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

[Mirtek]

Gnomes can be Magic Users NOW. That's a retcon. They can be Wild Mages NOW. That's a retcon.

First of all it's a change. Whether it's a retcon depends on how the settings handle it.

If the novels never stated that gnomes can't be magic users, just simply never featured a gnome magic user before, then that's not a retcon because it breaks nothing in the continuity.

If the novels formerly actually stated that gnomes can't be magic users and then suddenly have gnome magic users appear with no word of explanation, just assuming they have always been there, then that's a retcon.

If the novel feature an in-canon reason for there suddenly being gnome magic users where there weren't any before (e.g. I believe FR tied dwarvish suddenly ability to use magic to the thunder blessing and also 4e explained why suddenly all tieflings looked different), that's just the metaplot marching ever onward and not a retcon.

The game rules themselves are not really that important for the canon, as the canon is made by the official lore and that is not bound by any game stats (e.g. how could hero X in novel Y defeat villian Z, by there respective game stats in Heroes Lorebook and Villians Lorebook the fight couldn't happen that way -> answer: ignore the game rules, they're a crutch to let us participate in the ongoing metaplot driven by the novels and canon endings of adventures and supplements). Except when certain changes to the game rules go too deep and become so fundamental that even the lore can no longer ignore them.

 

[Hussar]

Well, a couple of things. One, the novels went out of their way to explain that all Magic users are Wizards of High Sorcery and anyone else is hunted down and killed. So, there is that. Plus, the later bits about the Greygem of Gargath (sp) adding Wild Magic to the setting is something that came about quite a bit later, even though the Greygem is talked about earlier in the series. It's added later because Wild Magic was added to the game later.

So, I'd call it a retcon. Particularly the bit about allowing anyone other than humans and elves to be wizards. But, that's a largely semantic quibble and not terribly important.

 

[I'm A Banana]

[MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION], after arguing that later changes aren't "authentic" is claiming that a gnome wild mage is an "authentic" Dragonlance character.

I ain't got time for a full reply right now, but it's replies like this that make me think you aren't reading my actual words.

This isn't my claim, at all, and it's never been. I'm not claiming the character is authentic. I didn't know what an "authentic" DL character was like, so I read some sources, and the character seemed to be authentic based on those sources. You don't agree, based on other sources.

My actual problem is that disagreement, and the fact that lore changes caused that disagreement. That disagreement is what hampers my fun-times and what I want to avoid going forward. That disagreement is the entire problem.

The cause of that disagreement, as far as I can tell, is different lore. If the lore was always the same, we wouldn't be in this situation (since I wouldn't be playing a gnome wild mage) and I'd be having more fun.

 

[Hussar]

I ain't got time for a full reply right now, but it's replies like this that make me think you aren't reading my actual words.

This isn't my claim, at all, and it's never been. I'm not claiming the character is authentic. I didn't know what an "authentic" DL character was like, so I read some sources, and the character seemed to be authentic based on those sources. You don't agree, based on other sources.

My actual problem is that disagreement, and the fact that lore changes caused that disagreement. That disagreement is what hampers my fun-times and what I want to avoid going forward. That disagreement is the entire problem.

The cause of that disagreement, as far as I can tell, is different lore. If the lore was always the same, we wouldn't be in this situation (since I wouldn't be playing a gnome wild mage) and I'd be having more fun.

But, that disagreement is completely unavoidable. Not in any setting as large as this that spans that much time of the game's history.

If your goal is to create an authentic Dragonlance character and you only read a tiny sliver of the lore of the setting, why would you be surprised that there might be some disagreement? I'm kinda stuck on your stated goals vs the effort you made towards those goals. When we played a Dark Sun campaign, I did exactly the same thing you did - hit up Wikipedia and a couple of other websites and created a character that I thought was fitting for the setting. At the very least, it wasn't going to stand out as not fitting at all. After all, I didn't know much of anything about Dark Sun, so, if I want to play a Dark Sun game, I wanted to at least not be the odd guy out creating something that was way out in left field.

Now, would I say that my character was authentically Dark Sun? No. Not really. As play progressed, I realized that the Defiling thing was a much bigger deal and the character I made probably was bending canon pretty heavily. Thing is, the campaign simply adapted and we moved on. It wasn't that big of a deal.

But, at no point would I try to claim that my warlock was an authentic character. I borrowed from what I read, made it fit in with the campaign and moved on. But, again, my goals are not the same. I wasn't trying to make an authentic character. I was just trying not to make an oddball character in a very unfamiliar setting.

By "authentic" I'm taking you to mean that anyone looking at this character would immediately connect that character to a specific setting. Is that correct? Am I interpreting you correctly? Which, to me, means you have to dig a bit deeper than a couple of wikipedia pages and then expect that the setting canon has remained static for the past forty years. That's pretty unrealistic isn't it?

I'm looking at making a priest of Kossuth for a Forgotten Realms campaign. Now, this will be the third incarnation of this character who originally saw daylight in 2e using Faiths and Avatars. With the recent Forge Domain thing in the Unearthed Arcana series, I can get very close to my original character, but, it's still pretty different. After all, the 2e version could summon a fire elemental. The 3e version could do the same. 5e can't. Now, I could bitch and piss and moan that canon has changed and the game sucks because I can't do what I did before. I could do that. But, I'd rather shrug, move on and realize that my 5e version of this character is not going to be exactly the same as what I played 25 years ago or 15 years ago. I mean heck, Kossuth isn't even a god anymore. He's a primordial. I don't even know what that is. So, I'll do a bit of digging and find out and then incorporate that into my new iteration of the character.

To me, it's more like how the Bond movies work. Every version of Bond shares some similarities, but, they are all different. Roger Moore's Bond and Timothy Dalton's Bond and Daniel Craig's Bond are all different. And that's a GOOD thing. What's an "authentic" Bond? I don't know. It's like what's an "authentic" Batman. Again, I don't even think that's a very good question. If I want to play a Bond character or a Batman character, I'm going to draw on the existing lore and then make it my own. It probably won't be the same as anyone else's Batman or Bond. It will be MY interpretation of that character. And the only real criteria for judging my performance is "do people like it?"

 

[Campbell]

I don't think it is all that helpful to view a game setting in the same way we view other media. Game settings have a purpose. They set the ground for play. A good setting will drive play and provide players with questions that can be answered in play. As much as any procedure or directive setting should be designed to serve the needs of the game. I view setting as just as fertile an area for revision as any game rule.

As a general thing I think we sometimes latch on to setting as a fetish, and I do not think that's helpful. When actual play takes a back seat to lore we are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But, that disagreement is completely unavoidable. Not in any setting as large as this that spans that much time of the game's history.

If your goal is to create an authentic Dragonlance character and you only read a tiny sliver of the lore of the setting, why would you be surprised that there might be some disagreement? I'm kinda stuck on your stated goals vs the effort you made towards those goals.

I'm getting the impression that the disagreement is due to both people involved only reading a tiny sliver of the setting - different slivers. If one person only knows the original trilogy, and one the setting as it stands currently, after all the world-changing events in between, then they are going to disagree on aspects of the setting.
It strikes me as an issue ultimately due to the DM not specifying whether their particular Dragonlance game would be set as the setting stands now, or during an earlier period.

By "authentic" I'm taking you to mean that anyone looking at this character would immediately connect that character to a specific setting. Is that correct? Am I interpreting you correctly? Which, to me, means you have to dig a bit deeper than a couple of wikipedia pages and then expect that the setting canon has remained static for the past forty years. That's pretty unrealistic isn't it?

I'd view "authentic" as merely fitting in with the setting. Until you actually start name-dropping setting-specific details into the concept, most characters would not be connected to a specific setting at first glance.
"Good-aligned Drow ranger" sounds a lot more like an Eberron character than a FR one for example.
By your metric, a human fighter member of a noble knightly order is "inauthentic" for Dragonlance. - It could be from several settings.

 

[Corwin]

That's odd. Why did it take the 4th Drizzt novel to change their minds? Did they miss the whole Icewind Dale Trilogy?

Was he in those too? Were they earlier works? Wikipedia claims his first appearance was in Homeland. I don't know. I don't even like those books. I was just using him as a popular example to illustrate an important point about how canon naturally evolves to include things as of yet not considered. And arbitrarily picking a cut-off point misses the creator's right to expand his creation as he goes. And that, just because something has not yet shown itself in a particular setting, does not mean there cannot be room for, or acceptance of, it. But I do like minutia driven pedantry designed to avoid engagement. Well played.

All of that aside. Even if your point *is* true, if no one in Jimmy's group had ever read the Icewind Dale Trilogy, my illustration stands. If Homeland was the first book to enter their field of vision, its the introduction of "the newly possible" into their understanding of the FR canon. Prior to seeing it, the group would still have said the same things to Jimmy. Their reaction to his idea the same.

 

[Corwin]

And you'Re still missing the point. Gnomes can be Magic Users NOW. That's a retcon. They can be Wild Mages NOW. That's a retcon.

Again, admittedly unfamiliar with the intricacies of DL, was the original setting explicit in denying the possible existence of such things? Was there a stated reason why it was an impossibility and must be avoided to maintain setting truisms? Or is it that they weren't relevant? Or never pop up? Or maybe just not considered at the time?

 

[Shasarak]

Ahh, I see now that you changed my point @Shasarak. I didn't say, "pretend" to be a Knight. I said, BE a knight.

You know that Sturm was not a Solamnic Knight, right? Well until basically just before he died, so the archetypal paragon of Solamnic virtue is based on a lie.

And no, wild magic does not appear in the first book. You have to be a wild mage to cast wild magic no? Are you now retconning Fizban as a wild mage? Fizban was a GOD.

It does not matter if Fizban was a God or not, the fact is that you have a precedent of wild magic in the setting right in the first book.

No, Raistlin didn't not sell his soul to Fistandantilus, he was POSSESSED by Fistandantilus. To the point where that possession actually changed his alignment. Warlocks aren't possessed by their patrons. You're retconning canon to fit your personal narrative.

If we accept your premise that Raistlin was possessed by Fistandantilus then why did Fistandantilus go back in time to learn from and then kill Fistandantilus? That series of events does not seem to match your suggestion of being Magic Jared.

And you'Re still missing the point. Gnomes can be Magic Users NOW. That's a retcon. They can be Wild Mages NOW. That's a retcon. Believe it or not, the setting actually existed before 3e. I know it's hard to believe, but, honest, there really was D&D before 1999. Granted, it was written on strips of bark burned with sticks, but, hey, it was there.

Gnomes have always been Magic users, unless you come from the Illusionists are not Magic users camp in which case we will just have to agree to disagree.

Again, you're arguing a different point than what @I'm A Banana is arguing. You're arguing that a gnome wild mage "fits" with the setting. I'd totally agree with that. @I'm A Banana, after arguing that later changes aren't "authentic" is claiming that a gnome wild mage is an "authentic" Dragonlance character.

Look, if someone said, "I'm playing a gnome wild mage with a hate on for the gods, what setting should I play this character in?" would your first or even third answer honestly be Dragonlance? Seriously?

I guess this is a bigger problem then canon. When I get given a short list of viable characters to play then I start to wonder what type of game the DM wants to play. If this is going to be War of the Lance take 2 then maybe I am not interested in seeing that story play out again. Maybe I want to see how the Gnome and Minotaur play through rather then "Not-Tanis" and "Not-Flint" off the official list of characters.

 

[pemerton]

The game rules themselves are not really that important for the canon, as the canon is made by the official lore and that is not bound by any game stats

I find this a bit odd. I would expect the game rules to reflect the canon, by at least setting some parameters within which the fiction of the game is established.