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

[S'mon]

Somewhat. The problem is if you say you're running a D&D game the players expect certain things to be true. Every time you change canon, you have to explain that things are different. For example that there's no Blood War, or arcane magic is illegal, or whatever. Takes time away from playing the game.

There's nothing in any PHB about a Blood War, so I'd be pretty annoyed by any player who needed explaining to that there's no Blood War IMC (wouldn't make sense anyway as I use OD&D Law-Neutrality-Chaos alignment, no Good vs Evil). Arcane magic being illegal by contrast needs explaining because there's no indication in the PHB that Wizards are illegal.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I don't but my players expect the standard Tolkien tropes. I can deviate from them, but not too far. If elves are into blood magic and dwarves are naturalists, they'll be irritated.

What I have noticed is a devotion to the D&D logo. If I were to come up with a race of psionic lizard folks, they probably wouldn't get into it. If WotC delivered the exact same thing, they'd take a look.

It can be a challenge, but I've found it drives me to focus more on story and engaging NPCs.

 

[wayne62682]

I will freely admit that I feel "dirty" if I change the established canon. I can't really describe it.. it feels like I'm doing something wrong and that I'm not having the right "feel" or "flavor" of the campaign unless I try to keep it as close to the books/fluff as possible.

 

[Nyeshet]

How constrained do you find yourself in your own campaign world? Do you feel that you have to leave the major players of Hell the same as mentioned in TSR/WotC publications? Do you feel you need to use the Great Wheel cosmology in your campaign? What other elements of D&D canon you feel tied to?

Why do you feel constrained? Is it your own choice, or do you feel your players would expect it?

I can run a canon D&D adventure, but it will often be filled with various minor house rules. By minor I mean things such as suggested class and level demographics (most are Experts 3-5 rather than Commoner 1, and the Expert class gets (non combat, non magic) bonus feats at first and every fifth level). I might also use a few rules from the UA, feats, etc from various non-core books (the Complete series - on a case by case basis, various others - and occasionally a third party book).

I guess it would work out to about 90-95% core canon.

Settings, however, are another matter entirely. I completely ignore suggested cosmologies and come up with my own. If I run a game in a major setting, I consider the campaign setting book the only history book available, ignoring published novels and adventures that I do not have and have not read. Rather like two directors could have (and thus produce) very different versions of Hamlet, so too might I end up using a characterization for a known NPC that differs from what is strictly canon - perhaps a little, perhaps a lot, based on my own views of the being in question.

So I suppose you could say that when I run a 'canon' game it tends to be mostly canon in rules and canon in setting on a very much case by case basis.


However, I feel it necessary to point out that most of my games are not 'canon' games (ie: they are not even attempting to be canon, although I run such from time to time when the group may feel interested in such - usually between major adventures / campaigns). Most of them use unique settings, significant numbers of house rules, a completely different magic system (usually EoM,R or EoM,ME or a variant thereof), and various alterations to the creatures (especially undead, constructs, animals, and fae). I also, in most of my games, tend to include third party options that - collectively - tend to really alter the feel of the game.

So my typical games are about as non-canon as you can get while still remaining firmly d20 in nature (just not all that much D&D).

When I run a 'canon' game it is important to me, but only when I run such a game. Elsewise it is just like so much else of the rules and game setup: suggestions to be considered and used as needed / desired or ignored.

 

[Templetroll]

Canon is a tool to be used to enhance the fun the DM and players have in the campaign. It does not constrain me in the least as my use of it is purely voluntary.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

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.

With how far some people move away from canon I sometimes feel relief when a player will choose to play a traditional archtype (which can be more unusual than a tiefling pyschik warrior/ninja), dwarf fighter, halfling rogue etc.

 

[Set]

I don't feel constrained by it, but I do dislike how 'canon' from novels causes items that I am interested in to be abandoned by the game setting. For instance, I was primarily a Realms fanatic until the Avatar Trilogy got rid of some of the things I was using.

Sure, I *could* go and update the settings, characters and dieties they've abandoned to 3rd edition and 3.5, but I shouldn't *have* to. That's why I'm *buying* a setting, so I don't have to do this stuff myself.

To be completely hyprocritical, I don't mind canonical changes *if the story is compelling* and makes the game-world a more interesting and usable place. The Greyhawk Wars / From the Ashes made Greyhawk, a setting I had no interest in, compelling to me. And so I stopped buying Realms products and moved to Greyhawk, a decision that saved me thousands of dollars, since TSR / WotC pretty much abandoned the setting.

Change is good. When it's *my* change. I don't need game-setting information that is destined to become incomplete when some author who doesn't even play the game decides to redraw a bunch of lines on the map and / or kill off important figures.

 

[Gothmog]

I don't feel constrained by canon at all. I've not run a campaign since high school (15 years ago) that used straight canon. To me, the assumptions used in straight canon are fun at first, but get tired and old once a few campaigns have used them. And I've NEVER liked or used the great wheel cosmology- I prefer something a little less alignment-oriented and more esoteric. Everything in the game can be modified- CR/EL, classes, spells, methods of spellcasing, etc. As long as its fun, who cares of the game is canon D&D?

 

[Darkwolf445]

Interesting topic:

My rule is that NOTHING IS SACRED. My goal is to present games to players that are not like cookie-cutter D&D games. Ours is a grim and gritty world, probably darker than that of what Robert E. Howard wrote of Conan. Here are our examples of THE SACKING OF THE CANON OF D&D:

..

Clipped for length, but still valid.

Inspirational.

 

[Glyfair]

I can run a canon D&D adventure, but it will often be filled with various minor house rules..

Canon isn't a rules issue, it's a setting/background issue. It happens that there seem to have grown a list of D&D "canon" that some feel belong in a D&D setting (unless stated otherwise).

Oddly enough, at least one setting has even intruded into that canon (perhaps two). I have seen a lot of people here who believe that if it was canon for Planescape than it was canon for D&D.