D&D 5E Kobolds are also from the Feywild now?

[Voadam]

2e Greyhawk is in continuity?

Absolutely.

It continues on from the 1e material and develops the setting further.

Them there's fighting words considering things like Castle Greyhawk and the absolutely atrocious Greyhawk 2e modules. Do your gargoyles still take their wings off? And, is Cauldron part of Greyhawk or not?

Never minding the whole Greyhawk Wars. Because that wasn't divisive at all.

You seem to be conflating continuity with liking things.

There can be terrible things you do not like in continuity. There can be divisive things in continuity. 1e Greyhawk has the fantastic boxed campaign set. It also has the less well liked Castle Greyhawk. 2e has pre-Greyhawk Wars, Greyhawk Wars, From the Ashes, then later development WotC era 2e Greyhawk. These are different tones and developments, but it is one continuing continuity. 2e also continues on from 1e. 3e Greyhawk continues on from 2e.

Vecna goes from a 1e lich to a 2e demigod to a 3e god, but this is a progression within the continuity. Vecna in 4e Dawn War pantheon and 5e Exandria are each different continuities inspired in part by Greyhawk Vecna, but there is not an expectation that they are a continuation of the Greyhawk Vecna.

Ravenloft wasn't a demi-plane until 2e decided to make it one. There was no 3e Ravenloft official material. At least nothing from WotC, so, none of it counts as continuity.

Sure there was 3e official Ravenloft material, I have a shelf full of them. It was an officially licensed 2nd party publishing model for the setting in 3e. Just like 3e Kalamar and all of 3e Dragonlance beyond the core setting book.

All of it counts for continuity.

5e Ravenloft does not continue on from the prior continuity, it is a new different reimagined one that is its own separate continuity the way the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a different continuity from the comics or various cartoons.

There never really was any continuity. It was all hodge podge and piecemeal.

Do you consider each D&D product is its own separate thing with no continuity from one to the next? That seems a weird view to me.

Now, as you say, there is no goal for there to be one continuity.

Fantastic.

As we both recognize there was a goal of a continuity before. That has changed. Now there is not a goal of continuity with old lore.

Whether you consider this a good change is a matter of opinion that varies.

 

[JEB]

There can be terrible things you do not like in continuity. There can be divisive things in continuity.

Right, and that's why long-running continuities are fond of doing retcons - rationalizing or outright invalidating specific parts of canon, while proceeding from the assumption that everything else is still "true."

Do you consider each D&D product is its own separate thing with no continuity from one to the next? That seems a weird view to me.

To be fair, by the official 5E canon guidelines, only the current printing of the core rulebooks is confirmed to be canon for 5E. Taken at their word, this means that every 5E book - from Hoard of the Dragon Queen through Call of the Netherdeep, and including MOTM - could be interpreted to take place in a different canon that only includes itself and the core rulebooks - unless they specifically say otherwise. Which would essentially be what you describe here.

Of course, this gets weird when you realize the core rulebooks demonstrate a view of 5E's canon that's more inclusive of prior continuities than the current, official stance. For example, the 5E DMG's comment that Realms canon includes novels and video games. So only the core is definitely canon, but the core also says it's not the only source of canon, and strongly implies that the setting lore from older editions can be referenced as they were in the past. (Of course, I expect this to change in the 2024 revision.)

 

[Parmandur]

Do you consider each D&D product is its own separate thing with no continuity from one to the next? That seems a weird view to me.

Yes, and it has always been so. Sometimes they might use material from other books, but haphazardly and with contradictuins and retcons abounding.

As we both recognize there was a goal of a continuity before. That has changed. Now there is not a goal of continuity with old lore.

The thing is, they never had a strong continuity going: it was marketing BS. Now they are more upfront about how casual "continuity" is. Not a change in practice, but a change into more honest marketing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, and that's why long-running continuities are fond of doing retcons - rationalizing or outright invalidating specific parts of canon, while proceeding from the assumption that everything else is still "true."


To be fair, by the official 5E canon guidelines, only the current printing of the core rulebooks is confirmed to be canon for 5E. Taken at their word, this means that every 5E book - from Hoard of the Dragon Queen through Call of the Netherdeep, and including MOTM - could be interpreted to take place in a different canon that only includes itself and the core rulebooks - unless they specifically say otherwise. Which would essentially be what you describe here.

Of course, this gets weird when you realize the core rulebooks demonstrate a view of 5E's canon that's more inclusive of prior continuities than the current, official stance. For example, the 5E DMG's comment that Realms canon includes novels and video games. So only the core is definitely canon, but the core also says it's not the only source of canon, and strongly implies that the setting lore from older editions can be referenced as they were in the past. (Of course, I expect this to change in the 2024 revision.)

I'm confident they said that only the core is canon specifically because they intended to change the core to match their more recent 5e products. Another thing that would have been nice to know when they made the lore announcement.

 

[Parmandur]

Right, and that's why long-running continuities are fond of doing retcons - rationalizing or outright invalidating specific parts of canon, while proceeding from the assumption that everything else is still "true."


To be fair, by the official 5E canon guidelines, only the current printing of the core rulebooks is confirmed to be canon for 5E. Taken at their word, this means that every 5E book - from Hoard of the Dragon Queen through Call of the Netherdeep, and including MOTM - could be interpreted to take place in a different canon that only includes itself and the core rulebooks - unless they specifically say otherwise. Which would essentially be what you describe here.

Of course, this gets weird when you realize the core rulebooks demonstrate a view of 5E's canon that's more inclusive of prior continuities than the current, official stance. For example, the 5E DMG's comment that Realms canon includes novels and video games. So only the core is definitely canon, but the core also says it's not the only source of canon, and strongly implies that the setting lore from older editions can be referenced as they were in the past. (Of course, I expect this to change in the 2024 revision.)

It's fairly simple: all older books are potential resources, but none of them are binding.

Simple as that.

If they like a bit from an old book, they can and will use it. But they can change it, or only use part of an idea and go a different direction.

In terms of what they recommend people use, I've seen Perkins point to the Grey Box and 3E FRCS when people asked for more FR details, because the fluff is just as usable now.

 

[JEB]

It's fairly simple: all older books are potential resources, but none of them are binding.

Simple as that.

Not just older books, but even other 5E books outside the core. (Which, in retrospect, was probably them thinking ahead to the Volo's "errata" and the MOTM revisions.)

If they like a bit from an old book, they can and will use it. But they can change it, or only use part of an idea and go a different direction.

The funny thing being that a policy of "all the old stuff is canon unless we specifically change it" works just as well for this goal, granting the same flexibility to make any changes they see fit. And arguably did work just as well, since the stance was implied by the 2014 core rulebooks (and other early 5E books).

 

[Parmandur]

Not just older books, but even other 5E books outside the core. (Which, in retrospect, was probably them thinking ahead to the Volo's "errata" and the MOTM revisions.)


The funny thing being that a policy of "all the old stuff is canon unless we specifically change it" works just as well for this goal, granting the same flexibility to make any changes they see fit. And arguably did work just as well, since the stance was implied by the 2014 core rulebooks (and other early 5E books).

Yeah, D&D books aren't Holy Writ, they are LEGO block sets, or cookbooks with recipes that can be alteredor remixed.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yeah, D&D books aren't Holy Writ

Blasphemy! Heresy! Shun the unbeliever!!!

 

[Weiley31]

Blasphemy! Heresy! Shun the unbeliever!!!

The fate of all Xenos!

 

[Hussar]

Your continued joy about other's frustration baffles me.

Really? Over a decade of watching people take great steaming dumps over anything I liked and I’m not allowed some to feel a bit of joy at the irony?