Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Debate of "Canon" in D&D 5E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8443626" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>That's an interesting take. I don't quite grok that myself, and while I haven't kept close tabs on the thread, it certainly doesn't jive with my position.</p><p></p><p>When you say "quiet abandonment," what do you mean? Because that sounds to me like "oh, I guess FR isn't what I like, I'll do other things now...I guess..." I find it more like "annoyed rejection": committed fans stick with what they like, to hell with "canon." Because settings aren't confined fictional spaces. They're open-ended, by definition. Two groups, both playing equally "canonical" FR etc., will have different experiences, because of (entirely good and healthy!) induced DM bias. Such bias is unavoidable. DMs are the players' window into the world; all info the players get is, necessarily, conditioned on the DM thinking it's worth knowing. Again, this is not a <em>bad</em> thing, but it is <em>a</em> thing.</p><p></p><p>To the best of my knowledge, most people in the thread seem to have an opinion of, "Who cares what the setting authors say? Do what you find fun. You don't need to be legitimized."</p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe the point most folks are trying to make is that it never <em>did</em> matter. There never was a meaningfully privileged position for WotC over other publishers, because the DM herself effectively <em>is</em> The Publisher for her group's table, and if they play in an FR that's been half-intersected with Eberron or that has had a chunk of Greyhawk transported onto it or never experienced the Time of Troubles, that's her prerogative.</p><p></p><p>Hence why I spoke of the goal/purpose/intent of a setting, and appreciated another poster's addition of talking about the ease of using resources for a setting. That is, the things that matter to a DM are not, really, the causal self-consistency and cohesion of the setting, but rather (a) what the setting communicates to the players (its purpose) and (b) what DM resources are easily used with low to minimal alteration. These two axes, purpose and ease-of-use, are what can meaningfully affect the DM's job as The Publisher for the table's setting of play. </p><p></p><p>Under these lights, your idea of "meek acceptance or quiet abandonment"--at least as it reads to me--actually takes shape and make sense. Because, apart from expressing one's opinion on the matter (which is always valid), there's really not much you can do about a setting where the original authors/publishers have made it clear that the purpose(s) you valued about them aren't relevant now, nor where they have taken it in a direction that is no longer fully compatible with the resources you own. You can either accept that that's the new state of affairs, and figure your way out through that space, <em>or</em> keep doing what you're doing and just ignore the new resources that conflict with the old ones.</p><p></p><p>You really can't do much of anything that will <em>make</em> the new products re-align to the purpose(s) you value or the resource(s) you'd prefer to use. Consider how much of a problem the Mass Effect 3 Extended Ending was for many artists in the video gaming field: a significant number of people saw this as outright betraying the very idea of being an artist, by changing the artistic work rather than saying that art is what it is and controversy about its merits should stand as part of analysis of the work (as opposed to controversy over disrespecting real people or cultures, that is).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8443626, member: 6790260"] That's an interesting take. I don't quite grok that myself, and while I haven't kept close tabs on the thread, it certainly doesn't jive with my position. When you say "quiet abandonment," what do you mean? Because that sounds to me like "oh, I guess FR isn't what I like, I'll do other things now...I guess..." I find it more like "annoyed rejection": committed fans stick with what they like, to hell with "canon." Because settings aren't confined fictional spaces. They're open-ended, by definition. Two groups, both playing equally "canonical" FR etc., will have different experiences, because of (entirely good and healthy!) induced DM bias. Such bias is unavoidable. DMs are the players' window into the world; all info the players get is, necessarily, conditioned on the DM thinking it's worth knowing. Again, this is not a [I]bad[/I] thing, but it is [I]a[/I] thing. To the best of my knowledge, most people in the thread seem to have an opinion of, "Who cares what the setting authors say? Do what you find fun. You don't need to be legitimized." I believe the point most folks are trying to make is that it never [I]did[/I] matter. There never was a meaningfully privileged position for WotC over other publishers, because the DM herself effectively [I]is[/I] The Publisher for her group's table, and if they play in an FR that's been half-intersected with Eberron or that has had a chunk of Greyhawk transported onto it or never experienced the Time of Troubles, that's her prerogative. Hence why I spoke of the goal/purpose/intent of a setting, and appreciated another poster's addition of talking about the ease of using resources for a setting. That is, the things that matter to a DM are not, really, the causal self-consistency and cohesion of the setting, but rather (a) what the setting communicates to the players (its purpose) and (b) what DM resources are easily used with low to minimal alteration. These two axes, purpose and ease-of-use, are what can meaningfully affect the DM's job as The Publisher for the table's setting of play. Under these lights, your idea of "meek acceptance or quiet abandonment"--at least as it reads to me--actually takes shape and make sense. Because, apart from expressing one's opinion on the matter (which is always valid), there's really not much you can do about a setting where the original authors/publishers have made it clear that the purpose(s) you valued about them aren't relevant now, nor where they have taken it in a direction that is no longer fully compatible with the resources you own. You can either accept that that's the new state of affairs, and figure your way out through that space, [I]or[/I] keep doing what you're doing and just ignore the new resources that conflict with the old ones. You really can't do much of anything that will [I]make[/I] the new products re-align to the purpose(s) you value or the resource(s) you'd prefer to use. Consider how much of a problem the Mass Effect 3 Extended Ending was for many artists in the video gaming field: a significant number of people saw this as outright betraying the very idea of being an artist, by changing the artistic work rather than saying that art is what it is and controversy about its merits should stand as part of analysis of the work (as opposed to controversy over disrespecting real people or cultures, that is). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Debate of "Canon" in D&D 5E
Top