D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Maxperson]

And, let's be honest here, most games are going to be non-canon before the game even starts. Players will want to play this or that class/race/background that is going to be not 100% kosher. DM's are going to add towns, NPC's, dungeons, events and various other details before the first die is dropped.

That's not honest, though. The 3e Forgotten Realms campaign book talks about the countless villages, tribes and settlements, as well as the lost places of the ancients with new marvels and such being discovered each year. It also says that it describes in brief the wide and wonderful world. Other campaign guides over the editions are similar.

The PCs with their backgrounds, the towns, NPCs, dungeons and such, those are all provided for in canon, provided the DM is fleshing out the world and not altering what is specifically mentioned. Specific alterations are what constitutes a canon change, not the things you are mentioning above.

 

[Teemu]

That's not honest, though. The 3e Forgotten Realms campaign book talks about the countless villages, tribes and settlements, as well as the lost places of the ancients with new marvels and such being discovered each year. It also says that it describes in brief the wide and wonderful world. Other campaign guides over the editions are similar.

The PCs with their backgrounds, the towns, NPCs, dungeons and such, those are all provided for in canon, provided the DM is fleshing out the world and not altering what is specifically mentioned. Specific alterations are what constitutes a canon change, not the things you are mentioning above.

But a setting like Forgotten Realms has tons of established lore and canon, not all of which a group may even know of. What if you override an established yet obscure piece of lore, without knowing it? Are you still running a canon game? What if the DM changes something before session 1, not knowing that it violates canon, and during the session a player who knows otherwise tells the DM the truth of the matter? Did the game change from canon to homebrew at that moment, or was it homebrew from the start even if the DM wasn't aware of it? What if the group reads, say, an online article by Ed Greenwood detailing a minor city in the Realms (so this would be official canon), but a year earlier (but still after the publishing of the article) the DM had already detailed that city and in a different manner -- did the game turn into homebrew when the group had figured it a canon game?

 

[Imaro]

One certainly has to wonder if Wizards of the Coast even shares the same disposition towards notions of setting canon as some people in this thread, particularly when it comes to adding things to the setting.

I definitely think they did during the 3e era.

4e with its mantra of everything is core was slightly different... though (I believe) even then specific backgrounds, monsters, themes, classes, etc. were sectioned off in their respective setting books or clearly marked as such in Dragon/Dungeon.

5e not so much...but I do wonder if this approach has less to do with a preffered ethos and more to do with the cutbacks in resources following the end of 4e rather than a conscious desire to mix and match on the part of the developers and designers.

As you say, a GM may add a town or dungeon into a setting.

Don't most setting specifically call out the fact that they haven't fleshe out details like these exhaustively and have left it up to the DM to do so?

So what happens to canon when WotC publish that Yawning Portal supplement that presumably drops these previously Greyhawk dungeons into Forgotten Realms for AL play?

Then they now become a part of FR canon...

Are we also not meant to potentially take some of these published dungeons for FR and drop them into whatever non-FR campaign setting we are using? Am I breaking canon by playing the Red Hand of Doom in Eberron?

I think you are meant to do whatever works for your game. Let me ask you something... If you were at a gaming convention talking with a fellow gamer about FR... and he asks you if you know about Waterdeep and its canon in 5e... would you proceed to tell him about the state of Waterdeep in your particular FR campaign? Would that be answering the question he asked?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

But a setting like Forgotten Realms has tons of established lore and canon, not all of which a group may even know of. What if you override an established yet obscure piece of lore, without knowing it? Are you still running a canon game? What if the DM changes something before session 1, not knowing that it violates canon, and during the session a player who knows otherwise tells the DM the truth of the matter? Did the game change from canon to homebrew at that moment, or was it homebrew from the start even if the DM wasn't aware of it? What if the group reads, say, an online article by Ed Greenwood detailing a minor city in the Realms (so this would be official canon), but a year earlier (but still after the publishing of the article) the DM had already detailed that city and in a different manner -- did the game turn into homebrew when the group had figured it a canon game?

In my opinion, running a canon game doesn't mean that canon cannot change. One of the main reasons that many, if not most people play in a setting is to be able to interact and change the world around them. If a group kills Mirt and escapes Waterdeep, canon has changed. Canon is the jumping off point, not some sort of law.

Where this discussion has really split is in how much canon can be changed before a setting is really no longer that setting, but rather some alternate universe version of that setting.

 

[Maxperson]

But that is honest. As has been pointed out and acknowledged, every game once it starts is immediately non-canon. And this illustrates the slipperiness of various "canon" debates.

I disagree with that notion. A game doesn't deviate from canon until canon has been changed, either by the DM or by the players. Simply starting a game doesn't do that.

If I am running 1983 GH because I think the changes after that are terrible, am I running canon, or not? When you refer to the 3e campaign book, you could just as easily refer back to the original campaign material, or Dragon Articles prior to that, or the 4th Edition Campaign book- all of which have differences. "Specific alterations" were made, and some tables accepted (or rejected) those changes.

That depends. If you are running all 1e GH, then you are running canon. Canon is different from edition to edition.

Going back to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and a point he made, if someone says that the trouble with an official change is because it alters canon, then that can't be a valid complaint, because by definition, it's an official change (and therefore, canon). Changing a succubus, or the status of elves/eladrin, can't be argued against from the P.O.V. of "canon," since canon is only what WoTC/TSR have most recently provided.*

I agree. Official changes are canon. The argument put forth against that(By [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] I think) wasn't that they weren't canon, but rather than changes to canon can be negative and should be carefully considered by the company.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

I agree. Official changes are canon. The argument put forth against that(By @Imaro I think) wasn't that they weren't canon, but rather than changes to canon can be negative and should be carefully considered by the company.

No that wasn't my point about Eladrin. I argued that I didn't like the change because I liked the previous race known as Eladrins and that 4e unecessarily repurposed the name for High Elves when they could have chosen a different name and still kept the Eladrin of old and had the new teleporting elves. I was then drilled on why I liked them, what the differences were and so on. But no my argument was never "because canon"... I'm actually having a hard time remembering anyone in this thread that put forth that as their reason for disliking a change...

I think it was @I'm A Banana that put forth that particular argument concerning canon and I believe it was along the lines of some of the points I've brought up... Consistent canon facilitates the ease of dropping into a game... it alleviates the necessity for spending time going over the campaign setup and character options allowed... and so on but he can probably speak to the specifics of his argument better than I can.

EDIT: I think part of his argument was that new canon must not only be good it must also be good enough to outweigh the conveniences lost from constantly changing canon.

 

[Aldarc]

I definitely think they did during the 3e era.

4e with its mantra of everything is core was slightly different... though (I believe) even then specific backgrounds, monsters, themes, classes, etc. were sectioned off in their respective setting books or clearly marked as such in Dragon/Dungeon.

5e not so much...but I do wonder if this approach has less to do with a preffered ethos and more to do with the cutbacks in resources following the end of 4e rather than a conscious desire to mix and match on the part of the developers and designers.

Don't most setting specifically call out the fact that they haven't fleshe out details like these exhaustively and have left it up to the DM to do so?

Then they now become a part of FR canon...

This only speaks to a sort of self-admitted openness, flexibility, and silliness regarding adherence to setting canon on the part of the actual setting developers. There is no real "Here is THE starting point," because developers seem to have more of a "Here is A starting point" approach. At your table, it's your game. Do with it what you want.

I think you are meant to do whatever works for your game. Let me ask you something... If you were at a gaming convention talking with a fellow gamer about FR... and he asks you if you know about Waterdeep and its canon in 5e... would you proceed to tell him about the state of Waterdeep in your particular FR campaign? Would that be answering the question he asked?

I would tell him that I am not the best person to ask, because I don't particularly care about Waterdeep, the Sword Coast, or the Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, and that he must have mistaken me for someone else because I'm not running a Forgotten Realms campaign.

I'd like to take a step back to address a larger point: there is no one true canon. IMHO, what constitutes "canon" is entirely dependent on the community. It is determined by the mutual consent of the community. (I'm sure discussing religion is a board violation. It is what I study, so it's my primary point of comparison when it comes to debates on canon.) What are the canonical books of the Bible? It varies depending on the Christian faith community. To avoid lengthy discussion about that, I can just post a link here so you can see how biblical canon varies between traditions. And this can vary between not only the books included but also the primary texts or translations used. Notions of biblical canon are contextualized in community consent.

The same is true for Dungeons & Dragons hobbyists or other communities. But this also comes with recognizing that there is no singular D&D community, regardless of the efforts of Wizards of the Coast to unite us all under their banner, but, rather, a myriad of gaming communities. And each community will come with its own notions of what constitutes canon. There were some groups that refused to acknowledge the Prism Pentad books as canonical for Dark Sun. There were others who adhered to everything published "officially." Some adhered to Athas.org under 3rd Edition. Some included the materials published by Paizo. Others adhere to the 4th Edition Dark Sun setting. There is no ONE CANON for Dark Sun; there are Dark Sun canons. And we can see similar patterns of D&D communities determining their acceptable setting canon no matter which setting we pick.

 

[Imaro]

This only speaks to a sort of self-admitted openness, flexibility, and silliness regarding adherence to setting canon on the part of the actual setting developers. There is no real "Here is THE starting point," because developers seem to have more of a "Here is A starting point" approach. At your table, it's your game. Do with it what you want.

I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what you mean here... the game has always been do what you will with your game... that said, once the demand for settings resulted in money to be made... there very much became a pre-designed setting canon that one could adhere to and with said canon there is a starting point in using said canon (whether that's Pre-wars Greyhawk, Eberron or 2nd edition Dark Sun, they all have "The" starting point as laid out by the designers/developers). Judging it as "silly" or not is getting into the type of value judgments I thought we were staying away from.

I would tell him that I am not the best person to ask, because I don't particularly care about Waterdeep, the Sword Coast, or the Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting, and that he must have mistaken me for someone else because I'm not running a Forgotten Realms campaign.

I think you understood what I was getting at but ok... you choose not to answer.

I'd like to take a step back to address a larger point: there is no one true canon. IMHO, what constitutes "canon" is entirely dependent on the community. It is determined by the mutual consent of the community. (I'm sure discussing religion is a board violation. It is what I study, so it's my primary point of comparison when it comes to debates on canon.) What are the canonical books of the Bible? It varies depending on the Christian faith community. To avoid lengthy discussion about that, I can just post a link here so you can see how biblical canon varies between traditions. And this can vary between not only the books included but also the primary texts or translations used. Notions of biblical canon are contextualized in community consent.

The same is true for Dungeons & Dragons hobbyists or other communities. But this also comes with recognizing that there is no singular D&D community, regardless of the efforts of Wizards of the Coast to unite us all under their banner, but, rather, a myriad of gaming communities. And each community will come with its own notions of what constitutes canon. There were some groups that refused to acknowledge the Prism Pentad books as canonical for Dark Sun. There were others who adhered to everything published "officially." Some adhered to Athas.org under 3rd Edition. Some included the materials published by Paizo. Others adhere to the 4th Edition Dark Sun setting. There is no ONE CANON for Dark Sun; there are Dark Sun canons. And we can see similar patterns of D&D communities determining their acceptable setting canon no matter which setting we pick.

That's interesting... I always thought it was what the owners of said IP decided was canon...so if I'm understanding you correctly... if a majority rejects a subset of D&D IP... it is no longer canon?