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

[Shasarak]

I've never run a game set in FR. I have no idea what counts as the best work for that setting.

But if you don't like the 4e FR books I don't understand why you wouldn't just ignore them. Like I ignore big chunks of FtA when I run GH.

I can see that you do not understand, why would you be expected to?

 

[Irennan]

Whereas I don't really relate to this.

Even if I treat the D&D settings like FR as "story worlds" rather than material for using to play RPGs, I don't relate to it. To me, the objection to departures from canon seems to be simply that "I wanted WotC to publish story X, and instead they published story Y which I like less."

I can see that it's disappointing if something you enjoy changes so you don't enjoy it any more, but that's a general risk with serial fiction. (And not just in books, but in TV, movies, comics, etc.) But that happens. Authors lose their mojo. Or, in the case of mass commercial fiction (which includes FR), the publisher thinks that audience demand will be better satisfied by publishing Y rather than X.

The attempt to explain the disappointment in terms of unreasonable changes to canon vs natural change grounded in the unfolding story seems like projection to me. Or an attempt to elevate personal taste to some sort of general aesthetic analysis.

My objection is that I don't want to see WotC blow up a lot of stuff, even breaking canon to find a reason for that to happen to some of what was killed/destroyed. It has little to do with them publishing a story about something over a story about something else.

When all of sudden worlds cross each other, continents get swapped, when planes randomly rearrange and/or disappear beacause of something that--according to canon--shouldn't affect them, when deities disappear beacause of that reason, or because they got angry over a perceived love triangle, or they literally woke up one day and said "yo, lets start a deathmatch" (even when they had absolutely no reason to). When it all happens in less than 10 (in universe) years, and most of those changes don't even happen in a story, and then they fast forward 100 years specifically to detach the past from the present, then you know that they weren't trying to naturally develop a story. They were applying changes for 4e, and they didn't hide it, that I know (they even made a Q&A thread, which I searched because I was curious about why they did what they did, which was on the old Wizards forum).

It's obvious that they made changes that they thought would attract more people, but--even setting aside the fact that it was far from successful, since they brought back *everything* (or almost) that they had killed or blown up--they had their new setting to draw new people to D&D and add the sort of stuff that they wanted to see in the Realms. I really don't see the reason why they wrecked the Realms like that.

Btw, just to be clear. I'm not arguing that you can't ignore canon or 4e. I, for example, totally do. I'm arguing about the fact that some published settings (like the Realms, and surely many others) have importance to people as story settings, and that while in personal games canon matters little, it does for those who follow the story of the setting (even if they too may ignore it in their games). So, when the story is a big part of this fictional world (and it obviously is, if you give a look at the amount of novels), it should be respected, not cheapened like it happened for the Realms.

 

[Irennan]

And this seems like much the same thing.

My X-Man collection (a mixture of originals, bound volumes, reprints etc) is complete from Giant-sized no 1 up to the late 90s, but for the issue (200-and-something) where Wolverine and Sabretooth clash during the Mutant Massacre. I'd like to own that issue, but the only time I saw it in the back issues at the comic shop I used to frequent I didn't have the money. And now I'd have to muck around on e-bay to get it and don't have the patience and (for different reasons) probably can't justify the expenditure.

A commercial publisher is not doing anything wrong by not keeping stuff in print that some people want to buy.

Yeah. You know, it's kind to be expected that companies will do their best to squeeze every c they can out of their customers, but that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that it wasn't always easy for newcomers to have canon to pick and choose from, because of that reason. But, as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] said, it's easier in 5e, and that's a good thing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jester David]

But they can come into tension - eg if sticking to canon will create material for playing the game that is not as good as material that disregards canon. (Eg I think that the 4e cosmology, because it is essentially dynamic rather than static, is better for playing the game than the 1st ed AD&D Appendix IV cosmology.)

When there is tension, how should it be resolved? I favour good material over canon.

That's not a reason for you, obviously. But it does show that the claim that sticking to canon has no costs for anyone is false. It has costs for me if it means I get crappier material.

Canon provides a starting point, a source of inspiration. You don't need to worry about inventing all the lore, just adding to it, which frees up time and creative space for other pursuits. That makes for a better product.

As I've just explained, this is wrong.

There is a trade off either way, and I don't think I'm under any obligation to subordinate my preferences to yours. I want good material even if that means disregarding canon, and you are asking for me to suck up crappier material in pursuit of canon.

(The actual false premise in your argument is that the inclusion of canon doesn't impact the book for me. It does if it's crappy material.)

Now I can disregard crappy material. But you can disregard changes you don't like. Neither is, in general, easier or harder than the other.

...
Okay, a product that disregards or plays loose with canon will upset fans of canon. A product that compromises its vision for canon might be of poorer quality to some people who dislike that lore.
You're saying the releasing a product you know I will not like is less important than releasing a product that has a chance you might not like it.
That's super selfish, and I don't think I can continue this conversation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know. I recognize that for many people that is the reality, but for others it may not be. I'm not sure it can be made as objective statement without taking into account what time in the gameline we are talking about.

Sure, OD&D was a toolbox for making your own games. But from AD&D on settings, and with most of them canon and metaplot, became a huge part of the game. My initial points of entry to D&D were through the Forgotten Realms, and an advancing timeline was an intrinsic element of my introduction. Looking around at the rest of what was going on in D&D in the late 80s and early 90s, it was all either core rules resources, or defined setting material. I never saw official campaign settings marketed as pick and choose setting materials. All setting materials were designed to be compatible within themselves, and to a greater or lesser extent (greater after Spelljammer and Planescape appeared, lesser but still present before then) with each other. The exceptions to compatibility were the fantasy-historical softcovers, which were designed to empower homebrew theme design. It seemed assumed to me that you would either design your own setting more or less from scratch, play with an established setting (potentially with more than one (which might include homebrewed ones) if you were using Planescape/Spelljammer), or make a homebrew inspired by one of the fantasy historical books or non-D&D materials.

So that had a huge, and very different, impact on my formative vision of D&D compared to someone coming into the game back in OD&D or very early 1e, or someone coming in during 3e, or 4e. Is one of these objectively the "real" D&D philosophy? As much as I'd like to dismiss the philosophies of 3e and 4e as doing it wrong, and acknowledge the OD&D and early 1e philosophies as valid but slightly inferior, I feel like it's really all a matter of timing and preference here.

I think the fact that the settings are game info first, and fiction second is an objective fact, no? Most of the rest of it is certainly opinion, I agree, but that one bit I think is pretty clearly a fact.

I think that the time when one got into the hobby is a huge factor in how they view the hobby, and in how they view canon. I got into the game in the AD&D days, but never really got into the published settings all that much until the switch over to second edition. So my intro to Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms was when both settings were changed pretty heavily. Perhaps that's why I am open to them changing? And to changing them myself for my own games? And all the settings interacting with each other, through either Spelljammer or Planescape, again that's modular. If I didn't buy Dragonlance, then I never had to worry about how it fit in with the rest. If I didn't want to have Toril and Oerth interact, I never had to do so. It was different for everyone based on what they wanted to use and what they didn't.

Which kind of plays into my point. Everyone's preferred canon is different. Looking through this thread, there are very few people saying things like "well, if they published it, it's canon, so I have to include it in my game." No, instead you have people arguing for the canon they prefer...."they got rid of this deity" and "it's annoying when they blow up stuff I like". Which are valid complaints, to be sure....there are changes that they have made or plotlines that they've had that I thought sucked.

But really, it seems more that when people say "canon" what they mean, in a general way, is the stuff about the setting that they like. No one defends a change that removes something they don't like. "Wow that spellplague really sucked, but hey it's canon". Don't hear too much of that.

This is why I think that a loose interpretation of canon is what works best. Why use elements of the setting that you don't like?

Btw, just to be clear. I'm not arguing that you can't ignore canon or 4e. I, for example, totally do. I'm arguing about the fact that some published settings (like the Realms, and surely many others) have importance to people as story settings, and that while in personal games canon matters little, it does for those who follow the story of the setting (even if they too may ignore it in their games). So, when the story is a big part of this fictional world (and it obviously is, if you give a look at the amount of novels), it should be respected, not cheapened like it happened for the Realms.

I can understand this. I know that as a story setting that is used for many novels, the canon of the setting is important to many readers. I get that. I've read my fair share of FR novels. I haven't read all of them....not even close....and I am sure that there are some folks who have. However, because of the nature of shared world storytelling, where there are dozens of creative voices over dozens of years, there are going to be contradictions. It is unavoidable. Someone who has read all the books should be far more aware of that than someone who's read just a few.

When it comes to not respecting the setting, I can understand that complaint, but I also think that is very subjective as well. I think that the Spellplague is often considered to be disrespectful to the setting, and I understand why people would say that, but I just don't think that was the intent at all. Maybe intent doesn't matter to everyone in this regard, but I feel it should be considered. They really just want to make a product that will appeal to as many people as possible. Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail.

Yeah. You know, it's kind to be expected that companies will do their best to squeeze every c they can out of their customers, but that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that it wasn't always easy for newcomers to have canon to pick and choose from, because of that reason. But, as @hawkeyefan said, it's easier in 5e, and that's a good thing.

Yeah, I think that is a smart approach on their part. I also think that if you look at the one campaign book they've put out so far, the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, almost all of the setting based material is provided through in-world points of view. I think this is a calculated attempt to jettison the idea of "canon", allowing them to change and adapt as needed. Anything provided in those sections can be attributed to rumor or misinterpretation on the part of the narrator in question. Smart move on their part. Why be beholden to two lines of text in a sourcebook if later on someone has a much cooler idea about what to do with the city of Mezro, or what have you?

...
Okay, a product that disregards or plays loose with canon will upset fans of canon. A product that compromises its vision for canon might be of poorer quality to some people who dislike that lore.
You're saying the releasing a product you know I will not like is less important than releasing a product that has a chance you might not like it.
That's super selfish, and I don't think I can continue this conversation.

I don't think anyone is being selfish. Everyone wants what they want, and that's fine. I also don't think that anyone is arguing against canon in the sense that we want it totally removed....we all want the stories to be internally consistent, and the setting to make sense and to work. I think those that are against canon are saying that it simply can be changed at will, so worrying about every single matter, and letting canon determine how a story is told, or preventing a certain take on a concept that might be really great....that is what we're arguing against.

For instance, Returned Aebir....I just don't really get it, and I don't really find it compelling or interesting, so I ignore it. I don't care if future products refer to it or not. I am not demanding that it be stricken from the records....I can strike it from my own records.

 

[pemerton]

I can see that you do not understand, why would you be expected to?

Why is ignoring the 4e changes to FR harder than ignoring the FtA changes to GH?

 

[pemerton]

Canon provides a starting point, a source of inspiration. You don't need to worry about inventing all the lore, just adding to it, which frees up time and creative space for other pursuits. That makes for a better product.

Or deleting. Deleting is not, in general, harder than adding. I know this to be so because I have had experiences of deleting (ie ignoring stuff in GH books, or Kara Tur books, that does nothinig for me) while nevertheless being very grateful for not having to think up new stuff myself (eg when using elements of OA5 I ignored Mad Monkey but good very good mileage out of the Dragon Claw - both martial arts style and petty demon lord - which I would never have come up with on my own).

It's obvious that they made changes that they thought would attract more people

<snip>

I really don't see the reason why they wrecked the Realms like that.

But you've stated the reason yourself. They thought the changes to the Realms - which clearly they didn't regard as wrecking the Realms - would make it more attractive to more people, wanting to use it as a 4e world. Related to this is the fact that they were hoping for many new players, and by jumping into the future and mixing up a whole lot of stuff they manage to leave behind a lot of canon baggage that new players won't be familiar with.

My objection is that I don't want to see WotC blow up a lot of stuff, even breaking canon to find a reason for that to happen to some of what was killed/destroyed.

This is a statement of your preferences for FR, and there's no arguing with your taste.

Okay, a product that disregards or plays loose with canon will upset fans of canon. A product that compromises its vision for canon might be of poorer quality to some people who dislike that lore.
You're saying the releasing a product you know I will not like is less important than releasing a product that has a chance you might not like it.
That's super selfish, and I don't think I can continue this conversation.

I think moralising this is not very sensible.

I want WotC to publish stuff of interest to me. That means I'd rather them try out ideas than stick faithfully to what has already been done. For all we know, you might like the innovation better than what came before - especially if the canon it contradicts is canon you've never noticed or used.

The decision around what to publish is a mixture of authorial/editorial aesthetic judgment, and - in the case of a big firm like WotC - commercial judgement. Moral duty to the audience isn't part of it.

some published settings (like the Realms, and surely many others) have importance to people as story settings, and that while in personal games canon matters little, it does for those who follow the story of the setting (even if they too may ignore it in their games). So, when the story is a big part of this fictional world (and it obviously is, if you give a look at the amount of novels), it should be respected, not cheapened like it happened for the Realms.

The same thing here - I don't see how the fact that a lot of people have preferences about the FR imposes a duty on WotC to write one sort of thing under the FR label rather than another.

Serials (comics, TV shows, film sequels, whatever) get cancelled. Or they get changed to try and increase commercial appeal. If you don't like the cancellation or the change, that's fine. But I don't see that there's any grounds for a moral complaint that WotC "cheapened" the Realms or did wrong by people to whom FR is important.

I mean, one way to look at it is this: if WotC just cancelled FR as a series of publications no one would have any legitimate complaint. And so no one is any worse of - and hence no one has any new cause for complaint - if instead of cancellation WotC takes it in a direction that some, even many, people don't like.

 

[Irennan]

This is a statement of your preferences for FR, and there's no arguing with your taste.

The same thing here - I don't see how the fact that a lot of people have preferences about the FR imposes a duty on WotC to write one sort of thing under the FR label rather than another.

Serials (comics, TV shows, film sequels, whatever) get cancelled. Or they get changed to try and increase commercial appeal. If you don't like the cancellation or the change, that's fine. But I don't see that there's any grounds for a moral complaint that WotC "cheapened" the Realms or did wrong by people to whom FR is important.

I mean, one way to look at it is this: if WotC just cancelled FR as a series of publications no one would have any legitimate complaint. And so no one is any worse of - and hence no one has any new cause for complaint - if instead of cancellation WotC takes it in a direction that some, even many, people don't like.

I legit don't get your point. Ofc WotC can do whatever they want, it's their IP. Ofc we can't "morally" complain, but fans of the setting can express negative opinions on WotC's work. That feedback is in fact what led them to undo the 4e FR for 5e (although they still used a huge deus ex machina, which literally was "God fixed it").

What I'm saying is that bad continuity, or the super far fetched metaplot that their changes brought, cheapen the setting as a whole (especially for a setting that has the depth of its lore and history as one of its main selling points). IMO that's true both for those that see the setting as a story world, and for those who only want a background for their games.

Unless you really love it, a world with such a heavy metaplot made up of things getting blown up (sometimes with 1 line of explanation and then forgotten forever, until their resurrection), and then getting restored in an endless cycle (and here again with heavy deus ex machinas and little to no explanation) is surely less compelling and inviting than a world with an organic metaplot. This has nothing to do with the fact that you can pick your canon for your games, which no one is arguing.

 

[Jester David]

I also don't think that anyone is arguing against canon in the sense that we want it totally removed....we all want the stories to be internally consistent, and the setting to make sense and to work.

Actually… internal consistency is what some people are arguing against. That's the canon I want preserved.


Some posters in this thread want to just give writers the freedom to make whatever changes they want and ignore whatever changes the writers want. To erase, ignore, or delete canon.

I think those that are against canon are saying that it simply can be changed at will, so worrying about every single matter, and letting canon determine how a story is told, or preventing a certain take on a concept that might be really great....that is what we're arguing against.

The thing is, the major changes to settings didn't ignore canon or change canon… they added to canon. "The canon now includes X and Y".
It's a change to the setting, but not canon.

For instance, Returned Aebir....I just don't really get it, and I don't really find it compelling or interesting, so I ignore it. I don't care if future products refer to it or not. I am not demanding that it be stricken from the records....I can strike it from my own records.

That's a great example of what I'm talking about as well. Returned Abeir was a *huge* retcon. "Abeir-Toril are two planets, not one, there are Primordials, etc".
But it doesn't really change anything. It simply adds to the mosaic. It negates nothing from the past.
An actual change was something like "sun elves are eladrin not elves and are from the Feywild". But that's a minor one.


The example of actually changing canon I used upthread was from the 3e product Lords of Madness where Mind Flayers went from being creatures from the Far Realm that entered the Prime Material Plane hundreds of thousands of years ago to being creatures from the distant future that went back in time arrive in the world 2000 years ago.


Another example is actually from 5th Edition, where the Cult of the Dragon swapped from venerating dead dragons and believing undead dragons would one day rule the world to being servants of Tiamat. Which is an example of what I'm talking about. Rather than reconcile the planned plot for Tyranny of Dragons with the lore of the Forgotten Realms, they changed the Realms to fit their story. They didn't invent a new cult or bad guy, they changed things.
It wouldn't have even been hard. The Tiamat cultists could have been a branch of the Cult of the Dragon that broke away forming the new church of Tiamat. Which could add another wrinkle of forging allies with the old Cult of the Dragon (which would have made more sense than allying with the Red Wizards who were on the opposite side of the map from the Sword Coast, where all the action was taking, requiring some hand waving for how the party gets there).


Similarly, Curse of Strahd is a big blender of Ravenloft lore, taking setting material and just mashing it with the classic adventure. It's a bit like a Marvel Cinematic Universe film where it lifts names and ideas but does it's own thing, using the source material as inspiration for Easter Eggs.