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

[Hussar]

The problem is fixed by those people who like and use Eladrin to continue to like and use Eladrin as they have been liking and using Eladrin.

Personally I would rather see something for Warforged then Eladrin.

LOL. So, why didn't that same argument apply before? Why is it okay for you to tell me to change, but, not okay the other way around?

See, those who like and use Eladrin are SOL in 5e. There's no stat block for Eladrin in 5e. Although there is a writeup for a 4e style one in the DMG. So, those who wanted Angel Elves are now out of luck. But, that's fixing the problem?

 

[Shasarak]

LOL. So, why didn't that same argument apply before? Why is it okay for you to tell me to change, but, not okay the other way around?

So you dont like it now when someone arbitrarily changes something that you like? But it was Ok for you for years when some one else was having to deal with changes they didnt like? Yeah, it does seem like a double standard.

See, those who like and use Eladrin are SOL in 5e. There's no stat block for Eladrin in 5e. Although there is a writeup for a 4e style one in the DMG. So, those who wanted Angel Elves are now out of luck. But, that's fixing the problem?

Personally I would rather see something for Warforged then Eladrin but we all have our crosses to bear.

 

[Shasarak]

Hrm. Let's see. An athiest character in Dragonlance - non-canon. A spell casting gnome in Dragonlance - non-canon. Wild mage in DL. Non-canon.

You do realise that Dragonlance had no Gods for 300 years, right? And yet being an Atheist in DL is non-canon for you? Then what do you classify the Seekers as? False God worshipers perhaps. Just as correct, and canon, as an Atheist in DL.

In the original Dragonlance Campaign book there is such a creature as a "Mad" Gnome who has no tinkering ability and therefore could (presumably) progress in the same fashion as a non-Tinker Gnome.

And lastly, surely I can not be the only one to remember Fizban and his "wild" magic? I have never seen a Feather fall like that and that was in the first book of the first DL novel trilogy.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How is the problem fixed? Those that liked eladrin as a player race are out in the cold. Those that liked eladrin as a monster are also SOL. They aren't in the monster manual. Nobody wins. This huge issue that people were freaking out about frequently was fixed by completely removing it from the game. Nobody wins.

I didn't mention this earlier because I know it isn't really the point, but the Eladrin are in the DMG. They're the race used as an example in the "how to create a race" section.

Just saying. Your larger point still stands, and I'' mostly in agreement with you RE canon.

The problem is fixed by those people who like and use Eladrin to continue to like and use Eladrin as they have been liking and using Eladrin.

Personally I would rather see something for Warforged then Eladrin.

Warforged were handled in an Unearthed Arcanna release.

The problem is fixed by those people who like and use Eladrin to continue to like and use Eladrin as they have been liking and using Eladrin.

So I guess my question is this...we're all talking about changes...who can change my game?

I mean that sincerely.

I can change my game.
My players can change my game.

Is there anyone else? Can the designers change my game? Authors like Greenwood or Salvatore?

 

[I'm A Banana]

And that bolded part is pretty much the end of the argument. How important is canon when you cannot even be bothered to learn the canon in the first place?

I've been telling you: it's important to inspire stories. I've learned what I can to help inspire mine, because it's important to me that I play a character that uses the setting. Because I like settings, and playing different characters, and telling different stories!

All your quotes are second hand, after MUCH revision to the setting. Wild Magic is added to the setting LATE in 2e. A good ten or fifteen years after the setting is released. Actually, that's a perfect example. Something is retconned into the setting because it happens to appear in some supplement later on down the road. If canon was actually important, wouldn't those retcon's be bad? After all, we're not supposed to start rewriting settings right? It's a bad thing to add, say, Abeir to Forgotten Realms, but, it's okay to completely rewrite how magic works?

You realize that the conversation we're having about the gnome wild mage is exactly the same conversation that causes friction in tables across the world for every bit of lore change? This is me in a 4e game playing a Turathi tiefling with ties to ancient fallen lineages while you sit there telling me that it's not authentic to the Dickensian tiefling story you know and love. Only, I'm doing it with an irreverent gnome wild mage, and it's the story about DL gnomes that you know and love.

I don't know that there's much of a better illustration about why canon matters, and why changing it causes issues, than this very back-and-forth. Clearly the change in DL canon has caused issues! If it hadn't changed much, I would be playing a more "authentic" character!

If all we had was the original DL novels/adventure line, gnomes would be incapable of magic (I guess?) and that would be the end of it - even in our 5e game. But because they've changed and added info to the setting, it's created an "inauthentic" character in your mind, because it uses magic.

And that, ladies and gentlemen is my entire point. "Canon is important" is just a shorthand way of saying, "Anything that changes that I don't like is bad and must be excised from MY setting/game lore". Whereas any change, no matter how much it changes canon, that is liked by the viewer is perfectly acceptable. It's just another way for people to force other people to play a specific way.

If the lore on gnomes hadn't changed, I'd be playing a character much closer to your view of the way a DL character should be played, I suppose, so you can clearly see in action how changing the setting lore and canon has created a negative effect at the table: I'm trying to be authentic to the setting, and you reject my character as inauthentic, because we're working with different versions of the canon.

 

[Shasarak]

Warforged were handled in an Unearthed Arcanna release.

As far as I remember there was no such release.

So I guess my question is this...we're all talking about changes...who can change my game?

I mean that sincerely.

I can change my game.
My players can change my game.

Is there anyone else? Can the designers change my game? Authors like Greenwood or Salvatore?

Ok, so the question is not who can change your game, it is who has to change your game. Unless you keep rolling with whatever system you always use then at some stage you have to start up dating your mechanics and I guess [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has no Eladrin support just like I have no Warforged support. So Bob and Ed are sitting pretty writing their non-mechanical books leaving the rest of the suckers making it up on their own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As far as I remember there was no such release.



Ok, so the question is not who can change your game, it is who has to change your game. Unless you keep rolling with whatever system you always use then at some stage you have to start up dating your mechanics and I guess @Hussar has no Eladrin support just like I have no Warforged support. So Bob and Ed are sitting pretty writing their non-mechanical books leaving the rest of the suckers making it up on their own.

The first Unearthed Arcana release had several of the Ebberon races and concepts, including Warforged. Here's a link: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/unearthed-arcana-eberron

And the Eladrin appear in the DMG, as previously stated. So you both h have your races of preference provided. Also, there's the rest of the section in the DMG on designing races that could help if there are other races you want, or if the warforged or Eladrin are not up to your standard.

And when I talk about changing my game, I didn't mean the mechanics, but the canon. Who can change the canon in my game?

 

[Hussar]

So you dont like it now when someone arbitrarily changes something that you like? But it was Ok for you for years when some one else was having to deal with changes they didnt like? Yeah, it does seem like a double standard.



Personally I would rather see something for Warforged then Eladrin but we all have our crosses to bear.

The difference being, you already HAD what you wanted. You had pages and pages of Eladrin material already. I didn't get what I wanted until 4e. Now, we're both SOL since neither version really appears in the game.

If the lore on gnomes hadn't changed, I'd be playing a character much closer to your view of the way a DL character should be played, I suppose, so you can clearly see in action how changing the setting lore and canon has created a negative effect at the table: I'm trying to be authentic to the setting, and you reject my character as inauthentic, because we're working with different versions of the canon.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-setting-quot-canon-quot/page26#ixzz4NPj0mZpZ

Ok, before this goes too far, let me be absolutely clear. I LOVE the character. I think the character is fantastic and the game would be much poorer without that character. This is in no way a negative criticism of the character. But, Dragonlance canon? Seriously?

See, the funny thing is, you can directly compare the earlier conversation about Tieflings with what we're talking about now. You argued that the standardization of the appearance of tieflings was a marketing decision. I'd probably agree with you.

Why do you think wild magic got added to Dragonlance? Could it not have equally been a marketing decision to make sure that people who played DL campaigns would still buy Tomes of Magic and get full use out of them? Retconning the setting so that later publications can be sold to those who play that setting is a marketing decision.

Only difference is, you like the second one and don't like the first. And that's where the Canon Stick comes out. Big Horned Tieflings are bad because it's a money grab by marketing. It's the marketing department interfering with the game. But, despite the exact same reasoning for adding wild magic to a setting and retconning the setting, that's okay because... reasons?

If canon was actually important, people wouldn't cherry pick. Instead, canon arguments are simply the beatstick so that people can justify not liking something.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ok, before this goes too far, let me be absolutely clear. I LOVE the character. I think the character is fantastic and the game would be much poorer without that character. This is in no way a negative criticism of the character. But, Dragonlance canon? Seriously?

Again, this demonstrates the issue. I've practically given you citations on the canon I used as a foundation for the character. But because that's not "real canon" for you, you can't accept it as authentic. We're essentially operating with two different "canons" and they both can't be true, so you write off the character as "anti-setting" and I'm left with failing to make a uniquely DL character.

See, the funny thing is, you can directly compare the earlier conversation about Tieflings with what we're talking about now.

Yeah, and it sucks. I can't blame someone if they don't want to have a Debate About Gnome Facts just because the old grog at the table is operating on a different canon than the newer player.

This conversation right here is what dramatic lore change does to a game.

You argued that the standardization of the appearance of tieflings was a marketing decision. I'd probably agree with you.

Why do you think wild magic got added to Dragonlance? Could it not have equally been a marketing decision to make sure that people who played DL campaigns would still buy Tomes of Magic and get full use out of them? Retconning the setting so that later publications can be sold to those who play that setting is a marketing decision.

Yeah, could be!

Only difference is, you like the second one and don't like the first.

This is waaaaaaaay off base.

I'd maybe prefer Dickensian tieflings all other things being equal, but Turathi tieflings are fine, and I'm fond of their tension with the dragonborn, for instance. If there was a game where Turathi tieflings were explicitly the only tieflings (perhaps set in the Nentir Vale, or maybe in a pulpy S&S setting), I'm in. I'm having fun with my gnome wild mage, but I'm sure I could have fun with a lot of different characters - if gnomes could not be wild mages in DL, I'd have fun with a gnome who was...a rogue maybe?

I'm basically agnostic when it comes to which lore a particular game decides to use. I just want to be able to use it. I can't do that effectively if I keep having to talk about what one really means when one talks about gnomes or tieflings.

And that's where the Canon Stick comes out. Big Horned Tieflings are bad because it's a money grab by marketing. It's the marketing department interfering with the game. But, despite the exact same reasoning for adding wild magic to a setting and retconning the setting, that's okay because... reasons?

If canon was actually important, people wouldn't cherry pick. Instead, canon arguments are simply the beatstick so that people can justify not liking something.

You seemed to have missed this important point:

Clearly the change in DL canon has caused issues! If it hadn't changed much, I would be playing a more "authentic" character!

I've no particular investment in playing "an irreverent gnome wild mage." My goal isn't to play that particular character. I've got more character ideas than hairs on my head, and I'm not particularly precious about 'em. If that lore is wrong for the setting, I don't want to be using it - I'll play an irreverent gnome wild mage in some other time and place where it means something.

My goal is to play something meaningful in the setting's lore, something that has a unique story because of the setting. Maybe I'd play an irreverent gully dwarf or something, I dunno.

I'm saying, "hit me with the canon stick." I tried to hit myself with it! I want to use the heck out of the canon, to make a character that could ONLY exist in this setting, or that has some special significance BECAUSE it's in this setting.

But if there's twelve different canon sticks, and they all look the same, and the only way to tell them apart is to have three decades in learning them...then my goal is basically impossible. I'll do my best to learn the setting and apply its logic to my character, but it'll be all for naught because someone else at the table is assuming some other version of the setting where my character isn't actually possible.

Just give me the canon, and I'll tell the story with it. Don't change it just 'cuz some new class or edition came out. If that means no wild mages and that your devil-worshiping warlocks are called "turathans" instead of "tieflings," that's all fine!

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, and it sucks. I can't blame someone if they don't want to have a Debate About Gnome Facts just because the old grog at the table is operating on a different canon than the newer player.

This conversation right here is what dramatic lore change does to a game.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-setting-quot-canon-quot/page26#ixzz4NPvrXXI6

The difference is though, I don't actually care. I don't judge your character by how well you stick to canon. I judge the character based on how fun it is to see played at the table. This is why someone playing an animated scarecrow doesn't phase me in the slightest. Or a beatbox Modron. The characters are fun and interesting. Canon can go hang for all I care.

AFAIC, you've basically taken canon behind the woodpile. AND THAT'S FINE. AFAIC, it's expected. I certainly don't expect players to adhere too much to canon, because, IME, there will always be one or two players at the table who have cool ideas that supersede whatever canon expectations there are. So long as it in no way impinges on anyone else's fun and it's fun to watch, why on earth would I give the slightest thought to canon?

I'm only bringing it up now because you care. This is completely a non-issue to me. You want to play a Psionic Illumian in Dragonlance? FANTASTIC. Sell me on the idea. I'll take canon out behind the woodpile myself in favor of a cool idea.

But, see, that's the difference. I don't care about canon or lore. Canon or lore is just something there that might spark a cool idea or it can get left on the floor. It in no way actually drives me as a player or a DM. And, again, IME, most players care far, far more about their cool idea than whatever it says in some book.

So, to me, this is a total non-argument. Do I think your character is pretty far removed from a canon DL character? Yup. I do. But, at the end of the day, who cares what I think? It's your bloody character. I certainly don't judge the character based on canon or setting lore. I judge the character on how much fun it is to see it in play. If you think it satisfies canon, who am I to disagree?

Conversely, who are you to tell me that I cannot have some new thing just because it disagrees with some canon that you happen to like? That's the problem I'm generally seeing though. People take extreme ownership over published lore and canon and freak out over changes. My point is always the same. You've already got what you wanted. You've got piles of books and ideas to draw from that you like. Why does it have to be a zero sum game? I cannot have something that I like because it conflicts with what you like, just because your got yours first?

Just like I have zero right to tell you that you're playing your gnome wrong, you (and I mean this as the general you, as in anyone) have no right to tell me that I'm playing the game wrong.

You don't like that new thing they're adding to the game? Ok, fair enough. Just keep using the stuff you've got and ignore the new stuff. Wait a bit and it'll change again. Illithid that don't eat brains? Well, show me what you've got, and I'll judge it. I'm certainly not going to just simply write it off just because it's different.