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

[pemerton]

It's as different from D&D as The Wheel of Time is.

Except that it has the same core classes, the same magic system, the same list of spells and monsters, the same basic lists of magic items.

WoT doesn't have wizards who memorise fireballs in 3rd level slots and cast then for 1d6 per level; PF does.

 

[Remathilis]

WoT doesn't have wizards who memorise fireballs in 3rd level slots and cast then for 1d6 per level; PF does.

Technically, neither 4e or 5e does.

 

[Maxperson]

A fireball, by default, could do either - it would depend on the details of the build, wouldn't it?

It's irrelevant. The idiom is a fireball for 6d6, which fits both systems.

 

[Maxperson]

Except that it has the same core classes, the same magic system, the same list of spells and monsters, the same basic lists of magic items.

WoT doesn't have wizards who memorise fireballs in 3rd level slots and cast then for 1d6 per level; PF does.

No, it has Aes Sedai(wizards) who learn fireball(page 173) castable in 3rd level slots for 1d6 per level. A 5th level Aes Sedai(wizard) can cast 3 1st level "weaves", 2 second level "weaves" and 1 third level "weave" per day. Sound familiar?

 

[I'm A Banana]

With the possible exception of Sturm and Tasslehoff, you really can't much more of an iconic Dragonlance character than Raistlin. A Greygem-influenced gnome certainly fits into Dragonlance quite easily, unless you're only considering the original modules and the big 6 novels as the "real" Dragonlance.

It could be that this is what [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is limiting his view to (though I suppose he could say better than me!). If that's all I had to pull on for character information, I suppose I wouldn't be making a Greygem-influenced gnome, either! My goal to create an authentic DL character with a unique story that could only be told in DL would have produced a different character. The "inauthenticity" of my character arises in his mind perhaps because it isn't in line with those 6 novels and original modules.

Again, I think you are focusing on a subordinate element of the situation. I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] could have read all the stuff you did and not have a different view. The issue between you is one of theme, not one of content.

There are elements of this discussion that contradict this assertion. I'm not scholar of DL lore, but if Greygem-influenced gnomes, wild sorcery, doubt in the gods, etc., weren't a part of the original 6 novels and modules, and that's what Hussar is using as a litmus test for authenticity, I can see his perspective!

Hussar has clearly read the key Raistlin stories (the first two trilogies). But I strongly suspect that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] thinks of Raistlin as a villain, not a hero - that his turn to the black robes (ie evil) and his attempt to replace the gods as ruler of Krynn is not a heroic goal.

If so, then it should be clear that not all the Heroes of the Lance must have a heroic goal. That you can be a fully functioning and even very iconic character in the setting and be something of an anti-hero. When I say that I can see where our DM is coming from with the comparison between my gnome and Raistlin, that's one of the big elements of overlap! I can see a path for Lutwidge through Evil!

Hussar has not said there are no mages outside the ToHS (there are renegade wizards) - he's said that ToHS is what is paradigmatic or distinctively authentic about DL. By making your character a gnome who is not a tinker you avoid exemplifying what is distinctive about DL gnomes. By being a non-ToHS wizard you avoid exemplifying what is distinctive about DL magic.

Renegade wizards are no less authentic, though! And as far as the "tinker" aspect goes, this philosophy underpins the magic of my wild sorcerer - turning the dials and tweaking the knobs and adding unnecessary rockets to the fabric of reality is just a magical application of the tinker aspect! If you told my gnome he wasn't a tinker, he'd know you for a fool, easily mislead by the smell of grease and the sound of engines from the reason that gnomes tinker. And then he'd cast a spell, to show you what his inventions, do (ideally with a wild surge!).

And by opposing the gods you exemplify a trait of (what I think Hussar would take to be) a key villain (Raistlin), who only redeemed himself by abandoning his plan to oppose and destroy the gods.

And won't it be interesting to see if my gnome could or should follow the same arc, or if he'll be more content in destruction than in the preservation of a flawed status quo? Isn't that "authentic" to DL - an extremist presented with the limits of their extremism?

Isn't Raislin a valid character archetype for a DL player? If I literally just played "Raislin, but called Lary," wouldn't that be "authentic"?

Your difference of opinion is one of interpretation/thematic reading, not of facts. The commentator on Tom Sawyer and I have both read the same Mark Twain book. We've both read the same story about Tom getting his friends to help him whitewash the fence. What we disagree about is what it means in thematic terms.

But this doesn't seem to be the case with Hussar and I - I have not read the six original novels/modules. If that's what he's basing his canon on, it's not so surprising that he's got a more limited view of "authenticity" than I (or many in this thread) do.

Canon is pretty factual, and the loss of magic and subsequent return via the Greygem and The Chaos War are canon events. It's not a thematic interpretation. @I'm A Banana is not trying to interpret what it means that magic came back that way. He's just using the factual return of magic.

What's more, I see the meaning of that to be something that should be determined in play. If the Greygem is causing the return of destructive chaos magic, then what does a creature who reflects the age's mistrust of the gods do with that information? Between the rock of callous deities and the hard place of apocalyptic chaos (what he thought might save the world might also doom it), what does he do? What choices will he make? What goals will he pursue? Can he find a Third Option?

Hell, this is pretty evocative of Cataclysm's original story - someone doing the best they can to make the world a better place, but presented with evidence that this might not work the way he hoped...

I don't know what choices he'd make when starting the character, or if he'd even have an opportunity to make any choices about that. I can only find that out by going through the steps of play.

And if none of those things were important in the original six books, then I can see that someone using those six books as a basis might wonder about this space-alien gnome...and I'd be playing a different character, if those original six books informed my character options.

 

[Shasarak]

Then what's your definition? Let's hear it. It's got to be better than mine, right?
Define D&D. Go.

My DnD includes all of those things that yours excludes including clones and fantasy heartbreakers.

Like I said before, if someone tells you that they are playing DnD then what game are they playing exactly without you finding out more information?

 

[Shasarak]

Again, I think you are focusing on a subordinate element of the situation. I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] could have read all the stuff you did and not have a different view. The issue between you is one of theme, not one of content.

Hussar has clearly read the key Raistlin stories (the first two trilogies). But I strongly suspect that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] thinks of Raistlin as a villain, not a hero - that his turn to the black robes (ie evil) and his attempt to replace the gods as ruler of Krynn is not a heroic goal.

I think this is missing the point.

Hussar has not said there are no mages outside the ToHS (there are renegade wizards) - he's said that ToHS is what is paradigmatic or distinctively authentic about DL. By making your character a gnome who is not a tinker you avoid exemplifying what is distinctive about DL gnomes. By being a non-ToHS wizard you avoid exemplifying what is distinctive about DL magic. And by opposing the gods you exemplify a trait of (what I think Hussar would take to be) a key villain (Raistlin), who only redeemed himself by abandoning his plan to oppose and destroy the gods.

This is not a difference of opinion about what DL permits. It's a difference of opinion about what DL, at its core, is.

Raistlin is one of the most important characters in the first two trilogies. Hussar has read those books. He knows about Raistlin.

The problem as I see it is that Hussars vision of Dragonlance differs from the Weiss and Hickman version of Dragonlance. If the original authors can create a hero that does not fit Hussars vision of Dragonlance then maybe his vision is either too narrow or just incorrect.

 

[Shasarak]

But I'm not sure that this follows. Being complex or multi-dimensional doesn't necessarily entail being subjective or "just a matter of opinion".

Well it does if you are involved in a major campaign with your friends to stop the Mindflayers from extinguishing the sun. I bet that the lore "Mindflayers want to extinguish the sun" becomes very integral into your vision of DnD.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But it was never asserted that every campaign world was part of the same fiction as every other. It was a conceit for world building (new vistas for PCs to explore) and for moving PCs from campaign to campaign.

Does it need to be asserted? A Cosmology with a prime-material multi-verse seems to positively beg for the assumption.

Sure, but this just raises another version of the same question. Can one play Metamorphis Alpha without Gamma World (eg the earth itself is destroyed?) - I think so. Can one play Gamma World without Metamorphis Alpha (ie there is no gigantic starship that was launched from the earth)? Again, I think so.

Sure, you /can/, and they're not designed to interact, so you probably will, functionally (whether the GM decides the Warden is out there/Gamma World is back there doesn't matter to the play of either game).

IIRC, though, there's an off-hand comment in GW somewhere about the Warden.

And, y'know, the 1e DMG had conversion rules to take D&D characters into GW or vice-versa.

 

[Mirtek]

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.

Actually Mystryl committed suicide, Cyric killed Bhaal by stabbing him Mask (so it really was Mask) and Midnight was already Mystra in all but name at this very moment. Finder's killing blow was backed by Tymora

Additionally anyone who completed those modules is now told that their play is non-canon because now not only is Lolth alive but even more powerful than before.

Why are you invalidating the play of hundreds if not thousands of gamers? What gives you the right to tell them that they are wrong? Isn't lore important to you?

That happens when you have a metaplot. Individual games are of no importance. It's not a bug, it's a feature. The lore is greater than any groups individual game.