"Canon," "Official" - Obsolete with d20?

[The Sigil]

Just curious to see how others think of this...

I know in past editions, there was a concept of "canon" - and yes, it had religious overtones. Basically, anything that had been published by TSR was "canon" or "the Word of God" for D&D. These days, the buzzword seems to be "official" instead.

I'm curious to see if that perception has changed with the advent of the d20/OGL licenses and third-party publishers creating content compatible with D&D. The way I see it, there are basically the following ways to create dividing lines:

1.) The "Core Material" - the PH, DMG, and MM (and Psionics Handbook) - the stuff that is currently in the SRD.

2.) All products published by WotC.

3.) All product published by WotC and the stuff published by Kenzer Co. for the Kalamar setting (using their D&D license).

4.) All products published under the d20 umbrella.

5.) All products published under the OGL umbrella that are clearly compatible with d20 (e.g., Mutants and Masterminds).

I guess my question is basically, "do we have a concept of 'WotC canon' any more or has the advent of the d20 license made that concept obsolete?"

My personal opinion on the matter is that an argument could be made there is a "canon" of "official material" - but that it consists only of the Core rulebooks and nothing else. Mostly because, IMO, most third-party publishers are doing a comparable job - and in some cases a much better job that WotC is with "outside" material.

I notice that WotC seems to want to have you believe it is #2 and Kenzer seems to want to have you believe it is #3. Maybe WotC is regretting licensing the D&D logo to KenzerCo.? But is either of them correct anyway?

IMO, "official" as far as a publisher or a d20 developer is concerned should be the SRD - because you have to work from an assumption that your audience has a certain set of material available - and you need to know what is in - and not in - that set of material. Basically, you have to have a common ground to start from and the SRD provides it.

But as a player, "official" IMO is basically, "what the DM approves." If the DM approves, say, Relics & Rituals, that makes it just as "official" as Magic of Faerun. In some ways, it becomes MORE official if the DM says, "we're playing in the Scarred Lands so R&R is okay but Magic of Faerun is not."

With this in mind, I find it odd to hear the phrase "official product" or "official version of X" when it seems that the term's usage has become obsolete. In my mind, every OGL/d20 product - no matter who makes it - is valid as any other... and my experience is that every product needs reviewing by the DM before being pronounced "balanced" and allowed into his campaign world - including WotC products. I guess what I'm asking is, "why bother with the phrase 'official,' when it essentially means nothing other than 'published by WotC or Kenzer?' Is there any advantage other than one of semantics gained thereby?"

Thoughts?

EDIT: Obviously, WotC is the "official" source for the Forgotten Realms and Kenzer is the "official" source for Kalamar. I'm talking in a broader, D&D-wide sense of the word. Will we ever get back to the concept of "canon" like we had with, say, the Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals sets?

--The Sigil

 

[francisca]

But as a player, "official" IMO is basically, "what the DM approves." If the DM approves, say, Relics & Rituals, that makes it just as "official" as Magic of Faerun. In some ways, it becomes MORE official if the DM says, "we're playing in the Scarred Lands so R&R is okay but Magic of Faerun is not."

I subscribe to the school of thought spelled out above.
Of course, the result is you can go look at any 10 gaming groups and wonder if they are even playing the same game, once you toss in all of the different classes, magic systems, etc...

There used to be a time when you could go from one D&D game to another, and the "look and feel" would be similar, at least in my experience. Those days are of course long gone. I'm not making a call on whether that is good or bad, it just is.

I guess if you expect a certain version of canon (oxymoron!), you may have a hard time finding it when hunting for a new group. But again, your milage may vary.

 

[EricNoah]

When I think of "canon" for RPG products, I am thinking more about campaign settings -- i.e. the established official history of what happened when in the setting's history. Taking FR as an example, the "canon" includes the setting materials published, as well as the novels (and that was a troubling thing for some -- having to read a bunch of novels to "keep up" on what was officially happening in the game world).

To extend the example further, there were folks who were upset that the "canon" of FR was going to be altered by 3rd edition D&D -- where were all of these sorcerers hiding before sorcerers existed? Why was the FR land mass shifting around? Stuff like that.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I don't use the term "canon" except in conjunction with campaign settings, e.g. "Realms canon" for those things that comply with all existing FR products.

"Official" I see as more of a licensing distinction, now. "Official D&D" just means it says "D&D" on it -- WOTC and Kalamar. "Official FR" are, of course, WOTC products.

Frankly, all I concern myself with are "core" versus non-core, which is a pretty simple distinction.

 

[Gez]

Perhaps you've seen it already -- my thought on the matter are detailed in this thread (page 2), as I'm arguing with Alzrius.

 

[Drawmack]

My group breaks it down this way.

Core: 3 core rulebooks (or SRD if publishing)

Official: Everything by WotC that is not a setting of specifically for a setting (barring the fact that greyhawk is pretty pervasive in WotC literature anyway).

3rd Party: Everything else.

Adventures


The reason we break it down this way is this.

Core: Must be used and anything that changes core must be voted on by the group before being implemented.

Official: Automatically approved for use in game, unless it contradicts core, then we must vote to see which way we will play it.

3rd Party: Every product is individually approved by group vote with my having power to ban with out a vote being called.

Adventures: Just make sure the don't Monte Hall.

There are a number of reason's we work this way:
1) Common library during character creation. Everyone has the same slate to build their character from.
2) We share GMing duties. Each person takes turns dming with me as the head dm, having the right to say no to people who are dming.
3) Some 3rd party products are just munchkin heaven, WotC doesn't really seem to do that. Though we have banned specific books like the no imagination necessary character background generator or Hero Builder's Guidebook.
4) Buying every suppliment would probably cost about 90 million dollars a month and we just don't have that money.

 

[The Sigil]

Perhaps you've seen it already -- my thought on the matter are detailed in this thread (page 2), as I'm arguing with Alzrius.

Hadn't seen it, but looked at it after you posted the link.

He has an interesting viewpoint - and one that sounds very much like a "religious" view of D&D... I think you two will not be able to come to an agreement because you cannot agree on the definition of certain terms.

His definition of canon is somewhat obtuse with it's multiple layers, but boils down to, "what WotC publishes."

Your definition of canon appears to be different - it appears to be roughly, "what is the common standard for D&D."

Since you are proceeding forth from different definitions of terms, I doubt you will come to an agreement.

Which is why I was curious to know - are these terms even applicable any more? Or are there so many different definitions out there so as to make it impossible to come to an agreement? And if we can't agree on what the terms mean, exactly, how can we meaningfully argue over what is and isn't canon if we can't agree on what canon means? (Answer: We can't.)

I personally think it is time to retire the concept of "canon" as no longer relevant to D&D discussion except as it relates to the two examples I cited in my first post (i.e., what d20 publishes should consider as the common material every gamer uses and secondly what is considered canon for all practical purposes in your gaming session).

--The Sigil

 

[Jenale]

I, too, had always thought that "canon" was a term which referred specifically to the official campaign setting material--like the detailed histories/timelines that exist for Greyhawk & FR, along with maps and political boundary lines that move depending on whether you (as DM) are setting your game in FR year this vs. FR year that. And it always seemed to translate to a situation in which one person read incessently in order to play "gotcha" with the DM. OK, I admit it--I've never been a giant fan of the official campaign settings.

"Official" refers to, I believe, anything published by whomever has the legal right to the name.

So: OGL would widen the base of who can produce official material, but I don't think it would make "canon" obsolete. I guess it seems more like a campaign world vs. adventure distinction--canon defines the campaign world, official defines what can happen in the adventures there.

 

[Desdichado]

Canon, in terms of D&D-wide material-- can't be any more than the absolute core products, IMO. And even that is subject to revision in any particular game, even moreso than ever before because instead of just being houserules, you can actually go an buy several alternate magic systems, for example.

I like your example of being able to go from one game of D&D to another in the past and feeling more or less at home: any game I run in the near future, I'd call a d20 game, not even a D&D game at all, there's so much I'd change.

 

[CTD]

Cannon, official, and even core get abused a lot as descriptors.

I've always held that the "core" product is the main three rulebooks that you (supposedly) can't live without. DMG, PHB, and MM.

Anything beyond those three is extra flavor to sprinkle into a game, no matter who publishes it.

I think that WOTC held this perspective when 3E was first released. The idea was that everyone would have those three books (thus the initial lower cost) and then they would pick up other things as they felt a need or interest.