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

[I'm A Banana]

That doesn't sound like an issue with changing default. It sounds like an issue with the players. Those are different issues.

Not at all. The players are who they are. It's not an "issue" that they're not super-invested, it's just how that group rolls.

It's also not a dealbreaker for me to just not throw them lore curveballs. I'm resilient to lore changes, so it's a price I'm cool with paying. It's just a hassle that I'd face if I were to try and do it.

Fluff is rarely a rule, so RAW doesn't really play into it.

Depends on the individual and the change. "Eladrin are chaotic angels, so you can't be one as a PC race." Or, "Tieflings are PS tieflings, so they're Dex/Int now, not Dex/Cha."

Another potential hassle.

First, compatibility is always an issue. That's why you find players who are compatible with your DMing style. Second, even if you have a hate for Planescape, you can still appreciate a race from that setting

I'm not really interested in blaming the players. Someone hates Setting X or loves Lore Y, that's a thing that helps them have fun with the game, I'm here to have fun with the game. That might mean forgoing something or keeping something, and for me, that's all fine - D&D's a big game and there's a lot of ways to have fun.

It's not a dealbreaker for me, it's just one of the hassles of switching.

Maybe I'm spoiled by gaming in Los Angeles, but I have never found it hard to find players who are compatible with my style, and I change things all the time. I've actually rarely found a player who even thought it was a problem for the DM to change things

I'm not exactly starved for players here in NYC, either, but the more requirements I set up for my game, the less open and fun it is.

I am, however, starved for time to game, and I've little interested in spending that precious time discussing the finer points of my library of fluff changes.

And beyond me, someone in Bumblescrump, Missouri or wherever might have a much harder time of it.

More potential hassles. Since I'm pretty resilient to it, I'll endure some of 'em, sometimes. But I don't blame anyone else for not wanting to endure it.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I always create my own worlds and settings. The canon that matters to me is the canon that I have established in my worlds.

 

[DeltaEcho]

If something is just a "rule of thumb," then I don't think it can be extreme because it's a given that you're not always going to adhere slavishly to it.

Sooo, if I said "as a rule of thumb, I cut off the head of all those that offend me'
that's not extreme?


see you are confusing intensity with frequency,

 

[jasper]

….(An exception is the all-thief party: and that's why there is a distinct tradition of all-thief games in classic D&D where there is no comparable tradition of all-cleric or all-fighter games.)…..
Hmmm All thief games.. Distinct Tradition …. I have Never ever heard of all thief group since I started playing.

 

[Maxperson]

….(An exception is the all-thief party: and that's why there is a distinct tradition of all-thief games in classic D&D where there is no comparable tradition of all-cleric or all-fighter games.)…..
Hmmm All thief games.. Distinct Tradition …. I have Never ever heard of all thief group since I started playing.

I've played in several over the decades. Playing thieves/rogues and trying to start a guild is a common idea.

 

[Maxperson]

Not at all. The players are who they are. It's not an "issue" that they're not super-invested, it's just how that group rolls.

It's also not a dealbreaker for me to just not throw them lore curveballs. I'm resilient to lore changes, so it's a price I'm cool with paying. It's just a hassle that I'd face if I were to try and do it.


Depends on the individual and the change. "Eladrin are chaotic angels, so you can't be one as a PC race." Or, "Tieflings are PS tieflings, so they're Dex/Int now, not Dex/Cha."

Another potential hassle.


I'm not really interested in blaming the players. Someone hates Setting X or loves Lore Y, that's a thing that helps them have fun with the game, I'm here to have fun with the game. That might mean forgoing something or keeping something, and for me, that's all fine - D&D's a big game and there's a lot of ways to have fun.

It's not a dealbreaker for me, it's just one of the hassles of switching.


I'm not exactly starved for players here in NYC, either, but the more requirements I set up for my game, the less open and fun it is.

I am, however, starved for time to game, and I've little interested in spending that precious time discussing the finer points of my library of fluff changes.

And beyond me, someone in Bumblescrump, Missouri or wherever might have a much harder time of it.

More potential hassles. Since I'm pretty resilient to it, I'll endure some of 'em, sometimes. But I don't blame anyone else for not wanting to endure it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think you are overestimating the number of these hassles, overestimating the severity of these hassles, and underestimating the number of players who just won't care. Will some people leave over them? Sure. Will some leave over a stagnant game that doesn't change? Yep. I think, and apparently so do game companies since they pretty much all change with each edition, that more leave if you don't change things up.

 

[jayoungr]

Sooo, if I said "as a rule of thumb, I cut off the head of all those that offend me'
that's not extreme?

see you are confusing intensity with frequency,

LOL, okay, you've got me there. But seriously, you're taking my comment as WAY more rigid than I meant it to sound, so I'll try saying it another way.

For me, the whole point of playing in an existing setting (either as player or GM) is that I like that setting and want to have the experience of "living" in it with my group. This is especially true of settings based on fictional worlds, such as Star Wars, but it also applies to settings created for RPGs. If I go changing things, then I defeat my entire purpose in using the existing setting in the first place. In that case, I might as well just grab my favorite bits, remix, and call it something else.

Conversely, if there are things about the setting that I seriously dislike, then I won't care about "living" in the setting at the game table. Once again, my solution would be to grab what I like and add it to a homebrew; there's no reason to keep any further ties to the source that I borrowed those elements from.

And finally, I'll note that I wouldn't do this unless the rest of my group felt the same way about the setting. One canon nerd at a table can ruin the fun for everybody else, but a table full of canon nerds will have the time of their lives working out how a particular detail would function in the fictional world.

For all these reasons, I rarely play in existing settings.

Also, with regard to "exceptions may apply," the exceptions include things like the Forgotten Realms, where players are explicitly told to customize the world for their tables.

EDIT: @Caliburn101 says it much more succinctly in the post below mine:

If I like the Canon - yes.

If I don't like the Canon - no.

 

[Caliburn101]

If I like the Canon - yes.

If I don't like the Canon - no.

"No plan to use canon survives first contact with your players..."
Spurious General-Rank GM 'on the Internet'

 

[I'm A Banana]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I think you are overestimating the number of these hassles, overestimating the severity of these hassles, and underestimating the number of players who just won't care. Will some people leave over them? Sure. Will some leave over a stagnant game that doesn't change? Yep. I think, and apparently so do game companies since they pretty much all change with each edition, that more leave if you don't change things up.

What matters for WotC is where "most players" are, how hard they find it.

I'm inclined to believe that most players are less willing to put forth the effort to change the default than anyone on this message board would probably be. BUT, if that's not the case (or is less the case than I imagine it to be, anyway), it's good news for WotC because the more the general playing population is OK with making those changes, the more they can change without hitting the backlash that 4e caused.

There's also another angle to approach this from, and that's with a design goal in mind of minimizing the changes a player has to make from the default in order to play the game how they want (with the fiction they want). For that goal, even if a lot of your audience would be fine with it, you want a game that doesn't force that kind of change unless it really has to.

Either way, though, if most of your audience is less sensitive to the costs of changing the default than most people are, you gain some freedom. So if I'm being conservative in my outlook here, at least it's good news!

 

[DeltaEcho]

LOL, okay, you've got me there. But seriously, you're taking my comment as WAY more rigid than I meant it to sound, so I'll try saying it another way.

For me, the whole point of playing in an existing setting (either as player or GM) is that I like that setting and want to have the experience of "living" in it with my group. This is especially true of settings based on fictional worlds, such as Star Wars, but it also applies to settings created for RPGs. If I go changing things, then I defeat my entire purpose in using the existing setting in the first place. In that case, I might as well just grab my favorite bits, remix, and call it something else.

Conversely, if there are things about the setting that I seriously dislike, then I won't care about "living" in the setting at the game table. Once again, my solution would be to grab what I like and add it to a homebrew; there's no reason to keep any further ties to the source that I borrowed those elements from.

And finally, I'll note that I wouldn't do this unless the rest of my group felt the same way about the setting. One canon nerd at a table can ruin the fun for everybody else, but a table full of canon nerds will have the time of their lives working out how a particular detail would function in the fictional world.

For all these reasons, I rarely play in existing settings.

Also, with regard to "exceptions may apply," the exceptions include things like the Forgotten Realms, where players are explicitly told to customize the world for their tables.

I'm all for setting fidelity, in things like Star Wars and Star Trek (shhh we never talk about the jaja or JJ...coincidence?....maybe..)
I'm very strict on canon, players can't change history, but they can make history,

But say Eberron, warforged in my game are not what you would call canon, they are the captured and trapped souls of fallen soldiers of both sides, necromancy, their minds wiped, (sorta robcop with amnesia) some fighting against their own side, all unaware from where they came,

An evil conspiracy the public would be outraged, so the forges that created them are destroyed, the people involved slowly, quietly murdered one by one... But the warforged dream...memories.....

i also made airships more common, and gave all the soldiers automatic crossbows, called 'golem bows' (automaton self loading from a magazine) there was a standard model, an officers model and a ballista sniper model,

See, this isn't your standard Eberron, better or worse?
why build a new sandbox when you already have one, that now is more fun?

You can play in any existing setting, you just have to own it, fix it, play it,