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

[Scribe]

But even if you make the "correction," it won't actually be the same. It may be more similar, but you can't go back and have that same experience, now that you know it could be different. And you can only experience something for the first time once.

While true, if the issue is one of fundamental design, or 'feel' then yes you can go back.

We could delete the Tasha's rule from the official rules, just as they have removed restriction on ASI. These things can certainly happen and either return or change, the current approach to what we had before.

The experience may be different now, but you absolutely can return to a tone or marketing essentially, that harkens back to a different era.

This is especially true for rules systems. Your experience may be different, but your experience is different every time you do anything...

 

[Urriak Uruk]

While true, if the issue is one of fundamental design, or 'feel' then yes you can go back.

This thread is about lore and canon... neither of which IMO is fundamental design.

It's design sure, but not fundamental. I can take the rules of 5E, strip out 95% of the lore, and still play D&D.

 

[Scribe]

This thread is about lore and canon... neither of which IMO is fundamental design.

It's design sure, but not fundamental. I can take the rules of 5E, strip out 95% of the lore, and still play D&D.

Lore is even easier.

"Oh that retcon? Forget that, we are going back to this lore, thats canon. Yeah Asmodeus never should have been made a god, and we shouldnt have screwed up the Realms, sorry about that."

 

[Micah Sweet]

This thread is about lore and canon... neither of which IMO is fundamental design.

It's design sure, but not fundamental. I can take the rules of 5E, strip out 95% of the lore, and still play D&D.

And if WotC were to strip out 95% of their lore, and this was not a positive for you, what should your response be? What I'm inferring from some posters here is that the only acceptable responses to change are meek acceptance or quiet abandonment.

 

[Scribe]

And if WotC were to strip out 95% of their lore, and this was not a positive for you, what should your response be? What I'm inferring from some posters here is that the only acceptable responses to change are meek acceptance or quiet abandonment.

100%.

1. Accept it.
2. Be quiet and leave.
3. Crow about how canon was meaningless anyway and anyone that likes it is a gatekeeper.

Those are the acceptable responses in this scenario.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Because it’s not canon they are complaining about. It’s that they don’t like something and want to pretend that their preference is more important than other people’s preferences.

If canon was actually important then any changes would be a problem.

 

[Hussar]

Lore is even easier.

"Oh that retcon? Forget that, we are going back to this lore, thats canon. Yeah Asmodeus never should have been made a god, and we shouldnt have screwed up the Realms, sorry about that."

And here is exhibit A. “Screwed up the Realms” is simple a matter of taste. “I don’t like what they did” is perfectly fine.

But it never stops there. It’s always “I don’t like what they did to the Realms. It’s contrary to canon. Canon is important so it should be changed back”. The reverse argument is never used.

It’s not really gate keeping. But it is trying to pretend like your tastes are more important than other people’s.

 

[Hussar]

And if WotC were to strip out 95% of their lore, and this was not a positive for you, what should your response be? What I'm inferring from some posters here is that the only acceptable responses to change are meek acceptance or quiet abandonment.

Nope. You can certainly complain. Fair enough. But once you try to couch your complaints in objective terms, now it’s an issue.

In other words, “I don’t like this” is always fine. “You cannot do this because TRADITION” is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Lore is even easier.

"Oh that retcon? Forget that, we are going back to this lore, thats canon. Yeah Asmodeus never should have been made a god, and we shouldnt have screwed up the Realms, sorry about that."

Moving the goalposts here.

You: Lore should go back to what it was.
Me: Even if you change it back, it won't feel the same as it did when you experienced it then.
You: You can still go back, and the design and rules can harken back to an earlier era.
Me: But lore/canon isn't fundamental design or rules.
You: Yes, that makes the changes easier.

Like, what? What are you arguing for, or against? I'm just not following your thought train.

I'm not in the "change is always good" camp, but I'm certainly not in the "all change is bad camp."

I especially am not fond of the mindset that original lore is inherently better, as folks are inherently biased to liking the lore they first read. It's nostalgia bias.

You earlier used an example of Asmodeus being made a god, and it's one of those things that I'm like... why does it matter, that's not inherently worse that him being not-a-god, it's just different.

 

[Scribe]

And here is exhibit A. “Screwed up the Realms” is simple a matter of taste. “I don’t like what they did” is perfectly fine.

But it never stops there. It’s always “I don’t like what they did to the Realms. It’s contrary to canon. Canon is important so it should be changed back”. The reverse argument is never used.

It’s not really gate keeping. But it is trying to pretend like your tastes are more important than other people’s.

Call it whatever you want, when they pull a big ol' rewind on a setting through a series of novels commissioned to do just that, well.

Regardless, canon doesnt exist outside of the core 3 anyway, so /shrug