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

[Hriston]

A more subtle example - should a truly canoncial Middle Earth game have Hobbits in it?

In the stories, Hobbits are the vehicles for self-insertion into Middle Earth on the part of the reader (hence the Hobbits correspond to an idealised version of JRRT's conception of his readers - a certain group of English people). It's telling that most of Middle Earth is new to them (as it is to the reader), and that they likewise are unknown to most of Middle Earth (except Gandalf, who at times is a quasi-authorial figure).

In a RPG, the participants don't need this sort of vehicle for self-insertion, because they have their PCs. So the Hobbits become redundant, and a distraction.

This is why I think it is not coincidental that Burning Wheel - the elves, dwarves, orcs, trolls, wolves, and spiders of which are very faithfully modelled on JRRT's conception (both in their overt traits, and their thematic elements like elven grief, dwarven greed and orcish hatred) - has no halfling PC race.

I'm curious what @Hriston thinks of this, too.

Well, I don't think it needs to have hobbits in it, if that's what you mean. Hobbits were fairly rare after all, so it wouldn't break with canon for a game to have no hobbits in it, especially if the game is set in a time and/or place where there were no hobbits. But I think for it to be a canonical game, hobbits and the Shire would need to exist off-screen, in their appropriate time and place, even if not present in actual gameplay.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the language of "requirement" is too strong.

Okay, how about intent.

If it is the intent of the setting's designers that the players in a Dragonlance game play characters that want the gods to return, then they have a rather critical failure of design in encouraging that.

Either that wasn't the intent, the designers did a pretty lousy job of presenting the 3e version of the setting to realize their intended gameplay, since that didn't come through.

If that ever was clearly the intent, then it was further revision that obfuscated it. Changes to canon damaged my ability to play a character in line with that intent (what with gnomes potentially receiving power from a force of primordial chaos that the gods tried to imprison/destroy). Based on what you and Hussar are saying, this is my current perception.

If it was never clearly the intent, then a character who doesn't have that motivation can't rightly be said to violate that nonexistent designer expectation, any more than LotR can be judged as an insufficient WWII allegory because Sauruman isn't clearly German. Or more than Dark Sun can be criticized for not having Jedi. These are not how the creators intend for their work to be used, so it's not a standard that they particularly need to meet. Then, the 3e writers did a fine job of expressing the game's intents. Also, in that case, there's no support for what you and Hussar insist are the setting's expectations, so the other posters here would be more right in their assertion that my gnome is as authentic as the next character. There's no requirement to play a character who wants the gods to come back. That's not what the setting was designed to do.

Arguably, in that latter case, the setting would be better if it was designed to do that, but an argument for a future hypothetical ideal state isn't the same things as a requirement that is currently in place in the setting (and one that the DM might not even be on board with for their own campaign). In that case, this would be one possible way to run the setting, but not running it that way isn't doing it wrong. And so in that case, Hussar and you would be compelled to recognize that a maltheistic gnome wild mage is right there in line with the setting's assumptions (and the DM's intended take on those assumptions), even if it's not how you personally would want the setting to be played.

 

[jayoungr]

The Gondorian people aren't saints. They are descended from the Numenorians and normal humans of the area, both of which were prone to normal human failings. Being faithful didn't mean holy goodness. Being faithful meant not worshiping Sauron.

I didn't say they were saints. I just don't think they would behave as badly as you think they would.

 

[Shasarak]

Arguably, in that latter case, the setting would be better if it was designed to do that, but an argument for a future hypothetical ideal state isn't the same things as a requirement that is currently in place in the setting (and one that the DM might not even be on board with for their own campaign). In that case, this would be one possible way to run the setting, but not running it that way isn't doing it wrong. And so in that case, Hussar and you would be compelled to recognize that a maltheistic gnome wild mage is right there in line with the setting's assumptions (and the DM's intended take on those assumptions), even if it's not how you personally would want the setting to be played.

The other thing to remember when considering the canonisity of your wild mage Gnome is an example of the other famous Gnome from the Legends series; Gnimsh who was the first gnome ever to have every invention work as intended. This is from one of the core six Dragonlance novels whose main Gnome character literally breaks all the established Gnomish "rules". So if the creators of the game do not want to follow their own rules it definitely opens up to a much looser interpretation.

The other thing to consider is that Dragonlance is first and foremost a setting for DnD so it also inherits all of the expectations you would expect from the core rules.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Heh.

You argued that the changes to Eladrin are changes and thus bad. And your opinion is justified by drawing on earlier canon.

But, here we see changes to the setting, but, aren't bad. Apparently, my understanding of the setting is wrong because I am using earlier canon.

See what I mean about self serving? If you can claim that Eladrin are bad because changes are bad, why can't I do EXACTLY the same thing?

 

[Hussar]

/snip


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

I disagree. I think it perfectly demonstrates how slavish fetishism about canon caused the problem. As several people have told me in this thread, my views are stuck in an earlier interpretation of the setting, and, so, I should get with the times.

For me, the irony of that statement is amazing considering the exact same people are telling me that 4e changes are bad because they changed things and we shouldn't do that.

 

[Hussar]

Just because you're looking at the setting from the opposite direction doesn't make a treatment of it non-canonical. Does the history and lore match the extant source material? Then I'd say it's pretty much canonical even though it's approaching the campaign from a different in-character perspective.

Really? So, Will Smith's I Robot movie is a "canonical" I Robot movie? Most people would disagree. It rejects vitually all the themes of the novels in favor of being a murder mystery/SF action movie. While everything in the movie appears in the novels, and the basic plot is the same, I'd say that approaching the setting from the opposite direction makes it pretty non-canonical.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say they were saints. I just don't think they would behave as badly as you think they would.

I know you didn't. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been touting them as bastions of virtue, though. They aren't bastions of virtue.

 

[Maxperson]

The LR doesn't say that Aragorn and Theoden are not rapists, but what does it say about the thematic significance of elements of the setting if our play involves imagining that they are? If we imagine that Aragorn is a rapist, it seems to me that it would disrupt central conceits of the setting, such as the notion that the rule of Aragorn is actually preferable to that of Sauron.

How did we get from the soldiers of Gondor would mistreat(rape, steal from, kill, etc.) the people of Harondor, to Aragorn?

 

[Hussar]

For me, at the end of the day, there are only two questions that matter (to me obviously):

1. Does whatever you're bringing to the table fit with the themes and conceits of that campaign/setting? Is this thing, whatever this thing is, something that "fits" (within a reasonable degree of tolerance) within this campaign? So, for me, the Vulcan Jedi doesn't pass because it doesn't fit. Star Trek and Star Wars are very different thematically. Time travel is also not a thing in Star Wars. So, a time traveling vulcan jedi is not a good fit for the setting. Otherwise, try whatever and see what fits. We had curse driders, but, do blessing driders fit? Well, thematically, it's not too far out there to think that the spider goddess would see fit to "bless" followers with a monstrous spider hybrid form. For me, it passes.

Does the maltheist gnome wild mage fit? Yup. No problems. It's a novel approach to the setting but, I can't really fault it for not fitting. Which brings me to my second question.

2. Is whatever you're bringing to the table interesting and compelling? Is it going to make the game more interesting to have X in the game? So, when Dryads get changed to more monsterous forms in 4e, I have no problems with it because it makes dryads far easier to use at the table. Instead of a one trick pony trap monster, I now have a monster I can use in a variety of ways. Fantastic. Two different back stories for Driders? Great!! What a great opportunity to use Driders in ways that I wasn't using them before. Is our god hating gnome bringing anything to the table? You bet your petoot he is. Challenging assumptions all the way along. Fantastic. Works as a great foil for other characters. Heck, when one character had a crisis of faith, there was the gnome, right there, egging him along.

So, for me, the question of "does this follow what came before" is just such a non-issue. It's simply not a criteria for me. I quite frankly don't care. I'll use what came before only so long as the answers to questions 1 and 2 above are both yeses. As soon as one or the other becomes a no, then it's perfectly fine for something else to step up and take its place.

Heh. The first time I was ever actually interested in Forgotten Realms was after the Spell plague. Previous to that, the only Forgotten Realms book I ever bought was Faiths and Avatars (for 2e). For me, (and I keep repeating that so no one can try to claim that I'm speaking for anyone else) Forgotten Realms is a non-starter. I'll play in it, but, as far as actually being interested in it or finding it compelling? Nope. AFAIC, Forgotten Realms would be best forgotten.