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

[I'm A Banana]

From your own quote [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]. It states that wild mages make a come back AFTER the beginning of the Age of Mortals.

It also says that it "very nearly vanished entirely" before that. Importantly, that is not the same thing as not being there. Nearly vanished entirely is the Force in A New Hope - a practice of isolated madmen and antiquated zealots (either of those could accurately describe my character!). One lone gnome isn't contradicting that in the slightest, anymore than one Sith lord and an old dude on Tatooine and two kids with some potential are "non-canon" in a world where the Force is in great decline.

If you believe wild magic doesn't exist during the Age of Despair, you're simply wrong. Unless you're working with those ol' Alternative Facts, you really need to accept that wild magic was there in the Age of Despair, according to DL canon. Very nearly vanished entirely, but not actually vanished entirely. My gnome could be the only wild mage in the world, and it'd be in line with the lore.

But, now, apparently, it's the writer's fault for using different Ages for delineating the time line of the setting. It's not like there's a handy timeline http://www.dlnexus.com/lexicon/13099.aspx anywhere to be found?

I certainly didn't find one in my initial search! But I also knew that lore supported a gnome wild mage in every Age, so I figured it didn't matter too much - there was no Age in which wild sorcery was entirely absent from Krynn, so the timeline wasn't necessary. I might be nearly one-of-a-kind, but every hero is in one way or another.

More broadly speaking, yes - it's a problem when a setting encompasses multiple possible and highly divergent "Ages" for gameplay, like DL does. Because it's harder to get folks on the same page about what is in or out if different things or in or out depending on what book you pick up. I mean, you apparently didn't read the 3e CS, but that shouldn't really have mattered! Metaplot is toxic, in part, for this very reason.

You're arguing that it's lore changes that make thing difficult. True, to a point, I suppose, particularly when you cannot be bothered to actually read the setting and learn the changes. I mean, your stated goal is to create a character using the lore of the setting, but, then turn around and make a mistake in using that lore, and apparently now I'm a bad person for pointing that out?

Look, you made a mistake. A fairly minor one and one that certainly doesn't really take anything away from the character. It happens. But, it's still your mistake.

You're not a bad person for "pointing that out," you're just wrong. Incorrect. Counterfactual. Mistaken. The thing you're pointing at isn't what it looked like at first. Turns out it really was a weather balloon this time, Mulder.

That you won't accept this after it's been pointed out to you indicates that this isn't actually about the facts of the matter for you, though. You apparently have some need for me to have a character that doesn't conform with canon. You even ignore contrary evidence to maintain the falsehood. And suddenly it's Thanksgiving again and I'm arguing with my family about voter fraud.

But, see, this is the whole point about this. Beating someone around the head and shoulders with the canon bat is such useless wankery. However, so many people here want to force anyone who wants to see something changed to conform to what came before. We cannot possibly have a different planar set up - it doesn't conform. We cannot possibly have different elves, it doesn't conform.

So the point is that you're scared of the Imagination Police? Of D&D being somehow "trapped" by lore? That's your worst-case scenario? That we don't get different things?

You don't need to be scared of that. Even in the most extreme situation, that never, ever, ever happens.

Consider the worst-case scenario. Okay, tomorrow all of WotC reads this thread and considers my opinion that lore changes should be about as conservative as mechanics changes and says "Like that, but EVEN MORE!" and goes the extra mile - as of this very moment in D&D history, all lore is entirely crystallized and unable to change. No new elves. No new cosmology. No new taxes.

"Orc. Orc never changes. "

In this apocalyptic extreme, you know what every new book WotC releases contains?

New lore. Okay, the planar layout can never change. But look, there's this really awesome idea for a new planar layout that Katie has, and it's so exciting and we just have to publish it, so how does that nut crack? I mean, we have to publish this. It's awesome, it will make us all rich, it gives people free icecream, it is the cosmology that will unite the world in peace and harmony. But OH NO, we have this new policy that we cannot violate! WHAT DO WE DO?!

Well, we publish it. I mean we have to, right? But we can't say that this is the D&D cosmology, we've been forbidden. So we say, hay, this is an alternate reality that can be accessed via super-special portals (that we're going to open up in FR). That's still entirely with canon. Alternate planes! Everyone who wants to can go there and visit!

And because it's such a grand and awesome cosmology, everyone does and when 6e comes along, we dump the old stuff like THAC0.

In a less extreme scenario, Jerry's got a sweet new elf race design he's been working on. I mean, it doesn't cure cancer like Katie's cosmology, but it's interesting, could be a fun take. But OH NO, we have this new policy we cannot violate! WHAT DO WE DO?!

Well, we publish it. I mean, it's a cool idea. They fly gyrocopters. It's neat. But we can't say that this is the D&D elf, we've been forbidden. So we say, hay, here's a new race. We call them the...El...v...amajigs. Elvamajigs. Because, you know, they're...magical. Okay, ELVAMAJIGS are released and you can use them in your game! And the people happy with what they have are all "Meh." And the people looking for interesting new ideas are all "Ooh, gimmie some of that!" And absolutely nobody is all "Wait, if I want to play an elf I need to fly a gyrocopter? Wh...what?"

And it's an interesting idea and if it has some legs, maybe we consider sticking it in a PHB when 6e comes along or in the new adventure that we're publishing or whatever.

So you know, it's okay if they don't treat established lore like trash waiting to be thrown out. It really doesn't hurt anything. Even if they NEVER changed ANY lore EVER again, we'd still have creative new stuff.

It's going to be okay, fam. No one wants to stop new ideas.

But, when push comes to shove, suddenly canon isn't important. We can make all sorts of allowances and changes (wild magic has always been around... even though that's not canon) and it's perfectly fine.

I'm gonna post this bit of canon once more: "During the Age of Might and Age of Despair, the magic of the Scions was reduced until it very nearly vanished entirely."

That does not mean wild magic is not around. In fact, it means exactly the opposite: wild magic is around. Very nearly vanished entirely isn't the same thing as "doesn't exist." Very nearly vanished means "if you play a wild sorcerer, you might be the only one around." It informed my characterization.

It's canon that wild magic exists during the Age of Despair in Dragonlance, and that really isn't something up for debate, so if you continue to ignore it, I'm going to have to assume you're being a bad actor and aren't really interested in a conversation.

So, what makes it perfectly fine? People's preferences. Canon is only important when people want to force their personal preferences onto other people. Otherwise, canon can be changed, no problem.

Canon was important to me when I made my character. I didn't change canon to fit. I built my character with the existing canon (including the existence of wild magic) like one builds a castle out of LEGO.

Personal preferences always shape the character being built, and for me my personal preference is to use the lore of a setting to work with the intended design of the setting as an emergent property of the interaction of the mechanics and fiction elements. A maltheistic gnome wild mage in the Age of Despair doesn't twist the setting to my own ends, it arises from the setting, directly informed by it, and not with the same story anywhere else.

You're free to imagine it's not a character that you believe ought to exist, but as we've discussed above, your personal subjective opinion of what is in-genre as a "Dragonlance" character isn't thing anyone can debate you on, really. As long as you agree that the DM has the authority to reject characters that they believe violate the setting as they intend to run it, you agree that this character in this campaign is "authentic Dragonlance" even if you might do it differently were you in the driver's seat.

 

[Sadras]

Actually your missing the point I'm trying to make.

I've argued all the way along that canon arguments can be boiled down to preference arguments. That canon only matters when someone wants to force other players to conform to a specific point.

Which is precisely what I've been demonstrating with the gnome argument. I've repeatedly pointed out that I think it's a fantastic character and that altering canon has resulted in a far more interesting game.

But I've repeated been told on this thread and others that canon matters. That it is important in and of itself.

Until it's not apparently. We are free to ignore canon .... sometimes. And the only criteria I can see is that we can ignore canon when it's convenient.

I agree with most of this.

Convenient though might be a tad too negative a word.

What if it is a DM limitation or a specific story that the DM wishes to explore and that a character concept that is not directly tied into the setting breaks from that mould. For instance, as DM, I want to explore the Thyatian-Traladaran political scene in Karameikos and a player comes to me with a character concept which is not tied to that political conflict directly. As DM I may not wish to explore an additional story.

In the Tyranny of Dragons storyline and many others WotC have included character backgrounds which tie into the module/campaign for PCs. I imagine its to make it easier for characters to be invested in the storyline. Same with plot hooks and such.

My players know that I dislike monks - that is the one class I forbid in my campaigns. As DM I believe it is my right to have that set limitation on campaigns I run and my players at my table are obviously accepting of that. Wouldn't I as DM also have a right to determine what character concepts may or may not work for me in the campaign too?

Again like you said it boils down to a matter of preference which may or may not be influenced by the setting (canon).

 

[Shasarak]

My players know that I dislike monks - that is the one class I forbid in my campaigns. As DM I believe it is my right to have that set limitation on campaigns I run and my players at my table are obviously accepting of that. Wouldn't I as DM also have a right to determine what character concepts may or may not work for me in the campaign too?

Isnt that just a self fulfilling prophecy? You kick out any player not accepting your rules so therefore all the players at your table must accept the rules. Surprising no one wants to play Monks after you get rid of all the players that want to play Monks.

 

[Sadras]

Isnt that just a self fulfilling prophecy? You kick out any player not accepting your rules so therefore all the players at your table must accept the rules. Surprising no one wants to play Monks after you get rid of all the players that want to play Monks.

Unsure how that relates or has any relevance to my response to Hussar? My point was that if I as DM might be allowed to select which classes/races I permit at my table, what makes it different for the DM to say no to a particular character concept?

Onto your snarky remark - thankfully I have never had to kick anyone out of my group, and the only one who has left is because they had an issue with another player.

 

[Maxperson]

It also says that it "very nearly vanished entirely" before that. Importantly, that is not the same thing as not being there. Nearly vanished entirely is the Force in A New Hope - a practice of isolated madmen and antiquated zealots (either of those could accurately describe my character!). One lone gnome isn't contradicting that in the slightest, anymore than one Sith lord and an old dude on Tatooine and two kids with some potential are "non-canon" in a world where the Force is in great decline.

Right. It was there all along. The other thing with forces that nearly vanish, or even become entirely unknown for a period of time, is that it doesn't mean that some individuals along the way didn't discover them. It just means that the knowledge wasn't passed on or made general knowledge. Take the discovery of America. Columbus is credited with that since he was the one that made the Americas common knowledge. Later we discovered that others found it before him, but nobody ever heard about it from those people. Wild magic is just like that.

 

[Maxperson]

Isnt that just a self fulfilling prophecy? You kick out any player not accepting your rules so therefore all the players at your table must accept the rules. Surprising no one wants to play Monks after you get rid of all the players that want to play Monks.

He didn't say that he kicks out players for wanting to play monks, or that they don't want to play monks. He said they accept his limitation of no monks, just as mine accept no dragonborn.

 

[Tallifer]

I run in Eberron, for which I read the short 3rd edition introduction book and bits here and there from the 4th edition campaign book, but I mostly just make up my adventures and throw in whatever cool stuff I think the players will like. Cookie gnomes under the Black Mountains of Breland defending themselves from a kingdom of ghouls; an Astral Sea populated with githyanki, githzerai and hammerheaded albatrosses; the paths through Khyber pen up into the lost world of Pellucidar populated with ice cream dinosaurs and sleestak; a draconic prophecy leads the party on a year-long quest through realms and various psychedelic adventures; clockwork everything.

 

[Shasarak]

He didn't say that he kicks out players for wanting to play monks, or that they don't want to play monks. He said they accept his limitation of no monks, just as mine accept no dragonborn.

Yeah, it is pretty convenient. I should really just not pay attention to those types of DMs.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, it is pretty convenient. I should really just not pay attention to those types of DMs.

What kind? The kind who have limitations? I love to play wizards, clerics, rogues and fighter. Those are my favorite classes. Were it to get into a game where wizards bothered the DM for some reason and he didn't want them in the game, I'd be okay with it. We're all here to have fun and I wouldn't want to disrupt the DM's fun by trying to play a wizard. I'd pick one of the other classes I like and we'd all have a blast.

 

[Shasarak]

What kind? The kind who have limitations? I love to play wizards, clerics, rogues and fighter. Those are my favorite classes. Were it to get into a game where wizards bothered the DM for some reason and he didn't want them in the game, I'd be okay with it. We're all here to have fun and I wouldn't want to disrupt the DM's fun by trying to play a wizard. I'd pick one of the other classes I like and we'd all have a blast.

The ones who think they know best about what kind of characters the Players get to have bother me.
There is not really any valid excuse in a DnD campaign, just lazy DMing.