log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General WotC: Novels & Non-5E Lore Are Officially Not Canon

Status
Not open for further replies.
At a media press briefing last week, WotC's Jeremey Crawford clarified what is and is not canon for D&D.

"For many years, we in the Dungeons & Dragons RPG studio have considered things like D&D novels, D&D video games, D&D comic books, as wonderful expressions of D&D storytelling and D&D lore, but they are not canonical for the D&D roleplaying game."


despair.jpg


"If you’re looking for what’s official in the D&D roleplaying game, it’s what appears in the products for the roleplaying game. Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don’t consider it canonical for the games."

2014 is the year that D&D 5th Edition launched.

He goes on to say that WotC takes inspiration from past lore and sometimes adds them into official lore.

Over the past five decades of D&D, there have been hundreds of novels, more than five editions of the game, about a hundred video games, and various other items such as comic books, and more. None of this is canon. Crawford explains that this is because they "don’t want DMs to feel that in order to run the game, they need to read a certain set of novels."

He cites the Dragonlance adventures, specifically.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
You can't really have a disagreement without opposing viewpoints.

I recognize people are getting upset over the lose of an official stamp. I'm just putting forth that, considering the nature of TTRPGs and fiction in general, it really shouldn't be something that we get that upset over. For example, retcons break canon. Sometime they do it softly, sometimes brutally. But the point of Retroactive Continuity is to take the canon of what happened and change it.
Saying "should" is a value judgment, which isn't the same thing as simply having an opposing viewpoint, though. It's saying that someone else's reasons, opinions, or feelings are not valid. It's not something that brings anything of value to the discussion. You might not agree with someone else disliking something or being upset over it, but that's different from saying that they're wrong to do so and "should" feel differently.
That isn't neccessarily a bad thing, and so canon being immutable and unalterable is something we already agree is not true. The next step I think is recognizing that there is no real issue with multiple levels of canon.
I disagree, as I'm of the opinion that such an interpretation goes against an essential element of what canon is. It can be altered by the authority in charge of it, but that's all. The fans or other people who engage with it can't change it; they can produce derivative works that alter various parts of it, and that's perfectly fine, but the source material remains unaltered.

Sure snip it and lets talk modes of engagement.

If I went and purchased the novels by Kevin Anderson that are no longer canon, did I waste my time or money? If I found a fanfiction site and found a Star Wars Fanfiction that I read, did I waste my time?
Again, those are value judgments, which aren't what we're discussing here. If you feel entertained by reading fanfiction, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and no one has the right to tell you that you "should" not have enjoyed them. Certainly I wouldn't; I like reading fanfiction too! (Well, the stuff I consider to be "good" fanfiction, at least.)
Am I pursuing a different mode of engagement in watching the official movies, reading Anderson's work, or reading a fanfiction? To me, all of them are the same mode of engagement. I'm not engaging in a different mode, I'm involving different canons perhaps, but that isn't a different mode of engagement.

So, do you think there is a mode of engagement that is different between reading a story that is written by Anderson and one written by a fanfic writer online? Did reading Anderson's stories change when Disney said "that isn't part of our canon anymore"?
I'm want to make it very clear that this isn't meant to be any sort of slight against you, but I'm wondering if you're understanding what I mean when I use the term "modes of engagement." Simply put, it's a reference to how you're partaking in something; in what manner you appreciate it, in other words. Remember the example of the statues I brought up before: you can like them for their technical skill, their historical references, their physical beauty, etc.

In that way, if we presume that taking entertainment in something is a mode of appreciation, then the next question is what specifically we're finding entertaining, i.e. how we're appreciating it. You can enjoy a story for its characters, its evocative world-building, its descriptions of fight scenes, etc. Appreciating something that's understood to be part of a canon body of work is simply another mode of engagement in that regard.
Why not?

Why is canon only held by a corporation? Why can't other writers have Canon? OR maybe they do, maybe Rowling has Canon... but then does Heyman have canon for making a movie based on the same stuff? It certainly didn't play into the books, the original canon. There are dozens of authors making works tied into the Harry Potter universe. What do you call their continuity? If it isn't "canon" what is it?
The questions you're asking now are with regard to identifying the authority in question regarding a particular canon, which is very similar to the Word of God trope (though not exactly the same). In the case where the authority is a corporate entity, it can be difficult to pin down a specific individual within that corporation, and doing so might not even be appropriate; there's a argument to be made that there needs to be some sort of consensus with regards to the individuals making up the corporation for something to be considered canon (as opposed to, say, a single tweet from one member of the staff), in which case the closest we have is the publication of further source material (in the same vein and under the same format and banner), since that's necessarily been through the entire corporate production process. Things like licensed material can be much trickier to figure out.
That's what titles are for.

Disney's Star Wars Canon vs Star Wars Expanded Universe Canon.

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Canon vs Hasbro's 1987 My Little Pony Canon.

DnD 5e Canon vs DnD 3.5 Canon.

It doesn't make "canon" worthless as a term, it just means you have canon for thing A and canon for thing B.
I disagree, and I think those titles creates unnecessary ambiguity by separating lore into tiers whose exact relationship is unclear, which goes against what canon is supposed to help us understand. Prior to the recent announcement about pre-5E materials, the Forgotten Realms had products in 3.5 and 5E, and those materials were all canon. Splitting those into two different levels then creates questions of Forgotten Realms products in different editions (otherwise why is the distinction being made at all?), and introduces confusion.
Sure it is canon. Canon for that table.
I fear we're reaching a point of talking past each other, since I've explained why I don't believe that's an accurate description. Restating that you think otherwise isn't giving anyone a deeper understanding of what we're talking about (nor does it help to change anyone's mind).
And personally... Fanfiction is a weird term. Wicked is Fan Fiction. Dante's Divine Comedy is Fan Fiction. In one way of looking at it "fanfiction" is "fiction written by fans", but we also end up using it derisively for "lesser" works. Or maybe non-commercial works.
Which demonstrates the need for better terminology - with broad consensus - with regard to this entire subject area. Certainly, there's a sense of importance to this whole discussion that I don't think should be lightly dismissed. It's not for nothing that the second sentence of Wikipedia's description of Peter Pan in Scarlet, for instance, tells us that the book is the "official sequel" to the original story, and then cites why that is.
Okay, wait... that might be the key there.

I'm not advocating multiple canons for a single work. I'm advocating multiple canons for a universe/setting/ect. A different canon for each body of work.
I'm not sure I understand the reason why you're advocating for that. Presuming that I've adequately explained where I'm coming from, I'm not sure I see the value in what you're suggesting here. Is it that you feel the term "canon" somehow elevates a particular presentation of a body of lore above other presentations of the same material, i.e. that it's some sort of notation with regard to quality or "worth"? Because I don't believe that to be the case at all - there's certainly fanfiction out there which is (to my mind) of a better quality than the source material!
And it really becomes a question here of what other term we should be using? I am aware of a fan-work derived very very loosely from another property. Not naming it because the setting is occasionally super-dark, like pitch-black dark at times. But I am aware that this "derived work" is loosely (and even canonically [it involved dimension hopping to get the ball rolling]) based on another property. I also know that it has a MASSIVE body of lore. Like, they have a world map with 34 nations, histories and religions for all those nations, hundreds of write-ups for the different types of powers and people.

What do I call that if not a canon? They certainly call it a canon, they have a community that is actively working together to consolidate that information and make it easier to access and fix the issues from the initial creation of it. If I can't call that a canon... what do I call it? What word do we have for a massive collection of lore, external to you, that you can't change about a setting, if it isn't canon?

I'm not sure, but I do think that a different term is needed, if for no other reason than it would present greater information in distinguishing between something that's a derivative work and something that isn't. More information, as conveyed by different terms, tends to abet understanding, and I suspect would alleviate a lot of the tension that goes into debates like these.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Faolyn

Hero
(Quoted you both since you said similar things). That is a good point. Many of their in-universe explanations...haven't been great. The rest of my post still stands though. I still feel like they are just trying to handwave (and are being disrespectful and two faced, to boot) and at least with some things, they have the opportunity to build on what was already there (looking at the "new" drow), but won't.

(If they really want to wipe the slate clean, they should make a new setting).
Disrespectful and two-faced to whom?
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Yes.

A developer or owner of the IP is the central authority, and despite ones implementation of that canon, is should still be acknowledged as correct.

So 100% yes. WotC provides the Alignments. They provide the ASI. They provide the canon.

Removal of this detracts from there even being settings, because as you say a shallow setting is easy to have for people who don't want to be part of that shared world.

Exandria has two books, a TV show, and multiple comics.

It started as just Matt Mercers homebrew world.

Going back to a shallower world doesn't mean these things can't grow again. And for every good piece of canon you say we may lose, I bet we can find two pieces of bad canon. And, the good stuff can be brought forward, and still referenced.

And if you want to use all of it, good or bad, it still exists. WoTC just isn't going to be using those building blocksby default.
 

Yes.

A developer or owner of the IP is the central authority, and despite ones implementation of that canon, is should still be acknowledged as correct.

So 100% yes. WotC provides the Alignments. They provide the ASI. They provide the canon.

Removal of this detracts from there even being settings, because as you say a shallow setting is easy to have for people who don't want to be part of that shared world.

If I'm reading a novel series I want to inhabit the world created by a central authority (the author) and shared by fans. If I'm buying a gamebook I want material, ideas, and advice that would be useful for actually running a game. For example, I don't need a Ravenloft book to give me an update on the metaplot or a cohesive and consistent gazetteer of every domain, but I might find useful the tools for creating my own domain of dread, dark lord, and dark gifts. While of course they can do a little of both, at some point there is a limited page count and limited resources available, and that targeting a book to canonophiles makes that same book less interesting/useful to people that want inspiration and tools (and vice versa).

Similarly, rereading all the old planescape material made me realize that more is not better; the glut of material becomes hard to navigate, inconsistent, and even makes parts of the setting ironically mundane. There are wonderful ideas buried within walls of text that, sure, might be a great read for some 'lonely fun,' but make the book semi-unusable at the table. It's not quite a zero-sum situation, but the setting extravagance of 2e in the end produced a game that was more for reading than for playing and put the company making the game out of business. That is, I understand that lore-centric books can be fun on their own, but at some point it does come at the cost of usability and creating space, in a generative way, for the imaginations of players/dms.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
(Quoted you both since you said similar things). That is a good point. Many of their in-universe explanations...haven't been great. The rest of my post still stands though. I still feel like they are just trying to handwave (and are being disrespectful and two faced, to boot) and at least with some things, they have the opportunity to build on what was already there (looking at the "new" drow), but won't.

(If they really want to wipe the slate clean, they should make a new setting).

I don't see any disrespect here. None. No longer being canon isn't a sign of disrespect.

Larry DiTillio and J. Michael Straczynski were not being shown disrespect when Noelle Stevenson started to re-imagine the story of She-Ra. I don't see why picking a cut-off date for every edition before 5e and saying "we won't guarantee any of this is canon, or any of the movies, books or games going forward" is disrespectful.
 

MGibster

Legend
Similarly, rereading all the old planescape material made me realize that more is not better; the glut of material becomes hard to navigate, inconsistent, and even makes parts of the setting ironically mundane. There are wonderful ideas buried within walls of text that, sure, might be a great read for some 'lonely fun,' but make the book semi-unusable at the table. It's not quite a zero-sum situation, but the setting extravagance of 2e in the end produced a game that was more for reading than for playing and put the company making the game out of business.
I think a lot of games material published in the 1990s was designed more for reading than it was for gaming. Part of me misses that kind of thing but I'm with you that a lot of it just really wasn't useful for running a campaign.
 

Scribe

Hero
If I'm reading a novel series I want to inhabit the world created by a central authority (the author) and shared by fans. If I'm buying a gamebook I want material, ideas, and advice that would be useful for actually running a game.
And I want them both, and that video game, and that comic book, and that TV show, and that movie, to all be consistent with a shared world which has references and continuity across every piece, and form of media, all overseen by the IP owner.
 

And I want them both, and that video game, and that comic book, and that TV show, and that movie, to all be consistent with a shared world which has references and continuity across every piece, and form of media, all overseen by the IP owner.
References will continue to happen. Continuity though has never been a thing outside of adventure paths.

The thing is, D&D games stop being canon the moment you expose them to a player. Those people do not exist in the wider world of the game. They're just you and your table. Maybe there's more if you're playing in a big shared world thing but, that's not canon to anyone else's one. This game, by its very nature, defies any attempt to keep things canon compliant.

Every Dragonlance game that has ever been played since the first is non-canon. Every single FR game is non-canon, except those done by Ed originally and even then I'm pretty sure both TSR and WotC took out most of what actually happened during those to make the setting more squeaky clean and paletable to a wider audience. The entire method of playing D&D, by its very nature, cannot have canon-compliant games, everything a player does moves the game from its state of canon-immobility into the fludidity of non-canon.

Just go down the Elder Scrolls route and follow C0DA. Canon is whatever works and makes sense at the time. Reference what you like, make that canon, ignore that which makes no sense and you don't like. C0DA makes it canon
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Saying "should" is a value judgment, which isn't the same thing as simply having an opposing viewpoint, though. It's saying that someone else's reasons, opinions, or feelings are not valid. It's not something that brings anything of value to the discussion. You might not agree with someone else disliking something or being upset over it, but that's different from saying that they're wrong to do so and "should" feel differently.

No, I am not saying that their opinions or feelings are invalid, and I'd thank you to not read that into what I am trying to say.

The only value judgement I am making is that I feel it is regrettable that there is such a fetishization of "official, singular canon" that people can feel like the stories they've loved are worthless without that official seal. And it is in this vein that I am trying to discuss with you different ways to view the word "canon" and the modes you can engage with it, to help show that this may be more an issue of misunderstood or misplaced values, than it is real harm.

I disagree, as I'm of the opinion that such an interpretation goes against an essential element of what canon is. It can be altered by the authority in charge of it, but that's all. The fans or other people who engage with it can't change it; they can produce derivative works that alter various parts of it, and that's perfectly fine, but the source material remains unaltered.

Then every TTRPG goes against that essential element of canon. As does most media created.

Tell me, who has the final say on the canon of Tarzan? Edgar Rice Burroughs? Disney? There were seven different comic book companies making Tarzan comics, did any of them have authority over the canon? What is the definitive canon of Tarzan?

What about Sherlock Holmes? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created the original stories, does that mean that the BBC's Sherlock has no canon? What about the Warner Bros. Movies, do they lack a canon? The original work is untouched, but does that mean that only Doyle's work is considered Canon?

Again, those are value judgments, which aren't what we're discussing here. If you feel entertained by reading fanfiction, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and no one has the right to tell you that you "should" not have enjoyed them. Certainly I wouldn't; I like reading fanfiction too! (Well, the stuff I consider to be "good" fanfiction, at least.)

But you are making a value judgement too. You are declaring that only one thing can contain the "canon" and that that has value. That other works are not canon, and therefore do not share the same value.

And it is interesting that you only talk about the fanfiction, because Kevin Anderson's books were canon. What value is lost from them now that they held back then? If I enjoyed the books in 2013 what is different about them now? What change does making them Noncanon have upon the story?

It is a value judgement you are making. You are saying "this is less valuable now" I'm just trying to point out that the value being lost is... minimal. Practically non-existent. The same value that is lost to Doyle's Holmes when the BBC made Sherlock.

I'm want to make it very clear that this isn't meant to be any sort of slight against you, but I'm wondering if you're understanding what I mean when I use the term "modes of engagement." Simply put, it's a reference to how you're partaking in something; in what manner you appreciate it, in other words. Remember the example of the statues I brought up before: you can like them for their technical skill, their historical references, their physical beauty, etc.

In that way, if we presume that taking entertainment in something is a mode of appreciation, then the next question is what specifically we're finding entertaining, i.e. how we're appreciating it. You can enjoy a story for its characters, its evocative world-building, its descriptions of fight scenes, etc. Appreciating something that's understood to be part of a canon body of work is simply another mode of engagement in that regard.

Fair enough... but that is by far the least important reason to enjoy a piece of work. If it is poorly written, with bad-characters and terrible world-building, I'd say making it canon or not is the least of my concerns.

Honestly, do you think it would be a good thing to recommend a book or movie solely for it being canonical? I could make a case to support a book based off excellent characters. I could make a case that the world-building was phenomenal and deserves appreciation. I could argue that the action of the fight scenes shows a technical skill that deserves praise. In fact, I have done the first two on many occasions, where I will say that a plot failed to engage me, but the characters or world-building made up for it.

What value do I judge "it is canon" on? If it is the original author, of course it is canon... nothing the author writes, unless they specifically say differently, would be non-canonical. How do I measure whether or not I enjoyed something being canon... like you've said, it either is or it isn't. If an author declares book two of a series non-canonical... what about book two has changed to the reader, if not just that it is no longer the story the author is pursuing? It is like commenting on whether a book is in a box or out of a box. Nothing else changes, so why does it matter if it is in the box?

The questions you're asking now are with regard to identifying the authority in question regarding a particular canon, which is very similar to the Word of God trope (though not exactly the same). In the case where the authority is a corporate entity, it can be difficult to pin down a specific individual within that corporation, and doing so might not even be appropriate; there's a argument to be made that there needs to be some sort of consensus with regards to the individuals making up the corporation for something to be considered canon (as opposed to, say, a single tweet from one member of the staff), in which case the closest we have is the publication of further source material (in the same vein and under the same format and banner), since that's necessarily been through the entire corporate production process. Things like licensed material can be much trickier to figure out.

But you missed the more important question.

What do I call a body of work that holds all the qualities of canon, but not the title of canon? You have declared that canon can only exist in singular pieces. There is only a single canon for, let's say Pokemon (there isn't, but I'm pretending). If I then find a world built off of pokemon, just as complex in its lore and just as deep in its continuity, but not owned by Nintendo... what do I call it? If it can't be canon, even if it is an external authority on the facts, lore, and timeline of the work, then what is it?



I disagree, and I think those titles creates unnecessary ambiguity by separating lore into tiers whose exact relationship is unclear, which goes against what canon is supposed to help us understand. Prior to the recent announcement about pre-5E materials, the Forgotten Realms had products in 3.5 and 5E, and those materials were all canon. Splitting those into two different levels then creates questions of Forgotten Realms products in different editions (otherwise why is the distinction being made at all?), and introduces confusion.

Tiers? That is a bizarre value judgement for you to make. Which one ranks a higher tier She-Ra created by Larry DiTillio and J. Michael Straczynski in the 90's or She-Ra made by Noelle Stevenson in 2018?

To me, that is a nonsensical question. They aren't tiered canons. They are two separate canons. I might as well ask which is superior Spider-Man or Batman? The question is pointless beyond just personal preference.

And, yes, Forgotten Realms had material from 2e, 3.X, 4e (funny how you skipped that one), and 5e. But, there is very little confusion I'd think. Is it in a 5e book? If it is, it is guaranteed canon going forward for WoTC (unless they change it like they already did in the reprinted SCAG). If it isn't? Then it isn't guaranteed to be canon unless they print something new. This is the same situation we were in before, the only difference is that the stamp of approval isn't on the older material any more. It could have still been changed by new publications.

So, it comes down to valuing that stamp of approval. Which... isn't a value.

I fear we're reaching a point of talking past each other, since I've explained why I don't believe that's an accurate description. Restating that you think otherwise isn't giving anyone a deeper understanding of what we're talking about (nor does it help to change anyone's mind).

But you seem to be of the opinion that a table can't have canon.

And I'll ask a second time, just like above. If I have a world, lore, timeline of events, ect ect ect. All the aspects of Canon... except that I'm not WoTC... what do I call this set of external facts that my players cannot change?

Which demonstrates the need for better terminology - with broad consensus - with regard to this entire subject area. Certainly, there's a sense of importance to this whole discussion that I don't think should be lightly dismissed. It's not for nothing that the second sentence of Wikipedia's description of Peter Pan in Scarlet, for instance, tells us that the book is the "official sequel" to the original story, and then cites why that is.

Not for nothing but... that truly is a bizarre thing. It may be the "official" sequel, but being written nearly 100 years later, and after Peter Pan has been reimagined by a dozen authors in a dozen different forms, it clearly isn't the sequel that would have happened if the original author had penned a sequel.

I think I do agree that we need better terms and better consensus on what those terms mean, but I think we also need to consider why "official" and "canon" works are somehow given a treatment that isn't given to any other work. After all, there have been many many works based off Peter Pan, and yet now people seem like they want to place this work above those, just because this one was made "official"

I'm not sure I understand the reason why you're advocating for that. Presuming that I've adequately explained where I'm coming from, I'm not sure I see the value in what you're suggesting here. Is it that you feel the term "canon" somehow elevates a particular presentation of a body of lore above other presentations of the same material, i.e. that it's some sort of notation with regard to quality or "worth"? Because I don't believe that to be the case at all - there's certainly fanfiction out there which is (to my mind) of a better quality than the source material!

And yet you give a value to canon. A value that is not given to anything that is not canon. And yet all that canon means is found in either the framework of lore, or the official status. And yet, what makes something "official"? Brom's Child Thief is officially Brom's work, and nothing anyone else says about his work really changes what is official for his work. Yet, being a take on Peter Pan, "Peter Pan in Scarlet" is more canon that Child Thief? What value do we get from saying that? What about between Brom's book and Disney's Movie, which one carries a stronger canon?

To me... they are seperate. Disney's Peter Pan is a character that appears in multiple formats and has effected multiple other products and stories. Brom's Work is Brom's and a story I've been told I should read because it is very good. I don't see a value in trying to weigh them against each other, and them rank them based on how close they are to the 1911 play. Comparing them on some sort of canon value is only leading to issues. Both should be judged based on what they were made for and how well they were made. And each contains within it a canon of events and lore that are true for those works.




I'm not sure, but I do think that a different term is needed, if for no other reason than it would present greater information in distinguishing between something that's a derivative work and something that isn't. More information, as conveyed by different terms, tends to abet understanding, and I suspect would alleviate a lot of the tension that goes into debates like these.

See, I disagree, if only because I think that solidifies canon as only caring about the "official" status. It would become like a copyright or a trademark. And I think that would only create division and cause heartache, as people would then cling even tighter to the "official" material, and feel like the material outside of that light of officiality is lesser.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
And I want them both, and that video game, and that comic book, and that TV show, and that movie, to all be consistent with a shared world which has references and continuity across every piece, and form of media, all overseen by the IP owner.

The issue is that has literally never happened, and attempts to make it happen ruin IPs all the time. Though, I will admit, the opposite happens all the time as well.

There has never been a movie that perfectly adapted the canon of a book, comic book, or video game. Video Game movies are particularly horrendous in this regard. But part of that is that you cannot possibly make it work. What works in a book doesn't work in a movie. Some things must change by necessity.

Now, this can go too far. You can ruin a movie or show by removing too much canon, but we have to acknowledge that perfect canon transferal across media is impossible.

And this applies triple for TTRPGs. Because to make them "canon" you have to remove player choice. That, or the "canon" is just the background set piece that the adventure takes place in... and then resets ignoring the player's efforts.
 


Mirtek

Hero
Why, when it is so easy to know that the novel was a mirror universe to the game?
Because I would not enjoy reading that

What if I've been running a game where Azoun is supposed to be an important NPC we time skip from 1370 DR to 1375? Do I tell the players that "the canon says he died, so all of that work building an alliance was for nothing, sorry."
Than that's your game. Doesn't matter for the ongoing canon metaplot. Neither does mine. My own games don't even matter for myself beyond the single campaign.

Kinda like saying you've seen a movie because you read the Wikipedia article on it.
Which I actually do a lot if the Wiki entry is detailed enough. I skipped quite a few entries in longer movie series when I "had to" watch a later movie and haven't seen all previous installments of the series.

I mean some Wiki summaries are really barebones, but others are long and detailed enough that you don't need to see part 3 of something after reading them and are perfectly ready to see part 4

IT is? Please give me a page and book quote. From Season 1-10 adventure league modules or any of the adventure paths books, which reference the Troubles and has the Troubles center stage as a plot point.
There were followers of Cyric and even a chosen of Cyric in AL modules
 
Last edited:



TheSword

Legend
And I want them both, and that video game, and that comic book, and that TV show, and that movie, to all be consistent with a shared world which has references and continuity across every piece, and form of media, all overseen by the IP owner.
Even if that means living with the sins of the fathers? Like four different power groups occupying Myth Drannor in the space of 30 years, Each one wiping the previous one out? After a thousand years of unchanging. Even if those groups fundamentally change and in some cases destroy the things that made that place cool? The lore on Myth Drannor is a mess read the wiki page.
 
Last edited:

Keldryn

Adventurer
A lot of the EU is back. Lucasfilm/Disney just took the opportunity to replace anything they didn't feel worked from the EU, rather than feeling constrained by it.
Yes, they've definitely been mining it for ideas, borrowing elements but usually re-contextualizing them. Lucas and Filoni did a fair bit of that on The Clone Wars.

Kind of like what a lot of DMs do with adventures band campaign settings, really.

They won't even release the Holiday Special on Disney+, they just cut out the good part, the animated Boba Fett story, and gave us that. Disney+ has both Ewok movies, the Droids cartoon, and the Ewok cartoon. The Holiday Special is almost anti-canon at this point. However, they did release a LEGO Star Wars Holiday Special, which was an homage/satire of the original . . .
It was also awesome. Love the LEGO Star Wars shows.
 


If you don't have an actual policy on canon, except "whatever works for this product" (which, I suspect, is always their stance in the end)... it isn't a lie when you don't declare any particular span of works to be or not be canon.
With two classic and one revisited setting coming up in the next year or so, that adds up to an awful lot of "whatever works for this product", and WotC have just witnessed all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Ravenloft. It's only fair that WotC try to explain to people "you know that canon thing, it doesn't really exist".
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top