AD&D 2E Do you consider the Handbooks canon?

M.L. Martin · Monday at 11:55 PM

Mannahnin said:
As for the Complete series, while 2E had a broad stance of rules being modular and up to the DM's judgement to include or exclude, generally those books (Psionics obviously excepted, as someone pointed out) were not marked Optional Rules the way so many rules in the PH and DMG (like critical hits, or XP for gold) were explicitly labeled. I just had a took through the opening pages of the Complete Fighters* and Complete Priests Handbooks to check and make sure.

They put the 'the expansion books are optional' clause in the introduction to the PHB: "Expanded character class books—The Complete Fighter’s Handbook, The Complete Thief’s Handbook, etc.—provide a lot more detail on these character classes than does the Player’s Handbook. These books are entirely optional. They are for those players who really want a world of choice for their characters." (p. 9, 1995 revision)

haakon1 · Tuesday at 6:00 AM

Sacrosanct said:
For 2e however, the Complete Handbook series wasn't just a collection of optional rules. There were standalones meant to be part of the core game. So that begs the question, do you consider the Complete Handbooks as part of the core game, or an optional expansion?

Morrus said:
I don't understand the use of the word 'canon' here. It's not what I understand canon to mean.

Are they official? Yes. They were published by TSR.

Are they good? Varies. Some were better than others.

Are they optional? Yes, all the books (beyond the PHB, I guess, otherwise you don't have a game) are optional. It would be a weird and very expensive situation where all of the hundreds of 2E books were mandatory. Are you not playing D&D if you're missing one?

Where the term 'canon' fits into that, I don't really know.

Perhaps canon not the right term, but the OP (Sacrosanct) was using it as a synonym for “core”, but I the gist is really “is it optional or mandatory”.

I agree with Morris nothing is truly mandatory in D&D.

Maybe breaking down “non-optional” or “mandatory”, the concept is something like:

in by default unless DM or group vetos it?
automatically allowed?
commonly used?

Lanefan · Tuesday at 7:51 AM

Spellslinging Sellsword said:
Core for me is the core 3 of PHB, DMG, and MM. All other books are options.

Agreed except for additional Monster Manuals, as there can never be too many monsters.

Morrus · Tuesday at 9:04 AM

haakon1 said:
Perhaps canon not the right term, but the OP (Sacrosanct) was using it as a synonym for “core”, but I the gist is really “is it optional or mandatory”.

Man, just imagine if all 1000+ 2E books were mandatory!

Mannahnin · Tuesday at 1:19 PM

M.L. Martin said:
They put the 'the expansion books are optional' clause in the introduction to the PHB: "Expanded character class books—The Complete Fighter’s Handbook, The Complete Thief’s Handbook, etc.—provide a lot more detail on these character classes than does the Player’s Handbook. These books are entirely optional. They are for those players who really want a world of choice for their characters." (p. 9, 1995 revision)

Good catch!

Found that same clause on page 8 of my original 1989 print of the PH.

In practice we always used them, but that's nice and clear re: what TSR's stance was on how official they were.

Belen · Tuesday at 3:23 PM

Honestly, the fact that a lot of modern players argue that anything released by WOTC should be allowed in any campaign is what I find out. We had a huge argument weeks ago where players said that restricting any official content was wrong.

The core of the game was always meant to be modular and I think that contributes to the strength and longevity of D&D.

Sacrosanct · Tuesday at 3:35 PM

I know technically everything is optional, but I've found that those splat books have been considered part of the "real" game more than other supplements by more people. Especially books like the Psionics book. Hence the question.

TwoSix · Tuesday at 3:38 PM

haakon1 said:
Perhaps canon not the right term, but the OP (Sacrosanct) was using it as a synonym for “core”, but I the gist is really “is it optional or mandatory”.

I agree with Morris nothing is truly mandatory in D&D.

Maybe breaking down “non-optional” or “mandatory”, the concept is something like:

in by default unless DM or group vetos it?

automatically allowed?

commonly used?

My read of the OP is asking the question of whether the Handbooks are "opt-in" (assume that the GM needs to be asked for each inclusion of material from the books) or "opt-out" (assume the books are usable unless the GM specifically excludes some or all of them).

I think this question would revolve around how much of the handbook material a 2e fan would expect to see in a 2e-style retroclone or revamp.

Dire Bare · Tuesday at 4:01 PM

The term "canon" usually refers to lore, not game elements . . . but, game elements represent lore.

So one question would be, as a DM, did you allow options from the PHBR series without question, were they a regular part of your 2E experience? Or did you restrict those options from your game? Or decide on a case-by-case basis? Is this based on how "balanced" the options were?

I didn't really run up against this until college in the 90s . . . I was the one with all of the PHBR books, none of my players had them. I would occasionally suggest one of the options I felt would be fun for a player and fit their concept, but . . . never had any takers! When I got to play, which was infrequent, I never even asked the DM if I could use any of the options . . . I don't remember if I simply didn't want to use any for those characters, or felt I'd get shot down . . .

Another question is from the lore, or canon, perspective . . . as a DM, did you restrict options from the PHBR series because they represented lore elements you didn't want to integrate into your campaigns? For example, maybe the elves in your campaign don't have a bladesinger tradition.

But are those lore elements from the PHBR books canon for 2E D&D? Yes, they were. From a lore perspective. Doesn't mean you have to integrate that into your home game, but certainly official and canonical lore. As contradicting as it could be sometimes.

The PHBR series was popular . . . so somebody was using those books in their games!

Sacrosanct · Tuesday at 4:08 PM

Dire Bare said:
The term "canon" usually refers to lore, not game elements . . . but, game elements represent lore.

So one question would be, as a DM, did you allow options from the PHBR series without question, were they a regular part of your 2E experience? Or did you restrict those options from your game? Or decide on a case-by-case basis? Is this based on how "balanced" the options were?

I didn't really run up against this until college in the 90s . . . I was the one with all of the PHBR books, none of my players had them. I would occasionally suggest one of the options I felt would be fun for a player and fit their concept, but . . . never had any takers! When I got to play, which was infrequent, I never even asked the DM if I could use any of the options . . . I don't remember if I simply didn't want to use any for those characters, or felt I'd get shot down . . .

Another question is from the lore, or canon, perspective . . . as a DM, did you restrict options from the PHBR series because they represented lore elements you didn't want to integrate into your campaigns? For example, maybe the elves in your campaign don't have a bladesinger tradition.

But are those lore elements from the PHBR books canon for 2E D&D? Yes, they were. From a lore perspective. Doesn't mean you have to integrate that into your home game, but certainly official and canonical lore. As contradicting as it could be sometimes.

The PHBR series was popular . . . so somebody was using those books in their games!

We used them pretty much without question. Even the Bladesinger was used and it wasn't banned.