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

[akr71]

I don't not care - I just don't let it interfere with how my games develop. Like others have posted: I use it to get a general sense and history of an area. Is this a city state or part of a larger kingdom? Who is the ruler? Are there gnolls or goblins in that forest to the east? How about the hill just south of here?

I'll also pop in towns and villages when and where I need them, make note of the location, any peculiarities and named NPCs I've come up with.

 

[pemerton]

Would you say it's closer to #2? The details you just described seem more like they might fit that category. I was pulling out #1 from the impression I got about motive and approach.

Here are your (2) and (3):

(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.​

Both talk about starting with all of the assumptions of the published world. And then making selective changes. The difference seems to be the degree of change ("massive changes to a variety of things" vs "minor elements").

If I was creating your scale, I wouldn't express the rankings in the same way.

For instance, you say "even playing with a different ruleset", as if this is the most massive of massive changes. Whereas for me it is relatively trivial. I've run GH games using AD&D (with various houserules); a homebrew AD&D variant; Rolemaster; and Burning Wheel. The different systems of course produce different play experiences - that's what different systems are for - but I don't feel this is a massive change in the setting. It is not very important to the identity of most GH NPCs, for instance, that they be particular D&D classes (as opposed to fit certain fantasy archeypes that all these games support); and GH, like most fantasy worlds, is full of events and phenomena that don't seem to be particularly derived from an application of the D&D ruleset. (Eg the Invoked Devastation and Rain of Colourless Fire.)

I've likewise run OA games using both AD&D and RM. The latter game integrated, among other things, bits of a free Palladium scenario I found online back in the late 90s, and bits of a Bushido scenario I picked up second-hand. This is another case where system is secondary, and what matters is being able to mechanically express the relevant tropes and themes.

In my D&D GH game orcs and hobgoblins were different (because the D&D MM told me so). In my RM GH game (and to the extent that the issue might even arise, in my BW game) orcs and hobgoblins are the same people (so the differences between the hordes of Iuz and the hordes of the Horned Society are cultural and political/social, not "racial"). This doesn't strike me as a very big deal either. I've also treated hill giants and ogres as the same people in my RM game - another change that, in my view, makes little difference to the fiction of the setting. (The difference between hill giants and ogres in D&D is mostly about HD - a mechanical thing - rather than theme, trope or other fictional element.)

But change the history of the Suel Imperium and the Great Kingdom, and then I'm not sure you have GH at all (as opposed to a different setting using the GH maps). Because these are what is distinctive about GH - it's version of the classic pulpy ancient empire (Acheron, Stygia etc in REH) and the Hyborian kingdoms (Aquilonia, Ophir, etc in REH). So what you seem to list as a minor element to me seems pretty central to the setting.

My other departure from your approach to ranking pertains to "assumptions" and "changes". The way you present it seems to suggest something like an editing process. Whereas that is not generally how I do things. I don't "assume" and then "change". I use certain stuff (eg maps, a description of some place or person, etc) and that becomes part of the setting. And whether something else written in the setting book, or some other supplement I own, or in some future supplement that I purchase, is part of the campaign will depend on whether or not it comes into play and seems worthwhile.

For instance, I'm sure that many many OA games have been played without having any occurence of the Animal Courts described in OA7 Test of the Samurai. But in one of my OA games these were quite important to the game, in part because of the way I was integrating OA7 and its backstory into the bigger picture of the campaign (including connecting it to the independent-as-published OA3), and partly because it turned out that one of the PCs (a fox able to take human form) whom, at the start of the game, we had assumed was a fox aspiring to humanity, was in fact an animal lord who had been banished from Heaven and cast down to earth in the form of an animal and with his memories therefore mostly lost.

In the same campaign the Dragon Claws from OA5 figured, but not Mad Monkey. (And we never considered the Cat Lord either, despite the fact that the original OA book indicates that he is part of the OA cosmology.)

So for me it's a process of "filling in" details, either in the course of play or as prep for play, and drawing this from whatever seems interesting and worthwhile, which might include the setting book or some other book. A lot of the details in setting books aren't that important for any particular game, and so it is of no real consequence to ignore or change them; and, conversely, some details can turn out to be important in one game though they would mean nothing to most users of the setting. For instance, to refer back to OA7, I'm sure many OA gamers have not thought much about the Peachling Girl and her riding tigers; whereas in my OA game the Peachling Girl turned out to be a significant NPC, and Momoben Forest tigers also turned out to be some of the more important animals of the setting. (Because there was a PC who liked to summon them using his druidic magic.)

But if a game had nothing like Animal Courts, or foxes who can turn into humans, or Peachling Girls, or riding tigers, or Dragon Claw, or Mad Monkey, then I'm not sure that it would be an OA game. Because these are the tropes that make that sort of game what it is. (Unless you're going for a very "hard"/"sparse" historical feel - but then you have to have samurai and daimyo, or emperors and eunuchs, or some other tropes that mark it out as an OA game. A game in which everyone has OA classes and OA gear, but the actual action is indistinguishable from The Sunless Citadel, wouldn't seem to me to be much of an OA game, even though none of the setting backstory has been tampered with.)

Another tangential concept that has come up in this thread and others is how personal attitude towards settings can influence how you feel about using them. The same person might abhor deviating from canon in Star Wars or Middle-Earth, but see the Forgotten Realms as a big book of suggestions for making their own D&D world. So, for some elements of the discussion, we can probably add the consideration that a lot of it comes down to how you feel about the setting. If you really like a setting's implementation you are probably less likely to change it

I've never run a game in Middle Earth, and probably never will.

Middle Earth, to me at least, is primarily a story-telling vehicle, and the stories have already been told.

The Hyborian Age, on the other hand, could make for an excelleng FRPG setting, I think - it's not so much a vehicle as a backdrop for whatever pulpy stuff one wants. But then Greyhawk gives me much the same, without the Conan baggage, so I use it instead.

But if I was to run a game set in the Hyborian Age, I certainly wouldn't be worrying about what NPCs I introduced, or what gods and cosmology. REH just made up the stuff he needed to make his stories work - as a GM, why wouldn't I do the same?!

 

[Maxperson]

For this reason I'd avoid using any kind of setting where the players might be more expert in the details than I am--no Star Wars with a Star Wars fanatic, because there'd be too much danger that my lack of knowledge about the intricacies of the Galactic Civil War between the Jedi and the Youzhong Von (?) might disrupt that player's willing suspension of disbelief.

Good call. It was an invasion from another galaxy, not a civil war.

But if everyone else playing is just going off the same knowledge of the movies that I have, then I can stick in a planet of transparent aliens made out of living glass for a certain adventure and expect no objections about how there's no such planet or about how blaster bolts couldn't possibly fail to damage the aliens.

You still could, even with a die hard fan. There are entire regions of the galaxy that are unknown, and the vast majority of "known" space hasn't been written about or explained.

The issue you would run afoul of is talking about something that is known and not getting it right. Creating new things is pretty easy to do without getting something wrong.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Can I ask why?
...
This is true for me too - but I don't see "loosely defined" as inconsistent with "use a published setting".

I wish I had a good solid rationale, but I can't think of one. I think (think!) it's because if there's a setting I have an emotional attachment too, I have a vision of it in my mind's eye that's important to me, and the player's lack of fidelity to that vision almost feels like an attack on something that I value. (Again, this is making it sound like a much stronger emotional reaction than it really is! It's more of an aesthetic irritation than emotional distress.)

I imagine it's like when some comic book fans get attached to a certain character's presentation in a certain way, and dislike reboots or reimaginings of the character.

Thinking about it a little more, I also think it's because I prefer settings which are more focused, and tend to be defined as much by what they restrict in the setting as what they add. In general, I think adding some mechanical restrictions to player's options helps draw a stronger picture of the setting's focus to the players. Since the player's pushback in such settings is generally to add back in a restriction (like the "gnomes in Dark Sun" discussion of last year), it tends to draw a stronger than normal reaction from me in terms of how it detracts from the overall vision of the game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Thanks for clarifying. However, if the barrier became thin, that would have allowed things like travel between the two worlds for that time, not swapping entire, but carefully selected, continents. With 0 repercussions of swapping such huge masses of land.



The Weave didn't break, actually, with the new lore. But the thing is, with the Weave breaking, which 4e assumed, all magic sources should quickly originate a huge burst of magic, and then dissipate, leaving Toril in the same condition as before the birth of Mystyl, with magic being accessible only to gods. This was stated, for example, in "Magic of Faerun" (and not as a matter of opinion), but in 4e they said that it merely was a false belief.



See what I said above. Plus, the planes and the realms of the various gods shouldn't have been affected by the Spellplague. What I'm saying is that the stuff that led to 4e was "convenient" (like the Sundering was too), and even dismissed previous lore.

sure, they both contained little retcons to make the changes work, which was silly. There was no need to "make the changes work". The fluff doesn't need to change because the class format changed.

That said, the weave isn't as old as magic in faerun, so that whole "magic will go away if the weave dies" thing never made sense to me. Old Netheril blew itself up with dumb magic abuse, and then the weave was formed to prevent that happening again, IIRC.

Bit we could quibble all day about it. I certainly did a handful of times on the wotc forums back in the day. What I'll say is, there are explanations for all of it. Yes, many include minor retcons disguised as revelations, but they all have explanations of some kind.

Except where the crap Shaundakul is, dammit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Good call. It was an invasion from another galaxy, not a civil war.



You still could, even with a die hard fan. There are entire regions of the galaxy that are unknown, and the vast majority of "known" space hasn't been written about or explained.

The issue you would run afoul of is talking about something that is known and not getting it right. Creating new things is pretty easy to do without getting something wrong.

The trick with Star Wars is to do some combination of the following:

*set it during the movies. There is plenty happening, plenty to do, plenty of "room"

*set it in a sector of space you've made up, using many of the well known races and factions, but beholden to no extended canon

*set it in the distant past or future, during a time with no real set canon

my preference is combining the first two, or the second and third. Always the second, though. My group has a sector my buddy created 20 years ago as a kid, with its own history and factions, and a couple new races, slightly different takes on old favorites, and a mix of classic factions and new factions. Best thing about it is that it gets filled in more the more we play.

 

[Jester David]

There are two changes to canon in the transfer from folio/original GH boxed set to FtA.

First, there is the disregard of the invasion of the Shield Lands by the Horned Society that is a factor in the City of GH boxed set. Yes, it can be retconned into the FtA timeline, but it's not there by default and not a natural fit.

I don't know enough about the setting to really say. But it does seem more like an omission of lore that could still be there than a change.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, what a lot of people liked about GH was it's non "one big evil" theme, and its more pulpy/S&S feel - which FtA undoes. This is analogous to your example, upthread, of a writer disregarding the personality of an established character. In this case it was a change in the moral/dramatic tone of the gameworld.

Which is a change, but it isn't a retcon or a change of canon. It's a change of tone and theme. Which is an entirely different topic.

On this issue I absolutely agree with Mouseferatu - and that is as purchaser/player, not as an author.

I don't read D&D setting material, or MM lore, or whatever, to "learn about the D&D world" (whatever that is). As Mouseferatu says, I read it to find stuff to pick and choose from to build my game. So I want authors to give me their best work. If that means changing something, well that's fine - I'll sort that out. If I don't like what the author has written, it's no harder to ignore something they say about the past of the setting, or the geography of the setting, then it is to ignore something they say about the future of the setting, or the personality of a NPC.

If book 1 says the origin of giants is X, and book 2 says that it is Y, then I can choose whichever one I like. (If it's a small thing, there's the risk I'll forget which one I chose - but then if it's a small thing it probably doesn't matter if I forget! And if it's a big thing, then I'll remember, or it will come out in play and my players will remind me.)

At the risk of being insultingly simplistic, there are two types of D&D fans: one who use it as a ruleset to run their own games, and ones who use the setting and world of D&D. Lore really is always for the second group.

Plus, there are those who enjoy continuity. Why like reading lore and connecting the puzzle pieces together. Discovering secrets. It's like trivia.
People who ignore continuity can do so if it's consistent or not, but people who enjoy it want it to be consistent.

Plus, you often still don't have a choice. Fairly often, you'd choose the lore that you have. With Mind Flayer lore, you're likely own the more modern version rather than the rare and more valuable 2e supplement.

Btw, as far as I understand the reason for frequent reboots in comics is precisely to kill off all the canon, so that new fans can get into the comics without having to grapple with accumulated lore that is, from their point of view, largely pointless. (And it's worth noting that plenty of comics used to functionally reboot back in the day as well - every few years there's another "supervillain tries to marry Aunt May" or "Peter breaks up with MJ" or "X-Men get taken prisoner by Magneto" or whatever story.)

Canon and continuity is only an issue in comics when you need to account for changes. You don't need to explain every doc ock plot ever, but you do need to explain any differences between his current look and the classical/iconical appearance.

The reboots are basically because the writers are given too much latitude to make changes to characters, creating a web of change after change after change until Peter Parker is a twenty-something teacher with an estranged wife whose aunt knows his secret.

I mean, suppose that in my GH game the PCs kill Nerof Gasgal, the mayor of GH. And then I buy a new GH supplement and it assumes Nerof Gasgal is still alive. That contradicts something already established in my game. So I have to disregard some of the supplement.

Conversely - suppose someone publishes a GH supplement that rewrites who is the mayor of GH. It's not Nerof Gasgal any more. But in my game, following the older material, it is. So I have to disregard some of the supplement. The "error" on the part of the new author is no bigger a deal, in this case, than the "canon continuity" of the author in the first example.

The difference is simple. In one situation you chose to kill Nerof Gasgal. There was action involved. Unless your players are sociopaths, you put him in an adversarial role and a position where he could be killed. In the other instance, you had no choice. Someone else removed Gasgal.
And if you're running a game where Gasgal was a major NPC and player in your setting and you buy this supplement - which seems perfect for your game - and the Mayor is different, it throws you off. Especially if there's not a reason (Gasgal was forced out of office in scandal over a blue dress), but just someone else is there and always has been.
If a major detail like that is wrong... can you trust the rest of the book? What else might be wrong? How useful is it at your game when your players might notice a contradiction at the table? Or if major background needs to be rewritten for your campaign.

If you veer from canon, you know what to expect. If someone else is taking liberties, you really don't.

As Mouseferatu says, it's all just stuff to pick and choose from in playing a game.

Then why have lore at all? Why not just have a series of suggestions and possible lore. Or leave it blank and give DMs the ultimate freedom?

Who cares if the Mind Flayers have been around for only 2000 years and the gith escaped Mind Flayer slavering 10,000 years ago? Who cares about logic and consistency? Every D&D product should be its own special snowflake of the author's lore, regardless of the setting. Give people options and more ideas!
Pass.

It could have been, but how would that have made it better?

That "choice" thing you mention.
Make it the background and mythology of that world. Present it as an option, but emphasis it's one possibility, How they of Nerath view the planes.
And don't force that lore into the Realms and Eberron and Dark Sun.

 

[steeldragons]

Haven't read the thread, this has all probably already been said, and you touched on some of it in the OP, but for my two coppers...

Do you care about canon in RPG setting?

How do you use setting material?

Is canon important to you?

"Generally not."
"I'll explain in a minute."
"Maybe."

To the first part, as you noted, there are certain things about certain settings that are iconic or essential to make/keep a campaign grounded in a particular setting. If you are going to adventure in Dragonlance's world of Krynn, during or shortly after the War of the Lance [as an example, since i really don't know much about what's happened in that setting for 20-some years], then there's going to be dragons -good and evil- to ride. There's going to be "Takhisis" [Tiamat] and "Paladine" [Bahamut]. There's going to be...long exhale, kender. Probably draconians, Knights of Solamnia, and Wizards of High Sorcery, with a red, white and black moon circling the world. There's just going to be...or it's not really Krynn in that timeframe.

That said, if I changed the deities of Greyhawk (not that I probably world, but just as an example) available to the PCs to, let's say, give the world a more universally blanket Celtic flavor or put Shadowdale in the geographic center of the Forgotten Realms. Or take the Red Wizards of Thay and replace Iuz with a cabal of [cuz I'm so creative] BLUE-robed wizards bent on taking over the world, and say No Drow PCs [EVAR!!!] in either Oerth or Faerun. Shrug. Who cares? It's not really changing anything "defining" ABOUT the world.

If we're talking about MY own setting, even, there are certain "must haves" that I will adhere to, but a LOT of what goes on or is around/available to the PCs will/can change completely from game to game depending on what the PCs DO and where they go. There's always the DM "reset" button for the world to be how it was originally designed for the next group of players or a different group of characters OR, if playing with the same people, just moving on ahead in that [group's/campaign's] version of the game world.

So, do I "care" about canon? "In some ways" but also, "Not especially."

I view MOST setting material as just mine-able ideas or guidelines or simply stuff that the PCs will never actually get around to encountering.

If I'm running a Greyhawk game and the players want to go somewhere that, per the map canon, might be a 5 month journey, that town/mountain/dungeon can become 2 weeks away without a thought. So, even geographic/geologic material isn't, you'll forgive the pun, set in stone.

If I'm running FR (not that I think I ever have), a party might go its entire adventuring career and never even HEAR of Waterdeep or the Dalelands or whatever. They'll be shoulder-deep in their own shenanigans and tribulations, saving the world one nameless evil at a time.

In SOME cases, the canon gets in the way of itself. I won't ever run Dark Sun, for example. It's...too different. Too specific. If that makes sense. The presumptions of the canon are too drastically separate from the basic assumptions of the flavor of D&D that I enjoy. I can create a post-magical-apocalyptic desert world...or a region ruled by dragon-kings...or where psionics are prevalent...but cannibal halflings? Sterile half-dwarves? NO clerics and, from what I understand, Anti-Druids? Any of those are intriguing ideas. But ALL of them in one basket? Just...too much. No thanks.

So, yeah...no, canon is not really a legitimate "thing" to me, and that which is considered "important" to a given setting is still never really set in stone.

 

[Irennan]

That said, the weave isn't as old as magic in faerun, so that whole "magic will go away if the weave dies" thing never made sense to me. Old Netheril blew itself up with dumb magic abuse, and then the weave was formed to prevent that happening again, IIRC.

In the story of the creation of Toril, the Weave was formed with Mystryl's birth, before all Torilian civilization. Before Mystryl, only gods could use magic (and there were only Selune, Shar, and Chauntea. And Ao, ofc).

Bit we could quibble all day about it. I certainly did a handful of times on the wotc forums back in the day. What I'll say is, there are explanations for all of it. Yes, many include minor retcons disguised as revelations, but they all have explanations of some kind.

Yes, I'm not saying that there weren't explanations, just that they weren't really respectful of FR canon, since this thread is about canon.

Except where the crap Shaundakul is, dammit.

He's one of the few gods that hasn't reappeared in 5e (or so it seems). WotC kinda forgot about him, which sucks because he's a cool deity.