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

[TwoSix]

View attachment 80099

Revenge is a dish best se.... eh, you get the point.

Man, when did Klingons turn into tieflings? D&D really is everywhere!

 

[I'm A Banana]

View attachment 80099

Revenge is a dish best se.... eh, you get the point.

I don't really! Probably because Trek is not my planet in the Nerd Galaxy.

But I assume it's an example of a character that changed in Trek?

...and a quick googling around shows me that, right in line with my stereotypes about Trek fans, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the difference.

D&D orcs between 2e and 3e didn't have narrative happen to them, they were just different now. That broke stories. That's not a great thing to have happened to D&D orcs, and it's not something we should be exactly eager to do again. Maybe we do it if there's a good reason, with consideration (and narrative justification!).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's kind of tautological, though, isn't it? If it's a lousy story BECAUSE it doesn't use a specific set of details, then naturally you're going to think those specific details are kind of important! Although i do think a story about LE orcs must be REALLY specific if you can't make it a story about LE hobgoblins.

A "good D&D orc story" to me is a story that is about D&D orcs, which means about them specifically, using their unique traits and predilections and lore elements to tell a story that could only be told about those specific creatures. Anything short of that skirts the boundaries of Generic Fantasy Story. Which is fine, but is very distinct from a story about D&D orcs, even if it involves them. If you can tell the same story about AD&D orcs and AD&D hobgoblins, you've not got a good story about those creatures, even though it might be a fine Generic Fantasy Story where the traits of the antagonist doesn't matter.

As an example, an AD&D hobgoblin would be the commander of an army of goblins, bugbears, and hobgoblins - and maybe other critters (carnivorous apes!). They'd be at least partially underground, and would have a special hatred for the elves of the realm. They'd be likely interested in material wealth, and they'd be aggressive. An AD&D orc would in contrast be expansionist, seeking to conquer. They'll attack at night, and in addition to the elves, they'll be targeting the dwarves. They take slaves (probably not of those two races), and mix their blood with them (orogs, half-orcs...there are no half-hobgoblins...). The orcs can be traded with and bribed to be military allies, if it's in their best interests (though one should never trust them very far).

A good story about those orcs and a good story about those hobgoblins would be distinct stories. If one could just fill in for the other, it's not a story about those creatures, it just involves those creatures as Generic Antagonists.

For me, I don't run the kind of games where those specific details are really important. I just borrow whatever elements are there, and if they're inspiring, I use them, if not, I change them. Fundamentally, I use the setting as a backdrop to MY story, I have no interest (anymore) in using the story as a way to showcase the setting.

When I say I "use the lore," the example above is what I mean.

I imagine that a lot of tables that care about setting canon use the lore in a similar way.

I don't approach D&D as a place to tell MY story. If I wanted to tell my story, I can self-publish on Amazon and not subject my friends to it. I approach D&D as an activity where I can build a story out of existing elements. If those elements change, so do the stories I can tell with them, making them less effective as building blocks.

Anyway, the point being that stuff happens. Stuff changes. Life goes on.

And you never stop to ask how we can improve the quality of the life that goes on, to limit the destructive changes, to make the world a better place?

I imagine that the rest of 5e D&D and into 6e can be better with lore and barriers to playing than D&D 3e and 4e and even early 5e were. That'd make the world a little bit of a better place in some small way.

 

[TwoSix]

D&D orcs between 2e and 3e didn't have narrative happen to them, they were just different now. That broke stories. That's not a great thing to have happened to D&D orcs, and it's not something we should be exactly eager to do again. Maybe we do it if there's a good reason, with consideration (and narrative justification!).

I respect what you're saying, but I'm just not feeling it. Maybe because I've never played in a game that's crossed editions before. I just don't see why if LE orcs were important to your ongoing game or setting, you wouldn't just keep them.

I mean, if we lost something awesome like VgtM's take on Gnolls because it's a little different than interpretations that came before, I think adherence to canon is doing the community a disservice.

 

[Corpsetaker]

They can be killed in 2e, but only by other gods, except for the FR gods that died at the hands of mortals. Karsus killed one, and Cyric killed Bhaal, and Midnight killed Myrkul.

Don't forget that Finder Wyvernspur killed Moander.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I respect what you're saying, but I'm just not feeling it. Maybe because I've never played in a game that's crossed editions before. I just don't see why if LE orcs were important to your ongoing game or setting, you wouldn't just keep them.

It's possible. But It's effort. It's a hurdle. It's a pain in the butt. Sometimes, it's less effort to just stop playing D&D than it would be force something important to you to be in it (ESPECIALLY if the game uses the default effect to make your change more difficult than it could otherwise be).

I mean, if we lost something awesome like VgtM's take on Gnolls because it's a little different than interpretations that came before, I think adherence to canon is doing the community a disservice.

I don't think you can know that VgtM's take is necessarily any better than some other take that would be more consistent with the lore. It's also not really a zero sum game - new stories can be introduced, as long as there's still room for the old stuff, and the old stuff can even occasionally be invalidated, with thought and consideration.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

It's possible. But It's effort. It's a hurdle. It's a pain in the butt. Sometimes, it's less effort to just stop playing D&D than it would be force something important to you to be in it (ESPECIALLY if the game uses the default effect to make your change more difficult than it could otherwise be).

Maybe this point is where I'm having trouble meeting you. What effort? "Hey guys, we're not going to use chaotic evil orcs, most of the orcs in our game are still lawful evil."

I don't think you can know that VgtM's take is necessarily any better than some other take that would be more consistent with the lore. It's also not really a zero sum game - new stories can be introduced, as long as there's still room for the old stuff, and the old stuff can even occasionally be invalidated, with thought and consideration.

Well, I've read multiple versions of gnolls over the years. The 4e gnolls that took over Nerath were a pretty cool take. The Volo version is way more interesting, though. I mean, to me, but I would hope it's obvious that some people would disagree.

And honestly, once a story exists, how can it ever be invalidated? If you don't like Volo's gnolls (Volgnolls?), just use some other version.