D&D Novels, Video Games, Spin-Offs Declared Non-Canon By WotC

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Not surprised with that.

Hasbro's influence on WoTC has been that this is a game first and a readable thing second. This started showing up in the 3e era with some rebooting of Greyhawk, etc. 4e got rid of even a fun read of the core books, which was fixed for 5e. But they tend to see the characters as akin to characters in a MOBA or their card games or their toy lines -- Iconic people without backstory that can be flexed in a different way depending on the publisher's needs.

Not sure if this is a good or bad thing, from a business side or a longevity side. I see some slightly snide comments here because they didn't like players dictating the lore based on the products. But I know there are some folks who don't want to see all the properties merged together. etc.
 
For those who needed permission, apparently.

Dragons wrecked Waterdeep, sinking parts of it into Undermountain in my Tyranny of Dragons campaign. My Forgotten Realms-reading player raised zero objections aside from in-character ones.

But good for WotC.
 
Except that A) They always were non-canon unless B) they were sold as part of a source book. So I'm not sure what the purpose of this is.
 
Last edited:
Though, joking aside, the designer's statement sounds eminently reasonable.

"Part of that is we don’t want DMs to feel that in order to run the game, they need to read a certain set of novels. We want you to read them for the joy of reading them, but not as homework."

Makes total sense to me. And in this light it's more about telling setting purists that said materials are optional at the Referee's whim, than about making sure nobody uses "unsuitable material":thumbsup:!
 
And there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth among the self-appointed Forgotten Realms "Lore Police" as their DMs rocked back in their chairs and laughed and laughed and laughed.
Players like that have always amused me. Look people, it's my game and I'll run it and use the lore as I feel. It's a jump off point, not something written in stone. Part of why I'm not a big fan of The Adventurers League. Having to do something mechanics or game world as dictated by the publisher sucks and bores me.

Though I think the whole canon/not canon crap is exactly that, crap. I thought so with Star Wars and Disney as well. I'll use what I want, when I want.
 
I realize that I’ve been very lucky in that regard. My players have no interest in reading any D&D novels, ever. They also don’t read the sourcebooks, unless one of them wants to run something, and then they pick a different setting.

So I run FR and Majestic Wilderlands, and the one other DM runs Greyhawk.

But even when I run a more familiar setting, such as Star Wars, my players make a point of not making any assumptions unless a fact appears in our game.

I couldn’t imagine playing with people who argue setting details with the GM. By which I mean someone like that wouldn’t be invited to any game I run.
 
I'm glad I never met a crowd like this, nobody I know would care or to be honest know any franchise well enough. I don't even know how I'd react to somebody genuinely saying "Actually the Empire was in retreat from Tatooine at that time". I'd assume they were taking the piss.
 
This is why I won't run Star Wars, tbh.
It's why I never ran MERP back in the 80's. Didn't want to listen to arguments if I deviated from the books, though I did own most of the MERP stuff at the time.
I'm glad I never met a crowd like this, nobody I know would care or to be honest know any franchise well enough. I don't even know how I'd react to somebody genuinely saying "Actually the Empire was in retreat from Tatooine at that time". I'd assume they were taking the piss.
Like rules lawyers, lore lawyers can be useful if smacked on the nose with a newspaper and trained properly to be an asset, but often it's just best to muzzle them.
 
Does this mean you can't cast a spell tattooed on the ear of a sow pig?
 
I find myself more annoyed by that particular kind of asshole whose sole job it seems to be to ensure that no one else, as his table or otherwise, deviates from that cannon. :fu:
Canon lawyers to me are beneath even rules lawyers.
Yeah, me too. That's part of the reasons why my personal games haven't all migrated to Tekumel yet:shade:!
Your players know Tékumel enough to canon-lawyer you???

I realize that I’ve been very lucky in that regard. My players have no interest in reading any D&D novels, ever. They also don’t read the sourcebooks, unless one of them wants to run something, and then they pick a different setting.

So I run FR and Majestic Wilderlands, and the one other DM runs Greyhawk.

But even when I run a more familiar setting, such as Star Wars, my players make a point of not making any assumptions unless a fact appears in our game.

I couldn’t imagine playing with people who argue setting details with the GM. By which I mean someone like that wouldn’t be invited to any game I run.
I’m on the same boat as you — my players might make assumptions about setting, but they’re unlikely to protest changes to the fictional universe.

Unless it’s Dragonlance. Fuck Dragonlance.
This is why I won't run Star Wars, tbh.
I can see why. I usually avoid licensed settings because of this, with rare exceptions:
  • Call of Cthulhu because no one cares about the goings-on of Randolph Carter or professor Armitage. HPL had no cohesive world building and we’re just playing around with the non-Euclidean tentacly building blocks.
  • Conan because REH did do a fair bit of world building but it really was more Rule of Cool than anything else and there’s a whole lot of unclaimed real estate there.
  • Star Wars because lol lightsaber go psssh woooom
 
I'm glad I never met a crowd like this, nobody I know would care or to be honest know any franchise well enough. I don't even know how I'd react to somebody genuinely saying "Actually the Empire was in retreat from Tatooine at that time". I'd assume they were taking the piss.
I guess that's my question how many people really do that? There are some people in my group who were into the lore of some settings, but at the most it made them good guessers when certain things showed up in game. They never insisted on a specific portrayal or outcome in game.
 
My advice to Canon Lawyers is always the same. You’re free to run your own game whenever you like. You may have memorized every written word about the setting, but your character hasn’t. If you are unable to put that knowledge away, and continue being a distraction, then this won’t be the campaign for you.
 
'Your players know Tékumel enough to canon-lawyer you???
'
No. But when it comes to this setting, there actually are guys "whose sole job it seems to be to ensure that no one else, at their tables or otherwise, deviates from that cannon":shade:.
 
Players like that have always amused me. Look people, it's my game and I'll run it and use the lore as I feel. It's a jump off point, not something written in stone. Part of why I'm not a big fan of The Adventurers League. Having to do something mechanics or game world as dictated by the publisher sucks and bores me.

Though I think the whole canon/not canon crap is exactly that, crap. I thought so with Star Wars and Disney as well. I'll use what I want, when I want.
To be fair this only ever happened to me once. I was so stunned by the stupidity of it, that I burst out in a short bark of a laugh which I didn't even really mean to do. I think I must have really insulted this guy -- There was a little bit of yelling on his part, a little bit from me and I pulled the plug and we went back to the guy who normally ran the games for that group (a lot of "adventure path" scripted D&D type things that I generally loathe, but fuck it, I was only there because it was a chance for me to hang out with a friend of mine).
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top