| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Shawn Daniels |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 15:39:30
Are 3rd Party gaming materials canon? Like, things from the Arizona Gaming Society? |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 18:36:14
Only things published by TSR/WotC are officially "canon". Anything published (or otherwise distributed) by anyone else is not. It has to have official D&D or Forgotten Realms branding to be considered official D&D or Forgotten Realms canon. (There are some few exceptions, mostly from WotC being sloppy, along with some unbranded legacy stuff and some long-aborted licensing experiments with publishers like White Wolf, etc.)
And WotC's position is that wherever there's conflict, their new canon completely supplants their old canon. Old canon might be forgotten or deprecated or handwaved away but it technically remains valid canon until new canon says differently.
Open-license stuff - permitted by WotC under the terms they define - are not considered canon. And quite messy now because earlier OGL terms (like d20 System) are technically/legally non-revokable and never expire. Thus we have Pathfinder, etc, and none of it was, is, or will be WotC canon.
That being said, there's mountains of "fanon" rules or lore which vastly enhance or improve canon. Some of it published/submitted by actual game designers or authors who previously worked for or with TSR/WotC. Ed's version of the Realms and Realmslore here at Candlekeep is a fine example, even though it is not canon by WotC standards. Alaundo's messy library is filled with offerings from other Candlekeep scribes (including game designers and authors) which are often quite compelling.
In practice it doesn't matter unless you plan to publish or market products which trespass on WotC's (Hasbro's) legal properties.
Many people choose to strictly adhere to published canon, unwilling to risk using or creating anything which subsequent published canon might invalidate.
Many people choose to adapt what they like and discard what they don't like from published canon, with little regard for WotC's treatment of things.
There is of course the white elephant, 4E, which literally turned published canon and settings upside down. And now 5E which attempts to consolidate 4E fallout in more objective and retrospective ways. But the schism still exists, many people still vehemently reject the entire notion of 4E, while many other people firmly embrace and advocate 4E, canon vs non-canon has become a flexible thing full of compromises and battlegrounds, it's really less about the edition differences than about the (in)tolerance of individuals playing those editions.
The same thing happened in each previous edition, D&D is an old game with a lot of old diehards who've invested a lot into their older versions of the ever-changing "canon" product. It's happened at least a dozen times before (counting all the major rules/setting updates, expansions, and "half editions", etc), and it'll happen again as long as WotC is in the business of selling new rules/setting material. |
| Shawn Daniels |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 18:35:29
Y’all kill me lol |
| TomCosta |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 17:34:26
In the current era, you get some quirky things with DM's Guild. So generally AL stuff has been treated as generally canon, but frankly it's too hard to keep track of it all and the adventures generally don't have any significant repurcusions. That said, the latest versions of the Moonshaes and the Border Kingdoms settings on DM's Guild are endorsed by AL and WOTC, so are canon. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 17:06:12
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Hmmm... Maybe that could be an idea for a new artifact. The Beard of Vecna, anyone?
As a curse, does the Beard of Vecna irrevocably transform the wearer into a barbazu? 
We could also have beards of the Mordinsamman member of your choice. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 16:14:54
Hmmm... Maybe that could be an idea for a new artifact. The Beard of Vecna, anyone? |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 16:04:57
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
About as canon as Elminster being a sentient beard attached to a terrified elderly man hoping for adventurers to notice the silent terror in his eyes.
Which is obviously completely not canon.
Unless Wizards/Hasbro adopts this idea for 6th edition FR. *nervous shudder* |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 15:54:28
It's only canon if published by TSR/WotC, and if they've not gone back and said it's not canon. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 10 Apr 2020 : 15:48:20
About as canon as Elminster being a sentient beard attached to a terrified elderly man hoping for adventurers to notice the silent terror in his eyes.
Which is obviously completely not canon. |
|
|
