Your Thoughts on DND Cannon

[Amdy_vill]

The point is to talk about canon and lore not debate your canon or what you believe is canon. both are too big a topic to talk about. WotC has a massive group of people whose job it is to manage canon. I just want to talk about canon and your thoughts on if it is bloated or needs a rework or needs reprint to help.

So I feel I should first explain the current canon as best I can or at least the most correct system by which we find the current canon as dnd is massive and complex and this is a hard conversation to have. so in general this is how to find cannon. start at the top of the list and work your way down. note the age also matter. so a novel from this year generally overrides novels from the '70s. there are exceptions and asterisks everywhere(A great example is Ed Greenwood. everything he writes is canon no matter what because of his contract. Wtoc can contradict him or they Loss forgotten realm.). like, have characters in novels lie or don't know what actually happened. extra but this is the best why in general. also, note the 1e had a reboot but it did partially nothing except change the rules the god fallow. but since we don't know those rules. and while 4e was a reboot, previous material continued being published through 4e and 4e didn't really change anything so it also did really do anything.

I ****ed up. in digging for quotes to refine what is canon as asked by phoenix, I found that I have made a mistake. novels should be below DND rule books kinda. in the case of books confirmed canonicity, it should be taken above rule books. but outside of that, I should be below rule books. this is relatively new. sorry.

Novels
dnd rules Books
Games
extra media sources(IE games played by write/developers that are cannon but no documentation in any of the above forms.)

so what are your thoughts on canon in dnd. do you think dnd needs a lore reboot(hopefully one better than the 4e's but not as unclear as 1e's.)

Personally, I want one of two things. either an official wiki run by the writers to make lore easy or a reboot that actually condenses lore and makes the lore of dnd approachable.

I honestly don't think either would happen because of the odd situation with dnds intellectual property considering things like FR. if you don't know look into Ed Greenwood contract and just know most other settings have something like that. not exact and sometimes more in Wtoc's favor but all of them have some kind of hang-up. I believe Dragon lance and Ravenloft don't but you get my point dnd is in a position that is impossible to fix.

[Tanarii]

Anything that isn't in a rules book or splatbook isn't canon. Especially not novels or games.

Honestly the idea of canon in D&D would be extremely weird if it wasn't for official play. The game encourages every DM to make it their own.

[Unoriginal]

I much prefer the 5e default lore to the 4e or 3.X ones.

I don't think it needs a reboot, but I could do with them publishing more stuff not focusing on FR.

[micahaphone]

Hell, one step further, rulebooks and splatbooks are just suggestions. There's been plenty of times when I read a lore blurb and say "that's stupid" and change it for my game.

I don't think canon is a very useful concept for a decentralized game like D&D.

[Dragonsonthemap]

I want it to stay out of the way.

For the most part, they've been pretty good about that. You're not penalized for not playing in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or whichever other setting, but some sense of D&D canon still looms too large sometimes, as the recent to-do about the Tasha's lineage customization rules shows.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to take the controversial stance.There is no canon broader than a single as-implemented setting. Nothing printed in any source is canonical, because nothing printed can override the decisions the DM makes. No one can look at what a DM decides and say "no, you're wrong because the canon says XYZ happened." Nor does (5e anyway) claim that power.

If both you and I play at different tables, even if we are using the same printed adventure, the history of those worlds is different. Alternate timelines, one might say. Novels? They're in their own separate continuity (and that's been said as much by the designers). Previous edition stuff? Use it if you want, ignore it if you want. It is nothing more than a source of ideas to be mined by a setting designer or DM.

And I think the game is much better for this. There is no "source of truth" for lore. There is only what the DM and the players collectively decide.

The books are full of ideas. Ideas that you can implement if you wish. Or not. Or you can selectively implement them. D&D is not a story in a single universe that can have a metaplot or a "canon" history. D&D is a toolbox for creating your own stories, your own universe, your own canon.

For example, my own personal setting (where I play everything but a few one-shots) excises every single particle of the "lore" behind, well, everything. Planar structure? Very different. Origin of the races? Extremely different. Nature of power? Different. Etc. Yet it is still D&D, and someone playing in one of my games trivially recognizes it as such. Sure, many of the races keep the same basic outlook and personality-structure as in the core rules, but the underlying history and reasons are vastly different. And the mechanics haven't changed at all. All I've done is explained those mechanics in terms of the underlying nature of the universe. Spell slots? Explained. HP? Explained. Even the fact that most spells and attacks don't damage worn/carried items is explained.

[Amdy_vill]

Anything that isn't in a rules book or splatbook isn't canon. Especially not novels or games.

Honestly the idea of canon in D&D would be extremely weird if it wasn't for official play. The game encourages every DM to make it their own.

This is just not true. when rule books reference novel and games are stated by WotC to be cannon. you can disagree that people should care about canon but these things have been stated to be canon.

personally, I am fine with ignoring canon. but things like the bulders gate games have been confirmed to be cannon ish(There is an official ending and character. they are very different from the game character but fallows the story beat for beat.) and things like Ahriman being referenced in manuals and novels. dnd has a cannon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is just not true. when rule books reference novel and games are stated by WotC to be cannon. you can disagree that people should care about canon but these things have been stated to be canon.

personally, I am fine with ignoring canon. but things like the bulders gate games have been confirmed to be cannon ish(There is an official ending and character. they are very different from the game character but fallows the story beat for beat.) and things like Ahriman being referenced in manuals and novels. dnd has a cannon.

You'd need 5e sources for that. Prior editions no longer apply. What was canon is no longer canon. And I've seen explicit statements that explicitly discard novels, games, and other properties as being in any way canon for the tabletop product. They're alternate continuities.

[Amdy_vill]

You'd need 5e sources for that. Prior editions no longer apply. What was canon is no longer canon. And I've seen explicit statements that explicitly discard novels, games, and other properties as being in any way canon for the tabletop product. They're alternate continuities.

1. I literally am referencing current adventure modules and books. 2. we are talking about dnd canon. there are peoples whose job it is to decide what canon is and they have always said generally everything is canon and certain things suppressed others. given that ed and other writers are writers I would prefer us to talk about the written cannon as the actual rule books tend to just pull things from novels and use novel quotes instead of making new lore. even when modules are made they still have canon endings usually elaborated on in books. the rule books outside of 2e give so little lore there is really no conversation of lore if you are only looking at them.

[Amdy_vill]

I want it to stay out of the way.

For the most part, they've been pretty good about that. You're not penalized for not playing in the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or whichever other setting, but some sense of D&D canon still looms too large sometimes, as the recent to-do about the Tasha's lineage customization rules shows.

so you would prefer in the future for dnd to separate more. the tabletop should focus more on setting neutral with an example of in cannon but should encourage people not playing in canon.

[Spriteless]

In my head, every GM, nay, every campaign has its own cannon. But they can overlap like venn diagrams. Maybe I liked this novel series and it's also cannon for my game. Maybe I liked the novels enough to create a world very like them, but missing powerful characters that might steal the PCs' thunder. Other cannons are great for shooting at my PCs. Just like gutting an adventure module for NPCs and situations.

I feel like the people in Hasbro's WotC team writing the current cannon don't care for the old cannon, except the bits which resonated with them. So, I guess they're like me.

I like Baker's cannon for Eberron more than Hasbro's, except for some bits of Karn, which is seriously the best lawful evil country. Don't play subversive music or you will be hanged and conscripted, in that order. Love to hate their govt. Understand every choice they made as pragmatic. A deal with a necromancer is smarter than a deal with a devil, at least.

[Tanarii]

If you think there should be an ultimate canon for FR that spans all editions, Mearls has you covered
https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/4/206...eline-universe

I'm not a fan but eh, seems like it's make some people happy.

[Amdy_vill]

In my head, every GM, nay, every campaign has its own cannon. But they can overlap like venn diagrams. Maybe I liked this novel series and it's also cannon for my game. Maybe I liked the novels enough to create a world very like them, but missing powerful characters that might steal the PCs' thunder. Other cannons are great for shooting at my PCs. Just like gutting an adventure module for NPCs and situations.

I feel like the people in Hasbro's WotC team writing the current cannon don't care for the old cannon, except the bits which resonated with them. So, I guess they're like me.

I like Baker's cannon for Eberron more than Hasbro's, except for some bits of Karn, which is seriously the best lawful evil country. Don't play subversive music or you will be hanged and conscripted, in that order. Love to hate their govt. Understand every choice they made as pragmatic. A deal with a necromancer is smarter than a deal with a devil, at least.

I think everything bakers write is canon. because he still holds the right to make novels and to let others make novels. my understanding is WotC only has the right to make new mechanical books. that's why nothing in the new Eberron books goes against baker's cannon and the other writers he was lent the IP out to.

might be wrong here. I know more about who owns what when I come down to classical dnd settings.

[Amdy_vill]

If you think there should be an ultimate canon for FR that spans all editions, Mearls has you covered
https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/4/206...eline-universe

I'm not a fan but eh, seems like it's make some people happy.

why I am referencing is this. the fact the dnd IP holds has a given canon. the conversation is supposed to be on what are your thoughts about this canon. do you think it's bloated? so on. not an argument over what is canon. there is a cannon it's vague complex and we don't know everything because books keep coming out and changing things. the point was to have a conversation about this and not argue over what is canon.

[Nhorianscum]

I enjoy the amount of written setting material for DnD.

I also enjoy that for the most part, this material is flexible and allows groups to play in a world of their choosing.

It's a very non-intrusive cannon.

[Amdy_vill]

I enjoy the amount of written setting material for DnD.

I also enjoy that for the most part, this material is flexible and allows groups to play in a world of their choosing.

It's a very non-intrusive cannon.

not the point please read the Original post.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. I literally am referencing current adventure modules and books. 2. we are talking about dnd canon. there are peoples whose job it is to decide what canon is and they have always said generally everything is canon and certain things suppressed others. given that ed and other writers are writers I would prefer us to talk about the written cannon as the actual rule books tend to just pull things from novels and use novel quotes instead of making new lore. even when modules are made they still have canon endings usually elaborated on in books. the rule books outside of 2e give so little lore there is really no conversation of lore if you are only looking at them.

For something to be canon, you have to be able to say "no, DM, that didn't happen. Because XYZ happened instead." And that's not a thing. Adventures? They're not canon for anyone but those who played through them. I can play adventure A without the events of any previous adventure having happened in that setting. Or all of them. That's not canon. Same thing with novels. Or games. And when you go beyond a single setting, nothing you say about FR can change my setting. Nothing anyone but me and my players say can change that. So there is no D&D canon. There are canon for particular properties. The alternate continuities of the novels have a canon. But that canon is meaningless for anyone not in that continuity (which includes, well, everyone except the writers and readers of those books). Same with the games.

And I'm happier that way. Because the idea of "canon" in a TTRPG is poison. Even the worst metaplots didn't force you to accept the events.

You'd need a developer quote saying "XYZ are things that must exist in any D&D world" or "in any FR game" for there to be canon. None of which you've quoted. You've only alluded to people quoting things. With changes.

[BigRedJedi]

The only canon that matters is the DM at your table. All published materials are fluff... Fluff that can provide ideas or context within a DM's world, but fluff nonetheless.

In the cases of published modules (e.g. AL) or adventures, licensed writers establish a specific canonical approach within those self-contained structures (FR, Eberron, etc.), but a DM is still the final arbiter on 'canon' at the table.

As far as D&D cannons go, unless I'm playing in my homebrew Knights of the Elvish Main, buccaneers and bugbears campaign where sailing ships are central to the narrative, leave the gunpowder out of swords and sorcery, it doesn't add anything interesting that magic cannot already accomplish.

[JackPhoenix]

I think everything bakers write is canon. because he still holds the right to make novels and to let others make novels. my understanding is WotC only has the right to make new mechanical books. that's why nothing in the new Eberron books goes against baker's cannon and the other writers he was lent the IP out to.

might be wrong here. I know more about who owns what when I come down to classical dnd settings.

Keith is the original creator, but all IP belongs to WotC, not him. Eberron novels... regardless of author... explicitly aren't canon, and neither is anything he writes on his blog. I still consider it more canon than anything* released during 4e era.

It's the opposite of FR, where every thing Ed Greenwood says or types is considered canon, no matter how stupid it is.

*Except maps. 4e maps are great.

[Nhorianscum]

not the point please read the Original post.

You're short on a defined thesis here my dude.

There's a defined and official "core cannon" and what I'll refer to as "we don't understand IP in the 80's cannon" and DnD is one of the lone holdouts having both uncontested. There are official statements but, not many folks care about those.

This is mostly because unlike many IP's that got nice and promiscuous in the late 70's and 80's the cannon in DnD is just, not super relevant to the game and having a split or inconsistent cannon is irrelevant as it's all just more fuel for modules or individual DM's.

So I'll stick to my statement. It's an accurate and honest assesment of my opinion on DnD cannon.

[Amdy_vill]

For something to be canon, you have to be able to say "no, DM, that didn't happen. Because XYZ happened instead." And that's not a thing. Adventures? They're not canon for anyone but those who played through them. I can play adventure A without the events of any previous adventure having happened in that setting. Or all of them. That's not canon.

And I'm happier that way. Because the idea of "canon" in a TTRPG is poison. Even the worst metaplots didn't force you to accept the events.

You'd need a developer quote saying "XYZ are things that must exist in any D&D world" or "in any FR game" for there to be canon. None of which you've quoted. You've only alluded to people quoting things. With changes.

cannon has nothing to do with your table. you can disregard cannon. if you are playing the buffy game you can disregard all the buffy media that is canon and play your own game. but this is still a canon. The same goes for every game. but there is still a canon. Orcus is a demon, that's canon. vecna was trained by Orcus. that's canon. you can play in a world where vecna is a fallen angle. that does not affect canon. that's the power of a table top you can ingnor canon. the conversation is about you thought on the stat of the canon.

Eberron novels... regardless of author... explicitly aren't canon, and neither is anything he writes on his blog. Keith is the original creator, but all IP belongs to WotC, not him.

I still consider it more canon than anything released during 4e era.
Except maps. 4e maps are great.

is it. as I said I know more about classic dnd settings.

[Unoriginal]

This is just not true. when rule books reference novel and games are stated by WotC to be cannon. you can disagree that people should care about canon but these things have been stated to be canon.

personally, I am fine with ignoring canon. but things like the bulders gate games have been confirmed to be cannon ish(There is an official ending and character. they are very different from the game character but fallows the story beat for beat.) and things like Ahriman being referenced in manuals and novels. dnd has a cannon.

1. I literally am referencing current adventure modules and books. 2. we are talking about dnd canon. there are peoples whose job it is to decide what canon is and they have always said generally everything is canon and certain things suppressed others. given that ed and other writers are writers I would prefer us to talk about the written cannon as the actual rule books tend to just pull things from novels and use novel quotes instead of making new lore. even when modules are made they still have canon endings usually elaborated on in books. the rule books outside of 2e give so little lore there is really no conversation of lore if you are only looking at them.

If you claim that WotC coast has claimed something about the canonicity of other sources, then it's up to you to provide the quote(s) showing it.

cannon has nothing to do with your table. you can disregard cannon. if you are playing the buffy game you can disregard all the buffy media that is canon and play your own game. but this is still a canon. The same goes for every game. but there is still a canon. Orcus is a demon, that's canon.

You're confusing lore and canon.

vecna was trained by Orcus. that's canon.

Source?

[PhoenixPhyre]

cannon has nothing to do with your table. you can disregard cannon. if you are playing the buffy game you can disregard all the buffy media that is canon and play your own game. but this is still a canon. The same goes for every game. but there is still a canon. Orcus is a demon, that's canon. vecna was trained by Orcus. that's canon. you can play in a world where vecna is a fallen angle. that does not affect canon. that's the power of a table top you can ingnor canon. the conversation is about you thought on the stat of the canon.

And I'm saying that the whole idea of "canon" is meaningless when it comes to a TTRPG. Everything exists in alternate continuities that only interact if a DM decides they do. You're not ignoring canon, you're just not using something that someone wrote.

For example, Vecna does not exist in my setting. Neither does Orcus. In fact, neither one of them even could exist in my setting. Yet my setting is just as much D&D as anything else. And that cannot be true if there's a canon, because the meaning of the word canon is a measuring stick. A way to determine truth from falsehood. So if Orcus is a demon, by canon, that implies that Orcus exists. Which is explicitly not true. So either Orcus existing is canon, or it's not. And I've shown that it cannot be. Same goes for every other fact of D&D. Something cannot be both be valid D&D and violate D&D canon--that's a contradiction, because canon defines validity. Yet the existence of Vecna and Orcus isn't something that's true in every D&D universe, even the ones published by WotC (ie Eberron). And you can say the same thing for any other fact.

Yes, that annoys people who want to tell others that they're wrong about the lore. Who want to gatekeep. But that's a feature, not a bug. There is no canon for the TTRPG. There cannot be, because that means that there can only be one universe. Which is contradicted by the actual printed works. D&D is large. It contains multitudes.

[Amdy_vill]

If you claim that WotC coast has claimed something about the canonicity of other sources, then it's up to you to provide the quote(s) showing it.




You're confusing lore and canon.



Source?

no, I am not. we have novels.

I can understand why you are calling me for a source on Vecna. his teacher has been changed a lot but the DMG does say Orcus currently.

[Amdy_vill]

And I'm saying that the whole idea of "canon" is meaningless when it comes to a TTRPG. Everything exists in alternate continuities that only interact if a DM decides they do. You're not ignoring canon, you're just not using something that someone wrote.

For example, Vecna does not exist in my setting. Neither does Orcus. In fact, neither one of them even could exist in my setting. Yet my setting is just as much D&D as anything else. And that cannot be true if there's a canon, because the meaning of the word canon is a measuring stick. A way to determine truth from falsehood. So if Orcus is a demon, by canon, that implies that Orcus exists. Which is explicitly not true. So either Orcus existing is canon, or it's not. And I've shown that it cannot be. Same goes for every other fact of D&D. Something cannot be both be valid D&D and violate D&D canon--that's a contradiction, because canon defines validity. Yet the existence of Vecna and Orcus isn't something that's true in every D&D universe, even the ones published by WotC (ie Eberron). And you can say the same thing for any other fact.

Yes, that annoys people who want to tell others that they're wrong about the lore. Who want to gatekeep. But that's a feature, not a bug. There is no canon for the TTRPG. There cannot be, because that means that there can only be one universe. Which is contradicted by the actual printed works. D&D is large. It contains multitudes.

I don't care about canon. outside of when I am trying to have a conversation about canon. if you going to ignore the required preface for a conversation just don't post. the point was to talk about the current canon not debate the legitimacy of canon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't care about canon. outside of when I am trying to have a conversation about canon. if you going to ignore the required preface for a conversation just don't post. the point was to talk about the current canon not debate the legitimacy of canon.

Legitimacy of canon is a necessary precondition. You haven't established that there is a canon, much less that novels, games, or other things have any bearing on it. Heck, you've not even defined what you mean by canon.

Discussing something that, in my opinion, does not and cannot exist is pointless. So there's a threshold question. Does it exist? Can it exist? Does such a thing even have meaning in the context of a TTRPG? Of this particular one?

[Amdy_vill]

Legitimacy of canon is a necessary precondition. You haven't established that there is a canon, much less that novels, games, or other things have any bearing on it. Heck, you've not even defined what you mean by canon.

Discussing something that, in my opinion, does not and cannot exist is pointless. So there's a threshold question. Does it exist? Can it exist? Does such a thing even have meaning in the context of a TTRPG? Of this particular one?

the reason I have not specifically defined it is because its vague nebulsu ill defined and such. things i have been pointing out. the fact that the list i gave above has a **** ton of asterisk. we could ligitamly sepnd mounths pining down what is and isn't canon. the point was to talk about this. not debate the ligitamcy of it. becuase of how vage and ill defined it is should it be rebooted. so on. i get that you trying to get me to define this so we can talk about it but outside of being a member of wotc franshic team we could not get it pined down completly.

[Unoriginal]

no, I am not. we have novels.

Novels are not canon unless WotC described them as such. You said they did.

[Amdy_vill]

I think any Core canon should be ambiguous for DMs to more easily make their own multiverse campaign canon.

Save the great amounts of lore and canon for setting and adventure books, and give me more crunch in the core rulebooks.


I also prefer they not offer up real world religions (even supposedly "divorced from their historical context") or use real world named gods, devils, and demons etc. While I understand why it happened in the beginning when they were taking everything they could from every source they could find to offer up new play experiences, enough new material has been produced and enough time has passed that I think they could find a way to write that stuff out of their books and canon.

This is kinda what I was looking for. thanks.

so you want more baseline rules and less lore and removal of real-world lore, religion, and such. but you still want a canon to be their just more of a splat book and out of the way thing. what are your thoughts on the current canon? like the content of it.

[Sigreid]

I don't find the mess of a cannon helpful. Because shifts between the editions and an effort to have a unified D&D multiverse between every published campaign world and now apparently the Magic The Gathering decks has made a incoherent mess.