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.

 

[Malmuria]

It does smack of ingratitude when WOC have made your campaign setting their main setting and now people are complaining, not that lore has been invalidated, but that it might! I’m struggling to think of any significant piece of lore that 5e specifically has changed that might upset anyone!? So this is all really just teeth gnashing and hand wringing.

Exactly.

Would FR fans be ok with it not being the default setting, with adventures detailing parts of it coming out 1-2x per year every year? WOTC could have made greyhawk the default setting with 1 or 0 FR-supporting books...would that be preferable to wotc deciding not to adhere to every scrap of lore pre 2014?

 

[SehanineMoonbow]

While settings can change and evolve (especially ones that have been around a while), this statement from Crawford--and WotC at large--ignores decades of established lore, and is basically their way of handwaving it all away. I'm not saying they have to adhere to every single canon thing that ever was, but providing an explanation for a change in a setting is better than just saying "it's no longer canon" imho. I know, I know canon is a hot button issue, and there are clearly debates after debates about what canon is, its merits, etc, but to me, this just smacks of handwaving because they don't want to be "beholden" to established lore. It's one thing to work on problematic elements from previous editions, it's another to say, "prior to this time, nothing is canon." In other words, if it ain't 5e, we don't care. Being on some FR forums, I know many fans are shaking their heads and disappointed by the statement. Even some newer fans, as 5e is basically a lore desert, and they want to know more.

Sure, there are easter eggs and nods to older characters or things (and that the older stuff can be inspirational), but if they're doing that, then with this statement, they're also implying these easter eggs aren't canon. I have many thoughts about this, but I'll stop here. And I'll admit it's still early to tell what this entails, but I'm wary at this point.

 

[MGibster]

But, the canon stick bludgeoning everyone who wants to see some new element added to the setting or some old element changed is far, far beyond simply judging something to have merit of some sort. And that's what happens every single time. It starts out innocently enough - I really like this setting.

Okay. Well, uh, I wasn't talking about the canon bludgeoning stick. I think both of us walked into this conversation with very different ideas of what it means to care about canon for a particular setting.

 

[MGibster]

You wouldn't play because they are playing the game "wrong". Your interest is because of canon. That this idea is potentially a very cool take on the setting doesn't matter. It's not following the "right" path, so, it's not worth playing. You are judging the idea, not based on whether or not it's an interesting or fun idea, but, entirely on how well it toes the line of canon.

Well, yeah. Like I said, canon matters to some people. I don't see this as an inherently bad thing. Those might be interesting or fun things in another campaign but it's not the Star Wars game I want to play.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't recall Wizards previously forcing anyone to research every relevant scrap of pre-5E lore before running a game. Seemed to me they were pretty good about including anything necessary in the actual 5E books; the use of any additional lore already seemed pretty optional.

Besides, the current rule still renders all of 5E canon. Surely no one thinks that levies a requirement that DMs running Candlekeep Mysteries must go back and read every Realms-based adventure since 2014... right?

That some people might have feel pressured to meticulously follow lore, whether or not they wanted to, is unfortunate... but hardly canon's fault. Nor does this announcement really change anything, except shrinking the size of the reading list.

Have you ever played in a game at a Con or other Public Open Space where the adventure at hand doesn't take into account, or even worse directly contradicts, some obscure piece of lore from one of the novels and -someone- at the table has to have a 20 minute rant/discussion about it?

I have. And that is annoying AF and wastes what little time we have together.

Having it explicitly no longer be canon means that guy gets shut down instantly. "It's no longer canon." instead of trying to convince him that his point is a waste of everyone's time.

Eh, not really. Again, as stated in the 2014 DMG, page 4:


Breaking it out:

• Home campaigns set in worlds such as the Realms are the "mirror universe" of the "official" version of the setting.
• The "official" version of the Realms (and probably other settings, but only 100% the Realms) included game products (RPG material), novels, and digital games (computer and video games).

Whereas Crawford's recent statement was that anything outside 5E game products was non-canon, which excludes novels and digital games (and comics and presumably everything else). They're not the same policy - even if you ignore everything else, the difference on novels is clear. (Which is one reason why I suspect novels had something to do with this.)

... it's like you didn't even read my post. Yeah. I said that the player's campaign was a Mirror Universe of whatever the writers make canon. And you didn't even address the issue of different reading and intentions for canonicity from the DMG.

Which means you still get to use your favorite novels as your campaign's canon, but if and when I run a game and you start spouting off stuff from some novel I didn't bother to read (And with FR that was most of them) to explain why my story is "Wrong" I get to go: "Mmm... Nah. Not interested." and move on.

It's powerful.

 

[JEB]

Have you ever played in a game at a Con or other Public Open Space where the adventure at hand doesn't take into account, or even worse directly contradicts, some obscure piece of lore from one of the novels and -someone- at the table has to have a 20 minute rant/discussion about it?

I have. And that is annoying AF and wastes what little time we have together.

Having it explicitly no longer be canon means that guy gets shut down instantly. "It's no longer canon." instead of trying to convince him that his point is a waste of everyone's time.

1) So everyone who liked canon should lose it because it makes it easier to - in theory - instantly shut down a minority of jerks who misused canon?

2) Do you really think someone who is determined to spend 20 minutes arguing about lore will be shut down immediately by such a simple statement? And if they were, wouldn't "it's not canon in this game" have been just as effective, without taking away something from everyone else who liked canon?

3) There are still seven years of lore in 5E, and more to come; I'm sure those jerks will, unfortunately, still find things to argue about. Or they'll just move to rules arguments. Pedants gonna pedant.

In short: jerks won't be solved by getting rid of canon.

Which means you still get to use your favorite novels as your campaign's canon, but if and when I run a game and you start spouting off stuff from some novel I didn't bother to read (And with FR that was most of them) to explain why my story is "Wrong" I get to go: "Mmm... Nah. Not interested." and move on.

What kept you from doing that before? Your game was always your game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't know if I've ever heard a more cynical take on this message board. I am seriously impressed! I suspect the reason most people find canon important is because they like the setting. When I first played WEG's Star Wars back in 1987, I was excited about the prospect of playing in a galaxy far, far away where the Rebel Alliance struggled against the evil Empire. It's been a long time and memories fade, but I don't think I ever recall wanting to play Star Wars because I had a strong desire to tell other people why they were wrong about the setting.

No, but that is very different than talking about Canon.

For example, if your gaming group wanted your PCs involved in the Battle Hoth did you make it unwinnable until Luke Skywalker announced the plan to trip the Empire's Siege Tank things? Was the Death Star Run only about keeping the TIE Fighters off Luke, a losing proposition until Han Solo showed up in the Millenium falcon?

Or, actually, here was a real issue a friend of mine told me about one of the Star Wars RPGs. They built Han Solo to have an impossible piloting skill. It was quite literally impossible to be as good as Han Solo, let alone better. Why? Because the Canon said he was the best pilot.

So, yeah, playing the Star Wars Universe, and using Star Wars continuity does not involve any gatekeeping. But to keep the Canon pure, Luke has to destroy the Death Star. And Luke has to save Han from Jaba. And it is Leia and Han who lower the shield on Endor (or whatever it was they were doing, I don't remember). And if those things can change... then you are changing the Canon. Or, you are avoiding those events, and specifically working in the area where the Canon is weakest, rather than where it is strongest.

 

[billd91]

That's not what the old data said at all.

The old WotC market survey showed that the older the gamer was, the less they spent on the hobby. That's the specific reason why they excluded the 40+ range because they found that 40+ year old gamers didn't spend money. And, yes, the justification was that because the older gamers are, the more material they have and the less likely they are to buy new stuff.

Except that it never said anything like that. Rather here’s the quote:

This age bracket was arbitrarily chosen on the basis of internal analysis
regarding the probable target customers for the company’s products. We know for certain that there are lots of gamers older than 35, especially for
games like Dungeons & Dragons; however, we wanted to keep the study to a manageable size and profile. Perhaps in a few years a more detailed study
will be done of the entire population.

Anybody want to keep gaslighting on this?!?

 

[Steampunkette]

1) So everyone who liked canon should lose it because it makes it easier to - in theory - instantly shut down a minority of jerks who misused canon?

2) Do you really think someone who is determined to spend 20 minutes arguing about lore will really be shut down immediately by such a simple statement? And if they were, wouldn't "it's not canon in this game" have been just as effective, without taking away something from everyone else who liked canon?

3) There are still seven years of lore in 5E, and more to come; I'm sure those jerks will, unfortunately, still find things to argue about. Or they'll just move to rules arguments. Pedants gonna pedant.

In short: jerks won't be solved by getting rid of canon.


What kept you from doing that before? Your game was always your game.

1) You still have the canon. It didn't go anywhere. WotC won't bind themselves to it slavishly, but all the old books are still right there. Declaring them "Noncanonical" makes 0 impact on your games or ability to read and enjoy those works.

2) In a -home- game, I can often shut people down with "This is my game." But in a public game using Adventurer's League or whatever where it's the "Official" story, it's not my material to defend. Especially if I don't know the former books as well as the person who wants to argue about whether Thayan Enclaves were ever allowed in Waterdeep, just as an example.

3) There's still lore, for sure. But it's much easier to manage 7 years of around 3-5 books and maybe 2 videogames for a setting is vastly better than the entire back catalog of the Realms for the past 4 decades. TSR wound up shutting down because they produced WAY TOO MUCH content too quickly.

As to the last part... to be fair I've always had that power and the confidence to do it. Younger DMs getting bullied by Grognards who have 40 years of inscrutably dense lore they absorbed one book at a time over decades... particularly ones who dislike confrontation?

They could use the backup from WotC in their corner.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The Rebel Alliance struggling against the Empire isn't canon?

Sure it is. It is also canon that the Death star plans were stolen by Jyn Erso, and beamed to Leia, who was subsequently captured while the plans were given to R2-D2 who found Luke, who rescued Leia and got the plans back to the Rebels and the only reason they destroyed the Death star is because of Luke making the shot and Han Solo fighting off the Tie Fighters so he could.

There are levels here. And if you want to cut the line at "rebels against the empire" then you are barely talking canon, that's just the premise.

If I were to show up for a game of Star Wars and the GM says, "Oh, by the way, in my version Luke died attacking the first Death Star, Vader killed the Emperor and rules the galaxy, and Darth Hermana (Princess Leia) is Vader's apprentice now" I wouldn't be interested in playing.

First, why not? Sounds like a cool concept.

Second, would you be interested in playing if you had a chance to fight Vader, but the DM said you were forbidden from killing him and if you beat him (which you shouldn't) he was always going to escape?

Because we know every Canonical Jedi Fight Vader was in. He beat Luke Twice, lost to him once. He fought Obi-wan twice, one loss, one victory. He fought Ahsoka and would have one if a person from the future hadn't used time travel to save her from the final blow. I could go on, there is a whole list here: Star Wars: Every Jedi Darth Vader Fought In Canon (& Who Won)

Personally? If I knew that I was never allowed to defeat one of the most iconic villains... It'd really destroy the fun for me. But doing so would ruin the canon.