Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7138889" data-attributes="member: 6785785">This may be true. Obviously, many people may see it differently. I can definitely accept your view of it. But I think something that must go hand in hand with it, and which can trump the view of canon, is the importance of canon to the individual or the gaming group. Maybe this is a matter of semantics....I don't know, let me know if you think so....but if I personally don't really care about being faithful to canon, then what actually is or isn't canon doesn't really matter, right? This is why I am always a bit baffled when conversations take this turn here on the site....because I am willing to toss aside any "canonical" element that I find to be an obstacle. So to me, the view that any setting has flaws that cannot be overcome, is a bit odd. Now, I say that and at the same time, I certainly have setting preferences. But those settings that I don't really enjoy? I don't have an aversion to them. I certainly don't hate them. I just prefer other settings. But if for whatever reason, Mystara was the only setting that WotC was producing material for, I really wouldn't have a problem with it. I'd either play in Mystara or I'd take the Mystara based elements and swap them out for whatever setting I wanted to use. I feel like that's another part of my confusion on this....90% of the D&D settings are similar enough for such changes to be easy. Greyhawk, Realms, Mystara, Ebberon, Birthright, Dragonlance, Nentir Vale.....and so on......they're all so interchangeable. I freely take whatever I like from one, and put it in another if need be. I always thought that's what most people would do....threads like this remind me that's not the case. I don't think it's unreasonable. I just think that it's easily resolved. For many, it won't even be an issue....no one playing even cares where Elminster is. Problem solved before it is even a problem, in this case. My players don't care about Elminster at all, and never expect him to show up, nor to they ever even consider going to him for help. For other tables, it may be an issue, but it's one the DM can avoid. If you're running Tyranny of Dragons, and your players say "hey, where's Elminster in all this?", really all you have to reply with is "That's a good question....where is he?" and it's implied that something must have happened to him. Then you can continue on without even worrying about it. Or, you can go one step further, and actually come up with a reason he's not involved. Let's say the Cult of the Dragon knew he would be an issue, so they dispatched some high level mages to deal with him, and he's been captured/killed/banished and cannot help with what's happening on the Sword Coast.Or, you can go two steps further, and come up with a reason he's not involved, and then make that part of your adventure. This would require a good deal of work on the DMs part, but some may like doing that, and it's certainly not required. And I think this is again a reason why I don't think the criticism is all that strong, even if I recognize it as reasonable; you can involve your game in Realms lore as much or as little as you like. Played exactly as written, Tyranny of Dragons is a Realms game, but I don't think Elminster is ever a consideration (I only own the first book, so I could be wrong). A DM who is in the know can make passing mention of such characters. Or a DM who really thinks it will help his game or be cool for his players, can add these elements into the game. Any level you go with...it's a game in the Realms.</blockquote>

Verification