at any date after the dates specified in the 1983 boxed set, you aren't running GH." Why is that less correct?

The minute you put something in that isn't Greyhawk and claim it is... you're arbitrating. If I stick to what is branded Greyhawk by the owners of said brand I am not arbitrating anythying.

Well, what is silly and incoherent to you is fun and awesomazing to other people. I mean, your version of Greyhawk would probably get EGG to roll over in his grave, spring out, and throttle you by the neck; but that's okay!

You realize that Greyhawk had people STORING CLONES ON THE MOON?

I never said it wasn't awesomazing to others... clearly it's a style you enjoy... again I would call it homebrewing though.

 

[Maxperson]

But... why? I mean, seriously?

There's only one "real" Greyhawk (ur-Greyhawk) campaign, and that was the one run by EGG. That's it. If you're not running it (especially if you're running some of the terrible post-1983 products) then you probably have never run GH. IMNSHO. And given that EGG is no longer with us, and probably not your DM, I am comfortable in saying that you're not running GH.

Everything else isn't "real" GH. They are campaigns run by different DMs, using materials borrowed from EGG.

Just like EGG wasn't running a real Blackmoor campaign, and so on.

While Greyhawk campaigns aren't the exact Gygax setting, we do know his vision for it, because he set it out in the setting canon. Significant departures from that canon alter the setting he gave to us called Greyhawk. Again, I'm not against such changes. I just feel that they need to be given to the players ahead of time and that they make that particular setting an alternate Greyhawk, not just Greyhawk.

A campaign world is nothing more than a set of pre-made suggestions as to how to run your own campaign world. That's it. Nothing more. If you change some of the country names because the joke names take you out of the VERY SERIOUS FANTASY (or you don't like saying Verbobonc), more power to you.

They're more than just suggestions. They also set an expectation by those that play in the setting. When I play in Greyhawk, I expect for there to be Iuz and The Grand Duchy of Geoff. They are part of the setting. The more such expectations are removed or altered, the less Greyhawk it becomes for me.

It's not that you're wrong; your preferences are what they are! But every campaign, to me, is its own thing; a collaborative story between the DM and the players. It's not an attempt to re-create someone else's lore.

I understand that people are different, but by and large, others I've encountered see things the same way that I do.

 

[Maxperson]

Probably safer. My dog keeps chewing on mine when I keep them in the basement.

My dog ate Undermountain. Poor Halaster survived the destruction of the Netherese empire, but a lab/beagle mix did him in.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

cf.



So let's look at the difference here, which may be subtle, but is necessary. On the one hand, someone saying that anything branded GH is, ipso facto, GH. On the other hand, someone saying that GH is the Gygax vision of the campaign. Both argue the "strong" lore position.

Eh... let's all brand (heh) together in a little Grognardian history. Gygax was famously forced out of TSR in '84-'85 (we can quibble on the exact date on which he no longer had any control, but certainly by the time he was officially removed in October 1985).

Now, after that, TSR (and later WotC/Hasbro) did as they pleased to GH. In some cases, they did things that were deliberately anti-Gygax (infamously, Castle Greyhawk). Other things were just ... a different direction. Now, the reason that this matters is that the very things that Gygax published as GH ... his philosophy of it, if you will, were undermined by later publications.

This is neither good, nor bad, but different. To see this, you can look at the difference in the original boxed set (1983) and the materials that came after. One was about creating an open canvas with little hints and hooks. Later products were about forcing certain designers conceptions onto those hints. These are very different ideas when it comes to campaign worlds.

And that's the crux of this issue. If you look back, the intent of the original campaign setting was to give ideas for adventures; not as a detailed and specific "lore" setting. Lore was to be made by the players and the DM in the adventures that they made. What went on in the Sea of Dust? What about the Valley of the Mage? This was up to the table. Sure, maybe there was an alien spaceship that crashed (Barrier Peaks), maybe not! Maybe the Desert of Desolation was placed in the Baklunish territories ... maybe not even in the Flannaess!

And that gets back to my post a while back about the punk (or DIY) aesthetic in D&D. It's completely fine if you like your lore as-is. That's great! But don't tell people that run Greyhawk that they are doing it wrong because they are running it as it was originally intended. Fair enough?



If you understand that, practice it. Remember that others see things differently.

I think you're focusing too much on Greyhawk specifically and not enough on the question as it relates to the wider realm of campaign and gaming settings... Greyhawk was just an example... again replace it with LotR, Star Wars, Eberron, Dragon Age and so on...

 

[TwoSix]

Dude, you're doing it wrong. Storing your clone in the basement is a waste of a good clone.

I send mine out for Pizza.

Don't worry, I've found utility for mine. I didn't even write this post.

 

[pemerton]

A ranger class that makes no references at all to a setting is no more Middle Earth specific than elves, half-elves, humans, halflings, wizards and swords are. To be setting SPECIFIC, you have to make SPECIFIC references to one single setting. The ranger class makes zero SPECIFIC references to Middle Earth.

OK. My WoHS in my GH game make no specific reference to one any setting but GH. Hence they are a GH-specific mystical order. QED.