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

[Jester David]

That's a very generous analogy! A person might also point out that some writers like writing in a "shared universe" because:

(1) they get paid to write in that shared universe; and
(2) They enjoy the benefits of writing in that shared universe (a known IP that people want to read about).

I am not trying to be too harsh; writing is hard. There are many fine writers that toil in shared (IP) universes. There are a very few (including one who writes about a certain Dark Elf at times) that are even known by name! But for the most part, the readers are seeking out the IP first, the writer second (if at all).*

These books are like comfort food. Readers go in expecting their meatloaf (canon, continuity, characters), and they are happy to get it. And there is nothing wrong with comfort food. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I love Kirk/Darth Vader/FR/Halo/Dr. Who, and I want MOAR!" But that's a bit different than analogizing it to writers who tell their stories in the real world. Jus' sayin'.


*There's nothing wrong with enjoying FR novels, or Star Wars novels, or Halo novels, or whatever. But they succeed primarily because of the IP and the built-in audience; competent writing is a plus. Cf. George R. R. Martin, Stephen Donaldson, Tolkien, etc.

Oh, absolutely. Shared world fiction is a way to break into writing and establish a name. Many writers have started doing shared world stuff before going off on their own.
But there are also quite a few writers who only do fiction. Who could sell a book on their own. Those who actually enjoy having the world created for them. Because worldbuilding is NOT easy. (Or rather, making a *good* world is hard.)

 

[Jester David]

Canon.
As I said very early on in this thread, I'm pro-canon and continuity. I like connecting the dots and learning more. I love nods to the past. In gaming books, but also in television, novels, comic books, movies. I love a nice, tight continuity where everything makes sense and feels relevant. It makes me feel what I'm reading/ watching matters, and isn't just a filler episode. It makes me feel like the author is paying attention and isn't just making it up as they go along (compare George R. R. Martin who is half making it up but is paying close attention, versus J. K. Rowlings who also had a loose plan for the future but just regularly made up as she went, with no consideration of how it might fit into the world).

At the risk of getting binary, there's a couple different ways of disliking continuity. You can dislike continuity as a thing, not seeing the need in gaming. Or you can dislike an instance of continuity. Which are very different things.
In the latter, you don't dislike continuity as a whole, but something that happened in the continuity. Such as hating the Spellplague or death of Soth. You might think Soth's death added nothing to the story where he died and was a disservice to the character. You might want to reverse that change, or ignore it in your game. Which is fine.

For people who don't like continuity as a whole and don't think it has a place in D&D… well, those people probably shouldn't have a say in matters of continuity. Just like people who dislike paladins and rangers and don't think they should be a class probably shouldn't have much say in the design of those classes. So if you don't like the story or established history for goblins or bladelings then you're probably not the best person to write about those races. Find someone who is passionate about that option and let them make it cool.

I try to remember that every element of the game is someone's favourite part, that someone has made a bit of lore or a monster or a race a vital part of their campaign. You don't go about casually mucking with someone's favourite thing. That's uncool.
Even if it's your least favourite thing. Because changing someone's favourite thing just because you don't like it is the pinnacle of selfishness.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jester David]

Just out of curiousity, thought, doesn't this assume that the reader (fan) is the owner of the favorite thing? If the author / owner wants to muck things up, isn't it the pinnacle of selfishness for someone who has nothing to do with the actual creation of the product to demand that it be produced according to their specifications?

(Other than not buying it, which is always your right)

To use your example, you don't seem to think highly of Rowling's adherence to canon, but she seems to have done well for herself.

Ownership has little to do with it. Two different issues.

Owners can do whatever they want with a property. But if it alienates the fans, it's generally a bad idea. Just because can do something has nothing to do with whether or not you should.

WotC has every right to make sweeping changes to their settings or lore. They can also replace the dice in D&D with cards and release a new edition every six months. That doesn't mean they should.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jester David]

Then we agree! Which is good.

But this leads me back to my observation from about, oh, 1000 comments ago or so, which is the banal, trite, and true-

Good changes to canon are good, bad changes to canon are bad. Which is self-evident, unhelpful, but quite obviously the only correct way of resolving the issue.

This is further complicated by the small problem that it is difficult to tell, at the time, whether or not a particular change to canon is "good," or "bad," and that most people that are heavily invested in canon are those that are most resistant to any change (good or bad) until such time as it has been shown to be "good," and, therefore, canon.

The catch is, anything that changes your game is generally going to be "bad". Anything that alters your favourite thing is generally "bad".

History has generally shown that when people *can* makes changes, they generally *will*, for good or for ill.
While WotC can make any changes it wants, WotC doesn't actually write the books. The writers they hire do. So it comes down to those individuals and their tastes.
When it's a big staff, you get a lot of different opinions and someone is generally willing to fight or defend bits of lore. Right now, it's three to five people on the team. The chances of there being a fan of any given element of lore is rare. There's not a lot of second opinions to act as a sounding board for if a change is "good".

Just look at the non-existence of a warlord class to see personal taste at work...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

Just look at the non-existence of a warlord class to see personal taste at work...

That's a bit of a tough sell, thought, isn't it? The warlord as a "class" may not exist in 5e. But its essence was preserved and carried over. It's hard to say the class should have been brought forward intact, given the differences in the system's core assumptions, framework, and baselines. And at least one dev (Mearls if I recall correctly?) has said that his personal tastes did not coincide with feedback from the public in at least one instance.* And so he went with what the players wanted over his own preference. So, no, I disagree that the devs' personal tastes were given a priority above what made for a good edition.


*Anyone with a better memory recall this? I can try to dig it up, it was quite a while ago. I remember the bullet points, but am unfortunately vague on the details. I want to say it was later in the playtest, with one of the classes (druid, maybe?). That he'd wanted to go in a particular design direction, but found the playtesters were happier with something different. So he gave them what they wanted over his own preferences.

 

[Jester David]

Meh. This is the fundamental distinction. Which has been argued in various permutations. Essentially, once you get down to it, and people stop posturing, @pemerton is correct.

If someone can argue for (or against) a change without resorting solely to the argument, "Because it's canon," then you can have a great discussion.

But "canon," is used to shortcut those discussions. People instead say that you must do or shouldn't do something simply because of canon, and because anything that changes it is "bad," or that everything must follow canon, or that it might be someone's favorite thing, etc.

That removes what we have all learned from experience; change is both necessary and good. Canon that doesn't change and adapt has necessarily stopped growing. Instead, what canon purists often fail to realize that what they now consider canon was at one point "transgressive" or against canon, but because it was (in fact) "good," it became part of the very canon they are now arguing can't be changed.* And the cycle continues!

There is nothing wrong with articulating the (small-c) conservative and Burkean view that canon changes come with a cost, and should be considered in light of the cost. But arguing that change is generally bad only leads to stagnation. Eventually, it will kill the very thing that you love.

*Seriously- look at any thing you love, even D&D, and you will see things that are now "canon," that were not accepted, and were fought against, by people that used the same argument that you now articulate. "Because it's canon," should never be the end point of any discussion, unless you're the curator of a fan wiki.

I'm not arguing entirely against change. Continuity can and should progress. The world should grow and shift and alter naturally. Characters die or retire, kings are overthrown, villains are defeated, etc. That's all good. But that doesn't change canon, that adds to canon.
That said, change for the sake of change is lazy writing. It's a shortcut to adding emotional resonance by changing what people already care about rather than actually having to create something people care about yourself.

Changing canon itself I disagree with strongly. This is the retcon. The contradiction. The alteration of what has come before.
Continuity and canon is a tool. And if if you can't figure out how to use the tool then you're a handyman using a screwdriver to pound in nails. If you're a writer and can't think of stories to tell without changing history then you suck as a writer and should find a new career.
So, as a rule, canon shouldn't change.

Now, rules are meant to be broken. It's a rule, not an absolute law. But by making it a hard rule it means changes shouldn't be done lightly, that people need to seriously think about the changes they are making. Changes to canon should be made purposely and after careful thought.

The D&D team isn't the owners of the game. They're the stewards. They're managing the brand for the people who created it in the past, with the knowledge they're going to hand it off to others in the future.