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

[Shasarak]

How are Eberron orcs different?

I think it maybe because they have a Druidic background.

 

[Imaro]

What is the problem with acknowledging [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] as running his own version of Greyhawk? The Greyhawk game that I am playing in certainly does not resemble his version and, because it has Warforged added to it, my game does not resemble one run by say [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].

I've been trying to understand this since the conversation began...

 

[Imaro]

A jillion posts in, and it's only now beginning to occur to me what might be causing some of the disconnect here. So, a quick informal "poll" - please embed your answer whenever you next post, all of you:

Are you coming at this discussion from a basis of mostly home play with people you know, or
Are you coming at this discussion from a basis of mostly public/FLGS/convention play or play with people you don't know well, or
Are you coming at this discussion from a basis of mostly AL play?

It makes a bi-ig difference. Someone who's coming from an AL-primary perspective is probably going to be comfortable with and used to mostly-locked-in canon as it's expected to be the same everywhere. Public or FLGS games probably need to either hew close to established canon or make any changes abundantly clear going in. Home games are more likely to be fast and loose with whatever, as the end result only matters to that table.

Myself, I'm coming from a home-game-only perspective.

Lan-"canon fodder"-efan

Well my home game uses about 90% homebrewed worlds, as in not using geography, history, etc. of any published campaign setting, all of it made up by whoever is running the campaign... When I have played at the LGS (rarely) and the D&D Meetup (more often)... it's always a pre-published campaign setting that either starts canon or has some minor changes which the DM informs the players of beforehand. I have done AL only rarely and it's almost always canon.

I wasn't specifically coming at it from one perspective... but I think maybe at least part of my desire to categorize and keep them separate is because this is how I've experienced them... and I think with Meetup (1x a month) and AL play (even more rare for me) it's a good thing. Sticking to canon or very close to it makes parameters clear, keeps you from wasting time on a group explanation (and whenever a new player joins), character creation sessions can be done beforehand, etc.)... while with home games you don't really need to worry as much about these things.

 

[Shasarak]

I've been trying to understand this since the conversation began...

Maybe we need another "Lore you should know" from Chris telling us that in 5e you can use the stuff how you want and not to worry about what the official products say.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe we need another "Lore you should know" from Chris telling us that in 5e you can use the stuff how you want and not to worry about what the official products say.

I can't see that happening, though, as it'll hurt sales of said official products*.

* - assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that more 5e setting products are in the mill.

Lanefan

 

[Shasarak]

I can't see that happening, though, as it'll hurt sales of said official products*.

* - assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that more 5e setting products are in the mill.

Lanefan

Ah, that was the joke because we already have that "Lore you should know".

He did not say not to buy, he said not to worry if you get the "official" result of say Out of the Abyss because he could not remember what the official result was anyway.

 

[Hussar]

Oh... what's your "definition" of canon??

Just trying to see if we can get you to add something meaningful to the discussion...

Bing! Bing! Bing!

See, this, this right here? THIS is what I'm talking about. You are so convinced that your personal take on canon and predilection are objective truths that anyone disagreeing with you, possibly using a different take on canon, isn't even adding anything meaningful to the discussion. That your take on canon is so obviously true, that anyone who simply disagrees with your definitions is obviously doing it wrong.

See, I look at your criteria for a "canon" game as pretty much impossible to live up to. I've never seen a DM who ran a setting who didn't change things. Adding playable races, shifting things around, emphasizing this or that idea while putting that idea on the back burner.

You've set the bar for "canon" games so high that, IMO, no one actually plays these games. It would be like expecting every movie director, upon being given the same novel to adapt to a movie, to produce exactly the same movie. It's just never, ever going to happen. Instead you get ten different versions of Dune with apparently a new one coming in a year or so (YAY!).

 

[pemerton]

the conversation was about expectations when a DM tells a player... I'm running an X game where X could be any setting from Middle Earth to Greyhawk to Star Wars. The contention was around when one should actually tell their players... hey I'm actually running a homebrewed version of X.

if you tell the players that you are running Greyhawk, you set their expectations as the canon Greyhawk

And the two of you are experts on the expectations that were set among a group of Melb University gamers in early 1990 because . . . ? (TIme travel? Mind reading? Omniscience?)

Not to mention, as I already posted, the only D&D setting that, at that time, had an established canon anything like what is being canvassed in this thread is Dragonlance. (Which is what made it distinctive). Greyhawk was the folio/boxed set; the CoG boxed set (and as far as I know I was the only person in the RPG club who knew it and had a copy), some articles in Dragon magazine about troop movements and gods, and the classic modules.

This lack of pubished canon is one reason (not the only one) why "I'll be running a game set in GH" didn't mean "I'll be running a GH game that barely adds to published canon".

I have said that I think it's disrespectful to give players one set of expectations and then not deliver,

You can't say this without also accusing me of being disrespectful. You're not just making a statement about your own habits and inclinations.

Also, you are making an assumption about "expectations" that is - as I have been pointing out over mulitple posts which for some reason you keep ignoreing - has no basis in the reality of my GH campaign.

When isn't a setting a homebrewed version? It seems to me, appropriating a popular fallacy, that as any campaign grows longer, the probability of breaking setting canon approaches 1. Characters themselves can often be a source of canonicity-breaking.

<snip>

As such, I don't see why any DM would need to say that they are "actually running a homebrewed version" of anything given the nature of how running settings work. It's just a given. So adding "homebrewed version of X setting" seems somewhat redundant.

This.

pemerton is freed to say what and why he considers his game to be canon, or a GH game, or whatever

Your "whatever" is the whole crux of this particular part of the discussion. I have never said that a 3rd moon, or WoHS, is canon GH. That would be absurd. I've said that adding in that stuff doesn't make the game cease to be a GH game - that there is (at least as I play, and among those whom with I play) no general expectation or understanding that "is a GH game" means "is a game that in its setting elements departs not one whit from published canon". Especially in early 1990, when that published canon is so thin.

And [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s posts make me think that my way of approaching this is not a completely parochial one.

what we have been debating is whether it's accurate to claim you are running a canon game while changing numerous things before the game has actually started

That's not what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is debating. Maxperson is saying that it's not accurate to say I'm running a Greyhawk game while adding elements to the setting that aren't in the folio ot boxed set.

If you can't see the difference between the two claims - ie if you assume running a GH game = running a game in which nothing that is not in the folio or boxed set will be added to the setting - then you're making an asumption that has never held good for any RPGing I've been involved in.

If I say hey guys going to run a Star Wars game and you show up and Vulcans run the empire and the rebellion has the Federation backing them... well IMO, you've kind of mislead me here.

And so just to be clear - you must think your example is relevant to what is being discussed, right? Which means you msst be meaning to imply that adding a 3rd moon and a wizardly order to GH is tantamount to adding Vulcanss and the Star Fleet into Star Wars; and that not giving players a neon-light warning is misleading them. If not, why the absurd example?

 

[Hussar]

What is the problem with acknowledging [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] as running his own version of Greyhawk? The Greyhawk game that I am playing in certainly does not resemble his version and, because it has Warforged added to it, my game does not resemble one run by say [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION].

Now, honest question here. Are you running a Greyhawk game? Do you feel that you've made a poor Gaming decision to allow Warforged? Would you feel that "Poor GMing Decision" is a fair criticism of your game?

If I come along and tell you, no, you're not really playing in Greyhawk, is that perfectly fine? You've made changes to the setting which break the setting, so, while you can claim that you're playing in Greyhawk, I'm going to stand here and tell you you are wrong and that you are playing in an Alt-Greyhawk universe that isn't the "real" Greyhawk. And that's perfectly fine? You would have no issues at all with those criticisms? Would you feel that those criticisms are perfectly justified?

Do you feel that you have mislead your players by presenting your game in a false manner? After all, according to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] you are no longer running a "true" GH game, and so, you've broken the social contract. The players can no longer reliably know what is true or not true in their understanding of Greyhawk.

Now, all that being said, do you feel like this line of questioning is adding to your understanding of the game? Do you feel that my telling you that you aren't really running Greyhawk is "just discussion"? Is this adding to anyone's understanding? What do you think would be the positive results of me telling you that you aren't running a "real" Greyhawk game?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] makes an interesting point. While settings like Forgotten Realms have massive amounts of canon to draw from, there are lots of other settings which are very bare bones.

When I first started gaming, I played Moldvay Basic/Expert. The only setting material I had was the few pages of what would much later become Mystara, in the back of the Expert rules. Other than a map and about five or six pages of material, there really wasn't any canon. Even monsters had maybe (and this is stretching it) a sentence or two of canon flavor material. Many didn't even have that much.

See, that's where my gaming experience started. Modules and AD&D. Again, AD&D had virtually no canon - monsters had a paragraph or two of material, mostly dealing with combat stuff. The idea that I could tell the players, "Hey, I'm playing a Greyhawk game, or a Known World game and the players would automatically have enough material to be able to follow setting canon was just not true. There just wasn't enough material there.

I'm about to finally start my Primeval Thule campaign in a couple of weeks. We're talking about a setting with a single setting book, half of which is monsters and new rules. Sure, there's lots of high altitude flavor there - this region has lots of barbarians, this region has lots of that kind of nasty, elves live here - but, extremely little broader material.

And, I'm telling you right now, that my Primeval Thule is going to have all sorts of goodies added to it. It's expected by the writers and frankly pretty encouraged.

I'm really wondering where this notion of canon as the end point (sorry, I can't think of a better phrasing than that) came into the hobby. When did we stop being DIY hobbyists and start becoming passive consumers waiting for WotC to roll up the plot wagon to give us ideas?