From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_(fiction)
"Canonicity of fiction is a distinctly modern idea. In addition to the modern concepts of genre fiction and fictional universes, the notion of intellectual property (IP) distinguishes between "official" and "unofficial" sources of stories. However, whereas IP laws are designed to dictate where the revenue generated by a story goes, they do not confer the right to determine canonicity. If a fictional universe has an obvious primary creator then their statements may be held to carry the most authority, but no actual industry label exists for definitively designating published works as canonical, or even for granting any particular individual or organisation the power to dictate what is or is not canonical. Equally, the fact that a majority of fans of a fictional setting view certain things as non-canonical does not oblige everyone to agree.
Canonicity is, then, a largely subjective notion, referring to a shared understanding - if there is one - between the published works in a fictional series and the level of acceptance by a vocal but otherwise accepting wide audience. As such, the word canon can simultaneously refer to the considerations of the publishers of a fictional series as well as what the fanbase chooses to consider as authentic."
Since its inception, the Forgotten Realms has had a number of designers provide material for use with their game worlds. Ed Greenwood is considered canon, of course, although he himself has interesting things to say on the matter. He almost always puts in a line about "these are the things 'most' citizens of the Realms agree on, but they may or may not be true". The reason for this is that he's always intended for players to take the Realms and use it to create their own world, their own stories, their own fun. The idea of future canon taking precedence over a playgroup's FR... that's something that just wasn't part of 1st ed Realms (or funnily, 1st Ed Realms, heh!).
That's always struck me as a somewhat different view on what's "canonical" within general fiction (like Trek, or Dr. Who) and "canonical" within a game world that's been adopted and made unique thousands of times over by different player groups. Greenwood has always had the take that all Realms are their own Realms.
WotC designers, on the other hand, really seem have to have a different approach to the issue of "canon", and I think they must - because they're not just developing a game world and products that people can use, but also the continuity for authors of novels in the WotC FR lines.
So let's discuss some interesting things:
1- Is there a difference between "game canon" and "novel canon"? Or is this a muddy area? Is it one of the things that makes FR material difficult?
2- How many people actually follow all "novel canon" and import every detail mentioned into their own games? Do you feel that it's important to do so, and why yes or no?
3- In a gaming world, rather than a fictional "universe" like the "Buffyverse" or the "Whoniverse" based on television and books that are not adoptable and modifiable by their consumers, does it even make sense to talk of "canon" in the same way?
4- The designers of 4E have stated that having a "similar experience" for all players is important, and that this was one of the major reasons for introducing the Spellplague, 100-year jump, and "cleanup" of the Realms' NPCs. Does this seem to stray from the original intent of D&D, where game worlds (like Greyhawk and the 1st edition Realms) were made as a starting point for players and DMs to adapt as they wished?
5- If you are planning on going 4E rules, will you adopt the 4E Realms (with the limited info we have thus far) exactly as they'll be offered, including its Spellplague and new regional areas/changes? Is it possible that any of the new 4E material for FR should not be considered "game canon" but rather "novel canon"? Or should anything official be considered canon?
6- The flip side of canon is "apocrypha", meaning official material published in a given fictional universe but not technically canon. For example, all Star Trek TV series and movies are part of Trek canon, but (officially licensed) Trek novels and comics are not canon. So given the nature of game worlds, where people adopted them at some point in 1st, 2nd or 3rd ed, and not everyone has imported everything from the novels into their versions of the Realms, could all of the newest 4E FR material be considered as apocrypha?
Just some fun thoughts for discussion.
1- Is there a difference between "game canon" and "novel canon"? Or is this a muddy area? Is it one of the things that makes FR material difficult?
There is only one canon for the Forgotten Realms and it encompasses the entire product line. This allows for a consistency of experience across all media. Whether you enjoy the Realms as a roleplayer, by reading comic books, or gaming on your Xbox 360, everyone is enjoying the same world governed by the same lore. For many, this synergy of shared cause and effect makes this fictional setting seem more real. Does is make life on the designers harder? Hell yes it does. But it’s my personal belief that the setting is richer for it.
Well, that's one opinion. Care to comment on any of the other questions, which would lead to dialogue? ;)
Any others have opinions on this?
If the novels absolutely must be canon, there must be some kind of oversite to keep things under control.
The Thieves World shared series started out great but ended up with authors constantly trying to one up each other...I believe that Shadowspawn started out as a thief but by the end was a son of a god, had killed the god of war, and had an endless supply of what could be described as "wishes"
There has to be some kind of control, a five year plan down in writing, someone to say...NO! you can't do that.
Well, that's one opinion. Care to comment on any of the other questions, which would lead to dialogue? ;)
Any others have opinions on this?
That wasn't an opinion.
Iakhovas is the WotC designer Brian R. James, author of the Grand History of the Realms, and gave you the correct 'company' answer. ;)
The Thieves World shared series started out great but ended up with authors constantly trying to one up each other...I believe that Shadowspawn started out as a thief but by the end was a son of a god, had killed the god of war, and had an endless supply of what could be described as "wishes".
Thieve's World was a fantastic series that deteriorated into a supreme example of egotistical author one-upmanship.
As soon as one author made his character the child of a god, ALL the charcters became children of gods!
It was positively ridiculous, and their egos destroyed a very good thing.
Sound familiar? ;)
That wasn't an opinion.
Iakhovas is the WotC designer Brian R. James, author of the Grand History of the Realms, and gave you the correct 'company' answer. ;)
I'm aware of who he is. But it's still just an opinion.
But do you have to? No. In fact, most people who play in the Realms will modify their world so it immediately differs from "novel canon". And yet, people have still somehow bought into this idea that "novel canon" overrules the game.
I'll say again: in 1st edition FR, the designers had a different philosophy, that the Realms were your Realms - not this new marketing technique which suggests that you must buy everything officially published in order to be "right".
Star Trek fans never bought all the Trek novels, because they were never considered "canon". Trek fans argued long and hard that they were not "canon", and while Paramount may officially continue to license Trek books all the time - none are considered "canon" by fans (and the studio didn't want to argue).
"Canon", especially for a game world, only makes sense to a point. It doesn't mean that you have to import every ungodly idea that a designer comes up with into your home campaign. But that's the gist of saying something is "canon", isn't it? So why, when people are doing their own things do they cling so rigidly to this "canon" that isn't like their home campaign?
Marketing. But it's been a marketing mistake.
In the short term, yes... it gets people to buy any and all "official Realms products", whether or not they'd be something you'd use as "canon" (i.e. that you accept their word over yours, even though you're the DM).
But in the long term, it makes authors of Realms products into continuity slaves, and worse it makes many DMs into continuity slaves. Some people decide that they must become continuity experts - for a GAME. Eventually all of the authors' RSEs add up to such a big mess that "canon" must be retconned or explained or revised to fix inconsistencies. It leads to new D&Ders that approach the Realms and then throw up their hands in disbelief of all the "canon" that's all over the place, some here some there. Player 1 to GM: "how can you not have Dragon 359, which has a brief Volo guide on the updated Myth Drannor? I want to visit the REAL Myth Drannor!" As if.
So enter Spellplague, the designers' fix-all! Haha!
That wasn't an opinion.
Iakhovas is the WotC designer Brian R. James, author of the Grand History of the Realms, and gave you the correct 'company' answer. ;)
Heck, I always thought that he's the real world personification of that sahuagin leader-thing which broke the wall that imprisoned these monsters
The problem with the FR is that anything which gets the official label from WotC is essentially canon. Be that gaming material, novels, Dragon or Dungeon articles, PC games or video games. As some of them can be very different to what the general lore consensus is, we are bound for questions on what is and what is not relevant canon. In the end though, this matters only for debates on here, since any DM can decide for her-/himself what she takes as canon and what is being left aside.
As for the Realms, I place a huge difference between 'game canon' and 'novel canon', and do my best to avoid most novels just on principle. Really, it has no place at my gaming table, so... yeah. Why? At my table, its my Realms, and as DM, I'm the one who plots the course of the world for the needs of the story I'm telling, and don't need some author telling me what's happening in my story.
At least as far as actually playing D&D is concerned. In the discussions around here, I count it as peripherally important to at least be aware of the basics of it, although in a fairly surface way for myself. Knowing at least the basics gives us a common frame of reference for discussion, which makes life much easier for discussing the finer points of lore, and perhaps gives us new ways of looking at old lore. Sounds semi-contradictory perhaps, but with the discussions around here, I find that there are always at least two or three different perspectives to choose from for most things, and I can ignore a lot of the problems I have with 'tonal' differences I find in my of the authors writing.
Honestly, I don't really see a difference between varieties of fictional canons. Gaming is perhaps a more fluid variety of it, but they are essentially the same thing when it comes down to it, especially given how many writers generally contribute to your average series television season. Movies and television a perhaps a more compact and easily digested medium, but not really different as far as I look at it.
As to 4e... I'm open to the new ruleset to some degree, but the 4e Realms is not really much to my liking, from what little I know of it, so I don't really have any plans to adopt it in my games, unless its a truly stunning piece of work, which I'm very pessimistic of to be honest. As to its being apocrypha... not as far as I'm concerned, although what anyone else does with it is of course their own business. As far as I'm concerned, for the moment at least, the Realms stopped with AGHotR, which is fitting to me in a lot of respects, although I tend to ignore the last few pages in their entirety. That could change if 4e FR is particularly spectacular though I'll admit... not holding my breath for that though.
However, if something doesn't fit, and I can't come up with a way to *make* it fit, I can chuck it, even if it is from a TSR/WotC product. Usually though, I can find ways to make work 99% of things I uncover.
1- Is there a difference between "game canon" and "novel canon"? Or is this a muddy area? Is it one of the things that makes FR material difficult?
What do you mean by "game canon?"
2- How many people actually follow all "novel canon" and import every detail mentioned into their own games? Do you feel that it's important to do so, and why yes or no?
My Realms is my own; I absolutely do not implement everything "canon" in my Realms, and I don't feel it's important to do so.
3- In a gaming world, rather than a fictional "universe" like the "Buffyverse" or the "Whoniverse" based on television and books that are not adoptable and modifiable by their consumers, does it even make sense to talk of "canon" in the same way?
"Canon" is really only important for WotC, since they need a baseline for their Realms products. And, it's important to those who prefer to adhere to what is official. So, it's important, just not to everyone.
4- The designers of 4E have stated that having a "similar experience" for all players is important, and that this was one of the major reasons for introducing the Spellplague, 100-year jump, and "cleanup" of the Realms' NPCs. Does this seem to stray from the original intent of D&D, where game worlds (like Greyhawk and the 1st edition Realms) were made as a starting point for players and DMs to adapt as they wished?
I think so.
5- If you are planning on going 4E rules, will you adopt the 4E Realms (with the limited info we have thus far) exactly as they'll be offered, including its Spellplague and new regional areas/changes? Is it possible that any of the new 4E material for FR should not be considered "game canon" but rather "novel canon"? Or should anything official be considered canon?
See my answer for Question 1.
As for the 4E Realms, no, I will not be using them.
6- The flip side of canon is "apocrypha", meaning official material published in a given fictional universe but not technically canon. For example, all Star Trek TV series and movies are part of Trek canon, but (officially licensed) Trek novels and comics are not canon. So given the nature of game worlds, where people adopted them at some point in 1st, 2nd or 3rd ed, and not everyone has imported everything from the novels into their versions of the Realms, could all of the newest 4E FR material be considered as apocrypha?
Ehhh...I don't really understand this question, sorry.
It's a poor word because it brings an association that DMs 'should' conform to it (a confusion exacerbated when people start talking about their 'personal canon'), which is plainly against the spirit of the Realms and probably most other published settings. I think this distinction answers question 3.
What's authentic and authoritative is a separate question and, to an extent, a personal judgement. For instance, FOR1 Draconomicon is Realms-canonical where GAZ8 The Five Shires isn't, but the latter is far more authentic to and evocative of the Realms.
Fan consensus, as discussed in the Wikipedia quote, as to what's authentic and authoritative is yet another concept that needs to be kept distinct if people are to avoid arguing (which seems to be a primary purpose of 'canon') at cross-purposes.
There's never been a distinction between 'game' and 'novel canon' except in the imagination of a few readers, and to the extent that some novelists (mainly Bob Salvatore) are allowed a little leeway in how things work, and that there's a little more latitude for reinterpretation when novel events are translated into sourcebooks.
I think the Realms' ongoing timeline is a mistake; but once you have one, novels have to be canonical unless you want to handle two different continuities. I think the abandonment of explicit unreliable narration and similar reminders is an even bigger mistake.
It's a poor word because it brings an association that DMs 'should' conform to it...
Indeed, consider that the word "canon" primarily refers to religious dogma. To me, that means using it in the context of shared worlds that are used as gaming setting implies that the official timeline is in fact "sacred" and therefore should not be "violated" by DMs using the setting for their home campaigns.
Fan consensus, as discussed in the Wikipedia quote, as to what's authentic and authoritative is yet another concept that needs to be kept distinct if people are to avoid arguing (which seems to be a primary purpose of 'canon') at cross-purposes.
Exactly! Fan consensus (or the consensus of adherents in a religion) and adoption is what drives canon's "infallibility" in fictional worlds. This is especially true for shared world settings that are used for both novels and as game material.
Personally, I've never known anyone (out of 18 or so DMs) to use the entirety of Realms novel canon. All the time on boards and forums I hear about people who intentionally leave out certain really huge parts, leading to only partial consensus on Realms canon. This is what I meant by "game canon" differing from "novel canon" - that major portions of the "required material" are dropped out by people, indicating that while people may agree that there's some kind of canon for novels, there's a good portion that people throw out in their own games.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the actual "game canon" that's shared by all Realms gamers is that of the 1st edition, where designers didn't take such a heavy-handed view?
My Realms is my own; I absolutely do not implement everything "canon" in my Realms, and I don't feel it's important to do so.
And that's exactly the way the Realms were originally intended. It's the way they should still be.
"Canon" is really only important for WotC, since they need a baseline for their Realms products. And, it's important to those who prefer to adhere to what is official. So, it's important, just not to everyone.
Without wide acceptance of said "canon", though, the word loses its meaning. Because this is a shared game world that people modify and not just something we all watch on TV or read in books - "canon" at the game level means very little.
Ehhh...I don't really understand this question, sorry.
No need to say sorry... it's probably my wording. Star Trek has made a distinction for its fans, that although the movies, the multiple tv series, and the novels all share the same basic Trek universe, only the movies and tv series should be considered "canon". The officially licensed books for Trek are all therefore "apocrypha", even though they're official and people buy them in tons. It's a good business move because it allows authors to write all sorts of unusual and bizarre stories, timelines, alternate realities and what have you. It's a policy that encourages creativity without hampering authors or readers with nagging thoughts of "this doesn't fit in because...". Furthermore, it makes things crystal clear for people who are gamers in the Star Trek RPG, and new adopters of the ST: RPG don't confuse the hundreds of books as "game canon" either.
Shouldn't the Realms have stayed with the basic 1st edition (gray box) as "game canon" and then published additional works as apocrypha? They also could have had a completely separate canon for the novels. I believe the mistake in marketing was to tie everything together, making all the novel canon required for future sourcebook updates.
What would make the most sense for 4E, in my opinion, is a complete rollback of the Realms to what was published in 1E. All future-published FR game materials should honor the intent of D&D as "your game = your world", consider ALL future supplements as non-canon, and let people play in the Realms of their own choosing without worry of "canon Nazis".
Even if future novels follow their own canon, any related supplements should be separate from "game canon" (being the basic world, with the add-ons that you as gamers in your neck of the woods prefer most).
Personally, I've never known anyone (out of 18 or so DMs) to use the entirety of Realms novel canon. All the time on boards and forums I hear about people who intentionally leave out certain really huge parts, leading to only partial consensus on Realms canon. This is what I meant by "game canon" differing from "novel canon" - that major portions of the "required material" are dropped out by people, indicating that while people may agree that there's some kind of canon for novels, there's a good portion that people throw out in their own games.
Honestly, I don't see a difference between "game canon" and "novel canon". As far as WotC is concerned, their published material is all "canon" (sorry, Faraer, but "canonical" gets annoying to write all the time :p), whether it comes in the form of a novel or a sourcebook. When people speak of "canon", they are referring to the official, published timeline that is owned by WotC.
But as I said before, just because WotC needs a baseline to conform to doesn't mean said baseline must be used by the typical fan. I have a feeling the real question is not what canon is, but whether or not it should be considered important. As I said, it's important to WotC, but it doesn't have to be important to everyone else.
Without wide acceptance of said "canon", though, the word loses its meaning. Because this is a shared game world that people modify and not just something we all watch on TV or read in books - "canon" at the game level means very little.
Yes, well, I explained why I think "canon" is a dubious word to use in this context, anyway.
I only use it because of PEER PRESSURE!:P
Shouldn't the Realms have stayed with the basic 1st edition (gray box) as "game canon" and then published additional works as apocrypha?
*laughs* That might have been nice, yes. But 20 years later, there's no going back--the novels are canon, and will continue to be canon (as per Rich Baker).
What would make the most sense for 4E, in my opinion, is a complete rollback of the Realms to what was published in 1E. All future-published FR game materials should honor the intent of D&D as "your game = your world", consider ALL future supplements as non-canon, and let people play in the Realms of their own choosing without worry of "canon Nazis".
Yick, I don't like the term "canon Nazi."
I pretty much agree with the spirit of your post...however:
1) I actually do like a lot how the setting as progressed over the years--not all of it, but a lot of it. I'm not sure I'd go for a "complete rollback", but that wouldn't be a worse deal than what we are getting now.
2) Again, I'm not one to spend too much time on wishful thinking. It'd be nice if we weren't bombarded with RSE after RSE (all of which become canon, no matter how nonsensical they are), but I'm not going to hold my breath for it.
With the Realms, even the RPGA/Living Realms stuff becomes canon, and homebrew fan lore has even 'creeped in' from time to time (like some of the stuff from the Candlekeep Compendium). Thats both one of the best things about the Realms, and one of the worst - EVERYTHING counts. We get tons and tons of game-lore, which is great, but it does occassionaly 'get in the way' of DMs developing their own material.
Everything is open to violation in my book... take that to mean what you will...
So.... how's that wife of yours... :P
Honestly, I don't see a difference between "game canon" and "novel canon". As far as WotC is concerned, their published material is all "canon" (sorry, Faraer, but "canonical" gets annoying to write all the time :p), whether it comes in the form of a novel or a sourcebook. When people speak of "canon", they are referring to the official, published timeline that is owned by WotC.
I think that perhaps you might, but you're currently caught up in the belief that there is one canon and that is all. I'm saying that:
"novel canon": the company's official timeline, containing all events from novels and other source materials.
"game canon": take "novel canon" and subtract what most gamers have typically not adopted in their game's timeline and event history, despite what the company says is "official".
But as I said before, just because WotC needs a baseline to conform to doesn't mean said baseline must be used by the typical fan. I have a feeling the real question is not what canon is, but whether or not it should be considered important. As I said, it's important to WotC, but it doesn't have to be important to everyone else.
What canon is is what the majority accepts. For example, if the majority of gamers don't accept / buy into this Spellplague idea, let WotC keep it as novel canon (and it seems nearly everyone hates it) - then give us a product that allows for either including or not including it. Allow for diversion from "novel canon" up front at the beginning.
*laughs* That might have been nice, yes. But 20 years later, there's no going back--the novels are canon, and will continue to be canon (as per Rich Baker).
Thing is, with the supplements considered as non-canon but still published, all of that history is still there for those people who would want to use it all.
My idea wouldn't wipe anything out or kill off any deities, nor would it drastically change the landscape. It would allow for people to choose more freely what they wanted in their FR world before starting a 4E campaign. It has an appeal for those who want everything (it'd just be non-canon), and it has an appeal for those who'd want to keep their personally modified FR campaign worlds as well.
Yick, I don't like the term "canon Nazi."
Perhaps you've never had a true canon Nazi try to enter your FR game. My gaming group and I have had the displeasure, sadly.
I pretty much agree with the spirit of your post...however:
1) I actually do like a lot how the setting as progressed over the years--not all of it, but a lot of it. I'm not sure I'd go for a "complete rollback", but that wouldn't be a worse deal than what we are getting now.
2) Again, I'm not one to spend too much time on wishful thinking. It'd be nice if we weren't bombarded with RSE after RSE (all of which become canon, no matter how nonsensical they are), but I'm not going to hold my breath for it.
Even with the rollback for 4E's sake, there'd be a non-canon supplement that'd allow you to retain any changes you'd like to keep.
I agree, wishful thinking isn't usually all that helpful. But this isn't so much about wishing as it is just trying to discuss something related to FR and what people could do personally (even if it's not official) when 4E comes out. I really hate the new design philosophy that suggests "everyone must have a similar experience, so everyone needs to follow this new 'canon' we've ham-handedly come up with". It just grates against the original intent and world-building philosophy of D&D.
Ergo, they will continue to destroy FR, right through 4e.
Which means there won't be an FR in 5e (and hopefully NO 5e).
Thats why I said Brian's answer was the 'correct one'. You can choose to ignore whatever you want, but the owner of the IP gets to decide what is canon and what isn't.
And the official timelines included in the sourcebooks contain novel events.
Thats why I said Brian's answer was the 'correct one'. You can choose to ignore whatever you want, but the owner of the IP gets to decide what is canon and what isn't.
Don't give the word "canon" more weight than it deserves. This isn't just about "ignoring what I want" - which, by the way, has the tone of implying that I'm doing something "wrong" in spite of the only "right" way. The intent of the 1st ed game world (which superceded the novels, btw) was always that gamers should take the material and adapt it, make it their own place, use only what they wanted and drop or change the rest. Not so with later 2E and the 3E products, when design "rules" started overwhelming the original flavor and intent.
I'm suggesting that people start using the word for what it means: not just "official" material, but "official material supported by mass consensus".
IP, or intellectual property (laws), only determine where revenue goes. IP doesn't, by any means, confer the automatic right to determine "canonicity". Authority for literary canon has, and always will be, somewhat subjective.
Brian is correct about novel canon. It does not logically follow that the exact same thing is true for game canon - particularly when game canon also depends on the consensus of players.
The video games are not entirely canon (Apocrypha?), but the designers do try their best working the VG lore into the RPG sources, and even the DD series I mentioned has had a few 'pieces' used here and there (it's so weird, its hard to get it to fit into the Realms 100%).
The video games are not considered canon, but anything published by WotC about them is. For example, the Baldur's Gate games aren't canon, but the novels are. Bits about the Bhaalspawn in Dragon or various sourcebooks are also canon.
I think that perhaps you might, but you're currently caught up in the belief that there is one canon and that is all.
Excuse me? That's an off-putting response. I'm not "caught up" in anything, I'm just explaining my thoughts on that matter, as you asked for in this thread. You know, you seemed to start off neutral and objective in the topic post (ie. just wanting opinions), but instead you are arguing with anyone who is giving you an answer that you don't like.
And it should be obvious, from this thread, that I'm not the only member of this forum who believes that when the word "canon" is used, it is referring to the official timeline.
Are you willing to consider that your belief might be the one that's incorrect? And what's funny is that we don't even entirely disagree.
Perhaps you've never had a true canon Nazi try to enter your FR game. My gaming group and I have had the displeasure, sadly.
I think comparing irritating members of a gaming hobby or fandom to murderous Nazis is inappropriate to say the least!
I think Rino's point was that as far as WotC and the official Realms is concerned, there is no difference between Novel and Sourcebook canon for the Realms. You might choose to seperate the two, I know I certainly do, but that doesn't change the fact that the novels are included in the term, or that the sourcebooks tend to reference the events in novels on at least some level... hence, not as easily seperated as one might think.
That is correct. I'm not going to account for each and every person's belief about what constitutes "canon" for them (the primary reason for that being I don't know what each person's beliefs are). Most other people in my experience here (and on Candlekeep) don't, either.
The intent of the 1st ed game world (which superceded the novels, btw) was always that gamers should take the material and adapt it, make it their own place, use only what they wanted and drop or change the rest. Not so with later 2E and the 3E products, when design "rules" started overwhelming the original flavor and intent.
The 3E FRCS states that people should make the Realms their own. There is no actual directive to follow what is canon. Whether or not WoTC does enough to support that principle is another matter entirely.
I'm suggesting that people start using the word for what it means: not just "official" material, but "official material supported by mass consensus".
You've yet to explain how people are supposed to figure out which facts are supported by "mass consensus" and which ones are not.
If certain lore is known to be unpopular, most people discussing it will note that anyway (if they are aware of how unpopular it is).
As far as using the term "canon" correctly goes--as far as I can tell, "your way", Daenaan, seems more complicated than the way you dislike, because first people have to figure out if each piece of official lore is popular by mass consensus (no matter how obscure it might be).
Don't give the word "canon" more weight than it deserves. This isn't just about "ignoring what I want" - which, by the way, has the tone of implying that I'm doing something "wrong" in spite of the only "right" way.
My my... testy, aren't we? ;)
I can honestly gaurantee you your Realms are much more 'canon' then mine - my world map doesn't even look the same! Plus I added in one helluva RSE to 'un-make' the ToT IMG.
Trust me, I am not saying there's anything wrong with making changes - I'm probably one of the worst offenders. I'm just trying to explain to you that what is 'canon' is NOT opinion AT ALL. George Lucas gets to decide what is canon for Star Wras, NOT the fans. Same goes for WotC.
Now, your game is YOUR game - and has it's OWN CANON, and as far as that goes, you can do whatever the f___ you want, and more power to you. I know I do... novels be damned! :D
And don't let those nasty little 'canon nazis' ruin your fun - I played with one of those that DM'd Dragonlance, and we basicaly had to do EVERYTHING by the book... literally. We weren't allowed to make any decisions.
Weird.
I played one session and that was it.
So I'll say the same thing to you that I say to everyone, regarding EVERY setting - IGNORE the novels; you're better off.
The 3E FRCS states that people should make the Realms their own. There is no actual directive to follow what is canon. Whether or not WoTC does enough to support that principle is another matter entirely.
WotC actually does a great deal in direct opposition to the above. They may pay lip service to the idea, but these two things counter their commitment to it:
1) insisting that novel canon is the same as game canon.
2) massive RSEs that occur more and more frequently, some only needed to fix the discontinuity generated by #1.
You've yet to explain how people are supposed to figure out which facts are supported by "mass consensus" and which ones are not.
There is no need. My position is that "game canon" (if there must be in-game canon at all), is that it's restricted to 1st edition FR. It stops there, and everything else should be considered non-canon within game. All subsequent material should only be considered as "available" rather than required. Use the word "canon" and people start to think that it's necessary.
Logically, this is the only position that is consistent with the idea that everyone's game should be modified as desired. It makes no sense to tell people that they're in charge of their own worlds, then insist that people "upgrade" to every change introduced by canon from novels. Such a policy will inherently generate conflict.
As far as using the term "canon" correctly goes--as far as I can tell, "your way", Daenaan, seems more complicated than the way you dislike, because first people have to figure out if each piece of official lore is popular by mass consensus (no matter how obscure it might be).
Nope, "my" way of completely dissociating novel canon from game canon is really simple. It's also consistent with the original intent of the published setting. Forcing novel canon onto game canon and then paying lip service to the old intent is silly.
My my... testy, aren't we? ;)
Not at all. Just pointing out another way of looking at things.
Now, your game is YOUR game - and has it's OWN CANON, and as far as that goes, you can do whatever the f___ you want, and more power to you. I know I do... novels be damned! :D
My game has no "canon" other than the 1st ed boxed gray set. We have adopted some things from novels, but only the things we liked.
And don't let those nasty little 'canon nazis' ruin your fun - I played with one of those that DM'd Dragonlance, and we basicaly had to do EVERYTHING by the book... literally. We weren't allowed to make any decisions.
There wouldn't be any canon Nazis if WotC hadn't insisted on telling people that novel canon is supposed to override in-game play.
And the funniest part? After the much reviled Spellplague, they're continuing with the nonsense that novel canon and game canon are the same.
. :D Instead of getting rid of the very thing that 'broke' FR as a game setting, they are getting rid of the fans that disagree with them.
Its a very weird business model, IMHO.
Like I said, I wish them luck, Thats an uphill battle they're trying to fight, trying to grab market-share from Video games. I think the novels are more lucrative for Hasbro, so if push comes to shove, its the game line that will be axed.
Indeed, there's also the problem of there being almost no way to actually determine mass consensus on any given subject... like the Shadow Weave for instance. I hate it, it will never, ever, ever make an appearance in one of my games, and I know I'm not alone in that... but I have no real idea what the majority of players think of it. And to be honest, it doesn't really matter, since their opinion doesn't and shouldn't affect my own.
Well, see... "shadow weave" was meant to be the "evil" version of the Weave, and fix the problem of changing Mystra from LN to good. After all, why would a good deity grant magic to evil spellcasters? It wasn't even a particularly great fix for novels, given that the novels started making some good magic users adopt the shadow weave.
If they hadn't mucked about with the deities to begin with, in the Time of Troubles fiasco, they wouldn't have even needed the shadow weave. I mean, good lord, what more of a Munchkin fantasy can one have than killing gods and replacing them?
WotC generates its own problems, then uses RSEs to "fix" them... and then expects gamers to swallow all of those jagged pills.
Absolutey correct... give the man a
Ooh, yummy! Thanks! :D
Instead of getting rid of the very thing that 'broke' FR as a game setting, they are getting rid of the fans that disagree with them.
Its a very weird business model, IMHO.
Yep, I don't understand it either.
I think comparing irritating members of a gaming hobby or fandom to murderous Nazis is inappropriate to say the least!
I'm using "canon Nazi" in the same way that Seinfeld used it for "Soup Nazi".
A true canon Nazi:
- stops the game to fight about world design.
- is relentless and unfaltering in the belief that they are "right".
- insists on enforcing their beliefs on others, regardless of how it affects the mood of the game.
- wants everyone to rigidly adhere to their interpretation of "canon" regardless of DM and general player consensus for the game.
- gets others to fight with people on behalf of the "canon" issue, over bits of lore in a game.
- considers themselves not merely an expert on source material but the arbiter of what is and isn't true for the game, even when they're not the DM.
These aren't people who are merely annoying or irritating because they eventually want to meet Drizzt and touch his scimitars. I can work with annoying and irritating, but it's hard to move play forward if someone's an actual canon Nazi.
EDIT: and just to be really clear, I'm not calling anyone here a canon Nazi. In fact, I think everyone so far has had a really open mind in this discussion. It's just that I have run across these kinds of people - I think we all have, at least in some respects. And it's just not fun. I don't mean to insult anyone here, by any means. Ultimately, it's the fault of having canon in the first place, which I think should be restricted to novels only - so people can get their game on.
He was so into how the Realms should be played [his way] and how my npc's should be roleplayed that when I cut into his tantrum and said the rest of the gamers were fine with my style he left in a mighty fit of spite.
No one saw hide nor hair of him for over three months...
We later found out he had joined the Navy to get away from us.
No one really missed him... we made fun of him...but never missed him.
As long as you are having fun, you are playing the game right.
No two DM's have the same campaign. That, to me, is how it should be.
:P :D
Yeah, I've met more then a few of those people who try to explain to you the proper way to play the game.
My game has no "canon" other than the 1st ed boxed gray set. We have adopted some things from novels, but only the things we liked.
So you're still playing by 1st-Edition AD&D rules then? That's pretty hard-core. Even Ed Greenwood doesn't do that.
So you're still playing by 1st-Edition AD&D rules then? That's pretty hard-core. Even Ed Greenwood doesn't do that.
No, we play in 3.5 but don't incorporate many of the events in the official timeline.
So you're still playing by 1st-Edition AD&D rules then? That's pretty hard-core. Even Ed Greenwood doesn't do that.
Thanks for the compliment...I'll take one any way I can!:D
My fellow gamers and I repay the compliment with an invite to our next Friday session...the beer and pizza is on me!
so.... hows the wheather? :P
Now... its just history.
@Brian - there's at least one regular over at CK (I forget who) that plays in 1e, and I'm sure there are plenty of others around. I miss those days sometimes, but I wouldn't go backwards. Sometimes its best to remember things the way they used to be (elst, you may realize just how bad they were). :P
Anyway... back on topic. I appreciate Daenaan opinion, but my own differs quite a bit. I could never possible restrict myself to only the lore presented in the old gray boxed set. My inner loremaster would never allow it. Going back to map on page 78 I see Ruldor Ulphor's farm on the north side of town. What's Ruldor's story. How long has the Ulphor family lived in Shadowdale? I *want* a new sourcebook to flesh out this detail. Then I want the next one to build upon it, and so and and so forth. To me, this continuity of lore really brings the setting alive like no other. So, when you're reading the Shadowdale entry in the 4E FRCG and see a reference to Lady Addee Ulphor you'll see the lore trail going all the way back to 1987 and smile, knowing the NPC was not placed arbitrarily at all.
),having said what you just did (and I agree whole-heartedly), don't you find the hundred year 'hole' in the timeline a bit... 'abrasive'? All those wonderful storylines you just mentioned are gone now. They weren't merely finished.. they were 'snipped' like ugly weeds in a garden.
I wouldn't have minded the changes as much, if they had just kept up the continuity. I think a lot of people feel that way. They didn't just add stuff - they 'killed off' a lot of what made the Realms the Realms.
And by that, I mean the characters...
Anyway... back on topic. I appreciate Daenaan opinion, but my own differs quite a bit. I could never possible restrict myself to only the lore presented in the old gray boxed set.
That's an interesting conclusion about me, but we haven't restricted ourselves to lore only in 1E. What I did say is that 1E was the starting point for us, but we've left out a number of significant events present in 2E and 3E. We have incorporated quite a bit, the things that appeal to us most and fit with our game. We're also playing with 3.5 rules.
It is, though, distinctly our game. Just as intended, just as it should be.
My inner loremaster would never allow it. Going back to map on page 78 I see Ruldor Ulphor's farm on the north side of town. What's Ruldor's story. How long has the Ulphor family lived in Shadowdale? I *want* a new sourcebook to flesh out this detail. Then I want the next one to build upon it, and so and and so forth. To me, this continuity of lore really brings the setting alive like no other. So, when you're reading the Shadowdale entry in the 4E FRCG and see a reference to Lady Addee Ulphor you'll see the lore trail going all the way back to 1987 and smile, knowing the NPC was not placed arbitrarily at all.
That's great for your game, I'm glad you're enjoying it. Given the bizarre and frankly unexplainable RSEs that have to be swallowed along with 4E, though, we won't be joining you in those Realms. To each their own.
It is from this baseline that we add and subtract, until we get the Realms as we like them to be for our own campaigns. That's expected, and largely encouraged really. You can look at novels as background, you can look at them as plotlines for your own campaigns, or you can ignore them as you see fit, but regardless of how you choose to look at them, the meta-plot, and hence the baseline setting, presumes that events from them occurred and they become part of the 'official' lore of the Realms, and that gets reflected in a sourcebook at some point.
I don't read the novels. I don't really care what happens in them, particularly with the recent escalation of RSEs. But, if we're going to discuss the Realms in a public forum with people we don't necessarily know, we need to have a common ground to base that discussion on, and so we're left with the official 'canon' of the Realms as the basis of our discussions. Personally, I'd love for novels to be divorced from that, but until that happens, I can accept that its the case for conversations here, if only for the sake of convenience of everyone being on the same basic page.
When it comes down to it, if someone looks at the novels as being required reading, so that they can cleave as close to 'canon' as possible, that indicates a problem with the gamer, not the product... if they take that to extremes anyway. Honestly, it seems to me that you're getting really caught up on terms and definitions yourself, and perhaps need to step back and see the difference between canon for the sake of dicussion, and canon as a absolute requisite. Certainly you've had a bad experience with a canon-nazi, but that doesn't mean that everyone who uses the term canon means it in the same way.
I can see your point with most of this Daenaan... and I largely agree with it in principle, but I think the arguement here is a bit odd, and largely semantical. I, and others, are looking at 'canon' as largely a synonym for the basic meta-plot of the Realms.
You're right, it's absolutely about semantics. But that doesn't mean that it's something we shouldn't discuss.
That is the baseline story that WotC uses, from which we are supposed to be basing our own campaigns. I think we can all agree on that point.
It'd be fine if there actually was a baseline story or basic plot, but that's not quite what they've done. When there is an ongoing addition of both new events and retconned-in past events, it can seriously muck-up a campaign. And we're not talking about "Elminster got a wild new haircut" types of things here, we're talking about the deaths of gods, changes in the nature of magic, entirely new wars that lead to the re-establishing of nations.
Technically, if one accepts all of the new material from novels as canon, then you must find a way (and constantly so) to hammer these events into your own game. There's no "baseline" when this is the case.
It is from this baseline that we add and subtract, until we get the Realms as we like them to be for our own campaigns. That's expected, and largely encouraged really. You can look at novels as background, you can look at them as plotlines for your own campaigns, or you can ignore them as you see fit,
But see, you can't ignore canon unless you want your Realms to significantly diverge from the official word.
Now if you don't consider all of that stuff canon, that's fine. Diverge as much as you like. But it's not the same Faerun. It's not the official, the correct, the true Realms.
I don't read the novels. I don't really care what happens in them, particularly with the recent escalation of RSEs. But, if we're going to discuss the Realms in a public forum with people we don't necessarily know, we need to have a common ground to base that discussion on, and so we're left with the official 'canon' of the Realms as the basis of our discussions.
The official canon of the Realms changes with every new book. Does that mean I'm supposed to buy every single book that's published by WotC so that I can participate in this common ground?
Personally, I'd love for novels to be divorced from that, but until that happens, I can accept that its the case for conversations here, if only for the sake of convenience of everyone being on the same basic page.
When something like canon is open-ended, there's no baseline or "basic page". Discussions about current FR events that one has now can be made completely irrelevant a few months down the road, just by the publication of a new novel.
When it comes down to it, if someone looks at the novels as being required reading, so that they can cleave as close to 'canon' as possible, that indicates a problem with the gamer, not the product... if they take that to extremes anyway.
Okay... on the one hand, you're arguing for canon. On the other, you're arguing that novels shouldn't be required reading.
Honestly, it seems to me that you're getting really caught up on terms and definitions yourself, and perhaps need to step back and see the difference between canon for the sake of dicussion, and canon as a absolute requisite. Certainly you've had a bad experience with a canon-nazi, but that doesn't mean that everyone who uses the term canon means it in the same way.
Actually, I think I'm just pointing out that "everything is canon" means that one does, in fact, have to accept everything published and cram it somehow into their own game. Otherwise, people aren't treating it as canon.
Let me just say, I'm not upset or irked by novel canon, because I don't treat it like it all must be imported into games. I do think it's important to talk about what canon actually means, though, and point out the difficulties with using a canon that regularly changes.
As to diverging from canon at home... I am absolutely in favor of that one. But... for the purposes of these boards and discussion, then no, diverging from canon isn't generally a good idea without a disclaimer. But its not that big of a deal to write 'But in my game... ", so its not really an issue for me.
I'd disagree that we have to accept everything published and cram it in our games if its canon though. For me, canon is simply a common ground for discussion, and in no way affects my actual campaign. Certainly it changes regularly, and if you're (rhetorical) into keeping up with it and following it, then it doesn't bother me any... just don't try to force me to do the same. If someone is trying to do that, its not an inherent problem of the setting, its a problem with a likely neurotic person who needs to get out me. ;)
When it comes down to it, canon, to me anyway, means that this is the official stuff we have to work with for a discussion, that creates a semi-level field for the purposes of the discussion, and which gives us all context for the Realms, and is not something that must be absolutely followed, or else. Its certainly not holy writ, despite the implication in the name, and there is tons of room for interpretation and thousands of permutations we can take it through in a lot of cases. Its a lot more fluid I think than most consider it being really.
Well, honestly, I think the general idea behind including novels as canon is so that you do precisely what you suggest, buy every single thing they put out. That's a reasonable business strategy for them to take, if somewhat unfair to us, the consumers... but I can't recall many successful businesses having strategies like that, so its pretty much par for the course as far as I'm concerned.
I agree, it was part of the business strategy. But ultimately, something that wasn't necessary (people would buy the novels anyway - look at Star Trek novels) and actually damages the game in the long run. Keeping novel canon separate and then publishing supplements (including novel canon) as "available but not canon" makes the most sense.
As to diverging from canon at home... I am absolutely in favor of that one. But... for the purposes of these boards and discussion, then no, diverging from canon isn't generally a good idea without a disclaimer. But its not that big of a deal to write 'But in my game... ", so its not really an issue for me.
I agree, but diverging from canon instantly means you've gone non-canon.
And that's ok.I'd disagree that we have to accept everything published and cram it in our games if its canon though. For me, canon is simply a common ground for discussion, and in no way affects my actual campaign. Certainly it changes regularly, and if you're (rhetorical) into keeping up with it and following it, then it doesn't bother me any... just don't try to force me to do the same. If someone is trying to do that, its not an inherent problem of the setting, its a problem with a likely neurotic person who needs to get out me. ;)
Don't get me wrong, I think it's bad to actually adopt everything. I think it's always better to customize.
But accepting canon means that yes, you do actually have to cram all that stuff in, even when it doesn't work. Otherwise it's just not canon.When it comes down to it, canon, to me anyway, means that this is the official stuff we have to work with for a discussion, that creates a semi-level field for the purposes of the discussion, and which gives us all context for the Realms, and is not something that must be absolutely followed, or else. Its certainly not holy writ, despite the implication in the name, and there is tons of room for interpretation and thousands of permutations we can take it through in a lot of cases. Its a lot more fluid I think than most consider it being really.
Heh... you're arguing that we should change the meaning of canon. ;)
I'm just saying that if people want to use the word canon, we should use it correctly. ;) Perhaps that makes me a linguistics nazi. ;)
Language and its meanings are fluid, to say the least. And most of it depends on where you are and who you're talking to. That new 'definition' tends to fit the way its used around here... but not necessarily anywhere else. That goes along with my general belief that its not money that lies as the root of all evil, but language. ;)
Actually, I think evil begins with opposable thumbs. ;)
Therein lies the origin of "mine" vs. "not mine" and the emergence of envy... the beginning of all true greatness. Just kidding. ;) Hehe!
But see, you can't ignore canon unless you want your Realms to significantly diverge from the official word.
You see, I agree with nearly everything you said, except for this one very important point.
I HATE Shades and Shadowcrap... with a PASSION.
However, the City of Shade sits in the middle of my Anauroch.
And thats ALL it does... I just ignore it's existance. Did everything from the novels happen on my world? Yes... but I don't involve any of the meta-plot in my PCs lives AT ALL. A DM will only run into these types of 'canon breaking' situations if he is careless enough to get his characters involved the meta-plot. I'm not saying that's 'bad gaming', but if you do that and then complain about canon, then it's your own fault and I don't want to hear it. Stay away from canon events, and you can still game in a canon world.
My world, as I have said, diverges quite a bit, especially physically. I've moved entire countires and continents... and yet all the book novel canon has worked... until recently. The first problem was a snafu involving The Blackstaff, who was involved with my own 'meta-plot' RSE... in 1375!
I was able to 'patch' that, because I remembered that the REAL Khelben Blackstaff lives in Greyhawk, and since that world was involved with the RSE, it actually worked out better. :D
Unfortunely, I can say with all honesty that WotC has now made it IMPOSSIBLE for me to follow canon - I always ran my game a decade or so ahead, so my PCs could never screw up any 'canon' (it happened in the past). Now, they've gone ahead and ran the timeline up to 1385 DR... and beyond!!! My game takes place in 1390, so I'm screwed - the Weave never fell on my world. Now I am finally forced, after all these years of juggling, to say my world no longer follows the canon events. It can't... and I found that very upsetting at first.
Now... I find it almost 'liberating'. :P
...Unfortunely, I can say with all honesty that WotC has now made it IMPOSSIBLE for me to follow canon ...
Following canon precisely will at some point always lead to a major inconsistency with one's own game world. It's only a question of when. ;)
Daenaan, you didn't even acknowledge that you were being rude to me, and as such I will not be responding to this thread anymore.
Uhm, okay... but in no way was I calling you or any other respondent here a "canon nazi". I tried to make that clear. If you felt that was the case, I apologize, as it's not at all what I intended. If it's something else, you're welcome to PM me so we can clear it up.
Canon, I think, is too constraining a word to apply to the Forgotten Realms. I am perfectly happy, however for there to be an "Official Continuity".
When I came from the point of view that "Official FR = Canon FR", I was almost slavish in my devotion to it. Now that I think in terms of continuities, on the other hand, I enjoy the setting a lot more. Referring to something as "canon" implies that it should be adhered to and that going against it renders anything you add or change non-canonical by default. If it's simply the "official continuity", however, then that connotation isn't there and one's own FR isn't automatically devalued.
My 2p.
1- Is there a difference between "game canon" and "novel canon"? Or is this a muddy area? Is it one of the things that makes FR material difficult?
To me there almost has to be. Or should be. There are just too many variables in a RPG game that novels(or anyother media really) just can't produce or take into account. WotC(and TSR) should have treated them differently. Doing so makes the situration really muddy.
For instance alot of the changes being done is to make the game easier to write novels about, turn into a video game etc. This I think is a mistake and to me atleast destroys what I like about RPGs is that it isn't a novel or video game.
2- How many people actually follow all "novel canon" and import every detail mentioned into their own games? Do you feel that it's important to do so, and why yes or no?
I can't answear that as I haven't taken a poll about this but I treat the novels as fiction in the ganming world(as in this is the tale the bards are telling about it) or throw them out entirely.
I believe it is somewhat important to keep things close to canon where possible. It makes it easier for new players to join the game.
3- In a gaming world, rather than a fictional "universe" like the "Buffyverse" or the "Whoniverse" based on television and books that are not adoptable and modifiable by their consumers, does it even make sense to talk of "canon" in the same way?
No it doesn't.
4- The designers of 4E have stated that having a "similar experience" for all players is important, and that this was one of the major reasons for introducing the Spellplague, 100-year jump, and "cleanup" of the Realms' NPCs. Does this seem to stray from the original intent of D&D, where game worlds (like Greyhawk and the 1st edition Realms) were made as a starting point for players and DMs to adapt as they wished?
I think wanting the same experience for all players line is unrealistic and actualy harmful to the game. We all play D&D differently, sometimes it is minor differences...sometimes it is a huge differences...now the idea is to make it all one experience it seems to me they are getting rid of diversity and new experiences. When I sit down with a group of people I have never played with I am looking for a different experience, or when I have a new player in the my own game I am hoping that player brings something new...now it looks like they are just about everything is the same.
5- If you are planning on going 4E rules, will you adopt the 4E Realms (with the limited info we have thus far) exactly as they'll be offered, including its Spellplague and new regional areas/changes? Is it possible that any of the new 4E material for FR should not be considered "game canon" but rather "novel canon"? Or should anything official be considered canon?
No if I(and that is a really big if right now) adopt 4th Edition I will not be using the 4E Realms. I'll probably completely ignore the novel line also...though I have been doing that greatly of late anyway.
6- The flip side of canon is "apocrypha", meaning official material published in a given fictional universe but not technically canon. For example, all Star Trek TV series and movies are part of Trek canon, but (officially licensed) Trek novels and comics are not canon. So given the nature of game worlds, where people adopted them at some point in 1st, 2nd or 3rd ed, and not everyone has imported everything from the novels into their versions of the Realms, could all of the newest 4E FR material be considered as apocrypha?
To me yes it is as I will not be adopting 4E canon at all.