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

 

[Remathilis]

It's less stable, because it's far more easily changed. I've never had to worry about spellsunderings or spellplagues. They put out canon and then I got to pluck out what I wanted. And what was left was solid, because I could reasonably rely on things not to be retconned. Social issue changes and such notwithstanding.

Now I can still decide what I want to keep or not, but if they change a bunch of stuff, it makes more work for me and presents more confusion for the players. Their PCs who "knew" things will possibly no longer know those things and will instead know other things. Since I'm not going to have the time or the inclination to go through all changes and create a sheet of what stays and what goes for the players, they are going to be limbo until something comes up in game play.

So you want to power to change things you don't like about the setting, but you want WotC to slavishly adhere to everything that has come before or will come in the future?

Bit of having your cake and eating it too, innit?

 

[Bolares]

Bit of having your cake and eating it too, innit?

I never understood that saying... OF COURSE I'll have my cake and eat it too, what else am I going to do with MY cake?

 

[Maxperson]

Um, it sounds like you just repeated yourself.

Before, I could ignore all the canon and do what I wanted to. Who cared if they changed canon? I didn't!

Now, I have to spend time doing what I want to, because they might change canon? I care that they will change it!

Not exactly.

Before when they came out with more for say the Realms, they added onto previous canon with new continuing canon(spellplague, etc.). Once I settled on what I wanted, there was an expectation that other than in special circumstances such as a social issue, canon wasn't going to be retconned. I had a solid foundation for my game.

Now, with this new idea of what canon is, nothing can be relied upon at all as a foundation. If they make changes, I will have to go back over what I already went over and decide if I want to keep it or change to the new setting lore. It's additional work and added uncertainty.

 

[Remathilis]

I never understood that saying... OF COURSE I'll have my cake and eat it too, what else am I going to do with MY cake?

For those unfamiliar with it, the proverb may sound confusing due to the ambiguity of the word 'have', which can mean 'keep' or 'to have in one's possession', but which can also be used as a synonym for 'eat' (e.g. 'to have breakfast'). Some find the common form of the proverb to be incorrect or illogical and instead prefer: "You can't eat your cake and [then still] have it (too)". Indeed, this used to be the most common form of the expression until the 1930s–1940s, when it was overtaken by the have-eat variant.[2] Another, less common, version uses 'keep' instead of 'have'.[3]

From wikipedia.

 

[Maxperson]

So you want to power to change things you don't like about the setting, but you want WotC to slavishly adhere to everything that has come before or will come in the future?

No. What they decide on with regard to future lore building should grow off of prior canon, but there's nothing to be a slave to. Just look at the Spellplague and the Sundering. Those were canon additions as time in the Realms marched on. They built off of prior canon, but still made very significant changes to the world.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Not exactly.

Before when they came out with more for say the Realms, they added onto previous canon with new continuing canon(spellplague, etc.). Once I settled on what I wanted, there was an expectation that other than in special circumstances such as a social issue, canon wasn't going to be retconned. I had a solid foundation for my game.

Now, with this new idea of what canon is, nothing can be relied upon at all as a foundation. If they make changes, I will have to go back over what I already went over and decide if I want to keep it or change to the new setting lore. It's additional work and added uncertainty.

Okay ... still not seeing any difference. I'll simplify:

Before, there was this thing called "canon." They would change it. When they changed it, I had to decide ("settled on") what I would add or subtract from my game.

Now, there is this new idea of "canon." If they make changes, I have to decide if I want to keep or change the new setting lore.


...I mean, okay? Or, let's put this another way ... they have literally done nothing different since the release of 5e. Internally, they have been operating like this for the last, what, seven years or more?

How does the fact that they've said this altered your life in any way?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay ... still not seeing any difference. I'll simplify:

Before, there was this thing called "canon." They would change it. When they changed it, I had to decide ("settled on") what I would add or subtract from my game.

Now, there is this new idea of "canon." If they make changes, I have to decide if I want to keep or change the new setting lore.


...I mean, okay? Or, let's put this another way ... they have literally done nothing different since the release of 5e. Internally, they have been operating like this for the last, what, seven years or more?

How does the fact that they've said this altered your life in any way?

They very rarely changed it. They added to it a lot with new editions, but changes were rare. Even the Sword Coast book still references past canon. They omit a lot due to the size of the book, but an omission is not a change to the prior lore.

 

[Yaarel]

I get that. I think this will take off what binders there were and that we will see more changes than we previously did. They now have the, "But it's not canon and we told you that in advance." excuse.

Requiring the core three books only, will introduce future conflictive expressions of a setting. Each authorship will feel freer to introduce new content that can conflict with the contents of other authorships.

I am fine with that.

 

[Voadam]

Well I've liked the changes in Ravenloft, but I was never that attached to it to begin with... If they changed that much about Eberron I'd probably be pissed, but in the end I hope I'd try to see what is good and what is bad about the changes and carry on in my Eberron.

Yeah, if they had decided that say Eberron's Breland was boring so in 5e they changed prior Breland stuff to instead be a Sovereign Host or Druidic theocracy to have different kingdom religious conflicts with the Silver Flame and Blood of Vol stuff, it could have been interesting but would have been annoying to lose the prior Breland lore from 3e and 4e materials.

I really liked the politics and cross-border plot stuff in 2e and 3e Ravenloft so Van Richten's turning everything into an isolated nightmare island cut out a lot of stuff that I liked in the setting.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

They very rarely changed it. They added to it a lot with new editions, but changes were rare. Even the Sword Coast book still references past canon. They omit a lot due to the size of the book, but an omission is not a change to the prior lore.

I mean ... no. The cosmology constantly changed. The whole Planescape/Spelljammer/Gygaxian multiverse changed.

The various retcons and advances in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. The changes to settings to take into account edition changes, either explained or not (Dark Sun 4e, anyone?). Constant changes to monsters (what are kobolds, anyway?).

I could go on, but you know. Of course you know!

Look, I get you have a point that you want to make, and that it's important to you. I respect that! And I apologize if I just am too dumb to understand the nuance of it.

I'm just saying that from my perspective, it really seems like you keep saying, "Before, I used to pick and choose what I wanted. Now, I have to pick and choose what I want. ... the Aristocrats!"