D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[I'm A Banana]

But, doesn't that make your enjoyment of the game dependent on me? I mean, you obviously think that you have created a Dragonlance character. Fair enough. Why put your enjoyment of the game on me though? That's the difference between my problems with my fighter and your character. I don't really care if you think my character was fine or not. Whether or not you have a problem with my character was never the issue (except that it made it somewhat more difficult to make changes, I suppose). But, my enjoyment of the character is completely independent of you.

Why are you placing the enjoyment of your character on me? Your insist that you are following lore to create this character and that this character is a "unique Dragonlance" character. Ok, fair enough. I disagree. I think that you have created what is essentially an anti-Dragonlance character that opposes the core conceits of the setting. But why should your enjoyment of the character hinge on what I think?

Why would I play D&D if I didn't want to collaborate with my fellow-players for an enjoyable gaming experience? Why would you? I have some small role in your pleasure in gameplay, I imagine, why would you imagine that you don't have that role in mine?

I can have fun in a room by myself just fine, thanks. I don't need D&D for that.

And, if it DOES hinge on what I think, why didn't you ask the group before making the character? Although, to be fair, likely no one would have said anything, because quite obviously in this group, no one particularly cares about canon. Being "authentic" to the setting is certainly not a big concern for this group and never has been. AFAIK, no one seems to share your priorities. The character sounds cool, and that trumps any canon concerns.

But, again, if your goal was to make a genuinely Dragonlance character, why did you go this direction? You're a gnome, but, certainly not a Dragonlance Gnome which is a pretty specific background (although to be fair, the whole "Mad gnome - gnomes that other people would consider "gnormal" is a thing). You're a wizard, but, not a Dragonlance wizard because Dragonlance wizards are all Wizards of High Sorcery. And, to top it off, your character wants the gods to go away, a view espoused by no one in the setting.

So, I'm still kinda stuck on between your stated goals and what you actually brought to the table.

I picked this character because I did the dang research. I knew from osmosis that DL had a Cataclysm and that is one of the things that it had that no setting did. I also knew that it had crazy comic relief gnomes who invented dangerous technologies (other settings kind of have those, but DL dials up the wacky hijinx to 11). So I read about them - about how the Cataclysm caused mortals to lose their faith in the gods. About how gnomes think big, push the limits, are always in development, and embrace failure, and don't think much about the risks. About a mythical creation of the gnomes as a curse from a god concerned about their hubris. About the Greygem, and how it created wild sorcery and how it's tied very closely to the gnomes once again (either creating them in one version of the myth, or being unleashed by them in the other version of the myth). About how gnomes tend toward Lawful considerations in their inventions these days, but are not very concerned with good or evil. About how some gnomes study at the Guild of Magical Sciences as technically-renegades. About how a Life Quest to constantly improve an invention defines their lives.

So bam. Chronologically, you have a gnome born in Mount Nevermind who was delighting in failure and learning about the birth of the race and who, at adulthood, adopted a Life Quest to further the knowledge of wild sorcery (so closely linked to the Gnome's origin story), who went into the wilderness to contemplate it, and, in that wilderness and chaos, opened up a Discovery about the history of the world and all that inhabited it that lead to him embracing Chaos as his cause, and seeing the Cataclysm not just as divine violence, but as divine violence whose express purpose was to control mortals, to punish them for being "too Good." He returns to his traditional society, but can't hack it. Having embraced Chaos, he causes disasters - sometimes just to stop the expected thing from happening. The way other gnomes work on rocket-powered ironing-boards, he works on wild surges, the fabric of reality, his own mind, and the gods themselves. Because gnomes don't think small, and they're never happy with the end result, and there's always more cogs to add. He leaves Mount Nevermind (or, more likely, is thrown out with a none-too-subtle warning to never return) and, wandering in the wilderness and living on the streets, his mischief eventually attract Tower mages, who cage him.

That's the character that emerged from my research of the Cataclysm and Gnomes in the sources I am looking at.

It doesn't match the version of DL that you have in your head, because that version of DL isn't the version that I read about, I guess.

Which, to bring it back around to the Topic At Hand again, is part of how a change in lore negatively affects a gameplay experience. If the material I've read said that gnomes could not cast spells and that no mortal ever questioned the justice of the gods in killing millions of people, I wouldn't be playing a gnome who casts spells and questions the justice of the gods in killing millions of people. But these are things that happened in the setting I read about. And the DM didn't contradict me or tell me no.

Canon matters because it becomes part of your character or your campaign (or in your case, your memory), and then if it's later changed or invalidated, your setting doesn't have quite the unique identity it once did, and the play experience of those campaigns and characters is fraught with all this thorny uncertainty.

 

[Maxperson]

Count yourself lucky. Of course, it also means you've never read any D&D related message boards from about 2000 to present as well.

Let me be a bit clearer. I've never run into it in any game that I've run or played. I HAVE seen it on forums. Of course a lot of people on forums argue extremes that I firmly believe don't actually engage in when dealing with live people.

 

[Maxperson]

Folcred and Fastred rode to their deaths in Harondor to stop the Haradrim from invading Gondor! They were not enforcing a claim to Harondor. The Haradrim were fully in possession of Harondor as can be seen by the fact that they were using Harondor to stage an invasion of Ithilien by crossing the River Poros, the southern border of Gondor at the time and the dividing line between Ithilien and Harondor. What's more, the Haradrim had been provoked into this aggressive action by emissaries from Sauron! This was over one hundred years before the War of the Ring, and even though Gondor won the battle (about which I was mistaken upthread), it did not retake Harondor. It was merely successful in holding back the Haradrim, for the time being, from further incursion into Gondor. By the time of the War of the Ring, the Haradrim were marching their armies through Ithilien without much resistance at all.

Again, this was not a battle for control of Harondor. It was a battle for control of the border between Gondor and Harondor, the crossings of the River Poros.

The wars happened in Harondor, regardless of who was invading or why. That's going to screw the inhabitants of Harondor and they are going to be pissed at both countries fighting on their land, destroying their houses and crops, and killing and raping their people. There may not have been a ton of population there, but it wasn't close to being empty.

 

[jayoungr]

Nobody is arguing that you cannot go against canon in your HOME GAME!

Well, as long as the whole table agrees. If you don't have buy-in from everyone, it can lead to friction ... as we're seeing on this very thread.

 

[Hussar]

If a time traveling Vulcan in Star Wars blows your mind (and really why would it when Spock time travels all over the place and logically *hah* Star Wars space and Star Trek space could be in the same universe) then dont bother seeing any of the Disney Star Wars because that derps all over the place.



So basically the only "authentic" character is a Half-Even Ranger called "Not Tanis" or "Sinat" for the one-true grognard?

Would you like some more straw?

But, isn't it funny? All through this I've been told that canon shouldn't be changed. That canon is important and should be respected. When I point out the canon for the setting and how it's been changed, I'm called a grognard and told to get with the times.

So, which is it? Is canon important or not? When is a canon change acceptable? [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] has drawn on canon that was added and ret-conned into the setting decades after the setting was introduced. These are significant changes to the setting. If canon is important, as you claim, why are you not decrying this character?

See, for me, and I keep repeating myself, this is mostly an intellectual exercise. I simply DON'T CARE. I just find the irony of arguing that canon is important while at the same time supporting the play of a character which relies on major canon changes to be delicious. If it's perfectly acceptable to have a wildmage gnome in Dragonlance, why is an evil Grey Render suddenly a bridge too far? Why is it okay to rewrite large swaths of the setting, but, a new take on Driders suddenly makes the game unplayable?

How do you reconcile the two? How do you reconcile claiming that setting canon and lore is important but at the same time having no issue with broad sweeping changes? If a Jedi Vulcan with a Tardis is acceptable as a "genuine" Star Wars character, why is a teleporting elf an issue?

 

[Imaro]

But, isn't it funny? All through this I've been told that canon shouldn't be changed. That canon is important and should be respected. When I point out the canon for the setting and how it's been changed, I'm called a grognard and told to get with the times.

So, which is it? Is canon important or not? When is a canon change acceptable? @I'm A Banana has drawn on canon that was added and ret-conned into the setting decades after the setting was introduced. These are significant changes to the setting. If canon is important, as you claim, why are you not decrying this character?

Changing as opposed to expanding or adding to canon are different things.... I'm not sure it's clear which one you are speaking too...

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] - Heh. Frustrating isn't it?

The thing is, the argument that we're having is identical to the arguments that have been going on since 4e was introduced, just with the roles reversed. Your defense of your character is perfectly logical, grounded in all sorts of facts and is very well reasoned. It's a great argument.

And I'm brushing it all away, not because I have a better argument or I have better ideas but, just because of timing. Because I can point to how canon used to be and how your character is based on later iterations of the setting which has changed the canon. I don't have a "better" idea of how Dragonlance works or what makes Dragonlance unique. The only club I have is pointing to how the setting used to be.

And it's not different than the arguments about Drow or Kobolds or the Great Wheel or anything else. The only difference is, we've reversed roles. 4e came along and made all these different changes to canon. Lots and lots of changes. Were the changes all bad or stupid ideas or poorly written or poorly thought out? No, not in the least. There are some pretty strong reasons for making some of the changes that were made. Same in 5e. 5e makes pretty broad, sweeping changes to the game - magic using barbarians, paladins of any alignment, completely revamped spell lists, extensive changes to monster lore.

But, the difference is, the 5e changes somehow pass the sniff test. Canon stops being important. Changes are perfectly fine. I played a summoning wizard in 1e, 2e, and 3e. I cannot play that character in 5e. It doesn't exist. But, that's apparently no problem. Change is good. Changes are acceptable.

Until suddenly they're not. And someone, call him or a her a grognard if it makes you feel better, comes along and says, "Hey, this is not what it used to be, we need to change it back. How dare you tell me I'm playing the game wrong? I used to play this way. I cannot play this way anymore, you need to change things to accommodate me!"

And the argument is a club. There's no counter argument really. This back and forth with your gnome shows that. So long as I can point to how the setting used to be, you can't counter the argument.

Or, to put it another way, insistence on canon stifles creativity. I'm actively harming your enjoyment of the game by insisting on canon. I'm making the game less enjoyable for you by insisting that the way I used to play is more important than the way you want to play now. It's incredibly arrogant. It's why I don't do that. Until this thread, I have never said boo about the background of your character. Why would I? I don't want to hurt your enjoyment of the game. Why should I get to insist that you follow my interpretation? I am in no way that arrogant. ((believe it or not ))

Which is why I find these canon argument so incredibly frustrating. Because, most of time, I'm in your shoes. I want the new thing. The new idea. The new concepts because those are fantastic spurs to creativity. If Driders stop being a curse and start being a blessing, that's an opportunity as far as I'm concerned. That's a new tool I can use in my campaigns. FANTASTIC. Now I have two versions of Driders that I can draw on.

I really don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[Hussar]

Changing as opposed to expanding or adding to canon are different things.... I'm not sure it's clear which one you are speaking too...

That's a pretty fine line. When is a change a change or an addition?

I mean, Eladrin expand elves. They don't change them. They added a fey background story and a teleport ability. Did they change elves or simply expand?

I'll bet the answer to that questions depends an awful lot on whether or not you (generally you, not you [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]) like the changes.

 

[Shasarak]

Would you like some more straw?

Why, the straw you give me is perfectly fine thank you.

But, isn't it funny? All through this I've been told that canon shouldn't be changed. That canon is important and should be respected. When I point out the canon for the setting and how it's been changed, I'm called a grognard and told to get with the times.

If you are playing 5e Dragonlance then yeah get with the times and play 5e Dragonlance. Dont be that guy who tries to claim there are no Warlocks in Dragonlance because only Raistlin ever bartered his soul for power and no one else can.

So, which is it? Is canon important or not? When is a canon change acceptable? @I'm A Banana has drawn on canon that was added and ret-conned into the setting decades after the setting was introduced. These are significant changes to the setting. If canon is important, as you claim, why are you not decrying this character?

Because the character is fine. Chaos is a thing in Dragonlance, "Mad" Tinker Gnomes are a thing in Dragonlance, Gods screwing over everyone is a thing in Dragonlance; so ergo a God hating Wild Mage Gnome can be a thing in Dragonlance.

See, for me, and I keep repeating myself, this is mostly an intellectual exercise. I simply DON'T CARE. I just find the irony of arguing that canon is important while at the same time supporting the play of a character which relies on major canon changes to be delicious.

I find it deliciously ironic that your deal breakers are things that actually happen in canon, like an Oriental Adventures game with no honour or a Dragonlance game with no Gods.

If it's perfectly acceptable to have a wildmage gnome in Dragonlance, why is an evil Grey Render suddenly a bridge too far? Why is it okay to rewrite large swaths of the setting, but, a new take on Driders suddenly makes the game unplayable?

It is kinda like saying that now all Tinker Gnomes in Dragonlance are Wild Mages and Mt Nevermind is a Flying battleship that cruises the skies because wheee, Flying Gnomez is kool! It does not make the game unplayable, just gives your eyes a really good workout while Hickman and Weis spontaneously roll around.

How do you reconcile the two? How do you reconcile claiming that setting canon and lore is important but at the same time having no issue with broad sweeping changes? If a Jedi Vulcan with a Tardis is acceptable as a "genuine" Star Wars character, why is a teleporting elf an issue?

If you just want to play a teleporting Elf then there is this cool sub-race of Planar Elves called Eladrin. Now there is no canon to support them existing in Dragonlance at all but hey Flying Gnomes so who cares.

 

[Shasarak]

That's a pretty fine line. When is a change a change or an addition?

I mean, Eladrin expand elves. They don't change them. They added a fey background story and a teleport ability. Did they change elves or simply expand?

I'll bet the answer to that questions depends an awful lot on whether or not you (generally you, not you @Imaro) like the changes.

No the answer depends on the edition. A 2e Eladrin is an addition a 3e Eladrin is an expansion and a 4e Eladrin is a change. Its not rocket science or even how much you like rockets.