Why Do People Care About Canon?

[comrade raoul]

I've seen two discussions of canonicity on the boards recently--one here, about the Forgotten Realms, the other in the general d20 forum about Star Wars. I can't understand why anyone would care about the details of whether or not something was canon in the context of a roleplaying game.

I mean, let me step back for a moment. I can understand caring about canon when you're writing fanfiction or something--you want to fill out what could plausibly happen in a fictional world, outside of but continuous with the narrative being presented by the viewer: what you watch on film or read on the page. That's what distinguishes fanfiction from regular fiction, after all: you want to feel as though you're speculating about characters you already have a stake in, or expanding someone else's narrative in a way that fits.

But roleplaying games aren't fanfiction--right? Isn't a campaign setting just a means to an end--a way to facilitate fun, narratively satisfying gameplay? Isn't the choice to use a published setting mostly about convenience--the ability to have a setting that you know basically works, without having to spend a lot of time working on a homebrew and maybe only ending up with something that's not as good as the published alternatives anyway? You pick a published setting because you know it's reasonably internally consistent, there are fun built-in opportunities for adventure, and--ideally--everyone in the group has knowledge of their world that more closely resembles what their characters know.

All of these goals are consistent with nontrivial violations of canon. Fanfiction in an alternate universe fundamentally changes the character of the fiction, but roleplaying in an alternate universe doesn't. If you want to play in a Realms where Elminster died before the game began, or in a Galactic Empire where Luke died in childbirth but where a few dozen Jedi survived the Purge and kept the Order intact, as part of the Rebellion, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, as long as your changes don't hurt gameplay or leave your players too confused. You're just playing in a slightly homebrewed setting, right?

I mean, do any of you really care about canon, or have players who do? How do you deal with it?

 

[Stormborn]

But roleplaying games aren't fanfiction--right? Isn't a campaign setting just a means to an end--a way to facilitate fun, narratively satisfying gameplay? Isn't the choice to use a published setting mostly about convenience--the ability to have a setting that you know basically works, without having to spend a lot of time working on a homebrew and maybe only ending up with something that's not as good as the published alternatives anyway?

I mean, do any of you really care about canon, or have players who do? How do you deal with it?

I am not one who cares a great deal about canon in RPGs, but I do understand why others do. Your comparison to fanfiction is apt. For them playing in an established setting is, in many ways, like reading or writing fanfic. The choice of a setting is not only "a means to an end--a way to facilitate fun, narratively satisfying gameplay", it is a chance to play in a very specific world, one in which other players of the game share a common experiance. There is a connection to everyone who plays a particular setting, not just those at your table. You can go to a convention, or a message board, and talk about the major NPCs, setting elements, and timeline and have a shared frame of refrence with each other. In some ways that makes adhearing to canon more important, for while there are supplements and adventures written about a particular campaign its only "life" is in the play and conversation of the fan base, as opposed to fanfic where the "life" of the setting is in an official writen and produced work that exists independent of the fan base.

So yes, lots of people really do care about canon. I understand their reasons and support them. I prefer to play and run in homebrew settigns that have little or no connection to published ones, but thats just me.

 

[gizmo33]

You're just playing in a slightly homebrewed setting, right?

I agree, though I rarely care about canon. I'm surprised anyone is talking about canon in the context of a game though - I would think it more applies to the published material about the setting. It's one thing for some DM to decide that Elminster is dead in his campaign - an entirely other thing for a published FR sourcebook to say that Elminster has been dead for 100 years, or that he's really been a gnome all this time. For settings that I care about (which is hardly any) I'd prefer that things not be changed willy-nilly in the published material. Changes that an individual DM makes (and aren't published) I don't have an issue with.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Using a published campaign setting allows the players to generally make certain assumptions about the gameworld they will be playing in. If the players are told they have come across the Eye of Vecna, they will know they have something both powerful and dangerous in their hands. If they are about to have a fight with Iuz, they know the fight they are going to get into is going to have long term consequences.

Like wise, if the players decide to seek the help of the Knights of Solamnia, they can expect certain things to apply.

But if you have customized your game so that the Knights of Solamnia are the personal storm troopers of Iuz, your players may be a bit pissed off.

Non cannonical elements added to a known campaign setting will run the risk of defying the expectations of the players if that change comes out of nowhere.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Personally I don't really care about canon, but I know people who do.

But roleplaying games aren't fanfiction--right? Isn't a campaign setting just a means to an end--a way to facilitate fun, narratively satisfying gameplay? Isn't the choice to use a published setting mostly about convenience--the ability to have a setting that you know basically works, without having to spend a lot of time working on a homebrew and maybe only ending up with something that's not as good as the published alternatives anyway? You pick a published setting because you know it's reasonably internally consistent, there are fun built-in opportunities for adventure, and--ideally--everyone in the group has knowledge of their world that more closely resembles what their characters know.

That is fine if they never publish anything but the intial campaign setting, but when later supplements and adventures are published, non-canon things start to mess with the part I bolded, and that reduces the consistency and convenience of the setting.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Lord Zardoz has it right.

The whole draw to actually having a canon - and, by similarity, a published campaign setting - is that it sets up a baseline of shared experience.

When I start a SW campaign, and tell everyone that they're starting on Corellia just after the destruction of the first Death Star, that means something to them. They can use their own knowledge of SW canon to create a place for their PCs in the shared world.

When I start an Eberron campaign, and tell my players to create low-level members of the Emerald Claw, that tells them something about what the campaign will be about and what their role is going to be.

The further and further you drift away from the baseline canon expectations of the setting, the less and less useful it becomes as a shared touchstone for the players.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I care alot.

See I was going to play in Eberron awhile back with a friend as DM, he decided that there where no gods, none of the organizations existed, no psionics of anykind and basically ruined any interest i had in it. If your going to spend 40 bucks on a book at least play as canon until the players ahve been able to take canon and throw it out the window with their own accomplishments. Sersiouly if you dont like a setting, save the money and make your own.

I dont want to play forgotten realms where none of the uber NPC's exist. That would be like playing DC with no Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman, or Marvel with no X-men, Avengers or Spiderman. It's easy to ignore them, but for consistancy's sake dont say they dont exist. Do you realize how much can be changed by that person not existing?

If you want your official setting to have changes play a few years in adavnce of the official time. That way Elminster can be dead and you dont have to worry about official settings saying he isnt because in their time he is alive.

 

[Glyfair]

But roleplaying games aren't fanfiction--right?

There have been a lot of good comments about the "shared experience" which I agree with. One other thing to consider is that it is treated as fiction by a significant number of people. Many of people aren't gaming, or aren't gaming in the world. To them it is sort of a shared fictional universe with various writers telling their tales about the world.

 

[jdrakeh]

For me the trouble with canon arises when players assume that all published continuity for a given setting will be recognized in play. As a general rule, when I DM, I limit the validity of canon only to that which appears in books that I own. For example. . .

I own scads of AD&D 1e FR material -- anything in the original FR box set and locale expansions can safely be considered canon by my players. Anything in FR novels or later supplements never happened in my FR (because I don't own any of those books).

The problem is that many players labor under the delusion that a DM has bottomless pockets and endless amounts of free time, allowing him to hunt down, purchase, and memorize the hundreds of official supplements published for any given popular setting.

 

[the black knight]

It's better than ballista.