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

[Imaro]

The "fanbase" for The Avengers isn't people who remember how many sripes Captain America has on his suit, or what year Bucky's was born. It's people who have some vague recollection that the Hulk is green and angry, and who enjoy Robert Downey Jr's screen presence.

It's about key tropes, not the minutiae of "canon".

You make all kind of assumptions about things you couldn't actually know... what was it earlier you said about "making stuff up"??

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ccs]

*When the self-contained MCU has existed long enough for actors to age out of their roles, and for contradictions to mount, then it would be more prudent to discuss the extent to which something is "canon." But we've seen how quickly Marvel moves away from ideas when they believe it's not in their best interest; you can see that in their unexplained re-casting of the Hulk and War Machine.

No explanation is needed for this. It's merely the Live-Action version of a different artist now drawing the character.
Happens all the time in the books.

 

[Corwin]

The new Iron Man is evidently a teenage African-American female. Are some people here convinced it is destined for failure due to "canon change"?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Morrus]

The new Iron Man is evidently a teenage African-American female. Are some people here convinced it is destined for failure due to "canon change"?

Canon change is changing things retrospectively - changing the old Iron Man. Introducing a new character in the current storyline isn't canon change.

 

[Corwin]

Canon change is changing things retrospectively - changing the old Iron Man. Introducing a new character in the current storyline isn't canon change.

That's all fine and dandy. Good luck getting everyone in this thread to agree with you...

 

[Morrus]

That's all fine and dandy. Good luck getting everyone in this thread to agree with you...

I can't think of a more tedious challenge. I'll pass, thanks.

 

[Imaro]

The new Iron Man is evidently a teenage African-American female. Are some people here convinced it is destined for failure due to "canon change"?

Exactly what canon was changed... did they go back and retcon Tony Stark? Or is this a continuation of the lore?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that there's a continuum, which is why I default to the position that good changes are good, and bad changes are bad. It is trite, obvious, and true. But there is no other way to put it.

Good changes are good and bad changes are bad.

What makes a change good or bad is ultimately arbitrary, subjective, and personal.

All changes - whether good or bad - have a cost. They will disrupt games.

The designers need to acknowledge and embrace that, to consider that part of the price to pay for any cool new idea they might have, because that's the ultimate reality.

That's a conservative pressure, but that's what you get when you're working with an existing brand, with existing IP - you have a history to respect.

That doesn't stop someone with a Cool New Idea For RPGs from going out and publishing their own RPG with their Cool Idea, if they want, but it does mean that if you think it's cool for Dragonlance gnomes to be wild sorcerers, or for all tieflings to be from one nation named Bael Turath, that you should probably take into account the fact that some people will definitely not like that, and weigh that with the potential gains that you'd forsee from such a change.

I'd encourage the publishers to be about as cautious about reworking lore as they are about issuing errata or revising mechanics in 5e - very. Do it, but know that it is going to disrupt some games when you do, and consider that as a counterweight to the value you see in it.