I’ve been thinking a bit about canon and lore. Not just Mystara but all sorts of fictional universes. And I feel the urge to ramble on about it, really for my own satifaction of getting it out of my head and onto a page, though other readers might find something here.
One of the YouTube videos I’ve watched and enjoyed is Greyhawk Grognard talking about the World of Greyhawk showing vs telling. There he explains why he prefers the Greyhawk approach of seeing lore in practice in adventures rather than having it explained in a sourcebook like a Wikipedia article. It just so happens that Greyhawk has its own wiki, but I may be diverging from the point. I agree that if canon is stifling creativity then yes bare bones is better. But at least for a DM preparing for a game, sourcebooks and other forms of published lore are all optional. If you feel it is stifling creativity, you are treating it with too much reverence.
The overall approach I’ve taken is that in a D&D game lore and canon is fine as long as it helps rather than hinders the game at the table. The DM is free to take or leave whatever published or official setting material they want for the adventures they want to run. As you can tell by my blog, that includes ignoring, changing or adding to published worlds. I’ve taken Karameikos pretty well as published in Gaz1, then added some new stuff on top. Conversely with Ierendi I have only kept the map and Ierendi Island from Gaz4. Everything else has been overhauled for a completely different feel, shifting from Mystara’s Disney Land to Mystara’s Lankhmar. As for Norwold, I have kept the general situation but then added a whole new aspect to it (the Arvorians) that is a major new faction of bad guys with their own character classes and world-ending plans. And I have completely ignored Wrath of the Immortals, keeping the campaign set at AC 1000 (the same time the gazetteers are set), because I still want Alphatia to be a sprawling, dysfunctional empire of super-powerful archmages and not just a big gap in the ocean.
Don’t get me wrong - sourcebooks are great. Campaign settings are great. The most obvious benefit is they present large chunks of adventure-related stuff (NPCs, maps, locations, groups, ideas for adventures, monsters etc) that save the DM a lot of time and effort in preparing for a game session. Creating a world from scratch is a lot of time and effort. It can be done - see my earlier incarnation of this blog, from 2011 to 2013 when I was detailing my homebrew world Kaelaross. But borrowing someone else's usually works just as well.
There is a secondary benefit at least with some books, namely that they are fun to read in and of themselves. Many of the ideas need not be immediately applicable to your game table. I’m sure that a lot of RPG sourcebooks are bought because of this. This can also apply to homebrew worlds where a DM can easily get carried away with adding details, background and history without worrying whether it is relevant to the adventures they are running. This is absolutely fine, and for some would-be DMs, especially those who have trouble getting an acutal gaming group together, it is the main form their interest in D&D manifests. I have spent years in this “perpetual preparation” mode, or world-building for the fun of it. This is fine as long as there is an awareness that this is really just personal entertainment, and unlikely to become a major RPG product on Drivethru RPG.
In developing Mystara I still generally use the published books as the starting point, particularly the gazetteers, and if I have not described how I have changed or added to a particular realm (I have not really tackled Alfheim, Glantri, the Five Shires, Atruaghin Clans or the Northern Reaches), you can generally assume the gazetteer for it is still the default. And for a lot of the places I have focused on (Ylaruam, Karameikos, Darokin etc) most of the material in the gazetteers is still true - I have added to it rather than overwritten it.
Even if I am not using a world as a whole, I can certainly borrow published stuff from it. I have borrowed the Eldreth Veluuthra from the Forgotten Realms to create the Elvish Truebloods in Karameikos. Warhammer Fantasy has heavily influenced the Cult of Chaos and Chaos Warriors, as well as Warpstone moprhing into Eldritch Crystals. And I have converted numerous monsters from the Fighting Fantasy books to Basic D&D stats for use in adventures in Mystara rather than Titan. Heck, I’ve got a number of RPG books on my shelf that I haven’t played but I’ll still flick through for ideas and inspiration (Earthdawn, Ars Magica, the Dying Earth, WHFRP and various GURPS books).
Popular fictional universes, whether Star Wars, Star Trek or Lord of the Rings, have great fan followings. And because they are shared, they can be discussed, opined on and speculated about by fans, initially through face to face conversations or magazines, but more recently the internet and social media has given fandom whole new channels to connect. This is where canon becomes important - a shared understanding of what that universe is like, what are the major characters and events and locations are , becomes the starting point for fan discussions. Saying that in your version of Star Wars, Leia is not Luke’s sister and therefore the awkwardness of when they kiss (particularly on Hoth in Empire Strikes Back) is eliminated might be more comfortable to you, but other fans will point to canon (in this case Return of the Jedi) and say “No, you are wrong, this is what is said in the film.” In these circles fan-fic may make temporary changes within itself, but canon remains canon. At the game table I can be as cavalier as I like with published settings, but on the interwebs I am dealing with people who take this a lot more seriously.
FOMO, Kudos and the shame of getting something wrong within these communities can all drive the urge to know as much about canon as possible. The more obscure the better as long as sources can be provided. Those who know all there is to know about Star Wars, or Tolkein’s Middle Earth are regarded (at least within the communities) as sages or scholars.
In forums about RPG settings this difference between “fan-fic” (i.e. each GM’s version of a published setting) and “canon”, (such as the gazetteers and other Mystara material published by TSR) can cause friction if the distinction is not kept. I don’t think many on forums are so strict and rigid that they will object to DMs customising the setting to fit their game table, but when asked questions about the setting, most fans will look to canon and try to give the canonical answer. Giving a fan-fic answer is frowned on unless specifically asked for. The published material is still considered the shared universe, and therefore it gains a level of importance and perhaps reverence among fans that non-fans would find surprising.
Then there is the matter of how much or how little is published. Forgotten Realms is the behemoth of D&D settings, from 1st Edition AD&D (remember the gray box?) through to the latest hardback 5E adventures set in the Realms that often include bits and pieces of lore (I’m currently running Baldur’s Gate: Descent into Avernus, and about a quarter of the book is a guide to the city of Baldur’s Gate). I’m sure if you add the various sourcebooks, adventures and fiction for the Forgotten Realms together over the years you would have close to a thousand products. How the hell is a new DM supposed to deal with that? The simple answer is they are not supposed to deal with it all. They just start with what they need to run an adventure. My not-too-serious approach to published settings means I see a thousand published books of ideas, inspiration and help for running a game. All of those published Forgotten Realms items are entirely optional, never required reading. As with Mystara I take what I want, and change or ignore the rest.
Going back to Greyhawk I know that a lot of people reckon that the World of Greyhawk boxed set (or even just the folio) was enough and that TSR/WotC should not have messed up Gary Gygax’s creation with the 2nd Edition From the Ashes boxed set or the 3rd Edition Living Greyhawk gazetteer. Perhaps they have a point and those later publications made changes that old fans deeply disapproved of. But it meant that players who started with 2nd and 3rd edition had a chance to start with the Greyhawk setting and reminded other more established players that Greyhawk was still active. If it had not been for these later versions of Greyhawk, there would be far fewer Greyhawk fans than there are today. TSR/WotC was never going to keep publishing the gold box for the next twenty years. And I understand that Greyhawk is back in the new 2025 DMG for 5.5E as an example setting. Do you have to buy it? No. But I am quietly pleased as I hope it will introduce a new generation of D&D players to Gary’s world, rich with the history of early D&D. Some cynics may grumble at WotC putting out yet another sourcebook that may cover something that was looked at in only the previous edition. Guess what? You don’t have to buy it! I suppose one silver lining in releasing different versions of a single setting for each edition is that it keeps that setting in the awareness of players and DMs who keep an eye on the product schedule. Similarly it is quite reasonable to only focus on settings that you are actually interested in, regardless of hype from adverts, social media or friends at your table. I’ve never been too invested in Dragonlance, Al-Qadim or Birthright - I feel that Mystara, Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms cover all my gaming needs. FOMO and misplaced enthusiasm around newly released products is not as powerful as it used to be, though it still gives me the urge to buy new stuff.
If a player at my table knows a lot about the Forgotten Realms, or Mystara or whatever world I’m using, they might say “No, this thing is not like that. I read it here that it should be like this.” Is the DM required to go along with the player who may be correct from a canonical point of view? No. The straightforward answer is to tell the player that in this game the setting is a bit different. A more subtle, and perhaps diplomatic way, is to actually use the player as a source of ideas and world-building. I have no problem with players helping out with developing a setting in a game as long as they don’t bend things to give themselves unfair advantages or insider knowledge their characters should not know. Characters will know quite a lot about the world they live in and may well have a general knowledge that covers at least some of the topics in the campaign’s introductory sources (Greyhawk’s gold box, Forgotten Realms Grey Box, Mystara gazetteers’ players section). Players bouncing these bits of knowledge and ideas off you in a collaborative way can make the process more fun and easy.
Thank you for letting me ramble on. Rant over.
No comments:
Post a Comment