How constrained do you feel by D&D "canon"

[francisca]

How constrained do you find yourself in your own campaign world?

Not at all. I use the '83 Greyhawk boxed set, and build the rest out from there. I'd certainly swipe an idea or 2 from later greyhawk products, but I sure am not concerned with canon in the least.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not at all. My world does have all the "standard" races, but they are changed to my liking, and I have added more. I have a dozen or so human types, elves and gnomes are fey, dwarves are giants, and halflings are sinister gypsies. "Half elf" and "half orc" are templates. I will rewrite anything and everything in order to present the game I wish to present. My world uses weapon skills, for example, to help prevent magic weapons being necessary. I use monsters from any source I like, and change them however I like.

My world cleaves (as best as I can make it) to the archetypes of myth, older fantasy, and sword & sorcery. When D&D gets in the way of that, the sacred cows get tossed out the window.

I don't feel constained by it, however I do keep it in mind, but I know when I've moved far enough away from it that I'm no longer playing D&D.

This is a mindset I sort of understand, but it also leads to the idea that "this edition" or "that edition" isn't "D&D". The rules, and their assumptions, shouldn't be straight jackets.

 

[howandwhy99]

To an extent. It's a group choice. The very basics at least, races, classes, equipment, etc., are all what most think of when D&D is suggested. It isn't too hard to opt for other alternatives and still play in a D&D realm.

I'm not one for an incomprehensible mishmash of settings though. It's not like all the MM monsters exist without reason or spells and magic items aren't culturally specific. I think the setting works best when seen as a clash of cultures overlapping. Pseudo-medieval really is the standard setting for the game. If I were to do LotR or something otherwise singularly specific, I'd alter rules besides just setting components. I guess I see D&D more like a toybox of tools to use rather than an expected kitchen sink setting.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Let's see, I run a homebrew world where the 'racial' gods are just names they use to describe the same being the humans worship; I have a bombshell waiting about the origins of a race that everyone thinks they know about just waiting to go off; none of the D&D gods are actually in the material we use, I don't allow PrCs from any source, they all have to be worked over to fit in the campaign....

How about, not at all?

 

[Glyfair]

If i can get back to the original post. Kinda

I feel more constrained by the idea that all the people I've played with will only play 3.5.
Just the very idea of trying to get someone to play 1st ED or RC, and even C&C is anathema to them.
That's quite frustrating.

Sort of off topic, but it's the reason that D&D is so popular. Most people don't want to learn multiple systems. One is enough for them. That's why D&D does so well. That's why you won't get them to play other versions of D&D from their favored one.

I started with AD&D, but I won't go back. I love the world of Birthright, but feel it doesn't work except in 2E (which I may have never played). I had a character creation session one night and decided I didn't feel like starting to learning curve over again with 2E.

 

[Roman]

I don't feel constrained by D&D canon at all, when it comes to my own campaign world.

 

[maddman75]

Sort of off topic, but it's the reason that D&D is so popular. Most people don't want to learn multiple systems. One is enough for them. That's why D&D does so well. That's why you won't get them to play other versions of D&D from their favored one.

I started with AD&D, but I won't go back. I love the world of Birthright, but feel it doesn't work except in 2E (which I may have never played). I had a character creation session one night and decided I didn't feel like starting to learning curve over again with 2E.

As someone who has tried (successfully) to get people to try other games, I disagree. They may often say this, but this isn't the root cause. I've found three assumptions that, if you address them, can make people a lot more agreeable to trying a new game.

First, they may assume that if they agree to play a game, they will be agreeing to play it for months or years. As this is the default for D&D games, this is a natural assumption. When I pitch a game I usually tell them upfront how many sessions I expect it to take. That way they know that if they like we can go back to D&D, keep playing the new game, or try something else. Whatever.

Second, they may assume that these other games will be as hard to learn as D&D. There's a lot to know about - all the feats, skill uses, obscure little rules, and hundreds of spells. Most games are not this involved, and players will be competent after a very short period. Not all games are like this - Exalted for instance is easily as complex as D&D. But the majority are a bit simpler.

Third (this is related to the second one) they will assume that they will have to all buy books in order to play the new game. While it is always handy, most games (especially those with simpler rules) do not require this. I've ran yearlong games where I was the only one with any books at all.

If you can imagine yourself as a paladin or halfling rogue, surely there's enough imagination in you to handle a vampire slayer, or giant robot pilot, or cowboy, or whatever else. Just be clear to your players that you aren't condemning them to never playing their favorite again or committing them to spend a bunch of money on stuff they don't want. Make it clear that the goal is to have fun.

 

[RFisher]

When it comes to settings--if I use a published one--I try to make it clear that canon should be considered little more than rumors.

Although the last time I can remember using a published setting was the Lord of the Rings campaign I ran. (Not D&D. I can't remember ever really using a published setting in with D&D.) In that case I probably stuck closer to canon that I would otherwise because that's sort of the whole point. (^_^) Although the Encyclopedia of Arda was more useful than any game books in that regard.

I've found three assumptions that, if you address them, can make people a lot more agreeable to trying a new game.

That's interesting! That makes this phenomenon of so many single-system gamers that I read about more believable.

 

[Wombat]

Let's see...

I don't use alignment, planes, 75+% of the monsters in the MMs, or any of the "core settings", amongst other heresies.

Nope, I'd say I don't feel constrained by the canon at all.

 

[William drake]

Some times

I don't, as a DM or player, but, sometimes to get players, you must run what they know, what they've seen or done using books that they own and have read over and over again. Some players are put-off by "non-core" creations, others are open to such ideas. It just depends. I tend to use myown Ideas, and use the books, the Core Setups, as a backbone if anything; but that's just me.


On the topic of Hell and D&D...well, to me its always been a bit soft. I'm into the more Dante's Inferno, "Fire and Brimstone" kind of Hell, but once again, that's just me.

Game On