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

[Faolyn]

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.

Butting in here, my response would likely be to either not even notice the change (if it were minor) or to compare the change to what I had known before and take the bits I like best from both versions.

So a question for you: in the 5e Monster Manual (and possibly in 4e as well), there were a bunch of changes to things like monster origins. Creatures that used to have "natural" origins are now created by demons (gnolls, lamias), through divine transformations (harpies), through regular curses (peryton). Orcs and goblins went from being evil because they're evil to being evil because they're micromanaged by their evil gods. Beholders used to be born. Now they're created in dreams. Did you notice? Did you care? If so, why? Did you just "meekly" accept the change, did you ignore it in favor of an earlier interpretation, or go "huh, this could be interesting?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

Butting in here, my response would likely be to either not even notice the change (if it were minor) or to compare the change to what I had known before and take the bits I like best from both versions.

So a question for you: in the 5e Monster Manual (and possibly in 4e as well), there were a bunch of changes to things like monster origins. Creatures that used to have "natural" origins are now created by demons (gnolls, lamias), through divine transformations (harpies), through regular curses (peryton). Orcs and goblins went from being evil because they're evil to being evil because they're micromanaged by their evil gods. Beholders used to be born. Now they're created in dreams. Did you notice? Did you care? If so, why? Did you just "meekly" accept the change, did you ignore it in favor of an earlier interpretation, or go "huh, this could be interesting?"

I prefer natural origins whenever possible. If I dislike a change, I express that dislike, but eventually just choose whatever version I'm happy with and go with that. WotC's new approach to canon has just convinced me that what they say no longer matters.

 

[Aldarc]

Ackually, there was a dragonborn listed as a possible reincarnation for Tatyana in VGR, and it suggests that there's a population of them in Darkon.

Personally, I prefer a human-and-mostly-human-only Ravenloft, though. I don't even like having native elf, dwarf, or halfling PCs.

Not sure how this disproves my assertion, but thanks anyway.

 

[Faolyn]

I prefer natural origins whenever possible. If I dislike a change, I express that dislike, but eventually just choose whatever version I'm happy with and go with that. WotC's new approach to canon has just convinced me that what they say no longer matters.

So why not continue doing that? The monsters I mentioned are as much canon as anything else in D&D, but got changed--and not just this time, but frequently throughout the editions.

But seriously, has the canon ever really mattered to the game you play? I don't mean as a plot point that inspired an adventure (because that's what lore is supposed to do), but in the sense that it directly shaped how your campaign went? Have you ever said "I must (or must not) do this thing in the adventure I'm running because of canon?"

 

[Faolyn]

Not sure how this disproves my assertion, but thanks anyway.

Then I'm not sure what your assertion was, because you basically said "if you added dragonborn to ...Ravenloft..., then we know how the conversation would go."

 

[Micah Sweet]

So why not continue doing that? The monsters I mentioned are as much canon as anything else in D&D, but got changed--and not just this time, but frequently throughout the editions.

But seriously, has the canon ever really mattered to the game you play? I don't mean as a plot point that inspired an adventure (because that's what lore is supposed to do), but in the sense that it directly shaped how your campaign went? Have you ever said "I must (or must not) do this thing in the adventure I'm running because of canon?"

No, the canon doesnt matter on the tabletop. The thing is, I got really into D&D with 2nd edition, which presented a reasonably consistent history and story for its campaign settings. Since I didn't get to play often, my engagement with the game most often took the form of reading the books. To me, those stories were no different than novels, film, or TV. It was fiction to be consumed and expanded upon. Even in 3rd ed, I could still mostly make it work. 4th ed was so different that I could compartmentalize it and ignore it. When 5th ed began, I recognized that it was a great system mechanically, and the lore was still close enough for me. As time went on, every book seemed to pull further and further away from what I enjoyed about the stories of D&D, until recently they up and told people they're going to do what they want, and the past doesnt really matter anymore. This has been hard to get over, but eventually I came to realize that I dont care what WotC does either. They're doing what they think people want whether I like it or not.
I'll miss the old stories I grew up with, but I wish WotC luck in chasing the new hotness. Like you said, canon doesn't matter at the table.

 

[Faolyn]

No, the canon doesnt matter on the tabletop. The thing is, I got really into D&D with 2nd edition, which presented a reasonably consistent history and story for its campaign settings. Since I didn't get to play often, my engagement with the game most often took the form of reading the books. To me, those stories were no different than novels, film, or TV. It was fiction to be consumed and expanded upon. Even in 3rd ed, I could still mostly make it work. 4th ed was so different that I could compartmentalize it and ignore it. When 5th ed began, I recognized that it was a great system mechanically, and the lore was still close enough for me. As time went on, every book seemed to pull further and further away from what I enjoyed about the stories of D&D, until recently they up and told people they're going to do what they want, and the past doesnt really matter anymore. This has been hard to get over, but eventually I came to realize that I dont care what WotC does either. They're doing what they think people want whether I like it or not.
I'll miss the old stories I grew up with, but I wish WotC luck in chasing the new hotness. Like you said, canon doesn't matter at the table.

That's pretty similar to how I started--2e, didn't get to play for a while, mostly read the books over and over again (mostly the monsters, since that's always been my favorite). I guess I just never really cared about the history or canon, or ever felt that they were the One True Story; I preferred the images I created in my head.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A lot of 2nd edition was written to be read rather than played. 5e is written to be played rather than read. I welcome the change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of 2nd edition was written to be read rather than played. 5e is written to be played rather than read. I welcome the change.

Well, I'm happy for you. But if you engage with something in one way, and get invested in the story that way espouses, it is jarring and off-putting when they decide not only to stop doing things that way, it is implied (by both the content creators and the new batch of fans) that that way is wrong and kinda stupid. That's what I've been struggling with, and that's why WotC no longer has any elevated position among 5e publishers for me.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I'm happy for you. But if you engage with something in one way, and get invested in the story that way espouses, it is jarring and off-putting when they decide not only to stop doing things that way, it is implied (by both the content creators and the new batch of fans) that that way is wrong and kinda stupid. That's what I've been struggling with, and that's why WotC no longer has any elevated position among 5e publishers for me.