D&D 5E The Debate of "Canon" in D&D 5E

[jasper]

Canon is the opening fiction of the a DM's campaign. If the DM does not own/read that book then is is not canon. Just some fluff available for purchase.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, but it is possible to just not like new iterations of an existing IP without being a "gatekeeper". I don't believe the creators of the Star Wars sequels weren't true fans; I just mostly don't care for the product they produced. Same thing for all the lore changes in D&D lately. You can write anything you like, and it says nothing intrinsically about how much of a fan you are, but neither does not liking the new direction a story is taking. New and better are unrelated concepts.

Yes, I totally agree. Now, if people stopped at, "I don't like this new direction, it isn't for me." that would be fine. It's not pretending to be an objective value judgement.

Only problem is, it never stops there. @Zardnaar's little "joke" about 4e is a prime example. The edition wars were all about people who didn't like the new direction, but, couldn't just leave it there, but, had to "prove" that the new thing is bad. I mean, look at @Zardnaar's points about Transformers. That later movies make less money is "proof" that the newer movies are crap. Not that he just doesn't like the newer movies. No, they are "bad" movies. Like the first Transformers movie was a "good" movie. But, notice how canon only matters when someone doesn't like something. The Transformers movie made virtually no reference to the original cartoon canon. Canon didn't matter a whit. But, the later movies don't make as much money, so, NOW canon is important?

Canon is 100% about gatekeeping. Like I said, it's never, EVER the argument - "Oh, I like this change, but, they shouldn't do it because of canon". It is always "I don't like this change. This change is crap. And, the reason that it's crap is because of canon". It's a blunt weapon bad faith argument. See, because, "old and better" are also unrelated.

 

[Eltab]

That later <Transformers> movies make less money is "proof" that the newer movies are bad.

How many people (by headcount, or by percent of audience) have to be in the group "I saw and liked the earlier movies but I didn't like this one" before it becomes the movie that has a problem, instead of the audience that has a problem?

 

[Scott Christian]

The problem isn't that it's a "cash grab" or "inferior". The problem is that people have a fixed idea of what that property was in the past, even when that idea only exists in their head, and then pretend than their taste is grounded in objective values like "canon". It's completely intellectually bankrupt.

While I agree with the spirit of your post Hussar, there is something to consider. Something that is left out of your thinking. The fixed idea in people's head also comes with a time stamp - and not just their age. A time stamp of where we are as a society and what we have been exposed to. When that is taken into consideration, the original may be criticized as not catering to the "canon" lovers. But, in truth, the criticism is just as likely to be it doesn't stimulate the same way because it is produced at a different time - a time when something different is expected. I just think it is often not expressed that way. But that is one of the true gripes of reboots.

 

[Hussar]

How many people (by headcount, or by percent of audience) have to be in the group "I saw and liked the earlier movies but I didn't like this one" before it becomes the movie that has a problem, instead of the audience that has a problem?

The conflation of personal taste with objective value is nearly universal.

 

[Hussar]

While I agree with the spirit of your post Hussar, there is something to consider. Something that is left out of your thinking. The fixed idea in people's head also comes with a time stamp - and not just their age. A time stamp of where we are as a society and what we have been exposed to. When that is taken into consideration, the original may be criticized as not catering to the "canon" lovers. But, in truth, the criticism is just as likely to be it doesn't stimulate the same way because it is produced at a different time - a time when something different is expected. I just think it is often not expressed that way. But that is one of the true gripes of reboots.

Oh, sure. I can see that. I mean, I'm currently rewatching the Bond movies on a bit of a binge. Holy crap are the original Connery Bond movies a festering pile of garbage. Terrible acting, horrible pacing, unbelievably racist and bigotted. As in "I want to wash my eyeballs out with bleach after watching that" level of bigotry. These are AWFUL movies in pretty much every measurable way.

But, I am STILL going to go see the latest one. Sigh.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, I totally agree. Now, if people stopped at, "I don't like this new direction, it isn't for me." that would be fine. It's not pretending to be an objective value judgement.

Only problem is, it never stops there. @Zardnaar's little "joke" about 4e is a prime example. The edition wars were all about people who didn't like the new direction, but, couldn't just leave it there, but, had to "prove" that the new thing is bad. I mean, look at @Zardnaar's points about Transformers. That later movies make less money is "proof" that the newer movies are crap. Not that he just doesn't like the newer movies. No, they are "bad" movies. Like the first Transformers movie was a "good" movie. But, notice how canon only matters when someone doesn't like something. The Transformers movie made virtually no reference to the original cartoon canon. Canon didn't matter a whit. But, the later movies don't make as much money, so, NOW canon is important?

Canon is 100% about gatekeeping. Like I said, it's never, EVER the argument - "Oh, I like this change, but, they shouldn't do it because of canon". It is always "I don't like this change. This change is crap. And, the reason that it's crap is because of canon". It's a blunt weapon bad faith argument. See, because, "old and better" are also unrelated.

It's not gate keeping at all (although it can be).

Take a franchise it doesn't matter what one. Franchises have existing fans by default. Theoretically your reboot or whatever needs to appeal to those fans otherwise why use that franchise in the first place.

Some things should be there immediately obvious your idea is gonna alienate those fans.

An obvious one is the latest Terminator film killing John Connor. The entire franchise was essentially centered around him and they killed him off.

4E is another one specifically the class design that should have immediately been an obvious problem.

So there's big obvious things in various franchises you shouldn't do if you've got half a brain. The fact some people do it anyway means they're fools, blinded by their own arrogance/hubris or blinded by their ideology.

We could go through several franchises and look at big obvious mistakes they made.

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh, sure. I can see that. I mean, I'm currently rewatching the Bond movies on a bit of a binge. Holy crap are the original Connery Bond movies a festering pile of garbage. Terrible acting, horrible pacing, unbelievably racist and bigotted. As in "I want to wash my eyeballs out with bleach after watching that" level of bigotry. These are AWFUL movies in pretty much every measurable way.

But, I am STILL going to go see the latest one. Sigh.

They were products of their time. If you're apply modern sensibilities to stuff not much made before 2015 will pass muster.

 

[Scott Christian]

Oh, sure. I can see that. I mean, I'm currently rewatching the Bond movies on a bit of a binge. Holy crap are the original Connery Bond movies a festering pile of garbage. Terrible acting, horrible pacing, unbelievably racist and bigotted. As in "I want to wash my eyeballs out with bleach after watching that" level of bigotry. These are AWFUL movies in pretty much every measurable way.

But, I am STILL going to go see the latest one. Sigh.

You too. I rewatched one with Connery, and aside from the opening scene, it was difficult to watch.

 

[Scott Christian]

They were products of their time. If you're apply modern sensibilities to stuff not much made before 2015 will pass muster.

For the record, I was not watching it with modern sensibilities. I can still get behind whatever accepted trope there was back then. I was primarily thinking of the plot holes and terrible dialogue that never moved the story forward.