D&D General What do you think about Wizard's canon changes for the Forgotten Realms?

[Rafael Martin]

What do you think about Wizard's canon changes for the Forgotten Realms? I read the article below, and I support the changes WOTC is making. This is a positive step forward for the development of the game. Let me know what you think.

Big Changes To The D&D Canon Could Spell Controversy - The Level Up Corner

Wizards' willingness to make changes to the D&D canon seem to rely on a disconnected idea of their audience and how they use canon material.

levelupcorner.com

 

[Scribe]

What do you think about Wizard's canon changes for the Forgotten Realms? I read the article below, and I support the changes WOTC is making. This is a positive step forward for the development of the game. Let me know what you think.

Big Changes To The D&D Canon Could Spell Controversy - The Level Up Corner

Wizards' willingness to make changes to the D&D canon seem to rely on a disconnected idea of their audience and how they use canon material.

levelupcorner.com

Trash change.

 

[overgeeked]

Do I like them? Then they’re good and long overdue.

Do I dislike them? Then they’re bad and WotC should feel bad.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Are there any specific canon changes that are new?

Also, I mean, let's be real here. These are changes to the Sword Coast and Icewind Dale. Somehow I think the rest of the Realms are safe.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As a Greyhawk stan, I used to have strong opinions about the Forgotten Realms.

Now, I'm indifferent to those changes.


However, as someone who has 1,437 essays* on the D&D multiverse, and why that's a good thing, I am ecstatic that we are going back to the general idea of multiple Marvel-like planes.

That said, as someone who, in their dotage, still views M:TG as "that silly card game that will never amount to much,"** I am less-than-enamored by speculation that 6e will just be about crossing the streams.


*Numbers are approximate, but it feels like that.

**I may have been wrong. What ever happened with that Wizards company and their silly card game, anyway? TSR crushed them, right?

 

[cmad1977]

Since the only canon that’s ever mattered is MY canon… “shrug”.

 

[eyeheartawk]

That said, as someone who, in their dotage, still views M:TG as "that silly card game that will never amount to much,"** I am less-than-enamored by speculation that 6e will just be about crossing the streams.

Same. If this was posted a couple of years ago I would have likely shrugged that off as unlikely.

Now?

Not so much.

I mean, not only are there two full setting guides for MTG that are extant right now, there are a further number of Plane Shift documents available as well in addition to an upcoming Magic setting that is new to both the card game and D&D (so not a release spurred on by customer demand, safe to say).

On the other hand, you have Ravenloft and Eberron that got a full treatment for actual D&D settings, while the "main setting for most of D&D" gets nothing of the sort (SCAG is poop and really lacking) so about 90% of Faerun is flatly ignored.

All of that doesn't inspire much confidence in me that Wizards intends to not merge them.

 

[Scribe]

All of that doesn't inspire much confidence in me that Wizards intends to not merge them.

I enjoy MtG, the game. Or, I did.

Merging with D&D would be the fastest way for me to chuck the next edition out the window, well, one way.

 

[Voadam]

The article seems to be talking about WotC's statements that RPG canon is separate from novels, and each edition of the RPG is different separate canon from the others instead of a continuous one, similar to Marvel cinematic universe versus marvel comics. WotC had also said that only the three core books are canon, so essentially there is no setting canon outside of those books.

I think that the canon for settings should be continuous, like FR having a mostly continuous canon from 1e to 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e that includes the different media. I am not looking forward to a lot of new reconceptualized and rebooted FR incompatible visions for comics and movies and computer games and RPG modules.

The article also seems to be complaining about WotC making adjustments on racial stats and such. Which is a whole different tangent.

The article does not seem to be about things like WotC removing official references to the Wall of the Faithless in an errata document for the Sword Coast guide. Which is what I thought this thread was going to be about.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The article does not seem to be about things like WotC removing official references to the Wall of the Faithless in an errata document for the Sword Coast guide. Which is what I thought this thread was going to be about.

I never understood the whole Wall of Faithless thing.

Other than the small issue of maybe being a wee bit offensive, there's the separate issue of not making sense. Think about it... if you are in a world with cleric casting spells given to them by deities, it would be pretty hard to say, "Yeah, those gods don't exist."

It's crazy! It would be like someone today saying, "Okay, I understand time zones, and space travel, and GPS, and all that, but c'mon ... the world isn't really round."

....oh, wait. Drat!