D&D 5E WotC Explains 'Canon' In More Detail

Recently, WotC's Jeremy Crawford indicated that only the D&D 5th Edition books were canonical for the roleplaying game. In a new blog article, Chris Perkins goes into more detail about how that works, and why.

This boils down to a few points:

• Each edition of D&D has its own canon, as does each video game, novel series, or comic book line.
• The goal is to ensure players don't feel they have to do research of 50 years of canon in order to play.
• It's about remaining consistent.

If you’re not sure what else is canonical in fifth edition, let me give you a quick primer. Strahd von Zarovich canonically sleeps in a coffin (as vampires do), Menzoberranzan is canonically a subterranean drow city under Lolth’s sway (as it has always been), and Zariel is canonically the archduke of Avernus (at least for now). Conversely, anything that transpires during an Acquisitions Incorporated live game is not canonical in fifth edition because we treat it the same as any other home game (even when members of the D&D Studio are involved).

D&D Canon | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

In this D&D Studio Blog, Chris Perkins describes the D&D Studio's position on canonicity.

dnd.wizards.com

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...

www.enworld.org

 

[JEB]

That's not exactly what they said. They said they don't have any public facing account of what is canon after those three books, not that there isn't anything other than those three that they consider to be canon internally. I would be surprised if they put out another FR book that contradicted things already put out in Sword Coast.

There's other canon, but they haven't told us about it.

Which is very convenient for them, isn't it? Only Wizards themselves knows what the "real" canon for 5E is.

For those fans who liked the idea of an official canon, and want to know what is actually "true" for 5E... theoretically you can rely on what's in the core rulebooks. Anything else - be it from 5E, from older editions, or any other source - is a sort of quantum canon, possibly "true" or "false" for any given product, and not to be relied on.

The Ravenloft of Van Richten's Guide may not actually be the Ravenloft of Curse of Strahd; it very likely is, because they have little reason to contradict two flagship products, but we don't know for sure. SCAG says the Time of Troubles happened, with assorted details, but we don't know if SCAG itself is still canon, and we definitely don't know if earlier-edition material or novels can be relied on to fill in any gaps not covered in SCAG.

That said, even the core rulebooks are subject to change in future printings (and it's very likely they'll get a major overhaul in 2024). So what is "true" now may not be (and probably won't be) true for the rest of 5E.

In summary: based on what they told us, you can't be sure that anything is or will remain canon in 5E. The core rules are the most reliable, but they're not even 100%. As far as 3E and earlier editions are concerned, while 5E resembles their canon on the surface, it's really as much a reboot as 4E was.

If you want a canon that does likely include most of D&D's history, you're better going back to the end of 3E. You can also take 4E's canon as one coherent whole. Neither of those explicitly said everything was canon, but neither did they limit canon to the core rules and unseen internal guidelines, like this policy does.

Now, there's also the bigger question: why tell us this? The most likely answer, as with Crawford's off-the-cuff version, is that Ravenloft was just the beginning of the changes to come...

 

[Mistwell]

I don’t think that’s how they’re using the word canon here.

I edited my comment to include all their quotes to back up my position that is what they are doing when they say canon.

 

[Mistwell]

They say core three. Alignment and the optional rule included are part of the core three.

They say what happens in a home game is not canon in the same way what happens in an Acquisitions Inc game isn't canon even if it's played by WOTC employees publicly. Changing what's in the books by a home game DM is specifically not what they mean by canon, no matter what change it is. Also don't think I didn't notice you snuck Monster Manual into this when I am directly quoting the PHB which doesn't have that change you keep mentioning,

 

[JEB]

One other funny realization: the core rulebooks (specifically, page 4 of the DMG) actually say that novels, digital games, and game products are part of the "official" Forgotten Realms. So the core rules, which are official canon, say that something they now say isn't canon is actually canon.

(My guess is that the line will be quietly removed in a later printing...)

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Do want to get Anti-Monitors? Because this is how you get Anti-Monitors.

Sure. The Anti-Monitor is recognized by IGN as the 49th-greatest comic book villain of all time. Who wouldn't want to have these sort of folks in D&D?
Not a villain, but Transfomers has Vector Prime, who monitors all the Universal Streams: Vector Prime - Transformers Wiki
The D&D Multiverse already has figures who would be aware of this sort of thing: such as the Sage of the Nexus (from 1985's CM6: Where Chaos Reigns), and the Owner of the World Serpent Inn, not to mention the various Overdeities.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is very convenient for them, isn't it? Only Wizards themselves knows what the "real" canon for 5E is.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that their internal canon consists of all of the 5e books. That way they can be internally consistent with their future 5e product releases. Just go with that and I don't think you'll be led astray.

 

[a.everett1287]

One other funny realization: the core rulebooks (specifically, page 4 of the DMG) actually say that novels, digital games, and game products are part of the "official" Forgotten Realms. So the core rules, which are official canon, say that something they now say isn't canon is actually canon.

(My guess is that the line will be quietly removed in a later printing...)

Finally, a course correction for the better.

 

[Maxperson]

They say what happens in a home game is not canon in the same way what happens in an Acquisitions Inc game isn't canon even if it's played by WOTC employees publicly.

Right. I'm talking about the core rules, not home games. Yes, engaging the optional rule in the MM places it into your home game, but not any differently than any other rule or optional rule from the core rules. EVERYTHING in the core three books is canon. They've said so. They didn't say, "What's in the core three is canon except for all of the optional rules and advice we give."

Changing what's in the books by a home game DM is specifically not what they mean by canon, no matter what change it is. Also don't think I didn't notice you snuck Monster Manual into this when I am directly quoting the PHB which doesn't have that change you keep mentioning,

It doesn't matter if it's the PHB or not. The MM is part of the core three and every single rule, optional rule and piece of advice in it is canon.

 

[JEB]

I think it's pretty safe to assume that their internal canon consists of all of the 5e books. That way they can be internally consistent with their future 5e product releases. Just go with that and I don't think you'll be led astray.

I wouldn't assume that at all; they already made notable retcons to SCAG (errata removing the Wall of the Faithless) and Curse of Strahd (Ez's background was altered in Van Richten's).

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't assume that at all; they already made notable retcons to SCAG (errata removing the Wall of the Faithless) and Curse of Strahd (Ez's background was altered in Van Richten's).

Those changes were reactions to social issues. That sort of correction doesn't in any way invalidate what I said. Agree with those changes or not, those changes were akin to correcting bad math.