Re: Submissions to Compendium (Static) - complete post

--- Sorry for the double post - I hit a key that I shouldn't have ---

Static,

Although I'm not a frequent visitor to either of the web sites, I believe I get the gist of your comments. I do have a comment of my own that I hope can help you. Bear with me; my comment is long but I am driving at something.

While I think you're looking in the right direction, you mentioned the words "canon" and "official" more than once, at least by reference.

My comment is this: Keep in mind that the definition of the word "canon" is a bit fuzzy in the context we're using it here. It's no wonder at all that flame wars broke out about this subject - there is no strict definition of what is "official," in many cases.

There's a reason for that.

In Dungeons & Dragons gaming, as far back as Original D&D, many aspects of the gaming itself have always been left blurry, open to the DM's interpretation, to some degree - often a great degree. Hence, what is canon and what is not canon is, very often, a matter of opinion. Disagreements on this topic are by no means limited to Internet mailing lists or web sites - they happen only too often in RL games that have absolutely nothing to do with the Internet - trust me, I know. :(

If I put my mind to it, I could write you a fairly lengthy essay which would attempt to define the word "canon" (again, in our context of the word), but said essay would be useless - only a collection of opinions of one man. Many people would disagree on at least one, or maybe many, of the points I could make in such an essay.

The original creators of D&D realized - and they were wise - that there is no possible way to come up with rules for every situation....at least not detailed rules. When Jeff Grubb and his collaborators wrote the Spelljammer boxed set, they stuck with that wisdom and left any number of things to a DM's interpretation....

....hence the flame wars. :(

However, they did this *deliberately*, because they *knew* that everyone has a take on any given subject, and they wanted to make a product that people could enjoy. At this point, one could dig deeper into the meanings and state that everyone has a different definition of the word "fun" - but I believe I will postpone on that one! :)

In your planning and execution of your idea - and I think it's a very good idea, too - I urgently recommend that you try to adopt part of the same philosophy that guided the SJ authors, and others before them, as they crafted the products that we know and love so well.

While perhaps not everyone on this List likes you, Static, you wouldn't completely bomb out in a popularity contest here. So, if you can finagle my suggestion into your execution of your (currently vague) plans, others will follow your lead and we will see results.

Sorry for rambling, but I could tell that you were sinking into the quicksand of uncertainty and I wanted to, at least, lift your spirits about the whole subject.

Give 'em hell!

Jim