Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

[Adamska]

So WOTC has said only 5th edition is canon.

Story Here

Dungeons & Dragons Novels, Video Games, and Other Spin-Offs Are Not Canonical to D&D Roleplaying Game​

Wizards of the Coast has provided some clarity on the canon of Dungeons & Dragons in regards to what it considers canon for the core roleplaying game. Over the past 45 years, Wizards of the Coast and its predecessors have published hundreds of Dungeons & Dragons adventures and supplements, as well as hundreds more licensed and in-house novels, video games, comic books, and other pieces of spin-off works. While speaking to media last week ahead of its D&D Live event, lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford discussed the "canon" of Dungeons & Dragons, particularly when it comes to popular novel series such as the Dragonlance novels by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman or the Drizzt novels by R.A. Salvatore.

"For many years, we in the Dungeons & Dragons RPG studio have considered things like D&D novels, D&D video games, D&D comic books, as wonderful expressions of D&D storytelling and D&D lore, but they are not canonical for the D&D roleplaying game," Crawford said. "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."

Crawford elaborated with an example from his own childhood, using the Dragonlance novels as an example. "I started playing D&D as a kid and I ran the original Dragons of Despair, the first Dragonlance adventure module, which actually came out before the novels did," Crawford said. "For me, Dragonlance has always been a wonderful D&D war story where every DM gets to play through their own version of that war story. And then the novels are one way where that story plays out. That’s how we view all D&D novels." Crawford also noted that they would dive more into the idea of D&D canonicity in a future developer blog post in the coming months.


While the idea that the foundational novels that helped to build worlds such as Krynn or Faerun might not exist within "official" canon, Crawford said that this decision ultimately brings the focus to the story that the Dungeon Master and the players want to tell when playing Dungeons & Dragons. "When it comes to the RPG, what’s important is each DM’s story and the story they create with their players," Crawford said. "The moment you are at the game table, it’s no longer "our” Dragonlance or "our" Forgotten Realms, it’s your Forgotten Realms, it’s your Dragonlance. You’re now telling your stories in those settings. You’re not bound to the stories in the novels, as wonderful as they might be. We hope you take as much inspiration from them as it gives you joy to do so. The same goes for D&D video games or for D&D comics."


As for what is considered canon in the D&D RPG, Crawford provided a very simple answer. "If you’re looking for what’s official in the D&D roleplaying game, it’s what appears in the products for the roleplaying game," Crawford said. "Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014 [the year that Dungeons & Dragons' Fifth Edition core rulebooks came out], we don’t consider it canonical for the games."

While certain works might no longer be considered "in canon", that doesn't meant that the Dungeons & Dragons designers don't think highly of past stories or that certain characters or pieces of lore will never be re-inserted into "official" D&D lore. "We ourselves take inspiration from those things and eventually bits of them will find their way into official RPG products," Crawford noted. "We’re now seeing this with Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons – you will see a number of juicy things from a variety of worlds that I think longtime D&D fans will be delighted to see reappearing in the roleplaying game itself as opposed to other storytelling vehicles that are inspired by the roleplaying game."

Given that Dungeons & Dragons has gone through Five Editions and has used cataclysmic events to explain shake-ups in its lore and canon, this simplified version that focuses on storytelling at the gameplay table seems to make a lot more sense. Players shouldn't need to read anything than an in-print D&D rulebook to understand what exists within "official" D&D lore. Of course, fans who disagree with what D&D considers to be part of its "official" canon can feel free to swap it out with their own "canon", as one of the game's strengths is that it's ultimately up to D&D players to define what exists and what doesn't exist in the lore of their own personal games.

End Story

So basically they are shitting on over 40 years of past writers work.

I think its a safe bet to say they reason they are doing this is to SJW everything. "Orcs were never officially evil."

lol no one who actually plays games gives a shit about what is or isn't canon in these games since the whole point is you change the world setting based on how your characters live and die.

Besides, the settings got nuked and leveled several times given that's the modus operandi of explaining away changes to the lore when editions shift.

Try another control lever you absolute faggots; it only works on the consoomers who don't play or give any money to you that you got when Matt Mercer got d-listers to play a dice game in a porn set.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

So WOTC has said only 5th edition is canon.

Story Here

Dungeons & Dragons Novels, Video Games, and Other Spin-Offs Are Not Canonical to D&D Roleplaying Game​

Wizards of the Coast has provided some clarity on the canon of Dungeons & Dragons in regards to what it considers canon for the core roleplaying game. Over the past 45 years, Wizards of the Coast and its predecessors have published hundreds of Dungeons & Dragons adventures and supplements, as well as hundreds more licensed and in-house novels, video games, comic books, and other pieces of spin-off works. While speaking to media last week ahead of its D&D Live event, lead rules designer Jeremy Crawford discussed the "canon" of Dungeons & Dragons, particularly when it comes to popular novel series such as the Dragonlance novels by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman or the Drizzt novels by R.A. Salvatore.

"For many years, we in the Dungeons & Dragons RPG studio have considered things like D&D novels, D&D video games, D&D comic books, as wonderful expressions of D&D storytelling and D&D lore, but they are not canonical for the D&D roleplaying game," Crawford said. "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."

Crawford elaborated with an example from his own childhood, using the Dragonlance novels as an example. "I started playing D&D as a kid and I ran the original Dragons of Despair, the first Dragonlance adventure module, which actually came out before the novels did," Crawford said. "For me, Dragonlance has always been a wonderful D&D war story where every DM gets to play through their own version of that war story. And then the novels are one way where that story plays out. That’s how we view all D&D novels." Crawford also noted that they would dive more into the idea of D&D canonicity in a future developer blog post in the coming months.


While the idea that the foundational novels that helped to build worlds such as Krynn or Faerun might not exist within "official" canon, Crawford said that this decision ultimately brings the focus to the story that the Dungeon Master and the players want to tell when playing Dungeons & Dragons. "When it comes to the RPG, what’s important is each DM’s story and the story they create with their players," Crawford said. "The moment you are at the game table, it’s no longer "our” Dragonlance or "our" Forgotten Realms, it’s your Forgotten Realms, it’s your Dragonlance. You’re now telling your stories in those settings. You’re not bound to the stories in the novels, as wonderful as they might be. We hope you take as much inspiration from them as it gives you joy to do so. The same goes for D&D video games or for D&D comics."


As for what is considered canon in the D&D RPG, Crawford provided a very simple answer. "If you’re looking for what’s official in the D&D roleplaying game, it’s what appears in the products for the roleplaying game," Crawford said. "Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014 [the year that Dungeons & Dragons' Fifth Edition core rulebooks came out], we don’t consider it canonical for the games."

While certain works might no longer be considered "in canon", that doesn't meant that the Dungeons & Dragons designers don't think highly of past stories or that certain characters or pieces of lore will never be re-inserted into "official" D&D lore. "We ourselves take inspiration from those things and eventually bits of them will find their way into official RPG products," Crawford noted. "We’re now seeing this with Fizban’s Treasury of Dragons – you will see a number of juicy things from a variety of worlds that I think longtime D&D fans will be delighted to see reappearing in the roleplaying game itself as opposed to other storytelling vehicles that are inspired by the roleplaying game."

Given that Dungeons & Dragons has gone through Five Editions and has used cataclysmic events to explain shake-ups in its lore and canon, this simplified version that focuses on storytelling at the gameplay table seems to make a lot more sense. Players shouldn't need to read anything than an in-print D&D rulebook to understand what exists within "official" D&D lore. Of course, fans who disagree with what D&D considers to be part of its "official" canon can feel free to swap it out with their own "canon", as one of the game's strengths is that it's ultimately up to D&D players to define what exists and what doesn't exist in the lore of their own personal games.

End Story

So basically they are shitting on over 40 years of past writers work.

I think its a safe bet to say they reason they are doing this is to SJW everything. "Orcs were never officially evil."

Claims to have played since the 80s, still goes off and kills D&D canon and tells writers to fuck off. This is just another reason why I don't buy 5th Edition books or games. I'll get them for free for archival purposes but that's it. They'll be thrown into the 5th Edition folder and forgotten.

 

[Adamska]

Claims to have played since the 80s, still goes off and kills D&D canon and tells writers to fuck off. This is just another reason why I don't buy 5th Edition books or games. I'll get them for free for archival purposes but that's it. They'll be thrown into the 5th Edition folder and forgotten.

So skimming through it again I realized the reasoning:

Wizards is using magical thinking to try and slow/stop/kill sales for books and properties they have to pay out royalties or split money with "PrObLeMaTiC" people. They are STILL mad that they got caught trying to violate contract and this is a bitch move made by sulking children. They want to kill off those books via the delusional belief that most of the consoomers they appeal to buy them, when you know all they do is watch Critical Role.

I mean, I can't be bothered with the novels, especially since I basically never use settings tbh, but it's obvious that they've belatedly thought about trying to use canonicity as a control lever.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

I want to get all of the "ye olde" D&D books. It's been quite a while since I've read any of the 3e/3.5e era books and I remember enjoying them.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

So skimming through it again I realized the reasoning:

Wizards is using magical thinking to try and slow/stop/kill sales for books and properties they have to pay out royalties or split money with "PrObLeMaTiC" people. They are STILL mad that they got caught trying to violate contract and this is a bitch move made by sulking children. They want to kill off those books via the delusional belief that most of the consoomers they appeal to buy them, when you know all they do is watch Critical Role.

I mean, I can't be bothered with the novels, especially since I basically never use settings tbh, but it's obvious that they've belatedly thought about trying to use canonicity as a control lever.

Only novels I ever read were from Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance though only a few novels, and Ravenloft. I never saw anything interesting going on in novels for Greyhawk, Birthright, and other novels. This is more to do with the fact the characters were never interesting. An interesting character helps with making the campaign setting interesting.

If you go to the Dungeons & Dragons Facebook page, all they do is talk about streams. The game is no longer about role playing with a bunch of friends, but about watching streams with a bunch of nobodies who don't know what they're doing. They can get more money doing this than paying people to make modules and splatbooks.

 

[SheerHeartAttack]

Yeah I think I've ever only played Strahd, LMoP, and ToA, though those last two were just kind of put into my friend's campaign world. I don't think I've really cared for a DnD setting outside of Eberron and that' s because it wasn't another pseudo Medieval setting. Though it's really retarded of them to think they can control people through dictating canon. What are they going to do, send the soy gestapo if I don't put quirky non-binary black women in my setting?

 

[ZMOT]

highly doubt after star wars, star trek and all the other raped IPs people caring about a respective universe still give a shit about "canon".

can't wait for chuck wendig getting a d&d gig...

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Yeah I think I've ever only played Strahd, LMoP, and ToA, though those last two were just kind of put into my friend's campaign world. I don't think I've really cared for a DnD setting outside of Eberron and that' s because it wasn't another pseudo Medieval setting. Though it's really retarded of them to think they can control people through dictating canon. What are they going to do, send the soy gestapo if I don't put quirky non-binary black women in my setting?

I can't wait for them to try and burn every novel and all of the old modules and splat books and erase their existence from the internet.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

I don't feel enough attachment to any particular setting to care about most revamps because to me they've always been spare parts to slap onto my own games. They cannot take my good memories or stop me from a running a game the way I want. And which I'm apparently going to have to do anyway since my group's ForeverDM is on hiatus due to real life problems.

Anybody know any good resources of information on medieval merchant trains/caravans? I'm looking for info on the logistics side of things for an incredibly long journey and all google wants to give me is a list of places Marco Polo visited and the things he did.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

"No, none of that is canon, so stop asking us to reprint that old stuff, do you WANT to give money to BIGOTS and NAZIS? Now, buy our newest splatbook where we have 6,000 spells, magic items, and feats to help your demifluid elf dialate in the dungeon, including "Leomunds Safe Space" and "Bigby's Instant Dialiation Station."

 

[Ghostse]

I think every one else has covered my thoughts; fuck Wizards, but I didn't consider that shit 'canon' anyway.
This is probably just them clearing the decks on spells with names so they can make Mordenkaine a tranny or something.

Anybody know any good resources of information on medieval merchant trains/caravans? I'm looking for info on the logistics side of things for an incredibly long journey and all google wants to give me is a list of places Marco Polo visited and the things he did.

I don't, but I recently did the math figuring out the an approximate daily burn rate of my party.

tl;dr assume one ration and one gallon of water (8lbs per gallon) per person per day if you're generous, two if you're going more realistic. I just rounded up and said "10 lbs of supplies per day per person".
For ease of math, I counted pack animals as another person; that is being overly generous and unless its camels (who you don't feed until the trip is done, or at least till you hit an oasis) it should probably be double, but I wasn't getting that spergy.

A caravan could expect to travel 15 miles a day on 'rough country'; that is you aren't hacking through jungle/fording streams/crossing mountains, but might be trampling brush or having scouts clear some obstacles, and dealing with some rolling hills.

 

[Corn Flakes]

For ease of math, I counted pack animals as another person; that is being overly generous and unless its camels (who you don't feed until the trip is done, or at least till you hit an oasis) it should probably be double, but I wasn't getting that spergy.

Pack animals usually eat whatever is around their feet during breaks (along with extra food during longer/overnight breaks, keep reading), and caravans were planned so they could rest and replenish water at wells, streams, rivers and other bodies of water along the way. That's why established trade routes were important: you didn't just need a road, you needed a road with enough watering holes and rest/supply stops spaced closely enough that travelers and caravans could resupply along the way. Water is heavy: the more you have to carry with you, the less valuable cargo the caravan is going to bring with itself.

So unless the caravan is going through a literal desert/badland devoid of sufficiently nutritious underbrush, resupply points and waterways/wells, or it's a very poorly planned endeavor in general, you don't have to worry about carrying more than food for the journey and a couple days' water rations for your humanoids, and maybe a few days of fodder for your pack animals if you knew there were villages, towns or roadhouses you could get more feed along the way. If the route wasn't populated, then you would have to bring in a lot more animal feed with you, but you would still be relying on local water sources for most of your water.

 

[BScCollateral]

I don't, but I recently did the math figuring out the an approximate daily burn rate of my party.

Hiram Bingham, the guy who discovered Machu Picchu, wrote a book called Inca Land. In this he spends a considerable amount of time discussing the logistics of an early 20th Century expedition. A lot of that might be applied to medieval caravans.

Also, he found the place by asking preteen males if they played in ruins, and where they were.

 

[Techpriest]

Hiram Bingham, the guy who discovered Machu Picchu, wrote a book called Inca Land. In this he spends a considerable amount of time discussing the logistics of an early 20th Century expedition. A lot of that might be applied to medieval caravans.

Also, he found the place by asking preteen males if they played in ruins, and where they were.

The discovery of mesoamerican and South American ruins are fascinating. Stephens and Catherwoods expedition to the Mayan ruins of Central America is also really worth looking at for ideas of “so how can I have ancient ruins nobody’s looted yet” for your games.

 

[BScCollateral]

The discovery of mesoamerican and South American ruins are fascinating. Stephens and Catherwoods expedition to the Mayan ruins of Central America is also really worth looking at for ideas of “so how can I have ancient ruins nobody’s looted yet” for your games.

Agreed. A lot of adventure fiction, interactive or not in any media, is based on stuff people actually did. I think a big reason a lot of media is crap is that it's made by people who just look at adventure fiction instead of looking at records made by people who actually did similar stuff.

 

[Ghostse]

Pack animals usually eat whatever is around during breaks and caravans were planned so they could rest and replenish water at wells, streams, rivers and other bodies of water along the way. That's why established trade routes were important: you didn't just need a road, you needed a road with enough watering holes spaced closely enough (and preferably also enough grass to feed the animals) that travelers and caravans could resupply along the way. Water is heavy: the more you have to carry with you, the less valuable cargo the caravan is going to bring with itself.

So unless the caravan is going through a literal desert/badland devoid of sufficiently nutritious underbrush and waterways/wells, or it's a very poorly planned endeavor in general, you don't have to worry about carrying more than food for the journey and a couple days' water rations for your humanoids, and maybe a day or two's meals for your pack animals.

Not correct about pack animal food. Unless you want to lose days of time grazing your animals, you still needed to supplement your pack animals with higher-calorie grains. You are also a dumbass if you unhitching your pack animals during break, because you have to rehitch them. If you are moving 15 miles a day hauling loads, your animals will not be able to graze enough to keep moving unless you want them emaciated. (Again: Camels are the exception).

Go talk to people at your local stable. Horses, even with a pasture, even not hauling loads, eat a shit ton of grain & oats.

 

[Corn Flakes]

Not correct about pack animal food. Unless you want to lose days of time grazing your animals, you still needed to supplement your pack animals with higher-calorie grains. You are also a dumbass if you unhitching your pack animals during break, because you have to rehitch them. If you are moving 15 miles a day hauling loads, your animals will not be able to graze enough to keep moving unless you want them emaciated. (Again: Camels are the exception).

Go talk to people at your local stable. Horses, even with a pasture, even not hauling loads, eat a shit ton of grain & oats.

Yeah, I fucked up on that calculation. I was going by memory from what my great-grandfather told me his grandparents did back in Europe (and I was a kid when he told me that, so that's reaching a long way back). So either he told me and I forgot, or he just didn't tell me about staging posts like roadhouses and caravanserais, where you could get animal feed along the way. All I could remember was how much feed he mentioned being carried, and in hindsight it was probably only enough for a few days because they were picking up more along the way. My bad, and I'll correct that on my post.

For a route where fodder or grain wasn't available at the stops along the way, then you'd definitely have to bring in more calorie-rich food for the animals.

 

[Ghostse]

Yeah, I fucked up on that calculation. I was going by memory from what my great-grandfather told me his grandparents did back in Europe (and I was a kid when he told me that, so that's reaching a long way back). So either he told me and I forgot, or he just didn't tell me about staging posts like roadhouses and caravanserais, where you could get animal feed along the way. All I could remember was how much feed he mentioned being carried, and in hindsight it was probably only enough for a few days because they were picking up more along the way. My bad, and I'll correct that on my post.

For a route where fodder or grain wasn't available at the stops along the way, then you'd definitely have to bring in more calorie-rich food for the animals.

You're right, you won't need to bring all that stuff if you are traveling through even moderately settled country. Medieval England had a network of royally-managed inns (aka 'Public Houses', or to say it quicker, Pubs) spaced out no more than one days travel apart (I forget what the English royal travel day was), and most other countries that had strong territorial control had something similar set up even if it was less formal/centrally managed.

I guess when I think "caravan" though, I don't think of moving through medieval england, I think of moving though Sibera, or through the Sahara/Arabian desert, or going west through the Great Plains or navigating the Colonial era forests. But even if you aren't going through desert, water in sufficient quantities (and quality) can be deceptively hard to find.
We are a little spoiled when it comes to Forests and water, because most forested park land is land around a river or stream. But go through some old growth forest, and you'll see that despire all the green around you, you can still go for days without finding potable surface water.
In the Old West, the reason Horse Theft was a hanging crime was if you took someone's horse out on the great plains, unless they were lucky or were found by someone else, you had basically murdered them in a slow, horrible manner as they were likely to die of thirst before they could walk to town.

So yes, If you are moving through a kingdom that controls its territory, you can presume there will be a Inn every 15 miles well stocked enough to reprovision traders & animals. (Which since we're talking games, could present an interesting choice for your players - the short, hard route or the long, easy route. Or maybe they are working as caravan guards, the leader of the caravan decides [or is forced] to go through a country that has recently had the king usurped by a wicked despot....)

 

[Corn Flakes]

You're right, you won't need to bring all that stuff if you are traveling through even moderately settled country. Medieval England had a network of royally-managed inns (aka 'Public Houses', or to say it quicker, Pubs) spaced out no more than one days travel apart (I forget what the English royal travel day was), and most other countries that had strong territorial control had something similar set up even if it was less formal/centrally managed.

I guess when I think "caravan" though, I don't think of moving through medieval england, I think of moving though Sibera, or through the Sahara/Arabian desert, or going west through the Great Plains or navigating the Colonial era forests. But even if you aren't going through desert, water in sufficient quantities (and quality) can be deceptively hard to find.
We are a little spoiled when it comes to Forests and water, because most forested park land is land around a river or stream. But go through some old growth forest, and you'll see that despire all the green around you, you can still go for days without finding potable surface water.
In the Old West, the reason Horse Theft was a hanging crime was if you took someone's horse out on the great plains, unless they were lucky or were found by someone else, you had basically murdered them in a slow, horrible manner as they were likely to die of thirst before they could walk to town.

So yes, If you are moving through a kingdom that controls its territory, you can presume there will be a Inn every 15 miles well stocked enough to reprovision traders & animals. (Which since we're talking games, could present an interesting choice for your players - the short, hard route or the long, easy route. Or maybe they are working as caravan guards, the leader of the caravan decides [or is forced] to go through a country that has recently had the king usurped by a wicked despot....)

Different definitions at play here, yeah. When I think "caravan", I think more like the Silk Road or European inland trade routes (like the shit the Ancient Romans did). A large-scale, well-used trade route will naturally have towns and even cities springing up along the road, often where supply depots and rest stops originally were. After all, if there are people stopping frequently to buy shit for themselves and their animals, you might as well set up a farm nearby to sell them that shit. The frontier-style caravans over here, going through a hundred miles of terrain where having even just a dirt road with pebbles for milestones was a luxury, didn't even cross my mind.

Anyway, bringing it back to RPGs, you're definitely right: giving players the option between long and well-supplied, or short but difficult routes can be fun. Even without a whole caravan attached, my GM is fond of giving us the option of taking the longer, well-traveled road as a type of "quick travel" in which we just pay for the supplies and maybe have a run-in with a local threat, or the short-and-dangerous road where we get there faster and likely cheaper, but the random encounters get a lot more hardcore.

On one occasion the description of us going near a mountain was "you see a very large winged figure soaring in the distant sky, emerging from behind the peak" and we immediately turned around and gave that mountain a wide berth by going off-road. Took us about as long to get to our destination as we would have taken on the long road, and we ran out of supplies and had to roll a lot of survival checks, but at least we survived. We definitely weren't leveled enough to take on whatever that was.

Obvious spoiler: it was a dragon.

 

[You Bastard Guy]

Anybody know any good resources of information on medieval merchant trains/caravans?

It’s not medieval, but I found Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove to be a great resource for cross-country trips (in this case, a cattle drive) through potentially hostile territory. The entire series can be mined for great ideas if you strip out the cowboy stuff; Dead Man’s Walk has the consequences of a failed military expedition, actual scalp-takin’ savage injuns, and crazy lepers.

On a book recommendation note, Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know is a great resource for using nobles as quest-givers, antagonists, and sponsors. Their minor eccentricities, all-consuming obsessions, and outright dangerous habits (and the money to hire PCs to help them with those interests) beats the “mysterious stranger in a bar” setup any day of the week. Also interesting is the fact that what nobles lack in raw physical and magical might can be compensated for by being obscenely rich and well connected. There’s a lot of ideas here that can make a high-level party think twice about fighting back against some lisping 0-level faggot princeling giggling and shooting a gun at them for fun.