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

[Hussar]

You can "get with the times" if you want, man, but I'd encourage you to put down the club instead of beating yourself with it. You don't need to abandon the old Dragonlance experience, and you're free to say that this new lore about wild sorcery and whatnot is not lore that you're really interested in accepting for DL. It's okay to say "I think Dragonlance is a better setting without gnome wild mages." Or "I think Dragonlance is a better setting when everyone wants to restore the gods."

The fact that you can't play a Dragonlance game in 2016 and have that stuff be understood by newbies like me is a fact brought about by the designers' choice to change canon.

And that's the crux: we don't share a meaning, because the meaning changed, either deliberately or through sloppy design. That change made my play goals more difficult to realize. Canon changes caused the problem. If canon never changed, I'd be having a fun time playing an abjurer of the Tower or something, firing on all cylinders, and you'd not be feeling like you have to "get with the times." Because we'd be on the same page. Because there wouldn't be two similar-but-subtly-very-different pages. There wouldn't be two flavors of gnome canon (...there's gotta be a patent for a gnome canon somewhere in Mt. Nevermind...) competing at one table. There'd just be one, and it'd be the same one.

However, that would lead to stagnation and extremely boring settings. If the setting couldn't drift over time, it would wither and die. Times change, people change. Our outlooks change. 12 year old me has pretty different tastes than 44 year old me. That's just the nature of the beast.

Take Batman for example. If I want to play an authentic Batman character, which one should I choose? The Caped Crusader or The Dark Knight? Which one is "authentic"? AFAIC, they're both authentic. They both should be celebrated. We SHOULD have the 90's Batman cartoon AND Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Plus there's also Justice League Batman, which is a fairly different character as well. Which one is "authentic"?

Or, as another example, I'm still plugging away at starting up this Primeval Thule campaign. Now, I'd like to base it heavily on the old fantasy pulps like Conan. But, what is an "authentic" pulp experience? Should I include the incredibly distasteful bigotry and misogyny and outright racism of REH's Conan? That's certainly part and parcel of how the stories were originally written, whether you want to look at REH, or E.R. Burroughs, or any number of other authors at the time. Does my Primeval Thule campaign have to look like white supremacist fanfic in order to be "authentic"

If it does, well, call me a cheap knock off, because I'm certainly not going in that direction. But, for me, I'd say that the answer is no. In any artistic endeavor, you will always pick and choose what you like and reject what you don't like/want. Does removing Tom Bombadil make Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings inauthentic? Does adding Arwen and greatly expanding her role? Again, I'd say no. Nothing is ever a direct copy of what came before. And every iteration will add new changes and new ideas. That's how art is created.

So, I really don't think it's a problem that your character is in the campaign. I was simply illustrating how frustrating the argument gets when people (like several people in this thread) insist that changes are "bad" while in the same breath have no problems telling me to "get with the times". I'd have no beef whatsoever if people were actually consistent in this. But they aren't, usually. Change is only "bad" when the observer doesn't like the change. Otherwise, it's "get with the times you grognard and quit ruining other people's fun".

I mean, [MENTION=40171]Shashara[/MENTION]k specifically says that he lost interest in Forgotten Realms when they introduced the Spellplague, because it changes the setting. But, he's also specifically told me that my understanding of Dragonlance is wrong because of the changes to the setting. He's a textbook example of what I'm talking about. And he's hardly unique in this. If changes to Forgotten Realms are bad because they do not respect what came before, why are changes to Dragonlance, which also are retcons based purely on marketing concerns (we've written this Tome of Magic book which has this new class, and we want to sell this book to as many players as possible, so, we'll rewrite Dragonlance to sell this book), perfectly fine?

 

[Hussar]

Of course he would say that, after all he said:



He was not even interested in the canon until they wrote something that he liked.

But, the difference here is, I've made no secret that canon is largely unimportant to me. I don't care about what came before. I took in interest in 4e Forgotten Realms because 4e FR was interesting to me. I like a setting in flux. I like a setting that is either in the middle of or shortly after a major upheaval. That's something that greatly interests me. Always had. I mean, good grief, here's my list of settings that I've actually bought material for:

Dragonlance (civilization, barely recovered from the last apocalypse is faced with a massive invasion of dragons)
Scarred lands (civilization has barely crawled out of the hole that was made by the death of the Titans which has devastated the land, warped its denizens and still plays a major role in the setting)
Eberron (civilization has just recovered (barely) from a major devastating war and has to deal with the aftermath of that conflict)

So, yeah, I likes me post-apocalyptic settings. So, of course 4e FR is going to appeal to me. Now that they've gone back and retconned most of those changes and gone with the 5e Realms, FR is again, of very little interest to me. Same boring, bland, vanilla setting.

 

[Maxperson]

However, that would lead to stagnation and extremely boring settings. If the setting couldn't drift over time, it would wither and die. Times change, people change. Our outlooks change. 12 year old me has pretty different tastes than 44 year old me. That's just the nature of the beast.

I agree. The argument for cannon to never change is the argument that 1e should have been the first and last edition made. 2e-5e are changes to the rules cannon.

Take Batman for example. If I want to play an authentic Batman character, which one should I choose? The Caped Crusader or The Dark Knight? Which one is "authentic"? AFAIC, they're both authentic. They both should be celebrated. We SHOULD have the 90's Batman cartoon AND Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Plus there's also Justice League Batman, which is a fairly different character as well. Which one is "authentic"?

If you aren't playing the Adam West Batman, you aren't playing Batman.

Does removing Tom Bombadil make Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings inauthentic?

Does adding Arwen and greatly expanding her role? Again, I'd say no. Nothing is ever a direct copy of what came before. And every iteration will add new changes and new ideas. That's how art is created.

No, but the changes and additions does make it inauthentic. When making a movie, things have to be cut from books in order to keep the movie running in an acceptable time frame. I get that. Writing in stuff that never existed stops the movie from being authentic, though. The "LotR" and "Hobbit" movies were good fantasy films, but they weren't the Hobbit or LotR.

Only Tolkien could have modified things and kept them cannon. Others like Peter Jackson don't have that ability or right. Much like WotC is the company that can alter cannon and keep it cannon, not third party or us. We can alter cannon, sure, but our changes won't be cannon.

 

[Hussar]

Because I dont use my personal likes or dislikes as the sole criteria to judge the canon.

Like, for example, the DL Wild Mage Gnome who hates the Gods. I can use all the evidence to judge whether the character fits in the setting or not and other people use their feelings or rather personal likes to make the decision.

Umm, how are you not using your personal likes or dislikes to judge canon? You don't like the changes to Forgotten Realms, thus don't accept those changes. You don't like the changes to elves, thus reject Eladrin. You do like the changes to Dragonlance and thus accept the changes. I'm still confused what the difference is.

Only Tolkien could have modified things and kept them cannon. Others like Peter Jackson don't have that ability or right. Much like WotC is the company that can alter cannon and keep it cannon, not third party or us. We can alter cannon, sure, but our changes won't be cannon.

That's a bit tricky though isn't it? Wasn't the Silmarillion at least in part written by Tolkein's son? Yes, it uses Tolkien's material, but, his son did write chunks of the book. Since we don't really know what changes were made by Christopher Tolkien, how can we call it "canon"?

And again, there's the specific issue of Dragonlance. Some of the changes to the DL setting were done in 3e by Margaret Weiss Productions, which had the license for the DL setting. Note, not all the changes were done by Margaret Weiss either, as there are a number of other authors involved. It's a pretty fine line to draw.

I mean, how many Batman authors have there been? How many Conan? Does that mean that only material written by REH is canon for Conan? Is only Bob Kane material canon for Batman? Is Frank Miller's Batman not part of Batman canon?

Note, I'm not a fan of authorial intent. I find authorial intent arguments pretty pointless. Once you release a work into the wild, it has to stand on its own. Whatever the author intended might be an interesting starting point, but, is certainly not the end point.

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, that would lead to stagnation and extremely boring settings. If the setting couldn't drift over time, it would wither and die. Times change, people change. Our outlooks change. 12 year old me has pretty different tastes than 44 year old me. That's just the nature of the beast.

It doesn't lead to any of those things.

It's not like, I dunno, Macbeth is stangant or extremely boring just because it's old. It hasn't withered and died just because it can't change and drift over time. Games fall into the same camp - it's not like Chess has had to change to keep up with "the times."

Yeah, your tastes change over time, but that means you personally pick up new and different things and explore new territory. Dragonlance doesn't need to age with you! Weiss and Hickman can instead move onto their next great setting (or whatever). If Dragonlance was always a game about PC's restoring the gods, then it would be good for that and you could play it when you wanted that and you wouldn't play it when you didn't want that (and maybe it could be better designed to meet that goal future iterations!).

Take Batman for example. If I want to play an authentic Batman character, which one should I choose? The Caped Crusader or The Dark Knight? Which one is "authentic"? AFAIC, they're both authentic. They both should be celebrated. We SHOULD have the 90's Batman cartoon AND Batman: The Brave and the Bold. Plus there's also Justice League Batman, which is a fairly different character as well. Which one is "authentic"?

That ably demonstrates the burden that lore changes add. If I was in some DC roleplaying game and got to play Batman, I'd have to further specify what kind of Batman I'd be playing. That's a barrier to playing any of them!

Or, as another example, I'm still plugging away at starting up this Primeval Thule campaign. Now, I'd like to base it heavily on the old fantasy pulps like Conan. But, what is an "authentic" pulp experience? Should I include the incredibly distasteful bigotry and misogyny and outright racism of REH's Conan? That's certainly part and parcel of how the stories were originally written, whether you want to look at REH, or E.R. Burroughs, or any number of other authors at the time. Does my Primeval Thule campaign have to look like white supremacist fanfic in order to be "authentic."

If it does, well, call me a cheap knock off, because I'm certainly not going in that direction. But, for me, I'd say that the answer is no.

You're basing it on the pulpy vibe of those books, but you're not trying to tell an authentic Conan story, you're just using some of the tropes and genre signifiers. So there's no perception that you need to adhere to Conan canon - that's not your goal.

Genre doesn't depend on canon.

In any artistic endeavor, you will always pick and choose what you like and reject what you don't like/want. Does removing Tom Bombadil make Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings inauthentic? Does adding Arwen and greatly expanding her role? Again, I'd say no. Nothing is ever a direct copy of what came before. And every iteration will add new changes and new ideas. That's how art is created.

Adaptation doesn't depend on canon, either (though it arguably has a closer relationship to it than genre does).

However, if a new version of LotR is published and it doesn't include the Tom Bombadil scene, that would be clearly inauthentic.

Similarly, if a new version of "Dragonlance gnomes" are published and they aren't more or less the same thing as the dragonlance gnomes that came before, they may very well fail to pass an authenticity concern for various players (as the 3e DL gnomes fail at that for you).

So, I really don't think it's a problem that your character is in the campaign. I was simply illustrating how frustrating the argument gets when people (like several people in this thread) insist that changes are "bad" while in the same breath have no problems telling me to "get with the times". I'd have no beef whatsoever if people were actually consistent in this. But they aren't, usually. Change is only "bad" when the observer doesn't like the change. Otherwise, it's "get with the times you grognard and quit ruining other people's fun".

I mean, [MENTION=40171]Shashara[/MENTION]k specifically says that he lost interest in Forgotten Realms when they introduced the Spellplague, because it changes the setting. But, he's also specifically told me that my understanding of Dragonlance is wrong because of the changes to the setting. He's a textbook example of what I'm talking about. And he's hardly unique in this. If changes to Forgotten Realms are bad because they do not respect what came before, why are changes to Dragonlance, which also are retcons based purely on marketing concerns (we've written this Tome of Magic book which has this new class, and we want to sell this book to as many players as possible, so, we'll rewrite Dragonlance to sell this book), perfectly fine?

I keep reiterating that what lore changes are OK and what lore changes not OK is subjective, personal, and kind of arbitrary. People are free to accept some lore changes and not others. More and more dramatic lore changes just increase the chance that any one of 'em is going to be An Issue.

Shasarak has their own opinions on what is OK and what's not and so do you and both of you are equally valid. You only disagree because lore changed. If FR was more or less the same FR or if DL was more or less the same DL, this wouldn't be a disagreement.

 

[jayoungr]

If the setting couldn't drift over time, it would wither and die.

A partly-Devil's-advocate question: Would that be a bad thing? If so, why?

Take Batman for example. If I want to play an authentic Batman character, which one should I choose?

Comics and similar group-created settings are kind of their own beast, IMO, with their own challenges in determining canon. In the case of adapting them for a gaming table, you would probably do best to make sure everyone is on the same pages as to which version or subset of the characters they're using.

Does removing Tom Bombadil make Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings inauthentic? Does adding Arwen and greatly expanding her role?

Peter Jackson is an adaptor. An adaptation from one medium to another is never 100% authentic, IMVHO.

 

[Hussar]

It doesn't lead to any of those things.

It's not like, I dunno, Macbeth is stangant or extremely boring just because it's old. It hasn't withered and died just because it can't change and drift over time. Games fall into the same camp - it's not like Chess has had to change to keep up with "the times."
/snip

I've seen several dozen different productions of Macbeth, set in a variety of settings from futuristic SF to the Shakespearean classic. Does that mean that the only authentic version must be set in a specific setting and all the rest are not "real"? That's ridiculous.

Chess has changed many, MANY times over the years. There are also dozens of variations of chess right now. And there have been dozens of variations played all over the world. Are you arguing that there is only one "authentic" version of chess?

 

[Shasarak]

I mean, @Shasharak specifically says that he lost interest in Forgotten Realms when they introduced the Spellplague, because it changes the setting. But, he's also specifically told me that my understanding of Dragonlance is wrong because of the changes to the setting. He's a textbook example of what I'm talking about. And he's hardly unique in this. If changes to Forgotten Realms are bad because they do not respect what came before, why are changes to Dragonlance, which also are retcons based purely on marketing concerns (we've written this Tome of Magic book which has this new class, and we want to sell this book to as many players as possible, so, we'll rewrite Dragonlance to sell this book), perfectly fine?

That is the first time that I have ever heard that the "core" six novels of Dragonlance are "changes" to the setting. I mean if Dragons of Autumn Twilight is considered to be changing DL canon then what the heck is DL canon then? There is a Dl mage who tries to cast feather fall and instead we get a fall of feathers and yet this is not to be considered a "wild" mage? There is another DL mage who sets out and succeeds in killing Takhisis and Paladine and yet this is supposed to be a God loving setting?

I guess we should just play "Not Tanis" the half-elven ranger through continual reruns of the DL adventure path - here we go saving the Gods again!

 

[Hussar]

/snip
I keep reiterating that what lore changes are OK and what lore changes not OK is subjective, personal, and kind of arbitrary. People are free to accept some lore changes and not others. More and more dramatic lore changes just increase the chance that any one of 'em is going to be An Issue.

Shasarak has their own opinions on what is OK and what's not and so do you and both of you are equally valid. You only disagree because lore changed. If FR was more or less the same FR or if DL was more or less the same DL, this wouldn't be a disagreement.

But if accepting lore changes is subjective and arbitrary, then canon has no actual value in and of itself. It's never, "Well, I like this change, but, it's different from what came before, so, we shouldn't change this". Which is precisely what I've been saying all the way along. "This isn't canon, thus it's bad" is just a way to attempt to justify personal preferences from an unassailable position. Instead of simply saying, "I don't like X" which is perfectly fine, the person insisting on canon is taking it a step further and saying, "I don't like X, therefore you CAN'T have X".

Thing is, I don't want settings that never change. Change is good. It introduces new ideas and keeps things fresh. I have no interest in D&D settings stagnating and becoming a sort of private club where only the "keepers of lore" are invited. The fact that you can play an authentic DL character that is different from what I know about the setting is fantastic. But, again, I freely admit that canon is not important. The criteria I'm using has very little to do with how well it fits with the setting. Is the character authentic in your opinion? Fantastic. You want to present an authentic setting character? Great. Make me believe it. Make me a believer that this character is authentic. (note, I DO believe, so, you don't actually have to detail it again)

But, for someone to come out and tell you or me or anyone else, "No, sorry, you can't have that because it doesn't fit with previous canon" is completely disingenuous. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not it's canon and EVERYTHING to do with whether or not that observer likes the changes.

 

[Hussar]

That is the first time that I have ever heard that the "core" six novels of Dragonlance are "changes" to the setting. I mean if Dragons of Autumn Twilight is considered to be changing DL canon then what the heck is DL canon then? There is a Dl mage who tries to cast feather fall and instead we get a fall of feathers and yet this is not to be considered a "wild" mage? There is another DL mage who sets out and succeeds in killing Takhisis and Paladine and yet this is supposed to be a God loving setting?

I guess we should just play "Not Tanis" the half-elven ranger through continual reruns of the DL adventure path - here we go saving the Gods again!

See, this right here, is what I'm talking about. Cherry picking lore and ignoring other facts. Like the "magic user" that casts feather fall is a GOD. Good grief, it's nod and wink Deus Ex Machina written straight into the books. Fizban wasn't a magic user. He was Paladine. Not even an avatar of Paladine either. Straight up a god stepping in and changing things. I'm fairly comfortable with breaking any rule you like when you add a god into your party.

And who killed Paladine? Raistlin killed Paladine? When? Age of Mortals is set after Dragons of Summer Chaos and the gods have retreated from Krynn. Here's a bit of canon lore I was completely unaware of.