D&D General WotC: Novels & Non-5E Lore Are Officially Not Canon

At a media press briefing last week, WotC's Jeremey Crawford clarified what is and is not canon for D&D.

"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."

"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. Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don’t consider it canonical for the games."

2014 is the year that D&D 5th Edition launched.

He goes on to say that WotC takes inspiration from past lore and sometimes adds them into official lore.

Over the past five decades of D&D, there have been hundreds of novels, more than five editions of the game, about a hundred video games, and various other items such as comic books, and more. None of this is canon. Crawford explains that this is because they "don’t want DMs to feel that in order to run the game, they need to read a certain set of novels."

He cites the Dragonlance adventures, specifically.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As an Avengers (and Marvel) fan since 1981, for me it's always come down to whether it feels like a love letter to what came before, a cash grab, or just pissing on it, and what the quality of the story is.

So there are a bunch of non-reboot issues I've always considered apocryphal (because it was badly written or had folks act out of character) and there are other big changes that I've been fine with.

Yeah makes sense to me. There's plenty of totally-official, sadly-in-canon stuff that's complete trash, and there are reboots, remakes and so on which are amazing and totally get it.

Sure it's a little bit extra-offensive when a reboot both doesn't get it AND is terrible (hi there Kelvinverse, no no I definitely wasn't talking about you, lovely to see you), but is that really worse than, say, a setting being ruined by its own creator, in canon? I mean, I remember the reaction of my-age and older Star Wars fans to the prequels lol. Midichlorians!

 

[jayoungr]

We've got, AFAIK, FR, Eberron, Ravenloft, Ravnica, Theros, Wildemount, right? Two of those are basically the same generic-ass setting (FR/Wildemount, soz CR fans, FR fans, feel free to throw fruit), and Ravnica/Theros are extremely specific. I wouldn't call basically five settings an "embarrassment" myself. I mean, I you can't like, sit on a throne surrounded by setting books if you've only got 5-6 setting books lol, not even if you put them on stands on velvet-tablecloth'd tables or something. And really you need that sort of thing for "Embarrassment of Riches" level of oversufficiency.

I'm talking about non-WotC settings, just a few of which are listed here. You want low magic? Steampunk? Gothic? Non-Western? Wild West-ern? Futuristic? Solemn and sorrowful high fantasy? Knockabout low fantasy? Seafaring? Skyships? Anthropomorphs? It's all out there.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm talking about non-WotC settings, just a few of which are listed here. You want low magic? Steampunk? Gothic? Non-Western? Wild West-ern? Futuristic? Solemn and sorrowful high fantasy? Knockabout low fantasy? Seafaring? Skyships? Anthropomorphs? It's all out there.[/url]

Yeah, that's the point.

It's non-WotC.

They're not even able to use a bunch of D&D terms or creatures, and that's a tiny, meaningless impediment next to the fact that they're basically a whisper next to a megaphone. The article clearly intends to imply that WotC, because they have all the power, would be the ones who need to come out with new settings.

Of those I'm familiar with, a lot of them are a lot more generic than you seem to be implying.

 

[akr71]

We're being told WizCo no longer gives a flip about us and cares about our money

We'll NEVER see what happens next. If the elves of Silvanesti could have taken back their homeland or what happens to Mina
The story is over
And now, according to WizCo, it never took place at all

Yes you can, by supporting the authors that made the lore you love! Weis & Hickman have new Krynn novels coming out (or Salvatore, Greenwood & co. for FR fans). Quite frankly, they probably could use your $ more than Hasbro.

Look for the silver lining. Authors of your favorite stories are no longer beholden to WotC to write something that they approve of and can make any content they desire.

 

[jayoungr]

Yeah, that's the point.

It's non-WotC.

For practical terms of playing at your own table, I don't see how that is in any way significant.

They're not even able to use a bunch of D&D terms or creatures,

Seems like that should contribute to their uniqueness, which is what people want, right? Uniqueness?

and that's a tiny, meaningless impediment next to the fact that they're basically a whisper next to a megaphone.

Again, how does that matter for any given table?

The article clearly intends to imply that WotC, because they have all the power, would be the ones who need to come out with new settings.

I think that's nonsense.

Of those I'm familiar with, a lot of them are a lot more generic than you seem to be implying.

I had specific third-party settings in mind for every subgenre I listed except for Wild West-ern, and I'd be flabbergasted if there isn't a setting like that available.

 

[Bolares]

Look for the silver lining. Authors of your favorite stories are no longer beholden to WotC

... well, they are still beholden. Not being canon doesn't make the authors free from WotC's approval

 

[Scribe]

... well, they are still beholden. Not being canon doesn't make the authors free from WotC's approval

Yeah, if this somehow freed up authors to publish more FR novels, I'd at least have a silver lining.

 

[akr71]

... well, they are still beholden. Not being canon doesn't make the authors free from WotC's approval

Yes, I exaggerated, but I imagine it must be somewhat freeing for an author to know that WotC is not depending on them to develop the canon of the setting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For practical terms of playing at your own table, I don't see how that is in any way significant.


Seems like that should contribute to their uniqueness, which is what people want, right? Uniqueness?


Again, how does that matter for any given table?


I think that's nonsense.


I had specific settings in mind for every subgenre I listed except for Wild West-ern, and I'd be flabbergasted if there isn't a setting like that available.

This is a pretty classic logical fallacy, though I'm not sure what the word is for it.

You're trying to make it all about the individual, when the discussion is specifically intended to be about the market. The point is pretty simple - WotC can promote a few settings very loudly. The author of the piece wishes they'd promote novel settings, rather than the settings they are promoting. That's a reasonable opinion to have, and not even an entirely uncommon one here in Grogtown. You don't have to agree, but suggesting it's basically unreasonable to even feel that way, which you specifically have done, is not a viable position.

And the "uniqueness" point being "enhanced" because people can't use Illithids or the like is laughable, and you are well aware that's shenanigans on your own part there lol.

 

[Bolares]

Yeah, if this somehow freed up authors to publish more FR novels, I'd at least have a silver lining.

I think there is a silver lining. The novels not being canon probably opens up more avenues than it closes for the authros to pursue. Using Eberron for an example, not being canon made them able to go places they wouldn't be able (because they would answer questions/resolve plots from the setting)