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

[Jester David]

Held back this reply to get my thoughts clearer.

But clearly no one is going to use both those ideas in a single game. It's not hard to add an extra couple of digits to one of the dates, or knock some off the other.

Right. But what if you didn't notice? You just start running with it and then, at the table, your players ask "So... how can she be lich-queen LCVII and ruled for 1000 years and the Mind Flayers just have arrive 2000 years ago?"
Honestly, I didn't realize the problem on my first read through. Because I assumed the book I was reading was "accurate" and the writer and considered stuff like that. Because, y'know, it was their job. (I was never a Mind Flayer person.) But it's a good example of not sticking to the canon that's removed from settings like the Realms.
And it's even more important to stick to canon and continuity in the Realms.

See, I don't see how any is being "forced" to do anything. If you don't like the 4e Realms, you just ignore it. Like when I run GH I ignore good chunks of FtA and subsequent supplements.

Here's the issue as I see it.

Person 1 says: I don't care about X in my gaming products.
Person 2 says: I care about X and it's a factor in my enjoyment.
Person 1 says: I don't care about consistency in X.
Person 2 says: I appreciate consistency in X.
Person 1 says: If there is a discrepancy in X I have no strong feelings.
Person 2 says: If there is a discrepancy in X I strongly dislike it and it impacts by views of the product.

Now, in this case "X" is canon. It could be anything, but that's what it is in this instance.
You're asking for something to be removed or arguing it doesn't matter when other people DO like it and think it matters a lot. You're effectively arguing your apathy towards something is more important than someone else's enjoyment.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter if you don't like canon. Because some people do. And it's inclusion doesn't impact the book for you, but is presence and absence does impact products for people who do like and appreciate it.

 

[Shasarak]

An author writing something they think is better than what came before isn't "blowing stuff up at random". It's giving me their best work.

If shoving Blink Elves and Dragonborn into the Realms is an example of your "best work" then we are either looking at a very low bar of work which seems doubtful or someone who is working with an agenda counter to that which they claim.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

Which is cool, because they are just arbitrary categories based on what stood out to me.

For instance, you say "even playing with a different ruleset", as if this is the most massive of massive changes.

I do consider that a big change. Magic missile and displacer beasts are D&D. Hill giants and ogres have different stories (by now, if not in the beginning of the game) that I am aware of and take account of. Now, if someone tries to approximate D&Disms (spells, monsters) using another system, it would be fine to say "I'm running a Rolemaster game set in Greyhawk." In other words, I'd know what they meant, assuming they kept the stuff I mentioned preserved. But otherwise it is a huge change.

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.

I would also consider those major changes.

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.

That's basically what I meant with why the traits I defined as #1 seemed to me to apply. If you start from any assumption except "this is an X" game--including your example of selecting various materials to use to create your world--I consider that the most massive change of all. You are then making a home-brew world inspired by a particular setting, setting theme, adventure, map, etc. Philosophically, at that point it doesn't matter how much Greyhawk you put in--it still isn't a Greyhawk game because you started with a blank slate and selectively added Greyhawk elements, rather than starting with Greyhawk and selectively adding, subtracting, and altering. Theoretically, if you had or were going to run a Star Wars or Middle-Earth game, would you feel the same way?

That's another recurring element I've noticed. Some people see D&D fiction as fundamentally different than other fictional universes and some don't.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's another recurring element I've noticed. Some people see D&D fiction as fundamentally different than other fictional universes and some don't.

Well, it is. Or at least, most of it is. The primary function of the majority of material for these fictional worlds is to serve as a source of material for the D&D game. As such, I think it is expected for folks to pick and choose what is used.

Most other fictional settings were not created with that intent. That difference may be a bigger factor than people are acknowledging.

 

[Maxperson]

The Lucas/Tchaikovsky Postulate: In any internet conversation that uses the word "canon," there is a 100% chance that it will devolve into talking about Star Wars.

I love humorous postulates and laws. This was one of my favorites.

Stanley's Law of Taking Things Apart: When putting things back together again, there will always be at least one piece that will not fit anywhere.

There was also a corollary that said something like: If you take something apart and put it back together again, you will eventually have enough pieces left over to make a whole new one.

 

[Irennan]

An author writing something they think is better than what came before isn't "blowing stuff up at random". It's giving me their best work.

This is how we get incredibly far fetched (even for high fantasy) metaplots like that of the Realms, tho. Where nations and gods explode for whatever reasons, and then are reborn in an endless cycle, with various deus ex machinas, till we get "God fixed the world" like in 5e, because kewl explosions went way out of hand to be fixed individually at this point, and because all that stuff ended up turning away more fans of the setting than it brought in.

Respecting a setting also means not removing something that is integral part of it, that adds to it, just because you think that the setting could do without it, or that exploding it could have some shock value, or that a new idea is cooler than that. Things should be ended only if it comes naturally from the story, and then possibly replaced with something else that offers the same or more to the setting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is how we get incredibly far fetched (even for high fantasy) metaplots like that of the Realms, tho. Where nations and gods explode for whatever reasons, and then are reborn in an endless cycle, with various deus ex machinas, till we get "God fixed the world" like in 5e, because kewl explosions went way out of hand to be fixed individually at this point, and because all that stuff ended up turning away more fans of the setting than it brought in.

Respecting a setting also means not removing something that is integral part of it, that adds to it, just because you think that the setting could do without it, or that exploding it could have some shock value, or that a new idea is cooler than that. Things should be ended only if it comes naturally from the story, and then possibly replaced with something else that offers the same or more to the setting.

Isn't that all done in an attempt to maintain canon, though? I mean the heavy handed fixes. We all know why they're really happening...because it was cooler the way it was...but they need to explain things within the fiction.

The Time of Troubles was all an attempt to explain the changes from 1E to 2E. It was an attempt to make a story out of those changes rather than simply letting them be. For example, the Assassin class was removed from the game, so they killed off the god of assassins in the story to explain why there was no more assassin class. Pretty silly...especially since they still had plenty of characters that could be described as assassins featured in their stories. I suppose they were just not members of the class but were instead another class that happened to murder for pay.

In a more traditional fictional world...meaning one that was designed specifically for the purpose of telling stories and not to serve as a game setting, you don't encounter this kind of editorial mandate nearly as often. The Marvel and DC universes and maybe Star Wars are probably the big examples, where marketing gimmicks are "explained" in some way within the fiction. But with most fictional worlds, you don't really see this.

This goes back to the pick and choose aspect of the setting. Yes, taken as a whole, the history of the Realms is absurd. But if you ignore what you don't like, and simply use what appeals to you, then it isn't as big a problem. And given that the Realms is primarily supposed to be a setting for us to play in, I think that is the intention all along.

The makers of the setting expect canon to be ignored.

 

[Irennan]

Isn't that all done in an attempt to maintain canon, though? I mean the heavy handed fixes. We all know why they're really happening...because it was cooler the way it was...but they need to explain things within the fiction.

The Time of Troubles was all an attempt to explain the changes from 1E to 2E. It was an attempt to make a story out of those changes rather than simply letting them be. For example, the Assassin class was removed from the game, so they killed off the god of assassins in the story to explain why there was no more assassin class. Pretty silly...especially since they still had plenty of characters that could be described as assassins featured in their stories. I suppose they were just not members of the class but were instead another class that happened to murder for pay.

In a more traditional fictional world...meaning one that was designed specifically for the purpose of telling stories and not to serve as a game setting, you don't encounter this kind of editorial mandate nearly as often. The Marvel and DC universes and maybe Star Wars are probably the big examples, where marketing gimmicks are "explained" in some way within the fiction. But with most fictional worlds, you don't really see this.

Many times those changes broke canon and created inconsistencies, tho. They didn't want to respect the canon *of the setting* they wanted to force arbitrary game rules on a story. Besides, a "game setting" is actually a world made to tell stories, because that's what D&D is. Treating it as anything but a world to tell stories is going to lower its quality. In fact, while I love the Realms, its metaplot is proof of that.

The thing is, game canon is not the same as setting canon. They need to stop trying to blow the setting up for every rule change. There's no reason for that. What does matter if there's no more assassin class? Assassins will be still there. What does matter if wizards don't put spell in slots and instead have daily powers. In the story, wizards are still going to shoot fireballs. Want to explain encounter powers? First, you don't really have to. In novels you could just have wizards firing their spells without explaining how long it takes for them to recharge.

But if you really want, it's easy, because--as science progressed in RW--it's logical to assume that spell techniques progress in a fictional world, that people try to improve their life conditions and craft. So, they could just have someone work hard and find a method to recharge weaker spells quicker, or cast basic spells without the need of recharging that. Mystra would be immensely pleased with that, in-world, since she's all for nurturing magic. It makes for a "more living" world (since people actually do stuff that aren't wars, plots for powers, and stopping those plots), and it doesn't blow anything up.

D&D rules are a game, not an accurate reflection of how the world works (it totally sucks in that regard), so WotC or whoever should stop to treat them as such. I could run the FR with GURPS or whatever, and nothing would change, story-wise.

This goes back to the pick and choose aspect of the setting. Yes, taken as a whole, the history of the Realms is absurd. But if you ignore what you don't like, and simply use what appeals to you, then it isn't as big a problem. And given that the Realms is primarily supposed to be a setting for us to play in, I think that is the intention all along.

The makers of the setting expect canon to be ignored.

The makers expect people to make a setting their own, but I don't think that they expect it to be ignored. It's their default. It's what the newcomers read. It's the status quo of their IP. It's the result of changes that they made just to bring the setting to that given state.

I ignore/warp a lot of FR canon, so I have no problem with that, but:

1)you can't always choose what to ignore. Are you playing? Then not really up to you. Are you DMing an organizaed play game? Not up to you.

2)If I want to actually pick my lore, I need to pick up many books, which is not something everyone can afford. This was better with 3e and before, since Realms lore didn't change that much. But with 4e, you def. have to get older books, and then it's a lot of work to read through and put things together.

3)The beauty of a setting like the Realms is that it's shared and it's a growing world. People and authors care for it because of its stories, characters, gods, organizations... and--while every D&D game is its own--we should all be roughly on the same page when it comes to them. If the setting has too many base-breakers (stuff that split the fanbase, like the Realms), and those breakers are so drastic to make versions of the setting incompatible (or if the previous lore of the setting gets warped) then this goes away.

If something you enjoy gets blown up because of fireworks (or because the new devs for x edtion didn't like it enough), then not only you'll feel pissed, but you'll also know that that thing has been trashed and will be forgotten by WotC/whoever, that new people aren't likely to know/take interest in it, and so on. It's essentially "dead", and it sucks. This is what happened to the Realms (and blowing up stuff for any reason but a natural evolution of the story is the first and main thing that breaks bases, IMO), and although WotC has brought back everyone and their grandmothers in 5e (and I'm honestly happy for that), the damage to the setting has already been done, and it has suffered in quality.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Many times those changes broke canon and created inconsistencies, tho. They didn't want to respect the canon *of the setting* they wanted to force arbitrary game rules on a story. Besides, a "game setting" is actually a world made to tell stories, because that's what D&D is. Treating it as anything but a world to tell stories is going to lower its quality. In fact, while I love the Realms, its metaplot is proof of that.

The thing is, game canon is not the same as setting canon. They need to stop trying to blow the setting up for every rule change. There's no reason for that. What does matter if there's no more assassin class? Assassins will be still there. What does matter if wizards don't put spell in slots and instead have daily powers. In the story, wizards are still going to shoot fireballs. Want to explain encounter powers? First, you don't really have to. In novels you could just have wizards firing their spells without explaining how long it takes for them to recharge.

But if you really want, it's easy, because--as science progressed in RW--it's logical to assume that spell techniques progress in a fictional world, that people try to improve their life conditions and craft. So, they could just have someone work hard and find a method to recharge weaker spells quicker, or cast basic spells without the need of recharging that. Mystra would be immensely pleased with that, in-world, since she's all for nurturing magic. It makes for a "more living" world (since people actually do stuff that aren't wars, plots for powers, and stopping those plots), and it doesn't blow anything up.

D&D rules are a game, not an accurate reflection of how the world works (it totally sucks in that regard), so WotC or whoever should stop to treat them as such. I could run the FR with GURPS or whatever, and nothing would change, story-wise.

I agree with you for the most part. My point though is that many of the drastic changes made to the setting was done in an attempt to maintain canon. Misguided or not, that was the goal.

I also think that it's much easier to see what worked and what didn't in retrospect. I don't think anyone set any out to disrespect the setting. I think they want to create a compelling setting that will work for games, and serve as a setting for fiction. I don't think they instill any changes thinking "I can't wait, this is going to be terrible!"

Honestly, I think that when it comes to shared world fiction...whether for gaming or stories or both...reverence for the source material on the part of an author can be a detriment as easily as it can be an advantage. Many of the best stories are the ones that change things rather than simply maintaining the status quo.

The makers expect people to make a setting their own, but I don't think that they expect it to be ignored. It's their default. It's what the newcomers read. It's the status quo of their IP. It's the result of changes that they made just to bring the setting to that given state.

I ignore/warp a lot of FR canon, so I have no problem with that, but:

1)you can't always choose what to ignore. Are you playing? Then not really up to you. Are you DMing an organizaed play game? Not up to you.

2)If I want to actually pick my lore, I need to pick up many books, which is not something everyone can afford. This was better with 3e and before, since Realms lore didn't change that much. But with 4e, you def. have to get older books, and then it's a lot of work to read through and put things together.

3)The beauty of a setting like the Realms is that it's shared and it's a growing world. People and authors care for it because of its stories, characters, gods, organizations... and--while every D&D game is its own--we should all be roughly on the same page when it comes to them. If the setting has too many base-breakers (stuff that split the fanbase, like the Realms), and those breakers are so drastic to make versions of the setting incompatible (or if the previous lore of the setting gets warped) then this goes away.

If something you enjoy gets blown up because of fireworks (or because the new devs for x edtion didn't like it enough), then not only you'll feel pissed, but you'll also know that that thing has been trashed and will be forgotten by WotC/whoever, that new people aren't likely to know/take interest in it, and so on. It's essentially "dead", and it sucks. This is what happened to the Realms (and blowing up stuff for any reason but a natural evolution of the story is the first and main thing that breaks bases, IMO), and although WotC has brought back everyone and their grandmothers in 5e (and I'm honestly happy for that), the damage to the setting has already been done, and it has suffered in quality.

I don't agree with these points, other than the first. An individual player may not be able to pick and choose what lore makes it into a game. However, as a DM, I can control that. I can also involve my players in such a decision....so it varies.

For your second point, I don't think I agree. Picking and choosing what you use means you can use any amount of source material. I'd actually say that in order to maintain the same level of lore as the baseline expectation means you'd have to buy more source materials. My Realms are based mostly on the 3E Campaign Setting book, with some tweaks here and there. I have the SCAG, so I lift some elements from that, too. No need for anything further. And I think 5E is streamlining the continuity as much as possible in an attempt to create a universal starting point for players. There is no need for anything more than the SCAG from a purely 5E standpoint.

On your third point, I can understand your view, but it is only your opinion. My opinion on what makes the Realms great is that it allows me to save time from having to create lots of setting elements myself. There's plenty of work already for me to draw from. I honestly do not care in any way if my Realms matches those of anyone else.

And if setting elements I enjoy are changed (which has definitely happened), I don't mind it. I simply leave them unchanged in my world. The City of Shade is still very much around and active in my setting. Such a change may ruin my enjoyment of a specific novel, perhaps, but not of the setting itself. Although, I long ago gave up on any FR fiction, so that likely plays a part.

 

[Irennan]

I agree with you for the most part. My point though is that many of the drastic changes made to the setting was done in an attempt to maintain canon. Misguided or not, that was the goal.

I also think that it's much easier to see what worked and what didn't in retrospect. I don't think anyone set any out to disrespect the setting. I think they want to create a compelling setting that will work for games, and serve as a setting for fiction. I don't think they instill any changes thinking "I can't wait, this is going to be terrible!"

Honestly, I think that when it comes to shared world fiction...whether for gaming or stories or both...reverence for the source material on the part of an author can be a detriment as easily as it can be an advantage. Many of the best stories are the ones that change things rather than simply maintaining the status quo.

They surely made those changes because they thought that it would attract a lot more people, not to hurt the setting. But, at least in 4e, they couldn't not know that they were going to drive away a lot of former FR fans, because they were removing a lot of the most popular characters and deities.

Besides, at least for 4e, they actually broke former canon. They did that for the lore concerning the Weave, they did when they dealt with the drow gods (to the point that in 5e they didn't merely bring back those gods, they have essentially retconned the 4e stuff and never mentioned it again), they did when they rearranged the planes and blamed it on the Weave, they did for the racial deities, etc.

When Richard Baker, the guy in charge of the setting for 4e, says that his stance on canon is "canon is what everyone makes it to be" (which is the default for the individual games, but makes no sense for the published setting), then you start to doubt that they are really trying to respect canon. When he says things like "how many gods of X do the realms need" as the reason for killing gods--and some of those deities even had/have a huge impact on their followers and story, and aren't just a name that people speak when praying--he's ignoring one of the defining traits of the Realms, which Ed Greenwood wrote in, and that is the variety of local and racial deities. Now you may or may not like that trait, but it's a big part of the setting, and shouldn't be removed just because a designer doesn't like it. Want to make it easier for newcomers? Then include only the most powerful/known gods in the FRCS, leaving the rest of them to be detailed in articles/supplements. No need to remove them.

Respecting a setting and what came before your work isn't reverence, it's just being respectful of other people's work and of what a lot of its fans have come to hold dear. Changing the status quo is ok, but--as I've said--it should be done because it comes naturally from the story of what's being changed. It should build, it shouldn't be "today, I'm gonna blow Eryndlyn up, and then send a dozen gods to the Astral, and erase their churches, because I don't like them/I think they're useless". Again, we have seen where that led to.

I don't agree with these points, other than the first. An individual player may not be able to pick and choose what lore makes it into a game. However, as a DM, I can control that. I can also involve my players in such a decision....so it varies

I know, as a DM who runs only private campaigns, this is easy to avoid (this is what I do too). But for players who have to find a campaign, it might be a deal breaker. And players are the majority of D&D users.

On a side note, it could become a problem even for authors, who might want to use something in their story, but then find out that someone blew it up. Which shouldn't really be a problem, unless you start blowing up a lot of stuff.

For your second point, I don't think I agree. Picking and choosing what you use means you can use any amount of source material. I'd actually say that in order to maintain the same level of lore as the baseline expectation means you'd have to buy more source materials. My Realms are based mostly on the 3E Campaign Setting book, with some tweaks here and there. I have the SCAG, so I lift some elements from that, too. No need for anything further. And I think 5E is streamlining the continuity as much as possible in an attempt to create a universal starting point for players. There is no need for anything more than the SCAG from a purely 5E standpoint.

True, but that's because 5e tried to keep a lot of what all the other editions added, and to bring back all that the other editions removed. Not only that, they have made older pdfs available, making it easier and less expensive to get them. I was talking about 4e, when you would have to spend more money and buy more products from shops like ebay as a newcomer, if you wanted to know the older Realms (since 4e actively tried to leave the old realms behind, at least during like the first 2/3 of its lifespan). Which I did, since I was a newcomer (although already aware of the Realms through PC games) at the end of 4e, and didn't like the (back then) current version of the setting.

On your third point, I can understand your view, but it is only your opinion. My opinion on what makes the Realms great is that it allows me to save time from having to create lots of setting elements myself. There's plenty of work already for me to draw from. I honestly do not care in any way if my Realms matches those of anyone else.

I don't care if my Realms match anyone else's too. I was talking about the Realms as a "story world". One of the reasons of why people care about the Realms more than as a background for their game, is exactly that.

And if setting elements I enjoy are changed (which has definitely happened), I don't mind it. I simply leave them unchanged in my world. The City of Shade is still very much around and active in my setting. Such a change may ruin my enjoyment of a specific novel, perhaps, but not of the setting itself. Although, I long ago gave up on any FR fiction, so that likely plays a part.

And I do this too. It was not the point I was trying to make.