Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9489854" data-attributes="member: 7023840">.... unfortunately, I am not the Absolute Dictator of Reality....yet.Ahem. As [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] has noted, a lot of battles about "canon" are really battles about personal preferences. Personally, one of the things I love about Greyhawk (at least, in my conception) is that it isn't crufted up and stuck with too much lore and canon.I've always felt that canon and lore are an uncomfortable match with D&D campaign settings. It's a very delicate balance- yes, we know that nerds, in general, love getting all the details and debating endlessly about lore and canon. But campaigns are supposed to be unique to tables- that's the magic of it! I don't want to play in Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms. I don't want to play in Gary Gygax's Greyhawk.I want the scaffolding. I want hooks and hints. But everything else? That's for my table to develop. (I would add that this is one the reasons I loved the original Gygaxian multiverse and wrote all those posts about it- the idea that every table, every Greyhawk, existed on the prime material plane... that was perfect, simple, and provided everything that was needed. It's all been downhill since the Manual of the Planes.)</blockquote>