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

[Maxperson]

Okay, we're getting somewhere. Because you might be able to tell my comment was heavily sarcastic.

In the case of Luke and Leia's sibling relationship being revealed, or Holmes's hypothetical sock pattern being commented upon, there was no change in the relationship or sock pattern made upon the revelation. There was no change made because there was nothing to change. No relationship was transformed into a sibling relationship. No sock pattern was suddenly turned into argyle. What happened is new information was made available to us, and our understanding changed.

In the case of Luke and Leia, it made us go "Oh crap!" because we realize they didn't know and they made out that one time because they had no idea. In the case of Holmes's socks, it makes us go "Well, that is indeed a thing. I'm not sure I even considered it before now to be honest" (if I'm working and doing an analysis of a Sherlock Holmes story, I might pause to consider why Doyle felt it significant to mention the pattern of the socks, but I digress).

The thing didn't change. Our understanding did because we were presented with new information. That's where I see a lot of disconnect between your position and Hussar's from the position of Imaro and the others. Luke and Leia being revealed as siblings in Empire is seen on your side as a retcon and a change in Star Wars itself. For the others, it's a change in the understanding of Star Wars. Once established, it was always already true, even in the first film. It's new information that allows us to go back and see the first movie with a changed perspective, but it doesn't change the movie.

You dig?

Yep! Whereas the whole Greedo shot first debacle is such a heinous crime because it really did change canon.

P.S. I'm glad you are posting. If you were as silent as Jeff is, I was going to start referring to you as Ridley, patron saint of XP

 

[Greg K]

I can't say I agree with that. If I port Forgotten Realms over to the Savage Worlds system, I wouldn't say I'm playing D&D.

What I think we're trying to get at here is:
(D&D mechanics) x (not D&D setting) = Not D&D.
(D&D mechanics) x (D&D setting) = D&D.

So, all of the people that started with 0D&D (either before the supplements or whom never utilized them), Holmes Basic, and any other edition using D&D mechanics, but never used an official setting are not playing D&D or went to homebrewing a setting are not playing D&D? Really?

 

[Saint_Ridley]

Yep! Whereas the whole Greedo shot first debacle is such a heinous crime because it really did change canon.

P.S. I'm glad you are posting. If you were as silent as Jeff is, I was going to start referring to you as Ridley, patron saint of XP

I just spent the past four days reading the thread from the beginning. Giving xp along the way until I had enough context to be able to respond to some of the ongoing points.

 

[TwoSix]

So, all of the people that started with 0D&D (either before the supplements or whom never utilized them), Holmes Basic, and any other edition using D&D mechanics, but never used an official setting are not playing D&D or went to homebrewing a setting are not playing D&D? Really?

You're trying to misinterpret me that badly? Really?

Settings designed for homebrew use obviously are D&D settings, because they're designed (by the homebrewer) to play D&D. I never used the word "official" in my definition of D&D setting, did I? That was you.

 

[Greg K]

You're trying to misinterpret me that badly? Really?

Settings designed for homebrew use obviously are D&D settings, because they're designed (by the homebrewer) to play D&D. I never used the word "official" in my definition of D&D setting, did I? That was you.

TwoSix, my apologies. I didn't see the earlier Golorian quote and misattributed someone's response to an earlier one of your posts to you. Trying to follow the thread while running a fever is probably not a good idea.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nowhere does D&D assume that my D&D game happens in some component of a common "multiverse"; there is no assumption, by default,of some sort of continuity between campaigns that I run.

The world where you set your campaign is one of countless worlds that make up the D&D multiverse, a vast array of planes and worlds where adventures happen.

An assumed part of DMing D&D (at least in 5e) is that your game is part of the whole shebang of D&D.

My partner is not a RPGer. She is indifferent to the difference between D&D, BW and PF. That gives no reason, though, to think that there is nothing meaningful to be said about the commonality of PF and D&D that is absent in the case of BW and PF.

For her, there is nothing meaningful to be said about the differences between BW and PF and D&D.

For you, there is.

Because genre definitions are personal.

The idea that someone who thinks PF is a version of D&D therefore has no reasonable basis for distinguishing D&D from any other FRPG is just ludicrous

Someone who says PF is a version of D&D is correct, from a certain point of view.

So is someone who says that PF and D&D are entirely different beasts in 2017.

Because genre definitions are personal.

 

[I'm A Banana]

@I'm A Banana commented that I viewed, not only his character as not exactly canon kosher, but, the entire campaign as well. That's not true.
....
OTOH, I still view a character which borrows from none of the existing setting canon as less than a setting authentic character. To me, an authentic setting character needs to be immediately recognizable as coming from that setting. ... A wild mage gnome that hates the gods is not something that evokes Dragonlance for me.

So I established long ago in this thread that my gnome character is very specific to DL's gnomes (think big; always tweak) and DL's history (cataclysm, rejection of the deities) and DL's concept of wild sorcery (greygem, primordial chaos). If literally using the unique race, history, and class quirks of the setting generates "inauthentic" characters - despite every effort to the contrary - there is a problem.

That problem seems to have been created entirely by lore changes. Because that problem would have been avoided if DL lore was basically the same as it was long ago and had gone through less significant changes.

In that case, you'd have at least one less "inauthentic" PC.

Because this authenticity is kind of a personal thing, having a setting be very clear about what is expected out of its PC's is important! Consistent lore is one of the major ways you set that expectation.

 

[Hussar]

This is likely the crux of the issue.
To you, D&D is a ruleset without a campaign world. To me, it has assumed lore as a campaign world. It's multiple worlds. It's the default races of Greyhawk with the cosmological origins introduced in Planescape.
D&D isn't generic.
/snip

See, this is where personal experience really plays a part.

My first experiences with 3e were set in Scarred Lands. I really bought into the setting and loved it. Thing is, SL shares virtually no lore with core D&D. Every flavor element is rewritten. To the point where there are three SL specific monster manuals, a complete SL dieties guide and various other books. Outside of a PHB and a DMG, you can play SL without any WotC books.

And I'd still say that I was playing D&D.

So, even though SL drow are non matriarchal, do not worship Lolth and share virtually none of the lore with standard drow, they are still easily recognizable as drow. A new version of them, sure, but, still very much recognizable as drow.

I've been rejecting standard D&D lore for a very, very long time.

 

[Hussar]

So I established long ago in this thread that my gnome character is very specific to DL's gnomes (think big; always tweak) and DL's history (cataclysm, rejection of the deities) and DL's concept of wild sorcery (greygem, primordial chaos). If literally using the unique race, history, and class quirks of the setting generates "inauthentic" characters - despite every effort to the contrary - there is a problem.

That problem seems to have been created entirely by lore changes. Because that problem would have been avoided if DL lore was basically the same as it was long ago and had gone through less significant changes.

In that case, you'd have at least one less "inauthentic" PC.

Because this authenticity is kind of a personal thing, having a setting be very clear about what is expected out of its PC's is important! Consistent lore is one of the major ways you set that expectation.

Again, we're getting caught up between "Does this character fit" and "Does this character evoke".

What are the defining characteristics of a Dragonlance gnome? Well, probably the biggest is the whole Rube Goldbergesque invention thing. You play a character that has never attempted anything like this. Additionally there are naming conventions and speech conventions as well.

What are the defining characteristics of a Dragonlance arcane caster? Again, the biggest is membership with the Wizards of High Sorcery and taking the Test of High Sorcery. You have done neither. Additionally, there is the effect of the moons on casters, which also hasn't been taken into account.

What's the one thing that all DL characters in canon share? A belief in the gods and that the gods are important and returning the gods to their rightful place is a big deal. You have a character that repudiates that belief, and espouses a point of view shared by exactly no one in the entire setting.

Have you created a character that fits in the setting? Yup. No question there. You certainly have not contradicted any established lore. Have you created a fantastic character that is adding tons to the game? Again, absolutely yes and the game would be a lot different if you were playing a different character.

But, can you honestly say that this character, described to someone who isn't playing the campaign, would immediately evoke Dragonlance? That the first thing anyone hearing about this character would think of would be, "Yup, that's a DL character."?

That's the part I'm getting hung up on. Does he fit? Absolutely. Is he authentic to the setting? Not so much. At least, not by the definition of authenticity I'm using.

 

[Maxperson]

Heh. Oops. Yes defiler. Brain fart.

Now there's a question. Is a generic character authentic? I don't think so. Authentic goes beyond just fitting in the campaign. Our DL campaign has a half elf fighter thief that is about as generic as it gets. It certainly doesn't evoke the setting in any way and could be parachuted between our ongoing campaigns easily.

I think authentic goes a lot further than simply not contradicting anything.

I missed responding to this. You've just rendered most of the Heroes of the Lance inauthentic. A half-elven ranger(Tanis), Human figher(Caramon), Human fighter(Tika), Human cleric(Goldmoon), Dwarven fighter(Flint), and Human Barbarian(Riverwind) are also about as generic as you get. Only Sturm as a knight of Solomnia, Tasslehoff who should thank his stars he's not just a halfling, and Raistin as a wizard of high sorcery evoke the setting.