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

[pemerton]

I want to inform those who are self-professed to "not care about canon" why canon matters to others (or at least to me). And thus, presuming I'm not unique in this, to demonstrate that changing canon matters, and has a potentially significant, highly variable, and ultimately personally subjective cost.

And I am trying to explain that I don't think the issue you are having with your DL character is the result of canon changes. It is the result of different opinions as to what the setting is about. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] (with whom I happen to agree) think that the setting is about recovering the truth of the gods and of the things they stand for - love, hope, loyalty, friendship, as we see in the character arcs of Tanis, the twins, Sturm, etc - and thereby redeeming the world.

The issue you are having with your gnome who hates the gods could have arisen, just as easily, using nothing but the 1st ed AD&D DL Adventures hardback as the vehicle for character creation. Which is why I assert that it is not a canon-change matter.

Our interpretations can be different, but for the purposes of this a particular game, we should be on the same page about which of the many different interpretations is the "true" one for that game. We should agree on what "a Dragonlance game" means for this campaign, even if we'd do things differently or don't know about some bit of the lore or something.

The canon changes failed me.

Obviously I don't know all the details of your experience. And I'm not part of this game. So I can only post in response to what I've read in this thread.

From that reading, I'm not sure how the canon changes you refer to (and I'm not 100% clear on what they are) failed you.

From your post 584 (quotes in bold):

I knew from osmosis that DL had a Cataclysm and that is one of the things that it had that no setting did. . . . how the Cataclysm caused mortals to lose their faith in the god . . . in that wilderness and chaos, [the PC] 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."

The Cataclysm is not a canon change. That it is "divine violence" is not a canon change. That it caused mortals to lose faith in the gods is not a canon change. Establishing the PC (on this basis) as hostile to the gods is something that is being suggested is at odds with canon - but there is no canon change you've pointed to that inspired it. It seems to be your own response to these core conceits that have been part of DL from the beginning.

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).

crazy comic relief gnomes who invented dangerous technologies . . . [who] think big, push the limits, are always in development, and embrace failure, and don't think much about the risks. . . . a Life Quest to constantly improve an invention defines their lives.
. . . 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 . . . 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.

None of this gnome lore is canon change. It's all there in the original DL books (eg DL Adventures, which says that "each gnome has a Lifequest . . . to attain perfect understanding of one device.") The only change that I can see is one that you have introduced, namely, treating the obsession with technology as metaphorical rather than literal, and hence having your gnome be concerned with perfecting magic rather than perfecting a device.

. . . a mythical creation of the gnomes as a curse from a god concerned about their hubris. . . . 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)

None of this is a canon change (except the use of the Greystone to explain wild magic, which is a retcon designed to accomodate a rules change).

But DL Adventures says, in relation to Reorx's creation of gnomes, "Reorx was angered . . . Reorx, although still angered at the gnomes, had never forsaken them. He loved them . . ." Again, the issues with your character seem mostly to be the result of your interpretation of core DL canon, rather than of any canon changes.

As I said, I don't know exactly what you read that gave you your ideas. But the canon you've presented doesn't seem to involve any changes at all - and all the issues with your character seem to result from your own (non-canonical) responses to that canon.

************************

So a DM who wants to run DL in 5e has to determine whether or not "there are bards now" is a cost she's willing to pay for her own group.

And a publisher who wants to make a 5e DL setting has to determine the same thing, but for all groups who play the game who may object to the change for any arbitrary personal reason.

This is not a consequence of canon change. It's a consequence of rules change.

As soon as you change the PC generation rules, you have to decide how these affect setting that were written presupposing some different rules situation.

And while I've encountered people who object to canon changes, I'm not sure I've ever encontered someone who objects to rules changes on the grounds that they muck up already-published settings. (Or, if I have, the objection hasn't come out so clearly as this thread seems to be bringing it out.)

The goal isn't "never change setting lore," or "achieve perfect accord with what a setting means." It is to make a better-informed decision about how and when to change a setting's lore.

There are things that make that cost worth it, there are points against it, but because canon matters, those changes DO have a cost, and ignoring that cost means that the risk of someone having a bad time is greater.

This comes pretty close to what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is saying, though. If the canon change is liked, that mitigates the risk of someone having a bad time as a result of it. If a canon change is disliked, then that compounds the risk of someone having a bad time.

To the extent that I noticed the 4e canon changes, I liked them, and that more than outweighed any risk of confusion about the character and traits of eladrin, tieflings and grey renders. (The storm giant change I would regard as more significant personally, because I see giants as far more central to D&D and its traditions than eladrin, tieflings and grey renders, but when I ran G2 I had no trouble coming up with a rationale for the storm giant prisoner, and the encounter played quite well.)

I guess a better question would be; Why would you want to make a product that people do not want to use? Where is the angle to that?

You wouldn't. But do you really think that WotC thought that people wouldn't want to use the 4e MM? Obviously they hoped, and believe, that people would want to use it.

This all seems just grist to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s mill: the issue is not preservation of canon, but whether or not material is liked.

 

[Imaro]

And I am trying to explain that I don't think the issue you are having with your DL character is the result of canon changes. It is the result of different opinions as to what the setting is about. @Hussar (with whom I happen to agree) think that the setting is about recovering the truth of the gods and of the things they stand for - love, hope, loyalty, friendship, as we see in the character arcs of Tanis, the twins, Sturm, etc - and thereby redeeming the world.

I just have to say... I would agree with this if I had only read the War of the Lance series but there have been 200+ Dragonlance books written and this definitely doesn't sum up the themes, meanings, etc. touched on in those stories which are part of canon... In other words I don't think you and @Hussar really understand Dragonlance as it stands now but instead have an outdated view of it from your own interpretations of it that aree rooted in the 80's.

 

[pemerton]

The Gray Render went from being a Neutral (and possibly tameable) monster to being a generic "Let's make it Chaotic Evil because it looks scary" monster in 4e, for absolutely no reason other than the premise that if it's in the MM, it MUST be an opponent.

I didn't SAY that there was NOTHING in the 4e MM that was tamable, only that the Gray Render had been changed from a possible ally to an automatic, evil-for-the-sake-of-evil foe.

So when you referred to the premise that if it's in the MM, it MUST be an opponent, you meant to refer only to Grey Render's in the MM? Or some but not all of the creatures in the MM? Or all of them but for the tameable ones?

If canon and details are completely irrelevant, then answer me this: WHY - up until Pathfinder - have dozens of D&D clones been released and bit the dust, if all that makes D&D D&D is the Character Classes and some generic Orcs, Goblins, etc? WHY did those other RPGs fail when, by that reasoning, they were just as good...? Clearly, some vital ingredients were missing, and I submit to you that I know what they are.

I never said Gray Renders or Eladrin were in "old school" D&D or that they accounted for the game's popularity, so your statement is a complete non sequiter.

Well, you said you know what the "vital ingredients" are. Given the thread, I assumed they were some canon elements. And given the canon elements you have referred to, which 4e changed, are eladrin and grey renders, I assumed you meant those.

If not, then what are the vital ingredients of D&D's success?

 

[pemerton]

- If you DIDN'T care, then seeing traditional D&D canon in the core rulebooks wouldn't get you steamed. It's that simple.

There are always folks who "don't care" but want to push things one way or another anyway. It's one of the absolute strangest things people do, that I can think of.

This has been answered multiple times upthread.

Just because someone doesn't care about canon doesn't mean they are indifferent to the quality of material in the books they read and buy.

So, if they think the canon is boring or silly or tired or just plain old repetitive, they might wish it were replaced by something better. That doesn't show that they care about canon qua canon, however - it just shows they care about having good, useful material.

 

[pemerton]

This right here is a pretty good example of the type of divide I was talking about up-thread.

<anip>

The "books set the parameters" side would say, "Casual rape is not part of the palette that defines Middle-Earth, and it is definitely not on the table for the armies of the 'good guys.' If you put it in, then you take away part of what makes Middle-Earth unique!"

As I said upthread, Tolkien's work is infused with moral/theological significance.

If the soldiers of Gonor were rapists in the manner of many real-world soldiers, that would be such a marker of downfall that one would have to think there was no way back to the moral status evinced by Gondor in LotR.

How could the true king be revealed, and take up his rightful place as ruler, if Gondor had become so debased?

I guess someone could run a "Middle Earth" game in which notions such as providence, true kingship, hope, etc played no significant role. Just as, I guess, one might play a REH Hyborian Age game in which one character is a grain importer whose highest skill bonus is in Use Abacus, and another character is the grain importer's warehouse manager.

To me, however, those wouldn't really seem to be games true to the spirits of their notional settings.

 

[pemerton]

I just have to say... I would agree with this if I had only read the War of the Lance series but there have been 200+ Dragonlance books written and this definitely doesn't sum up the themes, meanings, etc. touched on in those stories which are part of canon... In other words I don't think you and @Hussar really understand Dragonlance as it stands now but instead have an outdated view of it from your own interpretations of it that aree rooted in the 80's.

The thing is, [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] is blaming canon changes for issues with his character - but as I showed in mu post, the canon he is drawing from is exactly the canon of 1987 (and DL Adventures), except for the retconning in of wild magic.

The stuff about "maltheism", a gnome who seeks to master wild magic, etc - which are the actual features of the PC that are triggering some comments that the character is not uniquely DL-ish - do not seem to have their source in later canon, but rather in I'm A Banana's response to the classic canon.

The issue is caused by difference of interpretation of the core setting themes, not changes to canon.

RE the 200+ subsequent books, to me that mostly shows that a reasonably interesting work of fiction will almost inevitably be diluted if new stuff keeps getting added and added and added. Most serial fiction suffers from this problem.

 

[Imaro]

The thing is, @I'm A Banana is blaming canon changes for issues with his character - but as I showed in mu post, the canon he is drawing from is exactly the canon of 1987 (and DL Adventures), except for the retconning in of wild magic.

The stuff about "maltheism", a gnome who seeks to master wild magic, etc - which are the actual features of the PC that are triggering some comments that the character is not uniquely DL-ish - do not seem to have their source in later canon, but rather in I'm A Banana's response to the classic canon.

The issue is caused by difference of interpretation of the core setting themes, not changes to canon.

RE the 200+ subsequent books, to me that mostly shows that a reasonably interesting work of fiction will almost inevitably be diluted if new stuff keeps getting added and added and added. Most serial fiction suffers from this problem.

This is one of the reasons I find you and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's definitions of canon hard to grasp. IMO they rely too much on interpretation of subjective things. Two readers can both read the same work, look at the same piece of art or hear the same piece of music and interpret totally different themes, meanings, etc. from it. I also get the impression that in order to adhere to your defition of canon is to essentially replay the same stories, explore the same values, and be driven by the same motivations found in the stories of a setting with a different coat of paint... otherwise you all don't believe one is adhering to canon.

IMO on the other hand the point of playing in a canonical setting is to see what if with different characters who have different motivations, goals and stories while adhering to what I and others consider as the canon... the places, characters, history, etc. of the setting. So in my opinion [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] has a pefect Dragonlance character and it's not like there isn't a precedence for characters who rise up agains the gods... Raistlin trying to slay Takhisis, The Kingpriest against numerous gods, all the people of Ansalon against Chaos, and so on.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

They're not actually any different in this respect.

A lot of 5e's changes don't pass the sniff test for various players. I mean, have you read about how some people are annoyed that Tabaxi worship the Cat Lord now? Or how frustrated some folks are with the new take on the gnolls? Or how the new firbolgs don't match people's vision of them?

What changes do and do not pass the "sniff test" are, again, personal and subjective and kind of arbitrary.

It keeps happening.

So long as I can point to how the setting used to be, you can't counter the argument.

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 ))

Again, that's kind of the problem - if all that existed in the setting was how the setting used to be, I'd play a character better suited to your vision, and I'd be realizing my play goals. The cause of this failure to meet my play goals is the new lore.

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.

It's a bad thing when players aren't on the same page about what a drider is, because the meaning of fighting drow rejected from their society is much different from the meaning of fighting drow honored by their society (you fight one in the garbage dump, you fight the other one in the spider temple, for instance). Or your drow character fled from drow society when she was going to be turned into a drider as punishment (but this woulndn't be the case if driders were blessings).

Just like in the DL scenario, neither story is really any better than the other, but the difference between them makes telling a story that uses either one more difficult.

And I am trying to explain that I don't think the issue you are having with your DL character is the result of canon changes. It is the result of different opinions as to what the setting is about.

We wouldn't be having different opinions if the canon remained consistent, because I'd be playing a different character. Instead of gnomes who sometimes research wild sorcery and wild sorcery born of the Greygem and the Greygem born of Reorx's plotting, I'd have read about gnomes who knew nothing of magic and mage's guild that jealously guarded its secrets. Instead of mortals in serious doubt about the value of the gods, I guess I'd have read about people of deep faith who feel something missing. And with those as the baseline, I would have made a different character.

I mean:

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.

I essentially agree with that statement - and it perfectly demonstrates how canon changes caused the problem.

 

[Shasarak]

You wouldn't. But do you really think that WotC thought that people wouldn't want to use the 4e MM? Obviously they hoped, and believe, that people would want to use it.

You should not have to try and force people to use your material. Just make something that people want to use. Theoretically it should not be hard when you have 40 years of success to build on.

This all seems just grist to @Hussar's mill: the issue is not preservation of canon, but whether or not material is liked.

I dont get it. Is that supposed to be something profound that people like things that they like and dont like it when things that they like are ruined?

Or is the real grist that something Hussar personally liked was not universally accepted?

 

[Shasarak]

This has been answered multiple times upthread.

Just because someone doesn't care about canon doesn't mean they are indifferent to the quality of material in the books they read and buy.

So, if they think the canon is boring or silly or tired or just plain old repetitive, they might wish it were replaced by something better. That doesn't show that they care about canon qua canon, however - it just shows they care about having good, useful material.

Which is why you should not make material that is boring or silly or tired or worse when we want good, useful material.

If you have to try and force people to use your material then something has gone off in the wrong trousers.