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

[Shasarak]

I find this a bit odd. I would expect the game rules to reflect the canon, by at least setting some parameters within which the fiction of the game is established.

I agree, For a game like DnD you would expect it to go both ways with the Fiction influencing the Mechanics and the Mechanics influencing the Fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

You know that Sturm was not a Solamnic Knight, right? Well until basically just before he died, so the archetypal paragon of Solamnic virtue is based on a lie.

This is true.

It does not matter if Fizban was a God or not, the fact is that you have a precedent of wild magic in the setting right in the first book.

I thought the featherfall incident was in book 2, but I could be remembering incorrectly..

If we accept your premise that Raistlin was possessed by Fistandantilus then why did Fistandantilus go back in time to learn from and then kill Fistandantilus? That series of events does not seem to match your suggestion of being Magic Jared.

He was absolutely not possessed by Fistandatilus. Rather, he made a bargain for power that involved Fistandatilus having some influence over Raistlin.

 

[Shasarak]

Well, a couple of things. One, the novels went out of their way to explain that all Magic users are Wizards of High Sorcery and anyone else is hunted down and killed. So, there is that. Plus, the later bits about the Greygem of Gargath (sp) adding Wild Magic to the setting is something that came about quite a bit later, even though the Greygem is talked about earlier in the series. It's added later because Wild Magic was added to the game later.

This is quite interesting because I agree that Wizards over a certain level did have to be Wizards of High Sorcery (by taking the Test) or they were hunted down and killed. Absolutely that was the case.

But, to me, that means that there has to be someone to be hunted down in the first place for you to have to enforce that rule. There has to someone practicing magic outside of the Tower system which means that there can not possibly be only one system of magic.

So this raises an interesting question because obviously you have creatures like Draconians who can cast magic and yet are not controlled by the High Tower and you have spell casters like Clerics who are not controlled either and you have Black Robe Wizards who are happy to operate outside of the Tower structure (one famously helped to create the Draconian corruption ritual in concert with a Cleric and Red Dragon)

And given that the High Tower Wizards were decimated both before and after the Cataclysm essentially losing control of all but one of their Towers, I would doubt that they had the ability to enforce their rule to any significant degree. They certainly did not even have the ability to protect their own people, so I would imagine that someone with a powerful patron (like for example Duulket Ariakas aka the Emperor of Ansalon; a infamous Fighter/Wizard) can do what they want.

So can we really accept the "everyone must be a Tower Wizard or die" statement at face value or is it more like a Tower Corp mission statement?

 

[Hussar]

I'm getting the impression that the disagreement is due to both people involved only reading a tiny sliver of the setting - different slivers. If one person only knows the original trilogy, and one the setting as it stands currently, after all the world-changing events in between, then they are going to disagree on aspects of the setting.
It strikes me as an issue ultimately due to the DM not specifying whether their particular Dragonlance game would be set as the setting stands now, or during an earlier period.

I'd view "authentic" as merely fitting in with the setting. Until you actually start name-dropping setting-specific details into the concept, most characters would not be connected to a specific setting at first glance.
"Good-aligned Drow ranger" sounds a lot more like an Eberron character than a FR one for example.
By your metric, a human fighter member of a noble knightly order is "inauthentic" for Dragonlance. - It could be from several settings.

I tend to agree actually. I think the notion of "authentic" is somewhat problematic. I'm honestly not entirely sure what is meant by it. As I understand it from this context though, authentic goes beyond simply fitting with the setting. If the issue is simply fitting with the setting, then all my quibbles go by the wayside. The character certainly fits with the themes and concepts of the campaign and we're good to go. But, by that metric, canon isn't important at all, since, "fit with the campaign" includes very generic concepts that can fit in any campaign.

I'm presuming that authentic goes a step beyond that and it's grounded in a desire to make a character that is definitively part of a specific setting. While, "Good-aligned Drow Ranger" sounds like an Eberron character, Drizz't is more than that. There's the whole Mezzanteran (or however that's spelled) background to the character and the fact that this character stands out specifically because he's a good aligned drow.

 

[Hussar]

You know that Sturm was not a Solamnic Knight, right? Well until basically just before he died, so the archetypal paragon of Solamnic virtue is based on a lie.



It does not matter if Fizban was a God or not, the fact is that you have a precedent of wild magic in the setting right in the first book.

Only if you ignore the fact that Fizban was a god and didn't actually use wild magic.

Gnomes have always been Magic users, unless you come from the Illusionists are not Magic users camp in which case we will just have to agree to disagree.

Nope. Sorry. Illusionists were a separate class from Magic Users. That's right there in 1e. Two different classes. Different spell lists. Similar in structure to a cleric and a druid, but, still separate classes. And, note, gnomes could ONLY be illusionists. Full stop.

I guess this is a bigger problem then canon. When I get given a short list of viable characters to play then I start to wonder what type of game the DM wants to play. If this is going to be War of the Lance take 2 then maybe I am not interested in seeing that story play out again. Maybe I want to see how the Gnome and Minotaur play through rather then "Not-Tanis" and "Not-Flint" off the official list of characters.

Again, you're arguing a different position than what I'm arguing against. I totally agree with you. And that's perfectly acceptable to not play in a game. But, you're arguing what you want to play. Not what is "authentic" to the setting. Granted, minotaur is about as Dragonlance as you can get since DL is the source of minotaur as a PC race. Fair enough. And, heck, gnome is certainly there as well. But, DL gnomes are pretty setting specific.

Put it this way - if I play a Kender that never steals and believes in personal ownership, am I being "authentic" to the setting? I'd say not. That's not what makes a DL halfling a DL halfling. Remember, the issue here is "Is this character immediately identifiable as belonging to this setting", not "Can we make space for this character.". And, funnily enough, the second question, which is what I think you're asking, is basically saying that canon is not all that terribly important.

 

[Shasarak]

Only if you ignore the fact that Fizban was a god and didn't actually use wild magic.

Yeah, sure man. He actually wanted to create a "Fall of Feathers" because why not, it does not come out of the special effects budget.

Nope. Sorry. Illusionists were a separate class from Magic Users. That's right there in 1e. Two different classes. Different spell lists. Similar in structure to a cleric and a druid, but, still separate classes. And, note, gnomes could ONLY be illusionists. Full stop.

Like I said, not really interested in debating that with you. I could point to spells like Shadow Magic which really blur the lines between a Magic-user and an Illusionist but really I am perfectly happy to disagree on this particular subject.

Again, you're arguing a different position than what I'm arguing against. I totally agree with you. And that's perfectly acceptable to not play in a game. But, you're arguing what you want to play. Not what is "authentic" to the setting. Granted, minotaur is about as Dragonlance as you can get since DL is the source of minotaur as a PC race. Fair enough. And, heck, gnome is certainly there as well. But, DL gnomes are pretty setting specific.

Put it this way - if I play a Kender that never steals and believes in personal ownership, am I being "authentic" to the setting? I'd say not. That's not what makes a DL halfling a DL halfling. Remember, the issue here is "Is this character immediately identifiable as belonging to this setting", not "Can we make space for this character.". And, funnily enough, the second question, which is what I think you're asking, is basically saying that canon is not all that terribly important.

I know that you are trying to come up with examples that are basically the opposite to what you would normally expect to find in Dragonlance like a Kender who does not steal but if you would allow me one fallacious appeal to authority Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman have already done that character so if making things "immediately identifiable as belonging to this setting" is not their primary concern why would I need to be too concerned with it?

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. Sorry. Illusionists were a separate class from Magic Users. That's right there in 1e. Two different classes. Different spell lists. Similar in structure to a cleric and a druid, but, still separate classes. And, note, gnomes could ONLY be illusionists. Full stop.

In 1e the class is called Illusionist (magic-users). The first line of the class description is, "Illusionists form a sub-class of magic-users, and in most respects they conform to the characteristics of the latter." It's clearly a type of specialistmagic user, not a separate class.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

How do you use setting material? Is canon important to you?

I was thinking about this thread some more after my last post.

During the long era of 2nd Edition D&D, I used to get stuck on the wider body of Realmslore (aka Canon) when running D&D campaigns.

I knew where I wanted to set my campaigns and what I wanted to do with them, but I also felt like I was obligated to make the campaign fit into the ongoing story of the Realms. This entailed spending a lot of time checking to see if my plans would interfere with major events and ongoing plots unfolding in any of the dozens of novels and sourcebooks being released, which also entailed buying those products and reading them cover to cover.

That's when DMing felt more like a job than a hobby or leisure activity, and boy oh boy would that time have been better spent on practical campaign prep (building dungeons, creating encounters, etc.).

I used to worry about being called out at the gaming table for getting a fact or NPC or event wrong. My gaming friends did it to each other sometimes, and they were as much into the setting as I was so I figured accuracy mattered.

A big help with this came in the form of time: I got older, I moved out, and I found new gaming friends (read: older gaming friends) that had a wider experience with non-D&D game systems and so were not as focused on the Realms as I was.

They helped me to realize that a player's enthusiasm for a campaign world (regardless of system) isn't always about obsession with accuracy, it's about immersion. Sometimes players want that special vibe that comes with playing D&D in a fantasy world that you've explored through novels or computer games: A place where a lone drow ranger walks the surface world and kicks butt and there's a chance you might run into him is fun to explore.

And it's exciting to send a character down the well in the center of the Yawning Portal and face the dangers of Undermountain for the first time, just like it's a little terrifying to realize your DM is starting his or her new D&D campaign in the ruins of Myth Drannor (not a place where low level PCs last long).

Usually a player's enthusiasm is centered on their new character. It's all about their back story, race, class, combos, and tactics built around the characters the other players plan on running.

What I realized was that interest in a campaign world is another form of enthusiasm, and I needed to capitalize on that, not worry about it.

So I try to figure out what my players know about the Realms so that I can avoid breaking their immersion during play--which I guess is another way of saying "caring about Canon" means the same thing as saying "caring about your players".

If I don't know more than a player does about a certain topic of Realmslore then I'll probably shy away from whatever part of the Realms they like (unless or until I decide to bone up on that area lore-wise). If I know more than they do then I'll seriously consider focusing on their area of knowledge in my campaign plotting because that's a surefire way to keep them coming back for more.

If I know more than all or most of the players (which is usually the case) then I have tremendous leeway to do what most people do: use the campaign world as a source of NPCs, encounter locations, and so on. And that's really what the Realms is supposed to be: an enormous resource of useful information that is meant to be borrowed from to whatever degree a DM desires in order to help him or her build a campaign that is enjoyable and believable, and a fun experience for everyone at the gaming table.

In other words: take whatever Canon Realmslore you need and ignore the rest.

Therefore, regardless of the balance of Canon Realmslore knowledge I find among my players, I know that keeping the campaign world as presented during play at the gaming table as consistent as possible with itself is my most important job.

Keeping my campaign consistent with what's published by TSR/WotC for that campaign world is not a primary concern.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Post 666! }:>

Except when certain changes to the game rules go too deep and become so fundamental that even the lore can no longer ignore them.

A change from one edition of the D&D game to another is a good example of this.

At such points in time a lot of game rules change, and so the Realms changes to fit the new edition of the D&D game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, that disagreement is completely unavoidable. Not in any setting as large as this that spans that much time of the game's history.

So we agree that the disagreement has had negative effects in gameplay and that these negative effects are caused by lore changes. I've apparently shown that. Good. We can now all appreciate how canon can matter.

Now I can move onto what I suggest the devs do about it going forward.

Going forward, I suggest the devs better take into account these negative gameplay effects from lore changes.

That's all.