If WotC change canon, they might incur financial cost (if people stop buying their stuff). Or they might not (if people like the new stuff better, and so buy more of it).Change canon, for any reason, and you have already incurred a not-insignificant cost.
If WotC change canon, they might incur financial cost (if people stop buying their stuff). Or they might not (if people like the new stuff better, and so buy more of it).
When I changed canon in my GH game (by making the GH vikings actual vikings rather than Suel refugees) I didn't incur any cost at all, because the number of people at my table who both (1) knew the canonical GH account of its vikings and (2) cared, was zero.
From these two points, I infer that sometimes changing canon incurs no cost (significant or insignificant).
If WotC change canon, they might incur financial cost (if people stop buying their stuff). Or they might not (if people like the new stuff better, and so buy more of it).
When I changed canon in my GH game (by making the GH vikings actual vikings rather than Suel refugees) I didn't incur any cost at all, because the number of people at my table who both (1) knew the canonical GH account of its vikings and (2) cared, was zero.
From these two points, I infer that sometimes changing canon incurs no cost (significant or insignificant).
Adding an extra moon to GH doesn't change anything that is said about the two moons by the sage in the folio/boxed set.
And adding Suloise WoHS doesn't change any canon either - it conforms to the idea that the Suloise were powerful magicians with mysterious traditions!
A few years ago now, [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] posted something along the lines of "RPG = fiction --> mechanical resolution --> new fiction --> mechanical resolution --> [repeat the pattern]".That points, perhaps vaguely, towards an interesting debate. What is the 'game' part? To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, if rules are the defining characteristic of a 'game,' then we may as well sit around solving math problems. Alternately, the word 'game,' once again, suggests 'play' which carries with it associations like, I don't know, having fun, breaking rules, you know, playing.
<snip>
In the end, I would like to emphasize that the rules are there (at least in games like these) largely to solve mundane problems for everyone so there is not a time consuming debate regarding whether or not you can jump x casm or seduce y bar wench. All of the character, personality, meaning (whatever that is), and enjoyment comes from lore, or something like it. Granted, there is an animal satisfaction to be taken from success (yeah, I broke that ork's skull, etc.) but it is how the orc reacts, and how the rest of its tribe does, and what that means that offers the real magic.
[MENTION=6873053]Simulocust[/MENTION] didn't say this - suppose it's true that part of having fun includes breaking the rules, it doesn't follow that any breaking of the rules will be fun.I would say that breaking rules does not necessarily equal fun.
What if the giant is cursed by the gods? Or is destined not to slay this particular hero?Sure you could describe the Giants weapon as being a huge tree trunk but if you only use a 1d4 for damage does that really make any sense? No, you have a giant weapon and it does giant damage - lore and rules combining together.
This is bare assertion.Consider that a GH wizard and an FR wizard are the same wizard - that if they were any different in flavor, they'd also be different in rules.
AD&D has no such mechanic (until the introduciton of cavaliers in UA, but that won't be relevant if your noble's son is a cleric, or a ranger, or some other non-generic warrior.What if I was playing the son of a Cormyrean Noble though? I would expect some kind of mechanic to support that bit of background lore and that is what we find in 5e.
This is weird for two reasons.What about say African Lions? Where would I expect to find African Lions? The most obvious place would be Africa of course but say I was watching the Madagascar movie in which I discover that they could also be found in New York or even Madagascar.
I enjoyed your post, but one needs to be careful with generalisations.We do not approach the initial fiction with a critical eye. I'm mostly looking at fans here. When we encounter new rules in a supplement we mull them over, consider the impact they will have on our games, what value they will add. This all stuff we should be doing for new rules. We should also be doing the same thing with new setting material. There is also the issue that criticism of rules and their impact on play is often considered valuable, but criticism of setting material is often seen as an affront to the setting.
<snip>
When we create or read setting material we tend to fall in love with it in a way that is entirely disconnected from play - often refusing to adjust material at the table if it would make for a better play experience.
<snip>
We assume more is better. Look at the debate over change vs. addition in this thread. There is an unspoken assumption that there is virtue in detail, and it has largely been unchallenged.
I enjoyed your post, but one needs to be careful with generalisations.
Speaking just for myself, I scrutinise setting material, sometimes criticise it (eg the Suel Vikings in GH, or my criticisms of aspects of The Plane Above lore in this thread.
And in this old thread, many of my posts were trying to explain why the light touch of the default 4e world/cosmolgoy, and its lack of detail, was a virtue rather than a flaw precisely because of its contribution to play. (See eg post 76 in that thread.)