Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 756992" data-attributes="member: 2013">Just curious to see how others think of this...I know in past editions, there was a concept of &quot;canon&quot; - and yes, it had religious overtones.&nbsp; Basically, anything that had been published by TSR was &quot;canon&quot; or &quot;the Word of God&quot; for D&amp;D.&nbsp; These days, the buzzword seems to be &quot;official&quot; instead.I'm curious to see if that perception has changed with the advent of the d20/OGL licenses and third-party publishers creating content compatible with D&amp;D.&nbsp; The way I see it, there are basically the following ways to create dividing lines:1.) The &quot;Core Material&quot; - the PH, DMG, and MM (and Psionics Handbook) - the stuff that is currently in the SRD.2.) All products published by WotC.3.) All product published by WotC and the stuff published by Kenzer Co. for the Kalamar setting (using their D&amp;D license).4.) All products published under the d20 umbrella.5.) All products published under the OGL umbrella that are clearly compatible with d20 (e.g., Mutants and Masterminds).I guess my question is basically, &quot;do we have a concept of 'WotC canon' any more or has the advent of the d20 license made that concept obsolete?&quot;My personal opinion on the matter is that an argument could be made there is a &quot;canon&quot; of &quot;official material&quot; - but that it consists only of the Core rulebooks and nothing else.&nbsp; Mostly because, IMO, most third-party publishers are doing a comparable job - and in some cases a much better job that WotC is with &quot;outside&quot; material.I notice that WotC seems to want to have you believe it is #2 and Kenzer seems to want to have you believe it is #3.&nbsp; Maybe WotC is regretting licensing the D&amp;D logo to KenzerCo.?&nbsp; But is either of them correct anyway?IMO, &quot;official&quot; as far as a publisher or a d20 developer is concerned should be the SRD - because you have to work from an assumption that your audience has a certain set of material available - and you need to know what is in - and not in - that set of material.&nbsp; Basically, you have to have a common ground to start from and the SRD provides it.But as a player, &quot;official&quot; IMO is basically, &quot;what the DM approves.&quot;&nbsp; If the DM approves, say, Relics &amp; Rituals, that makes it just as &quot;official&quot; as Magic of Faerun.&nbsp; In some ways, it becomes MORE official if the DM says, &quot;we're playing in the Scarred Lands so R&amp;R is okay but Magic of Faerun is not.&quot;With this in mind, I find it odd to hear the phrase &quot;official product&quot; or &quot;official version of X&quot; when it seems that the term's usage has become obsolete.&nbsp; In my mind, every OGL/d20 product - no matter who makes it - is valid as any other... and my experience is that every product needs reviewing by the DM before being pronounced &quot;balanced&quot; and allowed into his campaign world - including WotC products.&nbsp; I guess what I'm asking is, &quot;why bother with the phrase 'official,' when it essentially means nothing other than 'published by WotC or Kenzer?'&nbsp; Is there any advantage other than one of semantics gained thereby?&quot;Thoughts?EDIT: Obviously, WotC is the &quot;official&quot; source for the Forgotten Realms and Kenzer is the &quot;official&quot; source for Kalamar.&nbsp; I'm talking in a broader, D&amp;D-wide sense of the word.&nbsp; Will we ever get back to the concept of &quot;canon&quot; like we had with, say, the Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals sets?--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 756992, member: 2013"] Just curious to see how others think of this... I know in past editions, there was a concept of "canon" - and yes, it had religious overtones. Basically, anything that had been published by TSR was "canon" or "the Word of God" for D&D. These days, the buzzword seems to be "official" instead. I'm curious to see if that perception has changed with the advent of the d20/OGL licenses and third-party publishers creating content compatible with D&D. The way I see it, there are basically the following ways to create dividing lines: 1.) The "Core Material" - the PH, DMG, and MM (and Psionics Handbook) - the stuff that is currently in the SRD. 2.) All products published by WotC. 3.) All product published by WotC and the stuff published by Kenzer Co. for the Kalamar setting (using their D&D license). 4.) All products published under the d20 umbrella. 5.) All products published under the OGL umbrella that are clearly compatible with d20 (e.g., Mutants and Masterminds). I guess my question is basically, "do we have a concept of 'WotC canon' any more or has the advent of the d20 license made that concept obsolete?" My personal opinion on the matter is that an argument could be made there is a "canon" of "official material" - but that it consists only of the Core rulebooks and nothing else. Mostly because, IMO, most third-party publishers are doing a comparable job - and in some cases a much better job that WotC is with "outside" material. I notice that WotC seems to want to have you believe it is #2 and Kenzer seems to want to have you believe it is #3. Maybe WotC is regretting licensing the D&D logo to KenzerCo.? But is either of them correct anyway? IMO, "official" as far as a publisher or a d20 developer is concerned should be the SRD - because you have to work from an assumption that your audience has a certain set of material available - and you need to know what is in - and not in - that set of material. Basically, you have to have a common ground to start from and the SRD provides it. But as a player, "official" IMO is basically, "what the DM approves." If the DM approves, say, Relics & Rituals, that makes it just as "official" as Magic of Faerun. In some ways, it becomes MORE official if the DM says, "we're playing in the Scarred Lands so R&R is okay but Magic of Faerun is not." With this in mind, I find it odd to hear the phrase "official product" or "official version of X" when it seems that the term's usage has become obsolete. In my mind, every OGL/d20 product - no matter who makes it - is valid as any other... and my experience is that every product needs reviewing by the DM before being pronounced "balanced" and allowed into his campaign world - including WotC products. I guess what I'm asking is, "why bother with the phrase 'official,' when it essentially means nothing other than 'published by WotC or Kenzer?' Is there any advantage other than one of semantics gained thereby?" Thoughts? EDIT: Obviously, WotC is the "official" source for the Forgotten Realms and Kenzer is the "official" source for Kalamar. I'm talking in a broader, D&D-wide sense of the word. Will we ever get back to the concept of "canon" like we had with, say, the Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals sets? --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification