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

[Jester David]

The concept that when there something already there, you have to overcome a very high presumption to change it. That change, by its very nature, is bad because THIS IS IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE or it wouldn't be there.

That's why I wrote that you may not fully understand the implications of your argument- your response is a perfect encapsulation of (small-c, Burkean) conservatism.

It's not that change is bad. It's that change is not always good.

When something is changed, it could be a change for the better or it could be a change for the worse. But it is almost always changing something that someone does likes. Because every part of the game is someone's favourite. There's a lot of gamers out there and no matter how much you hate something, someone loves it.

When you make a change, you're effectively gambling that the people who find the change to be positive will be larger than the people who find the change to be negative, and their likes and new enjoyment will be greater than the dislike. You're putting likes of potential people against the likes of actual people. That's always going to be problematic.
If you're changing something based on feedback, then you have an idea. You know some people want the change. You're making an informed decision. If you're making a change on a whim or because something is a personal pet peeve, that's much less informed and selfish: you're putting your own tastes and likes ahead of an unknown number of other people's likes. Because you don't care about it, it doesn't matter.

 

[Shasarak]

Sorry. No. You specifically called out GDQ as the source of lore. Lolth as goddess precludes playing that module in later editions since gods can't be killed in 2e. At the very least.

2e starts with Gods being killed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jester David]

But regarding your last sentence- I would argue that for the most part, it is true. Most of us don't care about other people's like or dislikes, but simply hope that their likes and dislikes match our own, and if they do, we use that as evidence that our own likes and dislikes are correct .... whereas if they don't match our own preferences, we will mutter about how people are misled, sheeple, etc. Same as it ever was!

Your views of your fellow posters and gamers is far more cynical than mine.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shasarak]

This still leaves two things unanswered, though. And I think they're related.

(1) You don't have to lap anything up. If WotC publishes stuff you don't like, you don't buy it/read it. You just stick to the stuff you like

I have answered this already. How can I know which stuff I dont like without buying it and reading it? Even if I can find a reviewer that follows my tastes because a book is produced by a lot of contractors nothing is going to be equal and you are always going to have your demon gnolls mixed in with everything else anyway. That has always been the case.

Which suggests to me that you care about the D&D lore beyond your personal use of it in your gaming, or your reading of it. It seems to upset you that WotC publishes a book saying that (say) "FR is XYZ" when that contradicts your preference that FR be ABC.

(2) What is the nature of the goodness that you see/experience in D&D lore? I don't think it's just the goodness of the play experiences that it gives you. (For the sorts of reasons that I say this, see (1) just above.) To me it seems that you're seeing the D&D lore as some whole or totality, which can be damaged/violated by writing new stuff that differs from what has gone before (especially if the new stuff is poor). This is why I asked about you taking it to be a work of art.

Of course it is a work of art. I think the mistake you are making is looking at it like it is some kind of Painting or Sculpture where everything is fixed once it is complete. Things like the FR are more like an ongoing serial where you get a different producer and writers coming in every so often. Even Happy Days continued on for a while after the Fonz jumped the shark.

I mean I could go on about the beauty of a finely crafted meta-plot and on the other hand I do not believe the current stewards are interested in that other then where they can rehash or reimage old Greyhawk material into the Forgotten Realms.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course it is a work of art. I think the mistake you are making is looking at it like it is some kind of Painting or Sculpture where everything is fixed once it is complete. Things like the FR are more like an ongoing serial where you get a different producer and writers coming in every so often. Even Happy Days continued on for a while after the Fonz jumped the shark.

I'll be honest, to my mind the mistake is looking at the books as anything other than Lego blocks to use to build your own game.

I mean I could go on about the beauty of a finely crafted meta-plot and on the other hand I do not believe the current stewards are interested in that other then where they can rehash or reimage old Greyhawk material into the Forgotten Realms.

Nobody really does meta-plot anymore. Even World of Darkness stopped doing it, and the bulk of their identity in the '90s was based on it!

 

[Corpsetaker]

I'll be honest, to my mind the mistake is looking at the books as anything other than Lego blocks to use to build your own game.


Nobody really does meta-plot anymore. Even World of Darkness stopped doing it, and the bulk of their identity in the '90s was based on it!

Gotta disagree here.

Ever wonder why the 5th edition Realms more resembles the old Realms? (Well sort of).

That's because during 4th edition they ruined the lore and most Realms fans scattered like a bunch of rats when the lights came on. The problem I see is they have tried to attract these fans back but at the same time change the lore to fit new people which is essentially an even bigger slap to the face.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The great thing about canon is it's there for people who want it and it's easily removed for those who don't.

 

[TwoSix]

Gotta disagree here.

Ever wonder why the 5th edition Realms more resembles the old Realms? (Well sort of).

That's because during 4th edition they ruined the lore and most Realms fans scattered like a bunch of rats when the lights came on. The problem I see is they have tried to attract these fans back but at the same time change the lore to fit new people which is essentially an even bigger slap to the face.

The fact that the 4e Realms wasn't a critical success doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried it. It just means me they should be willing to shrug, and try something different. Realms fans didn't leave, they just didn't like the latest version. They're still there when WotC produces something they like. Realistically, if they weren't so beholden to canon, they could shrug off the Spellplague as an "alt-future" and just reboot to 1380 or so.

The better example would be Star Wars and the prequels. Lots of people don't like the prequels, and came right back for Episode 7 and Rogue One.