Hussar
Legend
One assumption that has been repeatedly been put forth by Permeton, Hussar, etc. that I wish to challenge is the assumption that STORY IS NOT AN IMPORTANT PART of what makes D&D, D&D. That is, it's O.K. to ditch years of canon because nobody cares about it or uses it, or if they do that's too bad because they don't (or shouldn't) matter. Many games on the market (currently or formerly) have Character Classes. They have spells and magic items. They have Orcs, Goblins, and Dragons. BUT THOSE THINGS ALONE DO NOT MAKE THOSE GAMES D&D!!! Those other games do not have the rich body of lore and canon D&D has (when it sticks to it), and THAT is what makes D&D different than those other games. Not "better" - Pathfinder has a nice storyline too - but unique. Lots of games have spaceships and star battles, but only Star Wars has Luke Skywalker, Vader, etc.
Well, see, there's a host of problems with what you're saying.
In no particular order:
1. People will swear up and down that Pathfinder is D&D. I'm more than inclined to agree with them. I don't really see Pathfinder as "not" D&D. It may not be a game that I play, but, that doesn't make it "not D&D". I mean, good grief, the rules are strongly based on 3e rules, and, barring a few odds and sods that are unique WotC IP, pretty much everything in 3e is in Pathfinder.
Are you arguing that Pathfinder is not D&D?
2. If I play a Star Wars game where the players replace the heroes of A New Hope, so, no Luke, Leia or Han or Chewie, or Obi-Wan, and proceed to infiltrate the Death Star and blow it up by causing some sort of chain reaction in the reactor (or whatever), am I no longer playing a Star Wars game? Is it only a Star Wars game if I include, at the least, the Trilogy canon?
3. Star Wars, as a game, is also uniquely tied to a single setting - the Star Wars universe. D&D is not tied to a single setting. We've had dozens of settings over the years, ranging from fairly bog standard Tolkeinesque fantasy to Dark Sun to Eberron, to Scarred Lands, to Planescape and Spelljammer. Am I only playing D&D if I stick to Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk? Obviously not. D&D is, and always has been, at least in some part, a toolkit for designing your own fantasy setting. Home-brew campaigns abound. I'd be pretty annoyed if someone told me that my World's Largest Dungeon campaign wasn't actually D&D simply because it has it's own lore and whatnot.
4. It is not ok to simply ditch canon. That is not the argument. Or, at least, that's never been my argument. My argument is that canon, in and of itself, is not an objective enough criteria to use to judge changes. I argue that because every single canon argument I see is always based on personal preference. I like this change or I don't like that change so, we'll deem this or that change to be bad not because the idea is stupid or hard to implement or knock-on effects or any number of other criteria, but, it's bad because it's not what came before.
I have no problems with canon in and of itself. As [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] has so eloquently pointed out, canon and lore provides a common language when discussing things. Fair enough. And when that's the discussion, no problems. "I want to play an orc in Dragonlance" "Well, there are actually no orcs in Dragonlance, so, that's going to be a problem". There's nothing wrong with that conversation. Cool. That's a conversation that is always going to happen in every campaign.
But, "I'm going to play a uniquely Dragonlance character - a gnome wild mage!" can (not necessarily will, but can) be something of an issue because that character is drawing on much later changes to the setting that were retconned into the setting. Now, IF (note the IF there, I'm not actually making this criticism) I were to say, "Well, no, that's not really a Dragonlance character BECAUSE of the canon changes", how am I wrong? In what way am I wrong? And, at the end of the day, since it's not my character, who cares what I think?
My point is, I DON'T make that criticism. Canon changes. Canon is mutable. And that's a GOOD thing. It allows for new ideas and new interpretations. Great. Fantastic.
However, many people DO make that criticism. Eladrin are different from what elves were previously so Eladrin are BAD. Not that Eladrin are bad because the idea is wonky or even more simply, "I don't like Eladrin", but, Eladrin are BAD. A qualitative judgement based purely on personal preference.
To me, canon is meant primarily to apply within a specific campaign. It's only when people enshrine canon into the broader game that it becomes problematic. If gnomes are 20 feet tall in my game world, how does that bother you in the slightest? If orcs are civilized members of society (Eberron), how does that impact orcs of the Pomarj in Greyhawk? Canon should be discrete and self contained.
Whenever you try to make the D&D Lore important beyond a specific campaign, then you are forcing everyone else to play one specific way. You are telling all and sundry, "No, your ideas are not right. If you want to play D&D, you have to do it THIS way". And I really don't want that to be my D&D.