D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Shayuri]

Well, I wouldn't say it's disingenous. I get the sense from Banana's posts that he's actually using the 'single campaign' clause you agree with, but for each campaign he's in.

That is, he may not be concerned with canon as it exists separately from any individual game, but rather would like for the canon to be used in each game to be well defined and consistent within that game. The questions of setting changes and canonosity aside from that seem from my reading to be of a distant second concern, if that.

Or maybe I'm just projecting my own preferences onto him.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I wouldn't say it's disingenous. I get the sense from Banana's posts that he's actually using the 'single campaign' clause you agree with, but for each campaign he's in.

That is, he may not be concerned with canon as it exists separately from any individual game, but rather would like for the canon to be used in each game to be well defined and consistent within that game. The questions of setting changes and canonosity aside from that seem from my reading to be of a distant second concern, if that.

Or maybe I'm just projecting my own preferences onto him.

Oh, hey, I'm with you on this. Within the context of a single campaign? Sure, you need that baseline. Doesn't matter if it's home-brew or published. And, it's a bad idea to go back and start futzing with established facts of the campaign in the middle of the campaign without some seriously good reason.

Funny thing is, I've had players actually advocate for doing this. I used to run Scarred Lands. A lot. In Scarred Lands, the god of the elves is dead (well, mostly dead, it's a long story) and the upshot of this is that the elves in SL are dying. They cannot have children. So, if you play an elf, it starts out at middle age and you are absolutely in the last generation of elves in the setting.

Forward the player, who, upon picking up the Book of Exalted Deeds wants to play an elf barbarian of some elf goddess whose name escapes me at the moment. A divine barbarian basically. Guinerwiff? Is that the name? Anyway, not important. Now, the player comes to me with the character. I explain that this character won't work in this setting because elves can't have gods. If I allow this, it's going to have HUGE impacts on all sorts of elements in the game and this is established canon in the setting.

Frankly the player couldn't have given a rats petoot. He wanted to play THIS character and use THIS new book that he bought. It was a huge row and (thankfully) the player dropped out of the campaign not long after.

Which does get back to my point. IME, canon is important to DM's. Players just want to play whatever cool idea they had for a character and are more than happy to put a gun in canon's ear to get what they want.

 

[jayoungr]

there is a point you need to see if youre challenging tropes or ignoring them

Bingo. Very succinctly put.

 

[Remathilis]

Bingo. Very succinctly put.

I guess I look at it this way: If you're picking a specific setting for your game, you are assuming a certain range of characters. Playing a character which doesn't fit the norm is fine, but some players will try to outright defy the tropes (playing a happy-go-lucky minstrel in Ravenloft or a grimdark anti-hero in Dragonlance) usually because a.) they dislike the tropes or setting and are acting out against them or b.) they don't know the tropes of the setting and don't care to learn them. To me, a PC that obviously doesn't fit the setting is a passive-aggressive shot at the setting (I don't care what you or the book say, I'm making the PC I want. Damn the rules and your setting) and usually is the opening salvo in a player/DM power struggle.

That is not to say there isn't joy in doing something against the norm. However, you need to make sure it all fits. Put another way, don't be the guy who joins a Star Trek RPG game and creates an enlightened mystic in robes who believes in a galaxy-wide energy called "The Power". :-/

 

[Shasarak]

And, yes, I do believe it's very disingenuous. It's a means that people use to justify their personal preferences and try to force those preferences on others. All you have to do is look at Elves in D&D to see that. 1e-3e elves don't change too much. Yup, there's the whole "any race, any class" thing, but, even then, in 1e elves could be most classes anyway. And, yup, there's the multiclass changes as well. But, again, it's not too large of a change. Pretty minor stuff.

4e rolls along with blink elves and changes the name. People blow their tops. Eladrin are BAD. And they're bad because they change canon. Canon is important. Ok, fair enough. I'll buy anything.

But, then comes 5e. Sure, they change the name back. So, they have rolled back the change a bit. But, now, ALL high elves have unlimited spell casting. EVERY high elf comes packaged with a wizard cantrip of their choice. This has never appeared in any version of D&D. Being able to drop Fire Bolts at will is a pretty darn large canon change. At will Friends spells? How could any society possibly trust a race that you KNOW can influence your reactions at will?

Every Elf having a magical spell has never appeared in any version of DnD, eh?

Yep, that must be a brand new thing in 5e that has never been seen before.

 

[Maxperson]

Every Elf having a magical spell has never appeared in any version of DnD, eh?

Yep, that must be a brand new thing in 5e that has never been seen before.


View attachment 77563

Bringing up a different game doesn't change anything. Clearly, since he was referencing 1e, he's talking about the 1e-5e game, not the different and concurrent running Basic game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Bringing up a different game doesn't change anything. Clearly, since he was referencing 1e, he's talking about the 1e-5e game, not the different and concurrent running Basic game.

Dungeons & Dragons is Dungeons & Dragons, Max - just because you don't want it to count doesn't make it true.

And no, the phrase "any version of D&D" is not clear to be intending to exclude the one that came in boxes.

 

[Maxperson]

Dungeons & Dragons is Dungeons & Dragons, Max - just because you don't want it to count doesn't make it true.

It was a different game of D&D. That's why there are 5 editions, not 6+

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It was a different game of D&D.

Yeah, the bold part is the relevant part of that statement.

That's why there are 5 editions, not 6+

There are like 14 editions (no, I didn't count, so no, I don't guarantee the accuracy of that number, which is why the word "like" is used), that some of them are named with numbers like "1st edition" (which didn't come first) isn't relevant.

Much like how there are two editions of HackMaster - 4th, and the one that came after that.

 

[Shasarak]

Bringing up a different game doesn't change anything. Clearly, since he was referencing 1e, he's talking about the 1e-5e game, not the different and concurrent running Basic game.

The Basic game of what, Max?

Please tell us what this different and concurrent game of which you speak is a Basic version of?