D&D 5E (2014) Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Shasarak]

BTW, are we still going to be getting the run down of Raistlin's character sheet through the game?

Or has the theory of no Warlocks or other Intuitive casters in Dragonlance been thoroughly debunked?

 

[Maxperson]

@I'm A Banana - see I disagree. It only causes conflicts at tables which insist that their favourite canon is the one true canon.

I can honestly say that I've never encountered this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

[MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] - see I disagree. It only causes conflicts at tables which insist that their favourite canon is the one true canon.

This is kind of what I mean when I say you aren't actually listening to what I'm saying. If I say something is a problem, then guess what bucko, it's a problem for me. You don't get to tell me it's not. You don't control what's a problem for other people. You just have to accept that not everyone plays the game for the same reason you do.

For those of us who can take or leave canon, we shrug and use whatever we like.

So long as no one starts telling people that their idea is wrong simply because it's different from what came before then everyone is groovy.

When you tell me that my character idea is "wrong," it's not groovy, even if you're willing to be oh so magnanimous and deign to play with it.

But this discussion has highlighted things quite well. You based your understanding of the setting on stuff that was written considerably later on. Fine and dandy. But you can't then tell me about the "cost" of change when your excellent character is the result of that change.

Iow if it gives such interesting results then changing canon can't be bad in and of itself. I don't need to know how gnomes we're presented in intricate detail to give a new version. Same as your character lacks intimate knowledge of the earlier canon of the setting.

You deriding my character as inauthentic to the setting exactly blows holes through my goals for play. It's just like when your tanky knight turned out to not be as effective as you'd hoped in combat. Only for me, it's about the story.

As I've posted, if this character "wins" rather than relents and acknowledges the gods, then the basic idea of Dragonlance has been overthrown. I think that could be a pretty interesting game, but I wouldn't regard it as canonical DL! And that has nothing to do with the build elements you're using!

I mean, you could build a human, champion fighter with the Hermit background - say, a fallen Knight of Solamnia - and have the same basic backstory. This wouldn't raise the "are there gnome wild mages in DL?" question, but the issue of whether the character fits canon would still arise.

Which all could've been avoided if the lore was consistent instead of going through dramatic changes, since I'd be playing a different character more in line with my goals for play. I can't hope to do that when the possibilities for heroes and conflicts aren't clear and aren't shared. I'm always at risk of someone else telling me, "No, that's not how it really is, you failed to make a character in line with the setting. Might be fun and all, but you failed at your goal."

When people complain about FR lore being too convoluted, that is part of the problem.

When people say that 4e isn't "real D&D' because of it's lore changes, that is part of the problem.

When Hussar complains about people in his low-magic Thule game wanting to play spellcasters, that is a part what you're seeing (because you're changing the character assumptions of the setting).

These are all problems that might be reduced in the future by not treating the past as a thing to be torn down and replaced every few years.

Because part of the game design function of lore in a tabletop RPG is so that people can make characters and tell stories and play games in line with that lore (at least as in line with it as they want).

 

[pemerton]

Which all could've been avoided if the lore was consistent instead of going through dramatic changes, since I'd be playing a different character more in line with my goals for play. I can't hope to do that when the possibilities for heroes and conflicts aren't clear and aren't shared.

I don't understand how you think this clarity can be achieved. In this very thread we have fewer than a dozen people participating, and yet multiple conceptions of what fits with DL (having regard to nothing but the original 3 or 6 novels plus DL Adventures), and multiple conceptions of what would count as a non-deviant Middle Earth game.

I also don't understand how you think change can be avoided in the context of a list-based RPG like D&D. As soon as a new spell, or new class, or new background, or new sub-class, or whatever is published, the question comes up "Does this fit into DL, and if so how?" Eg does DL have 5e-style bards? We can't tell just from reading the novels (which were written in the context of AD&D assumptions) nor from reading DL adventures. So what happens when a 5e player reads the one canonical Dragonlance source that you posit, and wants to play a bard in the game?

We've seen, in this thread, that sorcerers and warlocks make this an even bigger issue. Plus there is 5e's change to the spell memorisation rules. And the quetion of whether Tanis is a fighter, or should be reconceived as a ranger. (In 4e clearly he's a warlord!)

 

[Hussar]

I can honestly say that I've never encountered this.

Count yourself lucky. Of course, it also means you've never read any D&D related message boards from about 2000 to present as well.

This is kind of what I mean when I say you aren't actually listening to what I'm saying. If I say something is a problem, then guess what bucko, it's a problem for me. You don't get to tell me it's not. You don't control what's a problem for other people. You just have to accept that not everyone plays the game for the same reason you do.

So, it's a problem because your interpretation of canon isn't the same as my interpretation of canon and your solution is that I must accept your interpretation? Because the only way I can see your character as "uniquely Dragonlance" is if I ignore broad swaths of the canon and accept your specific interpretation. Otherwise, you've basically just taken a character that in no way actually fits with Dragonlance canon, ported it into the setting and then told me that I have to accept it.

Never minding that the character isn't uniquely Dragonlance. It's not. It flat out contradicts the themes of Dragonlance. It challenges the conceits of the setting. Opposing the gods is NOT what Dragonlance is about. And never really has been. Not ONE single character in any of the fiction wants the gods to be gone. Not one. Even Raistlin, who does challenge Takhisis doesn't do so to drive the gods away or thinks that the gods shouldn't be there at all.

Hey, I'm not insisting anything. You can play whatever the heck you want to play and it's no skin off my nose. That's fine. But, playing a character that directly acts in opposition to the core foundation of the setting - the return of the gods and the return of balance is the CORE of a War of the Lance campaign, and then trying to claim that this is somehow a canon character is beyond my understanding. How in the hell is this a "uniquely Dragonlance" character?

If you described the character - mentally unbalanced wild mage gnome that hates the gods and thinks gods should go away - would you honestly expect anyone to immediately think, "Hey, that's a Dragonlance character"? Seriously? Hrm, not Solamnic Knight, not Silvanesti Elf, not Wizard of High Sorcery. No. Apparently those aren't Dragonlance enough. No. We have to have a character that appears no where in any of the setting canon, taking a position held by no one in the setting, and then expect everyone around you to identify this as a "uniquely Dragonlance" character? Come on. You can't be serious.

When you tell me that my character idea is "wrong," it's not groovy, even if you're willing to be oh so magnanimous and deign to play with it.

Hey, no one has ever brought it up at the table. No one particularly cares that much. When a Kender Cleric and a Minotaur Bard passed the sniff test at the table, gnome wild mage wasn't going to raise any eyebrows. Why would it? It's your character and it's a great character. But it was pretty obvious at the outset of this campaign that campaign canon wasn't going to be a particularly strong thing wasn't it?

You deriding my character as inauthentic to the setting exactly blows holes through my goals for play. It's just like when your tanky knight turned out to not be as effective as you'd hoped in combat. Only for me, it's about the story.

Fair enough. Thing is, I CHANGED my character. Tanky knight was failing because the mechanics the DM came up with didn't actually do what he thought they would do and I PROVED it. Heck, I had to actually track the information before anyone would actually listen to my complaints. Everyone just pooh poohed me and told me I had no idea what I was talking about. Until such time as I actually did the leg work and demonstrated that the mechanics didn't actually work.

OTOH, what have you done to bring your character closer in line to the themes and conceits of a Dragonlance campaign?

Which all could've been avoided if the lore was consistent instead of going through dramatic changes, since I'd be playing a different character more in line with my goals for play. I can't hope to do that when the possibilities for heroes and conflicts aren't clear and aren't shared. I'm always at risk of someone else telling me, "No, that's not how it really is, you failed to make a character in line with the setting. Might be fun and all, but you failed at your goal."

When people complain about FR lore being too convoluted, that is part of the problem.

When people say that 4e isn't "real D&D' because of it's lore changes, that is part of the problem.

But, it's a problem of your own making. Instead of complaining about the lore changes, why not just either ignore the issue, or, delve a bit deeper into the lore and create something that is more in line? Or, as a thought, create a character that isn't directly opposed to the stated themes and goals of the campaign?

When Hussar complains about people in his low-magic Thule game wanting to play spellcasters, that is a part what you're seeing (because you're changing the character assumptions of the setting).

Funny thing is though, I was explicitly clear at the outset - no casters. Or, rather, I thought I was explicitly clear. And the first character concept your ran by me was a caster. IOW, you chose to ignore the lore that your didn't like in favor of what you did like. I mean, the elevator pitch of the campaign was this (yay for online games where we have records):

I want the Primeval Thule campaign (PT) to be a low magic campaign. What I mean by this is not only is the setting supposed to be low magic - you're far more likely to be eaten by something you can find in a natural history museum than a wyvern, for example - but the campaign itself, meaning the characters, should be low magic as well.

...

So, I've got a couple of options. The first one is the simplest. No one plays a full caster. Half casters are fine - spell thief, eldritch knight, - that's fine. While PT does ban monks (which I think I might relax on with the non-caster monk) and paladins, I could be convinced that a paladin is possible in the setting.

...

The second option is to allow full casters but, to put some pretty serious limitations on them. The option I'm leaning towards is visually impressive spells cause madness checks for anyone seeing them. Anything that you'd need CG to do in a movie is a DC:8+spell level Wisdom save or contract madness

That was the elevator pitch, and the first character pitched was full bore wizard followed by a warlock. So, yeah, I was a little annoyed that people pretty much ignored what I said and then brought whatever the hell they felt like playing.

These are all problems that might be reduced in the future by not treating the past as a thing to be torn down and replaced every few years.

Because part of the game design function of lore in a tabletop RPG is so that people can make characters and tell stories and play games in line with that lore (at least as in line with it as they want).

Or, people could actually try to learn the lore, follow the lore of the story, actually TALK to the rest of the group before making characters. Y'know, instead of making characters in a vacuum and then being all wide eyed surprised when their interpretations aren't shared by everyone at the table. I mean, if you're going to make characters that are in opposition to the conceits of the setting, why be surprised when people don't think your characters are a particularly good fit for a setting?

/edit to add

And let's be clear here. This has NOTHING to do with the changes to canon. The sorcerer thing can easily be worked around - we did do it for the other sorcerer. Not a big deal. Even the gnome caster thing isn't really a huge issue to be honest. It's a pretty big retcon for the setting since the game simply didn't allow for that sort of thing back when Dragonlance first came out, but, meh, it's not like it breaks the setting to do so. But the "Hates the gods and wants them gone" thing? That's, for me, the big sticking point. Because to me, that's not what Dragonlance is about. Hey, I get the argument. And, to be honest, I largely agree with the argument. The actions of the gods in DL is pretty deplorable when you get right down to it.

But, IN THAT SETTING, that's not how it's interpreted. The Cataclysm is justified in the setting. Setting up a character that flat out opposes the gods is very out of place in the setting. People in the setting never express that position. It's just not part of the setting. Same way as Droid Rights and Droid Slavery isn't dealt with in Star Wars. It's a giant elephant in the room, but, it stays out of the actual setting.

So, in my view, no, this is not a "uniquely Dragonlance" character. A uniquely Dragonlance character wouldn't oppose the gods. Any more than a uniquely Dark Sun characters would worship Correlon. Or an Oriental Adventures character that doesn't believe in Honor. You could play a character that has no honor. But, an OA character that thinks Honor should not exist at all? To me, that's a bridge too far.

 

[Hussar]

&TLDR version of the above very long post.
[MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] choose to play a class/race combination that appears nowhere in any of the setting fiction or source books, a class that was retconned into the setting several years after the setting was released. He also chose to play a character with a belief system that appears nowhere in any of the setting fiction or source books.

And then, he is upset that another player (myself) at the table doesn't immediately recognize this character as a "uniquely Dragonlance" character? That my failure to recognize this character as "uniquely Dragonlance" is "deriding my character as inauthentic to the setting"?

Seriously?

Now, a Minotaur character? Immediately recognizable as a Dragonlance character. Heck, it was DL that gave D&D Minotaurs as a playable race. Fair enough, that's as recognizable as a kender. Bard? Well, that might be stretching the point a bit, but, hey, not a huge issue AFAIC.

But, I'm thinking that not recognizing a gnome wildmage with issues with divinity as a "uniquely Dragonlance" character isn't really a failing on my part.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't understand how you think this clarity can be achieved. In this very thread we have fewer than a dozen people participating, and yet multiple conceptions of what fits with DL (having regard to nothing but the original 3 or 6 novels plus DL Adventures), and multiple conceptions of what would count as a non-deviant Middle Earth game.

I also don't understand how you think change can be avoided in the context of a list-based RPG like D&D. As soon as a new spell, or new class, or new background, or new sub-class, or whatever is published, the question comes up "Does this fit into DL, and if so how?" Eg does DL have 5e-style bards? We can't tell just from reading the novels (which were written in the context of AD&D assumptions) nor from reading DL adventures. So what happens when a 5e player reads the one canonical Dragonlance source that you posit, and wants to play a bard in the game?

We've seen, in this thread, that sorcerers and warlocks make this an even bigger issue. Plus there is 5e's change to the spell memorisation rules. And the quetion of whether Tanis is a fighter, or should be reconceived as a ranger. (In 4e clearly he's a warlord!)

You're not fairly describing my true goal here, which leads me to believe that you don't understand it. So I'll repeat it. I want to inform those who are self-professed to "not care about canon" why canon matters to others (or at least to me). And thus, presuming I'm not unique in this, to demonstrate that changing canon matters, and has a potentially significant, highly variable, and ultimately personally subjective cost.

So a DM who wants to run DL in 5e has to determine whether or not "there are bards now" is a cost she's willing to pay for her own group.

And a publisher who wants to make a 5e DL setting has to determine the same thing, but for all groups who play the game who may object to the change for any arbitrary personal reason.

The goal isn't "never change setting lore," or "achieve perfect accord with what a setting means." It is to make a better-informed decision about how and when to change a setting's lore.

There are things that make that cost worth it, there are points against it, but because canon matters, those changes DO have a cost, and ignoring that cost means that the risk of someone having a bad time is greater.

So, it's a problem because your interpretation of canon isn't the same as my interpretation of canon and your solution is that I must accept your interpretation?

No. It's a problem because we don't agree on the meaning of "a Dragonlance game." There is no solution to that problem. I'm already playing the character, and you're not going to spontaneously change your interpretation. So it's just going to be a problem - an unsatisfying little rock in the bottom of my D&D fun-shoe (and apparently yours, too, since you need to insist that he's not really a Dragonlance character).

But by understanding why and how this problem occurred, I can work towards minimizing it in the future.

Hey, no one has ever brought it up at the table. No one particularly cares that much.
...
Fair enough. Thing is, I CHANGED my character. Tanky knight was failing because the mechanics the DM came up with didn't actually do what he thought they would do and I PROVED it. Heck, I had to actually track the information before anyone would actually listen to my complaints. Everyone just pooh poohed me and told me I had no idea what I was talking about. Until such time as I actually did the leg work and demonstrated that the mechanics didn't actually work.

These two things are alike because nobody particularly cared about how much damage your knight was doing, either. But you cared. And so you changed it. I care that my character has failed some authenticity litmus test, but according to the DM (and apparently a lot of posters here), it's fine.

But, it's a problem of your own making. Instead of complaining about the lore changes, why not just either ignore the issue

Why couldn't you ignore the issue of your knight's low damage? Because it wasn't fun for you.

or, delve a bit deeper into the lore and create something that is more in line? Or, as a thought, create a character that isn't directly opposed to the stated themes and goals of the campaign?

I don't know how much clearer I can be in saying this is what I tried to do and what I wanted to do. The canon changes failed me.

And the first character concept your ran by me was a caster.

What are you even talking about? The two characters I've mentioned are some "martial support character" and a Barbarian who is Rated M For Manly. Most of my bits have been trying to lock down exactly what you mean by a "low magic party" in terms of what races and classes are actually allowed, since you're cool with 4 element monks but not shadow monks and you're cool with totem barbarians at-will with the beast sense but not with druids and you're cool with paladins but eldritch knights are too magic-y. I want to create a character in line with your campaign assumptions. I've mostly been trying to figure out what those unstated assumptions actually friggin' are.

Because I'd like to avoid a Dragonlance scenario where I create a character that you deem violates some unstated assumption you had about how the campaign should be played.

You're changing the assumed stories and heroes of a Primeval Thule setting. I'm on board, but what you're seeing is part of the costs for that change: people aren't sure what's OK and what's not OK to play. They don't know what's in-theme and what's out. That's the costs of changing canon in action!

 

[Shasarak]

I don't understand how you think this clarity can be achieved. In this very thread we have fewer than a dozen people participating, and yet multiple conceptions of what fits with DL (having regard to nothing but the original 3 or 6 novels plus DL Adventures), and multiple conceptions of what would count as a non-deviant Middle Earth game.

That is only because half of the people have not read the material, or if they have it was 30 years ago.

 

[jayoungr]

So, it's a problem because your interpretation of canon isn't the same as my interpretation of canon

No. It's a problem because we don't agree on the meaning of "a Dragonlance game."

What's the difference?

 

[I'm A Banana]

What's the difference?

Our interpretations can be different, but for the purposes of this a particular game, we should be on the same page about which of the many different interpretations is the "true" one for that game. We should agree on what "a Dragonlance game" means for this campaign, even if we'd do things differently or don't know about some bit of the lore or something.