D&D 5E The Debate of "Canon" in D&D 5E

[Weiley31]

I'm really curious, is this just the canon you like, or the canon you actually use when you play?

If it's the latter, how do you actually use it? Does it effect the adventures you use or create? How do you communicate this canon to the players? Or is it more an invisible background just influencing how you run your game?

See when I got into DND, it was during 3.0/3.5 so a lot of my ideas and stuff happen in the Forgotten Realms. Which would be alot of stuff that I do like because of that's when I got into dnd by reading splat books and so forth during that edition. Plus my first ever PC DND game was Neverwinter Nights 1 (as I had missed out on Icewind Dale/Baldur's Gate/Planescape: Torment, but pretty much knew those via PDF bullet points basically. So its what I use because of all that.

As for the other half of the question, it's a combination of an Invisible Background with influences and effects upon adventures. Like I said before: The Silence of Lolth/Drow Schism is happening all at once, so any PC good drow, or non-Underdark Drow, are assumed to be part of the Schism that is happening during the Silence. Or said pc Drow meet any good Drow NPC, said good Drow NPC will usually be a Seladrine Drow. So events, of City of the Spider Queen, is a bit of a result of that and Orcus's death during the 2nd Age. The 4E Dawn War is the legit explanation used for explaining how all the Forgotten Realm gods came to be, such as the birth of Bahamut and Tiamat via Io's death. Because I like how it feels the most "comprehensive" explanation for all that stuff and for explaining why some of the gods don't like each other.

So one reason Lolth isn't fond of the Raven Queen, is due to the fact that Corelleon gave the Raven Queen the Portfolio of Fate since she sided with him during a squabble between him and Lolth.

As for communicating this to players, well if an adventure is dealing with the fall out of the Drow Schism, then the PCs will see/hear it through various means. A npcs might be saying something about "How do we know if we can trust these so called "Seladrine Drow?" I thought all Drow were...ya know, scary or something?"

Or a Seladrine Drow NPC guide could mention to the party right before entering a village up ahead "So I'm sure your somewhat aware of my people's......reputation. There could be trouble as a result of that, but we'll show them. In due time they'll learn that not all Drow are alike. But I would still advise you to er on caution if there is such turmoil met."

Stuff can get mentioned, quests could be/have certain aspects, and sometimes, the PCs may encounter not kosher stuff as results of these things.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Humans don't like change. I didn't really understand how much this applied to fandom until a couple of recent reboots did things that didn't give me the kind of satisfaction I was looking for from my memories.

It can be a lot of mental work to separate a new story from the one we remember in our heads and enjoy the new thing for its own merits. Or ignore that the new thing exists.

It's basically that thing that happens when a product is so hyped that when it's eventually released it can't live up to the fantasy people come up with inside their heads.

 

[Zardnaar]

Humans don't like change. I didn't really understand how much this applied to fandom until a couple of recent reboots did things that didn't give me the kind of satisfaction I was looking for from my memories.

It can be a lot of mental work to separate a new story from the one we remember in our heads and enjoy the new thing for its own merits. Or ignore that the new thing exists.

It's basically that thing that happens when a product is so hyped that when it's eventually released it can't live up to the fantasy people come up with inside their heads.

Main problem with reboots is they've already been done by a group that must have done something right to be popular enough for said reboot.

The original often worked because of the story, chemistry between the actors/characters or even when it came out.

So the reboot is going to be compared to the original and usually comes up short.

80-90%bof the time me the reboot is inferior to the original and a lot of the time they mess it up.

Something like Kobra Kai is brilliant and then you get lazy remake with no soul/vision etc. Often comes off as a cash grab as well.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

80-90% of the time me the reboot is inferior to the original and a lot of the time they mess it up.

I get that. I was mostly using it for comparison purposes.

 

[Mallus]

‘Canon’ should be all the stuff you have use for.

I firmly believe this applies to gaming, literature, film and religion.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My question would be if WotC is going to introduce the concept of multiverse and how to explain this to be coherent and cool.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

My take on Canon and how I approach it: If something conflicts with something that was written before it, then it's "non-canon". Doesn't mean anyone can't or shouldn't use it (e.g., Tieflings and Dragonborn in Greyhawk), but if someone tries to claim "I can play a Dragonborn in Greyhawk because it's in the PHB and that means it's canon"...imnsvho that would be a "no, not canon".

HOWEVER, if they come out with a new Greyhawk setting book and they have a logical and reasonable explanation for Dragonborn that DOES NOT BREAK the original canon...then I'd accept THAT particular explanation as "canon". So if there was a write up that says Dragonborn are dragon eggs that are stolen by Lizardmen and then 're-fertilized in a shamanic ritual', and it gives reasonable and interesting information about it. Ok. I could accept that. Because it's not actually going against canon, and it's also not changing it. It's just adding to it.

BUT, if they just say "Yeah, Dragonborn were always here, but they were all hiding or something"...no. Definitely not.

I guess what it boils down to for me is this: Can something 'new' be added into the old WITHOUT CHANING THE OLD? If so, go for it. If not, then no, it's not canon. This is one of my main contentions about "Updating" Greyhawk (or any already established setting for that matter!). It doesn't need "updating" because that entails CHANGING established canon in stead of adding to it and working within it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Hussar]

The only function of "canon" is as a bludgeon to create an unassailable position with which to try to enforce one's preferences on everyone else.

No one EVER argues, "Well, this is a great change, but, because of canon, we can't do it."

The argument is always made in bad faith. "Well, this change sucks/I don't like this change, so, we shouldn't do it because it violates canon".

 

[Scott Christian]

First, I'm totally surprised my thread has gotten resurrected. I probably care even less about canon now since I first wrote this.

Sometimes it is nice to dredge up old writings. They are always fun.

Second, canon is like I originally said, a series of guidelines. Lore doesn't dictate anything; the DM does. If you want to use the canon to help your games, you can. If you don't like it, throw it away.

I have to disagree with the bolded line. Lore dictates a lot more when sitting down to play D&D. It is a game based of lore, that has become canonical. Can the DM change everything? Sure. But when they do, it often loses the feeling that most players expect D&D to be. This is why D&D doesn't make a space opera with cartoon characters adventure path. Because they have a tendency to stick to canon.

Your second part doesn't make much sense at all to me. You say D&D canon having space vehicles and laser guns would change the game... but D&D modules have had those things before. Did it change D&D? Maybe on the margins, sure. And even if they were plastered all over the PHB and DMG, doesn't mean I can't disallow that stuff in my game (or the reverse).

That is why I specifically stated the PHB, as most view that as the world building book (that and the MM). And of course they had those, in an adventure. One or two adventures out of the hundreds they published. Back then, when 99% of the adventures they published follow the traditional canon, it showed how much it matters. Today, all their adventure paths follow the canon. So, they must feel it is important to the feel, mechanisms, and structure of the game.
And again, no disparage to the DM that makes it their world and changes everything. I had a DM once that wiped out all races and just said humans. I was fine with it. (Did it feel like D&D, not really. And the other players felt the same.)

And what you've described about Lord of the Rings, Conan, Elder Scrolls all having more similarities than differences... I agree! Not sure what that has to do with canon though, as opposed to fantasy genre. Genre and canon are very different things.

My point was D&D is it's own genre. And it shares part of that genre with the list I gave. Genre is derived from canon. Canon gives the players the feel of a game. They create the model. And when the model changes, it can feel as though all other parts of the game shift as well.

I was simply trying to answer the question you asked.

 

[Hussar]

80-90%bof the time me the reboot is inferior to the original and a lot of the time they mess it up.

Well, other than simply a repeat of Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap), I'm not even sure that I agree with this. There have been so many really good reboots in the past ten or fifteen years - Battlestar Galactica (at least the first three seasons), Doctor Who, Batman, Spider Man, Transformers, and so on.

The problem isn't that it's a "cash grab" or "inferior". The problem is that people have a fixed idea of what that property was in the past, even when that idea only exists in their head, and then pretend than their taste is grounded in objective values like "canon". It's completely intellectually bankrupt. The only reason that reboots are "inferior" is when the person doing the complaining doesn't feel like their tastes are being catered to and their tastes are the only "true" vision of whatever the material is.

We saw this with Star Wars, the rebooted Star Trek Discovery and on and on and on. People figure that they know the "true heart" of something and anyone who disagrees just isn't really a fan. Good grief, that was the heart of much of the edition wars.

It just makes me so happy to see IP holders basically tell these gatekeepers to go pound salt and declare that canon is what the IP holders say it is.