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

Scribe

Hero
Like, what? What are you arguing for, or against? I'm just not following your thought train.
I'm saying, you can go back to something closer to how things once had been presented.

You can do this with rules, by reintroducing mechanics that previously existed.
You can do this with lore, by overwriting previous retcons, or by implementing retcons for changes not well received.

I personally am not saying either of these need to happen, because realistically neither of them will happen so its a moot point. 5e is far too successful in any number of ways for them to even consider a 4e -> 5e shift. There is simply no need to do so.

They could though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Legend
Nope. You can certainly complain. Fair enough. But once you try to couch your complaints in objective terms, now it’s an issue.

In other words, “I don’t like this” is always fine. “You cannot do this because TRADITION” is intellectually bankrupt.
Who is using tradition as their exclusive reasoning for complaining about something? There are a lot of things that have changed in franchises I'm emotionally invested in (D&D, Star Wars, Star Trek, comics). Admittedly I dont like a lot of it (although I do like some new stuff from all those things). But I have personal, subjective reasons for my dislikes, and tradition is not at the top of the list. And I dont think I'm the only person who feels that way. It's not a zero sum game.
 

Hussar

Legend
Who is using tradition as their exclusive reasoning for complaining about something? There are a lot of things that have changed in franchises I'm emotionally invested in (D&D, Star Wars, Star Trek, comics). Admittedly I dont like a lot of it (although I do like some new stuff from all those things). But I have personal, subjective reasons for my dislikes, and tradition is not at the top of the list. And I dont think I'm the only person who feels that way. It's not a zero sum game.
We just had exhibit A - the Realms. Their reason for complaining ISN'T tradition. That's the point. Tradition is completely unimportant, so long as the person LIKES the changes. If they don't like the changes, then tradition becomes the hill to die on.

Which is exactly what canon arguments are. It's a bad-faith argument trying to present personal preferences as objectively bad.

Of course tradition isn't the top of your list. Canon is only important when someone wants to bludgeon other people over the head with their preferences.
 




Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
I am not sure that is correct. But before I counter, could you define lore?

"a body of traditions and knowledge on a subject or held by a particular group, typically passed from person to person by word of mouth."

Thank you Webster! Ironically, if passed by word of mouth, it will inevitably change in a form of broken-telephone.
 

The canon isn't too important in the tabletop. For example the DM can add in her Dragonlance campaing Raitslin's daughter, or the PC can travel to an alternate timeline where the king-priest was killed by Lord Sorth, but the Krynn sphere is being invaded by the Vodoni empire (a Spelljammer faction) and the chaos summer started before. But the coherence of the canon is more important for D&D as a multimedia franchise, this means, the lore in other type of products, as comics, novels, and maybe an animated serie in a streaming service (I feel Paramount, Netflix and Disney would fight to be who produce the adaptation). To reboot the franchise is risked when lots of books have been published. Do you remember Star Wand fandom with the "expansed universe"?

I guess the D&D cosmology will be redesigned to allow more flexibility and space to add new elements, for example an action-live horror movie produced by E-One becoming an official dark domain in Ravenloft setting. Or a D&D version of the Strange, Monte Cook's TTRPG, where worlds created by the fiction become realities (named "recursions"), or something like the "Ideaverse" of Marvel Universe. Then Conan and Tolkien's Middle Earth would be in D&D but as "recursions worlds", and all could happen here can't affect the original ones. Maybe is a crazy idea, but it is such crazy that it can work to publish intercompany crossovers.

clean.jpg
 


That statement implies that all change is positive.
All change is negative for people who have gotten used to the the old way of doing things.

But positive or negative, it's up to the younger generation to decide, the older generation gave up it right to have a say by virtue of reproducing.
 

Mirtek

Hero
And here is exhibit A. “Screwed up the Realms” is simple a matter of taste. “I don’t like what they did” is perfectly fine.

But it never stops there. It’s always “I don’t like what they did to the Realms. It’s contrary to canon. Canon is important so it should be changed back”. The reverse argument is never used.
Which is completely wrong. At the end of 4e and 5e people argued for keeping 4e canon even though they disliked a lot of it. The camp of "I hate the Spellplague and wished it had never been done, but since it's done it's done and should not be retconned" was sizeable
 

I guess the D&D cosmology will be redesigned to allow more flexibility and space to add new elements, for example an action-live horror movie produced by E-One becoming an official dark domain in Ravenloft setting. Or a D&D version of the Strange, Monte Cook's TTRPG, where worlds created by the fiction become realities (named "recursions"), or something like the "Ideaverse" of Marvel Universe. Then Conan and Tolkien's Middle Earth would be in D&D but as "recursions worlds", and all could happen here can't affect the original ones. Maybe is a crazy idea, but it is such crazy that it can work to publish intercompany crossovers.
I agree. That is what they will do. And, by the way, that is a great cover! ;)

But, at least in comics, I have always felt crossovers were one offs. They were the "what ifs" of Marvel and DC. It is as though they never actually happened.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
All change is negative for people who have gotten used to the the old way of doing things.

But positive or negative, it's up to the younger generation to decide, the older generation gave up it right to have a say by virtue of reproducing.
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Change can be positive or negative, and a person can like some changes and dislike others. I'm used to going out to do my shopping, but online is still a better option for a lot of things. I'm used to 1st ed, but I still think 5th is a better engine. Again, it's not a zero sum game.
 



Scribe

Hero
The only purpose your purchasing power has is to maximise the life chances of your son.

Because there will come a time when your son is all there is left of you.
If the sum total of 'purpose' boils down to maximizing the potential of our children, there are a whole lot of things that would dry up and die.

This forum for example.
 

ReshiIRE

Adventurer
Following that logic, does that mean, since I'm never going to have children, I get to have a say forever? :v

I don't think someone having a say should be determined by things like age or whatever... especially on trivial naughty word like this.

(For the record: I think creator or corporate mandated canon is useless, especially in RPGs. Personalised canons are the way to go. This is also why sequels don't ruin past things for me generally unless it shows the creator was an absolute eejit or such. The past thing will always be there and able to stand on it's merits.

The opposite is not true though. A sequel to something with awful story,m despite its merits, will inherit the awfulness somewhere. It's why even if something like say Halo Infinite will potentially be very good, it's still tainted by the shockingly awful story of Halo 5).
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
We can call it the "Dragonborn Canonicity Test." In other words, how do fans of a particular setting react (and why) to the idea of adding Dragonborn to the setting. Because, in general, I think that it potentially showcases how different fan groups often approach their respective settings. For example, adding Dragonborn to Eberron wasn't really all that big of a deal because of the setting's mantra: "If it exists in D&D, it has a place in Eberron" (3e ECSB) and "If it exists in the D&D world, then it has a place in Eberron" (4e EPG and ECG). Eberron exists to be useable for everything plus more. But what about other D&D settings (e.g., Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc)? I think we both know what that conversation looks like.
Ackually, there was a dragonborn listed as a possible reincarnation for Tatyana in VGR, and it suggests that there's a population of them in Darkon.

Personally, I prefer a human-and-mostly-human-only Ravenloft, though. I don't even like having native elf, dwarf, or halfling PCs.
 

In the tabletop the canon is the will by the players, but as multimedia franchise the thing is different. If WotC wants to sell new comics and novels then the fandom will wonder if these may be declared unoficcial later. Now if Hasbro is going to sell the doll of Laurana, the elf princess, I don't know if her will be blonde (again) or redhaired.

Creatures as dragonborn don't break the Gothic atmosphere of Ravenloft, with a shapesifter trait as "second skin" may work like the "wesens" from the action-live serie "Grimm".


I would like to know the fandom feedback about the idea of a Hasbro metaverse fusing all the franchises, D&D among them, and with open doors for future intercompany crossovers. My fear is some mistake causing a "jumping the shark" effect, even worse than the "spellplague".
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top