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

 

[Mistwell]

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."

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.

They are not talking about RULES. Why do you keep talking about rules? We're not discussing what is "RAW" or what is "Core" we're talking about what WOTC considers as canon, and that is a fluff question and not a rules question. Who cares if there is an optional rule, since that has nothing to do with what is canon. Canon means "the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story." It's story element not rules elements. "You can change a monsters alignment" isn't a story element it's a rules element.

 

[TheSword]

Clarification?

"It can also be said that every campaign that’s ever been run in any of our published settings has its own canon. Your version of the Forgotten Realms has its own canon, which doesn’t make it any less valid than anyone else’s version. Elminster might be a lich in your Forgotten Realms campaign. Elminster might be a miniature giant space hamster in mine—both are acceptable and awesome."

So anything and everything we use or create is canon. So quite literally everything official, every novel, and every video game is canon(all that has ever been made officially is used by someone in a campaign) and everything official is simultaneously not canon, as it's has been ignored in some one personal campaign or another.

Some clarification. They made it worse. Now there's no such thing as canon as quite literally everything is both canon and not canon.

Yes clarification. They are individual stories. You maintain your own internal consistency and only have to worry about contradicting yourself. There is no overarching cannon that covers every edition and media stream for a game.

When you think about it, it’s the only realistic way it would be possible. Particularly between editions. Otherwise how do you explain the sudden influx of magic items in 3rd edition and how they all disappeared in 5e. What happened to all the spells books and spells people knew in 3e during 4e play. Where did all the monks and assassins go in AD&D? All killed?

Canon just means genuine. That will depend on the position of the consumer. Essentially WOC have made it clear that canon is subjective not objective. Now you may not like it, but they have made it very clear.

 

[Scribe]

You have your alignments in a table, though. How is that not a compromise?

Unless when you said compromise you really meant "everything remains exactly the way it is right now, except there's a table that gives other people exactly the same option that they always had." In which case... that's not a compromise. That's us being forced to have an alignment.

Perhaps I don't follow, nobody can force you to have one. You even have a table to ignore the stat block?

 

[Scribe]

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.

Why was the wall removed?

 

[Dungeonosophy]

"Clear complexity"

There's a difference between "can" and "should"—this just seems like unnecessary flagellance. I, mean, you do you and all, but I'm not sure how much of D&D fandom really cares enough about the subject to codify timelines and such.

Could you or someone explain to me why Marvel fandom, DC fandom, and Transformers fandom really cares enough about the subject, but D&D fandom doesn't?

 

[Maxperson]

They are not talking about RULES. Why do you keep talking about rules? We're not discussing what is "RAW" or what is "Core" we're talking about what WOTC considers as canon, and that is a fluff question and not a rules question. Who cares if there is an optional rule, since that has nothing to do with what is canon. Canon means "the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story." It's story element not rules elements. "You can change a monsters alignment" isn't a story element it's a rules element.

It's as much part of the story as alignment is. Alignment is also a rule. Being able to option alignment with creatures involves their story.

 

[Faolyn]

Perhaps I don't follow, nobody can force you to have one. You even have a table to ignore the stat block?

Almost certainly they’re going to be doing tables with alignments tacked on, in the same way they did the ideals in VGM, and with backgrounds in the PH. They might even be full alignments, like (Chaotic Neutral), instead of just (Chaotic) or whatever. So if they put alignments in a table and not the stat lock itself, how is that removing alignments? Answer: it’s not. It’s just putting them on a different part of the page. You get alignments, and the table shows that they’re thinking of monsters as individuals with goals and personalities.

But if you keep the alignment in the statblock and put a table of ideals, with or without alignments attached, that’s literally the same thing we have now: an official alignment with the option of ignoring or changing it, and the view that the default monster is always the same.

So it sounds like your idea of a compromise is keeping alignment exactly as-is and making everyone else do the same thing we’ve always done. Which isn’t a compromise at all.

 

[Faolyn]

Could you or someone explain to me why Marvel fandom, DC fandom, and Transformers fandom really cares enough about the subject, but D&D fandom doesn't?

Butting in. I would imagine that for comics it’s because we, the readers, are reading stories created by professional writers, editors, and artists working together. If the story doesn’t stick to something akin to canon, then we lose faith in the abilities of those professionals to tell a good story.

but for RPGs, we are the ones creating the story. So even if there’s a common starting point in an official adventure, each group then goes off its own way. And if it’s just a shared official world, then groups don’t even have that starting point in common. And if its a homebrew world, then the only thing groups will definitely have in common are the basic rules.

 

[Malmuria]

 

[Zeromaru X]

Why was the wall removed?

Because some people believed it was imposing real world-religious stuff into D&D, and well, religious people aren't the only ones playing D&D.