A window into how Chris Sims (formerly of Wizards of the Coast) views canon

[Cam Banks]

I thought I'd share this editorial by Chris Sims, formerly of WotC, who comments on the nature of canon in D&D settings. Might start some discussion about the purpose or consequences of hard absolutes and the problem of using novels as game canon:

http://critical-hits.com/2010/07/08/canon-fodder/

Cheers,
Cam

[Elf_NFB]

I can't disagree more with his views on hard cannon from novels. A novel or series has a certain "Feel" to it that distinguishes it from other novels/series. Dragonlance feels different from the Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun. Take away hard cannon and they all become the same.

OK.. someone will say that you can keep the outlines and "feel" but not bind yourself to the historical cannon. So where do you draw the line? Raistlin died before becoming a Black Robe? Elminster becomes a cleric eschewing magic? All that is fine... unless you want that certain "feel" in you campaign. When in the Realms, don't you kind of want to run into Drizzt or Elminster or one of the Sisters occasionally? In Dragonlance, don't you want to see Tanis or Tas or Goldmoon? Doing this in your home campaign is FUN! Hey, feel free to have a party of Drow bounty hunters out to kill Drizzt and bring his head back to Menzobarranzen (Did I come close to spelling that right?). But know also that the next group over was employed by Drizzt to help him destroy the City of the Drow. And in the NEXT group, Raislin's spirit must be stopped before he takes over Elminster's body! And on and on and on and on...

The novels are simply the adventures of ANOTHER group. It is a rack to hang your hat and coat on that EVERYONE can use. Don't Fear the Cannon. Cheers.

[Duke5150]

As a veteran darksun fan and a pretty hardcore dragonlance fan, I'v fought an unending battle with canon for a long time. I'v always been a fan of the cleansing war. The idea of it and the story is awesome. But the limitations are suffocating. Now, with 4e removing divine power, the walls are again begining to close in on me. Only now, I make my own windows, regardless of what the "official" word happens to be "this" edition.

I'v also never liked how the novels steamroll DMs. Either you go by the canon, or the fandom community will boo you right out of the hobby. Which is one thing that instantly sold me on eberron. It was a "make this setting your own" game from the start and kept that philosophy in 4e. The novels tell you what could happen, if that's what you want. It gives you options and not commandments. In the end, the choice is up to you, making the game far more friendly to anyone not a die-hard setting master. And the die hard setting masters can STILL run their games exactly as they would have. The novels can still direct their game if they choose. But at least they have a choice, like the rest of us. Dictatorships are bad, Mmkay.

Beyond kicking the creativity out of my d20s, there is also a matter of waste money. This is the biggest problem for me. Buying something you cannot use in a setting and if, like me, you give canon the bird and use it anyways, you have to endure the "that didn't happen! This isn't dragonlance! Go back to video games!" responses when trying to discuss HOW TO USE IT in that setting. (not something I'v encountered much on this site, thankfully)

Point is, I support a complete disconnect between the novels and the game. I also support the eradication of absolutes as default setting standards. I'd like to sit down and play the war of the lance without having to hear how my tarmak warrior never killed verminaard or how there is no way in hell it was my thrikreen psion who threw the heartwood spear, wounding kalak during the liberation of tyr.

When, in comparison, I can say that my warforged is Bulwark suffering from memory loss and I'm the new aberrant lord of house tarkanan, with an aberrant mark of death and not get stoned to death by eberron fans. Give ME the choice and stop telling me I'm doing it wrong because it doesn't fit your vision of what the game should be. (you, as in the hobby-as a whole)

/endlongwindedpost.

[Turambar]

For me canon has always been "all that has happened in the past." The "past" being, all the events prior to the beginning of a campaign. From that point on, the campaign goes where it goes. So I would say, "canon" is really a moot point for me; I agree with Chris Sims, especially regarding novels advancing a setting to which game material must conform.

[Dragonhelm]

Reading it now. I find this quote about 2e Dark Sun interesting.

The whole second edition of the setting assumes the Prism Pentad novels have happened—have become part of the canon—and that the world has changed. A number of defining elements from the original setting are gone, because the novel protagonists removed them, usually bloodily. Allowing the novels to interfere with the game material did the fans no favors.

(emphasis mine)

You know, novels were there to support the game. And in Dragonlance's case, the novels surpassed the games. Sims almost seems to support the idea that game worlds shouldn't have novels.

At the same time, look at the mess we had to clean up with the Rise of Solamnia series. An author doesn't do his homework, and so the game had to adapt from how we knew it to a compromise. Granted, there were other factors involved too, such as how other authors portrayed the Sword Knights, but Rise of Solamnia was the big culprit.

What do folks think about this?

This is one reason why it’s insane to use novels as canon for any game setting. Another is that a roleplaying game is about interacting with an imaginary world as a potentially important imaginary person or as one who directs events set in that world. The game is not about merely consuming someone else’s narration or spectating at historic events. Further, as the number of novels increase, the canon becomes increasingly unwieldy until it’s overwhelming for normal players. Most people avoid playing cumbersome games. Enforcing novels as canon from an official position also, eventually, makes it a nightmare to design game material and write shared-world fiction for that setting.

[rogue]

Man, I don't know. I am a fan of canon, but not such that I wouldn't introduce neat new threats in a campaign. I am just afraid of when and if they finally do a Dragonlance 4th ed. set, they throw too much out the window to support the D&D cosmology. Very hesitant.

[Ravenmantle]

I like how Paizo approaches canon in their Pathfinder Campaign Setting. Basically they've created a past and a present and have said on multiple occasions that they won't create a future. At least not a future that alters the overall setting.

This means that the world becomes the players' playground. Sure, Paizo has provided their fans with ways to destroy the world or parts of it but that's all through adventure modules and their adventure paths, meaning that it's entirely up to the GMs and players how the future of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting looks. The conflicts are there (Mendev/Worldwound being an example) but it's the players who get to resolve or expand the conflicts.

As for novels, Paizo have said that their novels won't influence the setting on a grand scale. They'll be self-contained stories about heroes and villains but they won't include cataclysms or any other massive events.

Being the kind of campaign setting that Pathfinder is, it's highly unlikely that you'll see any absolutes in Golarion. Everything's possible if the GM wants it to be.

I like that.

[rogue]

Reading it now. I find this quote about 2e Dark Sun interesting.



(emphasis mine)

You know, novels were there to support the game. And in Dragonlance's case, the novels surpassed the games. Sims almost seems to support the idea that game worlds shouldn't have novels.

At the same time, look at the mess we had to clean up with the Rise of Solamnia series. An author doesn't do his homework, and so the game had to adapt from how we knew it to a compromise. Granted, there were other factors involved too, such as how other authors portrayed the Sword Knights, but Rise of Solamnia was the big culprit.

What do folks think about this?

I think the novels should be used as source material, but not necessarily set in stone. I do like Douglas Niles, but you are right, he made numerous mistakes that made adaptation in the game world a little difficult. Perhaps when using source history, they should make it as vague as possible, but leaving the main plot point end result as a guideline for the DM to use or throw out at his disposal.

[Dragonhelm]

Let me pose another question.

Would Dragonlance still be around if not for the novels advancing the timeline? Would we recognize it without Margaret and Tracy guiding it back to its roots?

[Elf_NFB]

if, like me, you give canon the bird and use it anyways, you have to endure the "that didn't happen! This isn't dragonlance! Go back to video games!" responses when trying to discuss HOW TO USE IT in that setting. (not something I'v encountered much on this site, thankfully)

First off, someone who says that is a toll and should be kicked out of the group... or at least made to run a game and endure the heckling themselves.

Point is, I support a complete disconnect between the novels and the game. I also support the eradication of absolutes as default setting standards. I'd like to sit down and play the war of the lance without having to hear how my tarmak warrior never killed verminaard or how there is no way in hell it was my thrikreen psion who threw the heartwood spear, wounding kalak during the liberation of tyr.

I'm going to ask you to clarify this because what I'm reaading is that you think it was a mistake for Weis and Hickman to write the Chronicles, Legends, and War of Souls. Completely disconnecting the novels from the games means NO novel/game tie ins. No Forgotten Realms or Eberron novels.... no Drizzt or Elminster... well on second thought.