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

[Shasarak]

I like Canon and there is nothing worse then other people derping things up.

 

[Greg K]

(though Dark Sun was only ever a 2nd Edition setting, with a toe dip in 3e and 4e; perhaps you meant the original vs. revised boxed sets?).

Yes, by 1e, I meant the original boxed set. I was in a hurry to get ready for a birthday celebration and was thinking first version DS boxed set as opposed to AD&D 1e.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The one above seems to me to be a #5.

More of what you called #4, since I might keep up collecting and reading setting material as a campaign plays on, but I won't incorporate any of that information mid-campaign (with the exception being if there is a long break between sessions during which I can read and carefully consider the new campaign material, where I would do so if the added information is only additive with, not altering to, the campaign up to that point).

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Likewise; Jester David says it well.

First example that comes to mind of auteurs changing canon comes from Star Wars, not D&D. The newest movie ignored the canon that had been maintained through the first six movies and well over a hundred novels set in the Star Wars universe, making significant changes that disappointed me personally. The canon tells powerful and moving stories involving the grandchildren of Darth Vader, among other things. My advice on that: see the new Star Wars movies, but read the canon novels for the better stories.

The Star Wars novels were explicitly not Star Wars canon though. Lucasfilm was Clear that only the Movies and the Christmas special were canon, novels, games, comics etc. were just stories inspired by Star Wars, essentially Professional fan fiction.

This has changed since Disney took over the franchise and now all Star Wars Products will be considered canon, but that doesn't change the non-canon status of the older novels.

 

[Lwaxy]

I use canon and I do care, but only for things in the setting relevant books, not novels and such. I also change things around. My FR for example still has Myth Drannor intact and not all the Netherese are gone, the Time of Troubles haven't happened (or aren't happening, currently) as in the official setting and the Red Wizards have a few different agendas added on. Also, I always change the dragons.

 

[delericho]

I care about canon, since that's the largely the reason I have chosen to use a published setting rather than homebrew. However, I won't be bound by it - if the needs of my campaign conflict with what's written in some book, the book gets jettisoned.

In terms of published canon, at least for gaming, I tend to prefer it if things are left a little ambiguous - either present the mystery with no clear answer anywhere, or present the in-setting conflicting theories without stating which is 'right'. IME, that's the route that gives the most hooks for me to hang adventures on. Also, I very much prefer gaming settings that are 'static' rather than those that have any sort of metaplot - so Eberron's fixed timeline rather than FR's progressing novels (and storylines), Dark Sun's "Prism Pentad", or even Spelljammer's novel series. (It's perhaps worth noting, however, that my preference for a gaming setting is different from my preference for a novel setting - for the latter, I prefer an advancing timeline.)

 

[delericho]

The Star Wars novels were explicitly not Star Wars canon though. Lucasfilm was Clear that only the Movies and the Christmas special were canon, novels, games, comics etc. were just stories inspired by Star Wars, essentially Professional fan fiction.

This has changed since Disney took over the franchise and now all Star Wars Products will be considered canon, but that doesn't change the non-canon status of the older novels.

The situation with Star Wars canon pre-2014 is vastly more complex than that.

 

[pemerton]

One of the biggest reasons to use a setting is the lore, history, politics and background of it - the canon.

Kind of yes otherwise why bother using the setting at all. I do not like some of the TSR/WoTC metaplot for the settings though.

'canon' material is what defines a setting. If I'm not going to use any of it, why would I pick that setting? Hell, if I'm not going to use any of the canon, AM I really picking that setting?

I don't think anyone has been saying that you wouldn't use any of the setting.

But using a setting doesn't mean using all the lore. A setting is, first and foremost (to me at least) a set of maps, proper names, some basic background/history, and the themes that are established by all that.

I mean, your pretty much home-brewing a setting, but stealing proper-nouns and perhaps a few maps. Why not go the extra mile and make it your own with your own names and places? At least nobody playing would have an expectation of cannon or setting knowledge.

Because drawing maps and coming up with names and a basic history is work. And work that I, at least, am not all that good at.

So I take advantage of someone else's work. (That's why I'm paying for it!)

I care about canon and continuity in books I read, even sourcebooks. When I run, I don't personally care, but I want the authors and editors to care. They shouldn't ignore changes on a whim.

The thing is, every part of the setting might be someone's favourite part. And that shouldn't be changed lightly. When they ignore canon, it's the author saying that they either didn't care enough about the setting to do the research or try and get it right, or they valued their idea more than the setting and couldn't be bothered to make the idea work with canon.
That's inherently disrespectful to the setting.

As in art, you should know the rules before breaking them. If Luskan becomes a halfling village in my campaign, I want it to be a creative decision and not pure ignorance.

These comments are unexpected to me.

What does it matter if I change something by ignorance? Eg in my recent Dark Sun sessions, I've described the templars of Tyr being dressed in red. I have no idea what the canon is for this, but I needed something in the course of play to describe an NPC; and red seemed a good colour for sinister templars in a desert city.

And as for changes by the author/publisher: if I prefer (say) folio GH to From the Ashes GH, then why can't I just use the version that I prefer? Or another GH example: the City of GH boxed set has Shield Land refugees in GH, and the later From the Ashes GH mostly ignores that. I don't know if that was deliberate or careless on the part of the later authors, but why would I care? I just use the version that I like (in my case, I've used those refugees, and the Horned Society war on the Shield Land, in two different campaigns).

Yes.

Because I've seen what happens to a game and it's setting when the creators start ignoring canon. It's not pretty.

What do you have in mind?

 

[Mercule]

So I'm seeing a pattern here (which oddly, I wasn't looking for in the thread I started on a similar topic back before the crash--a slightly different focus can bring out interesting ideas). So far, the categories look like:

1) Homebrew with Selective Borrowing: You see the published material mostly as inspiration for creating your homebrew world. If you keep to a theme or a map or something you consider important, you consider your game to be a <Insert Setting> game.
2) Alternate Universe Setting: You start with all of the assumptions of the published world (according to whatever materials you have available to you) and then selectively make massive changes to a variety of things, which might include well-established world assumptions, maps, races, NPCs, past timeline, maybe even playing with a different ruleset.
3) Canon with Selective Changes: You start with all of the assumptions of the published world (according to whatever materials you have available to you), and assume anything that doesn't come up during your campaign adheres to those assumptions unless otherwise stated. You make selective changes to parts of the world you feel should be changed to better fit your personal vision, including past timeline, NPCS, and other relatively minor elements. Alternately, you might stick closely on pretty much everything with One Big Change (like One Big Lie on Mohs Scale of Sci-Fi Hardness).
4) Temporally Fixed Canon: You start with pretty much all of the assumptions of the published world as of a particular date--timeline or product publication--or you accept all of the canon from certain foundational materials but not others. Anything after that date or outside of that product set can and will deviate due to the developments of your campaigns or DM's (meta)plots.
5) Established Canon: You follow all of the assumptions of all of the published materials you have available as closely as possible. Naturally, once a campaign has begun, things will deviate from ongoing official canon as in #4, but you attempt to keep up with ongoing canon and implement any elements that you can.
6) The Strawman Canonist: You follow all of the assumptions and elements of the published materials, making sure to acquire as many resources as possible to avoid missing anything. Once a campaign has started, you do your darnedest to make sure nothing that happens contradicts current or future products that are/will be coming out. (I don't believe anyone actually does this, but I get the feeling that sometimes it is used (I would say misused) as an example of following canon for contrast with going more free-form. I would say #4 and #5 are better actual examples of following canon.)

I like the list. I'm not sure I'd call #6 a true strawman, though. I don't think I could actually pull off #5 without trying to do #6. That's one of the reasons I really hate strong-canon worlds. I want to know which source material I can or cannot assume is valid (or inform my players of such). Using #3/#4, I can at least say "The gray box is good, unless I explicitly call something out." With #5, there are too many line items to veto, especially if my players are rapid fans and get the books before me -- canon becomes more burden than boon.

FWIW, I'd say I consider #1 to be the ideal, but I'm currently a 2.5 with Eberron. The ECS is canon, and I use the other books to fill in gaps but have no qualms about changing/ignoring things.

 

[Maxperson]

I use about 90% of canon. I have neither the time nor desire to change most of what the Forgotten Realms has established. That said, I dislike anything past the time of troubles, so the 3e version of the Realms is what I will be using forever, and I do change things as the game progresses. I also didn't kill off King Azoun like the modules wanted to do. I liked Cormyr the way it was.