Signup
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Postcards from the Flanaess
Adventures
in Greyhawk
Cities of
Oerth
Deadly
Denizens
Jason Zavoda Presents
The Gord Novels
Greyhawk Wiki
#greytalk
JOIN THE CHAT
ON DISCORD
    Canonfire :: View topic - Burn Baby Burn!
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Burn Baby Burn!
    Author Message
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 23, 2004
    Posts: 1212


    Send private message
    Tue May 05, 2009 9:26 am  
    Burn Baby Burn!

    I can’t help it. Everytime the issue of “canon” gets raised and I think about why this site was created the song Disco Inferno goes through my mind.

    So … I couldn’t pass this up. I’m not a Trekie. It is just not my thing. But when I just now found out that there is a new franchise, I had to follow the link. Dig what the space elf had to say:

    From http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSTRE5443BU20090505

    But changing the "canon" -- events and characters that shape "Star Trek" lore -- could leave legions of old "Trekkies" thinking Abrams had done something "highly illogical," as Spock might have once said. Old Spock Leonard Nimoy begs to differ.

    "Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae," Nimoy told Reuters. "Open your mind! Be a 'Star Trek' fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."

    The same might be said for GH.

    Well, I like to think of the canonfire as more of a forge rather than a bonfire, but ymmv.

    Burn Baby Burn!

    Hey, maybe the Enterprise will visit Oerth!
    _________________
    Plar of Poofy Pants
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Dec 06, 2003
    Posts: 85
    From: Torrance, Calif.

    Send private message
    Tue May 05, 2009 12:21 pm  

    Dude! I totally agree! (Yes, I am from L.A., and, no, I do not surf).

    The great thing about having a community of devoted fans like we do here is that we can really start to recreate GH in a way that we enjoy. We can all throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks! It is also a great place to get feedback on how we tinker and amend the GH setting to our own campaigns. There are a lot of great thinkers here who really contribute a lot with their insight and expertise, so it is also a great place to get feedback and some constructive criticism for our idea so we can make them that much grander/better/greater/etc.

    ciao,
    The Grey Mouser
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 26, 2002
    Posts: 538
    From: Canada

    Send private message
    Tue May 05, 2009 8:27 pm  

    I've never understood the slavish devotion so many Greyhawk fans have to canon, when Gygax specifically mentioned that the initial setting was purposely left sketchy so fans could elaborate on it as they saw fit. I freely admit to violating canon as I see fit, as I feel that a lot of it really does blow chunks, particularly when it radically alters the setting, which was what was so bad about a lot of Living Greyhawk "canon".

    Fortunately, canon is what you make of it in Greyhawk. There are no novels or Mary Sue characters dictating to you what canon is or is not, you can get away with doing little to no research in official sources and just making up anything you want (as I do on a regular basis), and if you do use official sources, you can use the ones you want and toss the rest (Gygax, Holian and Mona yay, Sean K. Reynolds and Living Greyhawk in general nay).

    Can't find the official layout of Jallarzi Sallavarian's tower? Make it up yourself! Lost your sourcebook detailing the stats of the Boneheart? Fudge them! Your adventure outline contradicts Ivid the Undying? Who cares!

    YOU AND YOUR PLAYERS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO DECIDE WHAT IS CANON AND WHAT IS NOT. THIS, ABOVE ALL ELSE, IS THE TRUE SPIRIT OF GREYHAWK. If you're inspired by canon or fan work, great, but feel free to ignore what you don't like, or to mix and match ideas and information that appeal to you.

    You might end up with a crazy quilt of seemingly mismatched ideas taken from a dozen different sources and stitched into one large whole, but it's your own unique work and if it brings you and your gaming group the pleasure you want, then you've succeeded in your task as a DM and/or player.
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 13, 2001
    Posts: 64
    From: Stockholm, Sweden

    Send private message
    Tue May 05, 2009 11:04 pm  

    Ah, this is wrong! Wink

    Surely there must be some essence, some core elements that must be canon or we cannot share a Greyhawk at all. Can Mordenkainen be a cleric, Iuz a golem, the Sea of Dust an illusion-laden pixie paradise with ochre jelly paladins? IMO - no!

    Look at the resentment both Gygax and Kuntz have shown at the twisted use of their old characters and creations. Even though they both advocate for the DM's right to spin their own campaigns freely they forcefully deny some of the post-Gygax developments as simply "wrong".

    IMO there must be a core Greyhawk that share the same basic foundation which we all can twist into whatever we wish. IMO that is Greyhawk canon - the baseline which we all (well, most of us) can accept. Other additions to Greyhawk, by creator, fan and publisher alike, are optional and modular.
    _________________
    Never say blip-blip to a kuo-tua
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Oct 07, 2008
    Posts: 409


    Send private message
    Wed May 06, 2009 8:16 am  
    IMO Yes

    Quote:
    Can Mordenkainen be a cleric, Iuz a golem, the Sea of Dust an illusion-laden pixie paradise with ochre jelly paladins?


    Yes, if I'm DMing, I have that option. I'd like to know what the canon is though so I can judge whether or not I'd like to follow cannon or throw it out. Sometimes people have good ideas and if they've already done the work, I'll be interested in using it.

    My buddy that was the best DM I ever had the chance to play with certainly didn't care about canon. His goal was a good time and following Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms or whatever else TSR recommended didn't matter at all to him...or to us. Most of us were so caught up in the moment and wanting to get more powerful that the minutiae of what celestial objects could our characters see in the sky was never an issue. If your game needs those things, then great it's there as a suggestion.

    So, yes, I do want to know what Gygax had structured for his game in case it differed from the TSR publications which weren't authored by him. But it's for the same reason we bought the TSR publications in the first place, they seem like fun and hopefully means less preperation. The DMs job is to provide the setting and everything is optional--even the "core" rules. This isn't competition chess where the rules are paramount.

    If I see the Star Trek movie at this point, I'll have to go in with the idea that someone is re-imaging the franchise like BSG was. I like the original so I don't want it tampered, but like the new BSG, if it's done well enough, most people won't care. The same thing has been happening for a while I just realized. Think about the Batman movies.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Wed May 06, 2009 9:39 am  

    Batman's an interesting example. At this point, there are so many different reimaginings of Batman that there really isn't a core, "correct" version. He's an archetype that can be presented in any number of different ways and still be fundamentally the same guy. DC just published a Neil Gaiman comic called "Whatever happened to the Caped Crusader?" that explored that idea in greater depth.

    Thus far, there have been a few different reimaginings of Greyhawk. There's the original Gygax (and Kuntz) campaign, the 1983 boxed set, the Rose Estes version, the "Sagard the Barbarian" version, the New Infinities version, the post-Gygax TSR/WotC version (which saw many different authors, but with a few exceptions shares a continuity), the "Castle Zagyg" version, the 3e "Corehawk" version, the Living Greyhawk version, and "Paizohawk" - plus everyone's home campaigns.

    That's quite a lot, actually. Maybe even more than Batman. How far can you stretch it and have it still be Greyhawk? I've said before that 4e's flavor/fluff doesn't feel like D&D to me - or it feels like a really idiosyncratic variation of D&D like Eberron or Dark Sun. It's not just all the little changes, but the fact that the primary themes that they emphasize are different. At the same time, a lot is still the same - still most of the same Abyssal lords and rulers of Hell, still characters like Acererak and Vecna and Kas and Kyuss, still spells named after Mordenkainen, Bigby, and Evard, still a City of Brass, still druids and bards and barbarians and wild mages. You could definitely make a 4e Greyhawk; even WotC might be able to manage it, if they got their anatomy properly sorted.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Wed May 06, 2009 12:43 pm  

    Wolfsire wrote:
    "Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae," Nimoy told Reuters. "Open your mind! Be a 'Star Trek' fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."


    Highly illogical, Mr. Spock! "Be a fan" but don't worry about canon ie consistent story telling? That's like combining matter and anti-matter outside the warp core. You know, its what you died to prevent in Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan. Oh, wait, that might be "canon," so you might not know. Of all, the . . . Why you green blooded . . .

    Gilban wrote:
    Surely there must be some essence, some core elements that must be canon or we cannot share a Greyhawk at all. . . .

    IMO there must be a core Greyhawk that share the same basic foundation which we all can twist into whatever we wish. IMO that is Greyhawk canon - the baseline which we all (well, most of us) can accept.


    Now here is the right of the matter. Canon is what we all have in common, what makes us all fans together who can talk in a common language. No canon = no fan. Or at best a very casual fan. Warp speed, Mr. Gilban!

    rasgon wrote:
    Batman's an interesting example. At this point, there are so many different reimaginings of Batman that there really isn't a core, "correct" version. He's an archetype that can be presented in any number of different ways and still be fundamentally the same guy.

    Thus far, there have been a few different reimaginings of Greyhawk. . . . quite a lot, actually. Maybe even more than Batman. How far can you stretch it and have it still be Greyhawk? . . .


    IDIC? Or just a jumble of vaguely recognizable, hazely connected stuff? The more diffuse the archetype becomes the less archetypical.

    If the archetype does not stay true to certain core expressions (ie canon), it becomes "other." Like the Mirror Mirror Universe - recognizable but ultimately alien.

    Live long and prosper! Happy

    NB - IDIC:That's Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination for those of you who flunked out of Star Fleet Academy. Wink
    _________________
    GVD
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 23, 2004
    Posts: 1212


    Send private message
    Wed May 06, 2009 12:57 pm  

    Over on the 4e Hommlet thread someone mentioned something like in order to reconcile GH and 4e Luna would have to be crashed into Oerth.

    That sounds like a awesome campaign to me. Have it be hundreds or thousands of years after the fact or just into the future. Civilization, magic and technology is there but hidden. Like Thundarr, which IMO, is somewhat like GH in that it has tech and magic. It is also very much unlike GH in that it does not have the various states.

    But with such a major change, you would not have to be too concerned with specific canon references and could bring in themes that give it a GH feel. Take a map of the Flanesse, plot the damage and changes due to time, such as reforestation, glacial advances, and figure of what survived.

    Even if you dropped Celene on Celene there would be some elves who remember at least the stories of the old days.

    Maybe it called the Last Cataclysm and New Migrations.
    _________________
    Plar of Poofy Pants
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: Apr 13, 2006
    Posts: 654
    From: Frinton on Sea England

    Send private message
    Fri May 08, 2009 11:38 am  

    Personally, my objective is that both my players and I are having a bloody good time, fully immersed in the suspension of disbelief that is GH. If that's happening, and canon has been thrown to the four winds to achieve it, then happy days.

    The "C" words that I've always found more important are consistancy and continuity; if that road's always been in that location in the campaign and someone else is claiming that it doesn't exist solely because that's canon, then canon can plant one on my hairy feet.

    I agree with the use of the word "core" to describe certain aspects of GH; what would GH be if it didn't comply with the original outline map, with the nations, cities and famous character names but the class of any given character in any given campaign is irrelevent, the way a city looks is however you want it to look and the fate of nations plays out how you like and no-one can tell you different.

    What is great, though, is looking through the articles posted on this site and going "that doesn't fit my vision, I'm not using that. Nice idea, however" or " oh! I'm so using that stuff" (and not mentioning to the players that I half-inched it Evil Grin ).

    So I guess I'm happy with "core" as a term but have always loathed the concept of "canon".
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3310
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Fri May 08, 2009 2:05 pm  

    I just saw the new Star Trek, by the way. Wow. They didn't mess around there. I assumed people were complaining about things like, "That's not how Kirk and Spock met! And Scotty is left-handed!" but it goes much deeper than that. And yet, because of the specific MacGuffin they use, it isn't exactly "noncanonical."

    I think we all agree that it's possible to change Greyhawk and have it still be Greyhawk. I know GVDammerung has expressed a wish that they had changed Castle Greyhawk from its WGR1 version more profoundly in the Expedition module, and I don't think any of us would have claimed that the castle didn't belong in the Greyhawk setting anymore if, for example, they had given it four towers instead of three. The only real debate here seems to be in how far you can stretch things before it feels too much like another world. And I don't think there's any one right answer to that.
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum




    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.50 Seconds