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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

I feel like in that scenario, I haven't finished The Fellowship of the Ring, so I'm in no position to tell anyone what it is. I can tall people my experience of it, but it's a provisional experience, based on incomplete information. I can talk about the first 5 chapters pretty ably, I guess. Once I've finished the book, I can talk confidently about the book, with references to things that happened in the book, with other people who've read the book. And I can say that I liked these bits and didn't like these bits.

...and even once I've finished the book, I can talk about the book, but I can't speak to the entire trilogy at that point, until I've finished that.

It's why I don't pretend that I know all the nuances of Tolkein's greater works on Middle-Earth. I haven't read them. I have no idea. I can speak to my experiences with LotR, but if I spoke about the entire works, I'd be speaking out of a sort of arrogant ignorance about something I only knew a small part of.

If I've only read 5 chapters of Fellowship, why would I pretend to be able to know what the entire book contains?

And such it is with *all* creative works. Its done when the creator says its done.

 

[Corwin]

J.J. Abrams' Star Trek (2009) significantly changed "canon". Is it therefor not Star Trek?

 

[I'm A Banana]

They'd be more likely to understand the gist of what "Batman" means. When a kid says, "I like Batman," as opposed to "I like Superman," I have a very good idea what they find appealing.

You've added additional context from my initial statement (they're now a kid, and saying it in comparison to "I like Superman."). That's narrowing the possible list of "Batmans" to recent media portrayals that may have also included Superman. That kid could be spending lunchtimes watching old campy Batman, for all you know.

The point is that "I like Batman" doesn't tell you much, since there's so many different kinds and flavors and types of Batman. You need more specificity to get any useful information out of it - you need to narrow down the possible meanings of "Batman."

"Let's Play Dragonlance!" has the same problem. It would be better if it did not have this problem.

For that matter, if the authors of DL came out with a Dallas-style twist in an official product ("It was all just a dream, with the kinder and stuff, and tieflings are where it's at") would you accept the new official changes to canon? Or would you argue that the prior canon was the real canon, and the new stuff is an abomination?

I'd personally just say that there had been a canon change. That would be a problem since "Let's Play Dragonlance!" would become more meaningless, thus increasing the amount of friction that goes into pretending to be a magical gnome. I now need more context - which Dragonlance? I now can't confidently plug my character into a narrative because I don't know if that narrative is relevant or exists in the version of the setting the DM has chosen to play in. These would be the costs you would pay. The benefits might offset the costs, they might not (some groups might love the changes, some groups might hate them), but either way, that cost is paid.

Again, what I personally think is good or bad isn't the point. The point is, the change causes more ambiguity, and thus makes playing "a Dragonlance game" harder.

J.J. Abrams' Star Trek (2009) significantly changed "canon". Is it therefor not Star Trek?

For some people, I'm sure it's not. For others, the original isn't Star Trek. For some, both of them are. What matters is that this makes it more difficult to be on the same page when you're talking about Star Trek. You have to figure out which one of those three possibility-spaces the other person is currently in. Sometimes, that might be easy. Sometimes, that might be hard. Either way, if JJ Abrams made the same movie and called it Space Trek instead, there wouldn't be this ambiguity.

For conversations about media, this is typically a small annoyance.

When we talk about play goals for a TTRPG, though, that ambiguity can nuke a satisfying play experience, since you can't be sure if you'll get to achieve the goals you have when you sit down to play.

 

[Maxperson]

J.J. Abrams' Star Trek (2009) significantly changed "canon". Is it therefor not Star Trek?

It's canon for his reboot only. Just like 1e canon FR is different from 2e canon FR. It doesn't pretend to be an addition to the original series and original series movies the way Star Wars Episodes 1-3 do.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

It's canon for his reboot only. Just like 1e canon FR is different from 2e canon FR.

Yet for all those, who know *only* the JJA trilogy, it is the only "canon".

It doesn't pretend to be an addition to the original series and original series movies the way Star Wars Episodes 1-3 do.

Hmmm. That's an interesting theory. Do you have a citing or reference? I'm not saying you are wrong. Only that it doesn't have to be that way. Heck, it even has the "real", original Spock! It's more like a "What If" telling of the real characters from the original stories had someone gone back and messed with the timeline.

Which leads to the Flash. Is the TV series all canon? He keeps changing the timeline. Isn't changing the timeline what makes the story the story? It's the story being told, warts and all.

That's how I see the JJA Star Trek. Which is why I'm asking if you have any references to them not being connected to the old series. It most definitely plays off the old stories and uses them to contrast and compare the two timelines. Which, in-and-of-itself is the story. Is that getting too meta?

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, I would disagree. The gestalt of Batman (and Superman) is simple; Batman is someone who doesn't have powers, and strives to be extraordinary. Superman is an outsider with extraordinary powers. Even kids get that. And that dichotomy appeals to different kids.

You'd get a lot of disagreement with that assessment - because arguably Batman has super powers like being super wealthy or super smart or super obsessive - to levels that are as fantastical and unrealistic and extraordinary as a man from Krypton. While arguably the most interesting thing about Superman is that he is mild-mannered midwesterner Clark Kent first and heroic Superman second.

The point still being: these words are ambiguous. "I like Batman" could mean a lot of different things.

What? Are you suggesting that changes to a widely consumed media (like Star Trek, or Star Wars) are just a small annoyance that people tend to ignore, while changes in a campaign setting are major events that can never be overcome! That is completely incorrect (IMHO).

Not exactly. It's more that the changes in widely consumed media aren't something you're actively collaborating in creating with someone else. If little Billy and little Suzie like different Batmen (Batsman?) for different reasons, and so disagree on what "Batman" means, they don't get to write the new Batman series. Their interpretations don't really need to be shared.

But when Hussar and Banana disagree on what "Dragonlance" means, they're going to come together and play a Dragonlance campaign, and their interpretations at least need to share some baseline commonality like "What is the purpose of the heroes in this setting?"

 

[Shasarak]

See, I would disagree. The gestalt of Batman (and Superman) is simple; Batman is someone who doesn't have powers, and strives to be extraordinary. Superman is an outsider with extraordinary powers. Even kids get that. And that dichotomy appeals to different kids.

I would argue that having a billion dollars is an extraordinary power.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*