Published settings and canon

[PhoenixPhyre]

As I see it, if you're playing in a published setting (or in fact any setting that has ever been used before, even if only by that same group), you have to make some decisions about what is "canon" (established fact) in that setting.

Options as I see them (not listing the possible combinations of these):

1. Everything is canon. Literally. Every single thing done or written about the setting is canon, no matter by who. This is a mess.
2. Everything 1st party is canon. So anything done, written, or said by the creators of the setting (or those to whom they gave licenses) is canon. All the books, movies, games, etc. This is at least possible, but is still going to be a pain IMO.
3. Some subset of non-source-book fiction is canon. Call this the Star Wars solution, post Disney purchase. There's distinctly "favored" canon and then there's all the other stuff. Generally this goes with the main-line properties being hard canon and everything else being a source to mine for stories.
4. Everything in the source books is canon. Everything else is suggestions. This, I think, is the sanest default for big published settings. Anything non-game-related is in an alternate universe status; anything other groups may have done is ignored.
5. Only the big-picture stuff is canon. You can count on the gods' names being the same. And the names of the countries and their general attitudes. Beyond that? Don't count on much.
6. Only stuff explicitly said at the table during this campaign is canon. Even if you played in this setting before, the actions of that prior group may or may not exist. And things may be utterly different. Does make me wonder if you're even playing in the same setting at that point...
7. Nothing is canon, not even stuff we said. This works great for a wacky toon game. Not a game I'd likely want to play in.

I don't run my own games in a setting used by anyone else (that I know of). But I have strong control over what is canon, and it includes things done by prior groups and things I've said before (as long as I wrote them down or remembered them, which I try to). But if I were to play in one of the big-name settings, I'd probably end up about at #5 for the first game, effectively branching the setting at that point for the first campaign in that setting. With the same group, I'd try to maintain consistency from one campaign to the next; with different groups in a big-name setting I think I'd reset to my "stock" branch and rework things based on what I'd learned I like.

What are your preferences?

[Anonymouswizard]

My games tend towards 'real world events are canon, anything in the core rulebook is canon, anything else is undetermined until it comes up'. Part of this is due to liking modern day games, particularly Unknown Armies and Chronicled of Darkness, and because a lot of the time working out if X is canon or notis wasted effort.

I mean, I'll likely know more than the players at first, if I'm running Hunter then I've probably decided if the other gamelines are canon. But I enjoy the freedom of being able to subvert 'standard' canon if it makes for a better story.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I like to land somewhere between 4 and 5 and treat the sourcebooks (from the current edition, if relevant) as a sort of in-setting encyclopedia. It's probably right about what is and is not canon, but not 100% trustworthy-- particularly when it comes to people and cosmic mysteries.

That said I've only really been working with a pre-written setting in the last few years as I've started running Exalted 3e/d20. In my Creation, everything that's happened at any of my campaigns is considered canon, but that's yet to be really tested. So far everything has been geographically isolated that it doesn't really matter though.

Also, if the GM hasn't read it, it doesn't apply.

[NichG]

The reason something like canon is useful is so that players can import knowledge without having to be explicitly told it by the GM. Like a lot of GM bypasses, this helps with planning and formulation of goals or purpose of the PCs.

To that end, I'd tend to go with a kind of 'we won't say what's specifically canon or not ahead of time, but if you want an element to be there for something you came up with, I'll try to meet you on that. I'll say major disinclusions ahead of time but otherwise it might or might not exist as we need. At the same time, I'm going to feel free to change details and even important stuff, so long as those things are relatively hidden or obscure.'

[InvisibleBison]

I think I'd run a hybrid of option 2 and option 6. Everything is canon, unless I'm not aware of it and/or decide to discard it.

[False God]

#4, followed by #6 within the context of this game and this group.

[Quertus]

What are your preferences?

Huh. That’s a surprisingly complex question.

The simple answer is that, like you, I prefer to run my own settings.

When I do run published settings, it gets complicated.

Like you, I value the feel of a lived in world, Touched by many hands. So you’d think that might drive me towards #1. Or maybe #3.

Then again, I care about the quality and consistency of the world building, so you might think that world drive me towards #2. Or maybe #4.

But I’m lazy, so perhaps #5…

In reality…

Nobody’s world building is likely to live up to my standards. So I ask what the world building is particularly good at, and focus on that.

Then I take the general sweep of the world (#5), the campaign themes, and the things the players want, and try to build a more consistent underpinning to support that than what I was given.

So, if one player wants their PC to have been Elminster’s apprentice, I happen to know enough about the Realms to know that E doesn’t take on apprentices. So I ask whether changing that will be good for my Realms, or whether they even have an Elminster in the first place (that is, in fanfic lingo, I believe I’m running an “alternate history” of the setting). As the Realms are known for their big named NPCs, if I change anything about them from canon, it’s a pretty big clue that that’s Important somehow. Whereas, my players knew that, in Star Wars, just because they met someone named “Palatine” didn’t mean he was a villain.

Whatever actions the PCs take, if I happen to run *that* copy of the world again, those actions will be reflected in the world (#6).

As a player, unless told otherwise, I walk in assuming #2, and test the GM’s world building chops by asking “why” whenever they’ve clearly deviated from canon, to see if their world is worth my time to think about, or whether I should turn my brain off.

[Lord Torath]

A mix of 5 and 6 for me. If there's some particular aspect of the setting I don't like, I will nix it. You can trust what comes up at the table, or anything I specifically tell you about. If it's something big, I'll likely let you know early, but it might be something you need to discover during play. If it will affect a particular character concept, I will let you know at character creation.

[Mutazoia]

I'm on team "6" here.

Given the millions of players, there is really no reason that anything should be written in stone. I used to get a lot of "that's not canon" crap from the EU crowd when I ran my Star Wars campaign. Guess what? The EU was just a bunch of crap made up by people living in their mom's basements. It's the same with any game "lore." If I'm running a game, don't expect anything to be "canon" even if we're in the Forgotten Realms, things WILL be different from the splats.

https://thesciencedog.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/guidelines.jpg

[Mastikator]

I am squarely in the 6th camp here. Anything that happens at my table is canon. I use 1st, 2nd and 3rd party stuff for inspiration or just as ready made props for the game (and then they become canon) but before I add them to the game they are perfectly fine as in-game myth. The players may read about it, the characters may think it's real, but until I decide it's real it's myth.

[Imbalance]

"My dear doctor, it's all canon."
"Even the contradictions?"
"Especially the contradictions."

[KorvinStarmast]

5, 6 and 7.
And canon changes if the uni/multi/DM-verse flexes its colon and dumps some of it out.

Also, what Mutazoia said. :smallsmile:

[GloatingSwine]

5 unless overruled by 6.

Specifics of the setting are tools for a GM to use or not as they see fit.

[Enceladus]

Mostly #3 if using published settings but depends on which ones. This would be the case if I was using something well established like Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance. Though I would be more towards #5 for anything else.

[Satinavian]

Usually i play with 2-4. Which one depends mostly on how many contraditions i get doing so. I will go with the most details that does not involve blatant self contradiction.