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

[Shasarak]

(It also seems to contradict your distinction between "addition" and "alternation" - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have pointed to so-called "additions" that alter the feel of things for us - in my case the incorporation of settings into Spelljammer and Planescape - and have been told that we have to suck these up as non-changing additions.)

I must admit that I am curious about what you feel Spelljammer changed?

Was there a Greyhawk supplement that mentioned what space was like at all?

 

[pemerton]

I must admit that I am curious about what you feel Spelljammer changed?

Was there a Greyhawk supplement that mentioned what space was like at all?

Instead of space being "space", possbilbly with spaceships flying through it (qv EttBP, or Blackmoor); or being as Gygax describes the space between the moon and the earthin his DMG (able to be traversed upon a flying mount); it is full of weird spelljammers and hippos.

I find it silly, and too incongruous for the GH S&S tone. (Whereas Murlynd with six-shooters and crashed spaceships is a genre mashup that I personally tend to avoid, but at least they're all genres that have their own place in the pulps. Spelljammer doesn't.)

 

[Shasarak]

Instead of space being "space", possbilbly with spaceships flying through it (qv EttBP, or Blackmoor); or being as Gygax describes the space between the moon and the earthin his DMG (able to be traversed upon a flying mount); it is full of weird spelljammers and hippos.

Spelljammer allows you to traverse from the earth to the moon on a flying mount so no changes there.

I find it silly, and too incongruous for the GH S&S tone. (Whereas Murlynd with six-shooters and crashed spaceships is a genre mashup that I personally tend to avoid, but at least they're all genres that have their own place in the pulps. Spelljammer doesn't.)

So it is not that Spelljammer changes anything rather you just do not like it. That is fine to me, there are plenty of people that did not like from the ashes either and that was a lot less "silly" and pulpy then Spelljammer.

 

[Imaro]

Well, as I've already said, adding a third moon is addition, not change - nothing in the discussion of the heavens of GH (in the folio or the identical text in the boxed set) excludes the possibility of a third moon.

Second, as originally published (ie in the folio) GH had no pantheon. The GM had to do that him-/herself. Which I did. It hardly counts as a change to canon to introduce something to fill a gap.

Third, how does adding a third moon, or new gods, "affect pretty much everyone and everything in the game". I'll ask again - can you tell me about a GH scenario you've run in which the moons - or the number of moons - mattered?

Wait so they've never established how many moons Oerth has? If so thats a change... not addition... an addition would be fleshing out said moons in accordance with already established lore.

 

[Maxperson]

So is the test for "significant change" would alter the feel of GH for Maxperson?

It isn't like that's new. I've said multiple times in the lore threads, at least some in direct response to your posts, that making changes will eventually alter the feel of the setting rendering it not that setting. Where that line is drawn will vary from person to person. There is no hard, fast criteria for what is major or minor, or how many such changes are required. If you keep making changes to canon, though, you will eventually hit that line for people.

That seems a fairly idiosycratic test, and also hard for other internet posters to apply even when they are not being disingenuous!

The way you apply it is to be careful about what you change. Think about how it might affect people in the game, especially in combination with other prior changes. A decision to change the Circle of Eight into a bunch of pink haired halfling hair stylists with no magical ability is probably going to have a greater effect than a secret lich change to be discovered.

Why you get the disingenuous appellation, is because I clearly and repeatedly have told you that it is a matter of degree and included examples. In return, you have repeatedly and falsely equated very minor changes with very major ones, and stated things like, "I don't get it. You make a change and I make a change!"

(It also seems to contradict your distinction between "addition" and "alternation" - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have pointed to so-called "additions" that alter the feel of things for us - in my case the incorporation of settings into Spelljammer and Planescape - and have been told that we have to suck these up as non-changing additions.)

By who? I've seen myself and others tell you(general you) that you are under no obligation to include other settings in the setting that you run. Spelljammer and Planescape are metasettings that can be applied to FR, Greyhawk, and others if you want them to, but are not required. I haven't seen anyone say that you have to suck it up and use them, though I could have missed some posts I suppose.

 

[Maxperson]

So it is not that Spelljammer changes anything rather you just do not like it. That is fine to me, there are plenty of people that did not like from the ashes either and that was a lot less "silly" and pulpy then Spelljammer.

Spelljammer was absolutely NOT silly. Giant Space Hamsters are serious business!

 

[Maxperson]

Wait so they've never established how many moons Oerth has? If so thats a change... not addition... an addition would be fleshing out said moons in accordance with already established lore.

Greyhawk lore says that Oerth has two moons. His "addition" changes that lore from two moons to three moons.

 

[pemerton]

So [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], to be clear, it's wrong of me to call my campaign a GH campaign if I suspect that you (the particular "you", Maxperson) wouldn't approve of the change?

EDIT:

making changes will eventually alter the feel of the setting rendering it not that setting. Where that line is drawn will vary from person to person. There is no hard, fast criteria for what is major or minor, or how many such changes are required. If you keep making changes to canon, though, you will eventually hit that line for people.

<snip>

The way you apply it is to be careful about what you change. Think about how it might affect people in the game, especially in combination with other prior changes.

<snip>

Why you get the disingenuous appellation, is because I clearly and repeatedly have told you that it is a matter of degree and included examples. In return, you have repeatedly and falsely equated very minor changes with very major ones

Given that "major" = what you judge to be major, and "minor"= what you judge to be minor, how am I meant to apply that? And why should I put more weight on where you draw such lines than where I and my players draw them?

More generally, why are your views of any relevance to how I run my game? And why is your view of what makes a game a GH game, or not, of any relevance to me in deciding how to run my GH game?

You seem to think that you conception of what makes a game a GH one is something around which everyone else's RPGing should orbit. And that those who apply their own vision, even if it differs from yours, are engaged in very poor GMing,

To me, it seems very strange.

 

[Maxperson]

So [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], to be clear, it's wrong of me to call my campaign a GH campaign if I suspect that you (the particular "you", Maxperson) wouldn't approve of the change?

All I'm saying is that changing the setting lore will eventually result in a setting which no longer represents the original published setting. Were I in your game, I would have expectations of what Greyhawk is based on the official setting lore, and those expectations would be disappointed over and over, at least from what you've posted here.

Given that "major" = what you judge to be major, and "minor"= what you judge to be minor, how am I meant to apply that? And why should I put more weight on where you draw such lines than where I and my players draw them?

You aren't meant to apply it. You should be doing what's best for your game, not applying what I'm saying. If you guys are happy running an alternate universe Greyhawk and calling it Greyhawk, more power to you.

 

[Hussar]

Wait so they've never established how many moons Oerth has? If so thats a change... not addition... an addition would be fleshing out said moons in accordance with already established lore.

Wait, what?

It has been insisted repeatedly that addition =/= change. That we can add whatever we want, so long as it doesn't contradict what came before. Adding a third moon contradicts nothing - there are still two moons there. Adding The Isle of Dread to Greyhawk is an addition, not a change, according to you folks.

So, if addition is not change, then how can adding something to a setting make it not that setting anymore? I'd agree if they were removing a moon, but adding? You've repeatedly said that addition is not change, so, which is it?