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

[Aldarc]

No, not hyperbolic in the least. That's what canon fans are. Gatekeepers who insist that things that they like must be carved in stone.

I do agree with most of the points and arguments you are making in this thread, but I'm less enthused about this one. IMHO, canon is less about having things carved in stone or gatekeeping, but, rather, about community (engagement), identity, and clarity.

It can be used for gatekeeping when applied to vetting people, but I don't think that everyone who has an opinion about in favor of the current canon or a disfavorable opinion of a new canon is necessarily a gatekeeper. I think that does a huge disservice to the multitude of people who take part in fan (or religious) communities and their reasons for that. I know a number of female fans of Star Wars, for example, were kinda miffed when Disney invalidated huge swaths of past EU female characters (e.g., Mara Jade), in whom they felt that they invested a lot of their own fan participation. Sure they got more new female characters out of it, but they also lost a fair number of characters that they personally liked.

 

[Hussar]

However, @Aldarc, there is a significant difference between some miffed fans and the fans for whom canon is an actual thing. They're not miffed about canon, they're miffed that they don't have a character that they liked and could identify with. They're not jumping up and down decrying how Star Wars is ruined for all time and has piddled on their childhoods because Mara Jade hasn't made it into the newer Star Wars stuff.

 

[Aldarc]

However, @Aldarc, there is a significant difference between some miffed fans and the fans for whom canon is an actual thing. They're not miffed about canon, they're miffed that they don't have a character that they liked and could identify with. They're not jumping up and down decrying how Star Wars is ruined for all time and has piddled on their childhoods because Mara Jade hasn't made it into the newer Star Wars stuff.

I’m not sure and I think your argument is still far too reductive of fandom but I’ve said my piece.

 

[MichaelSomething]

They can take away my Canon but they'll never take my FANFICTION!

 

[Hussar]

I’m not sure and I think your argument is still far too reductive of fandom but I’ve said my piece.

Fair enough. Really, the vast majority of fandom is perfectly healthy and fine. Sure, they might not like this or that change, but, typically, fans roll with it and move on. What do Klingon's look like? or this or that sort of debate is healthy and no worries.

My issue is that when canon gets invoked in a disagreement, as in, "We can't change X because of canon" it is always done in bad faith. It is never, ever, "We absolutely LOVE the new direction this IP is taking, but, please stop because you are changing canon". It is always, "I hate this. But, I can't simply come out and say that, because, well, other people apparently like it, so, I'll invoke canon and pretend that my argument isn't 100% grounded in my personal tastes."

 

[Aldarc]

Fair enough. Really, the vast majority of fandom is perfectly healthy and fine. Sure, they might not like this or that change, but, typically, fans roll with it and move on. What do Klingon's look like? or this or that sort of debate is healthy and no worries.

My issue is that when canon gets invoked in a disagreement, as in, "We can't change X because of canon" it is always done in bad faith. It is never, ever, "We absolutely LOVE the new direction this IP is taking, but, please stop because you are changing canon". It is always, "I hate this. But, I can't simply come out and say that, because, well, other people apparently like it, so, I'll invoke canon and pretend that my argument isn't 100% grounded in my personal tastes."

Canon in regards to D&D is pretty fascinating, particularly in the case of its settings, planes, or monster lore. There is a tension between the "canonicity" of the setting and its usability as a setting over time. WotC wants people to buy their books and be able to play with the toys the bought (i.e., all the character options). This includes things like the Dragonborn, Drow, and Tieflings. And as I am writing this an idea just popped into my head.

We can call it the "Dragonborn Canonicity Test." In other words, how do fans of a particular setting react (and why) to the idea of adding Dragonborn to the setting. Because, in general, I think that it potentially showcases how different fan groups often approach their respective settings. For example, adding Dragonborn to Eberron wasn't really all that big of a deal because of the setting's mantra: "If it exists in D&D, it has a place in Eberron" (3e ECSB) and "If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a place in Eberron" (4e EPG and ECG). Eberron exists to be useable for everything plus more. But what about other D&D settings (e.g., Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc)? I think we both know what that conversation looks like.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, it seems though, that Dragonborn, despite a lack of "canonicity" is pretty much the poster child for this sort of thing really. Since 5e released, Dragonborn are now in the top 5 most played races. Which, I think, speaks volumes towards how little most people care about canon in D&D settings.

If canon actually mattered, then we'd see a LOT more halfling PC's.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fair enough. Really, the vast majority of fandom is perfectly healthy and fine. Sure, they might not like this or that change, but, typically, fans roll with it and move on. What do Klingon's look like? or this or that sort of debate is healthy and no worries.

My issue is that when canon gets invoked in a disagreement, as in, "We can't change X because of canon" it is always done in bad faith. It is never, ever, "We absolutely LOVE the new direction this IP is taking, but, please stop because you are changing canon". It is always, "I hate this. But, I can't simply come out and say that, because, well, other people apparently like it, so, I'll invoke canon and pretend that my argument isn't 100% grounded in my personal tastes."

As I said earlier, why would you complain about something you like? If you like a change that violates canon, then canon probably doesn't mean that much to you. People complain about things they care about. That's not "gatekeeping", that's human nature.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As I said earlier, why would you complain about something you like? If you like a change that violates canon, then canon probably doesn't mean that much to you. People complain about things they care about. That's not "gatekeeping", that's human nature.

People do not engage in gatekeeping behaviour because the are Evil, they are gatekeepers BECAUSE THEY CARE. They care enough to try and keep people who do things differently out of their "thing". Gatekeeping is human nature. But some of use try to rise above our human nature and do better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That

Heh, it seems though, that Dragonborn, despite a lack of "canonicity" is pretty much the poster child for this sort of thing really. Since 5e released, Dragonborn are now in the top 5 most played races. Which, I think, speaks volumes towards how little most people care about canon in D&D settings.

If canon actually mattered, then we'd see a LOT more halfling PC's.

That I agree with. Most people dont care about canon, so WotC made a good decision for their bottom line by discarding it (as much as I hate it, I know people like me dont matter to WotC anymore). Of course, that also means I no longer treat WotC as any more important to 5e than Kobold Press or DMsGuild, but it's nice that there's a lot of content out there. 5e has been out long enough and enough stuff has been produced by various publishers that it no longer needs its IP holder.