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

 

[Maxperson]

Wait. Mechanics!?

Mechanics aren’t lore.

Sure they are. IF they affect the game world. If they do, then they alter and have a lore impact on the setting. Bladedancers being a subclass, have such a lore impact. Before Tasha's they could not use a cantrip and attack as part of their attack action. After, they could and that ability impacts the story of the setting. That mechanic is ALSO lore.

 

[Azzy]

LOL That's actually a great example of what I'm talking about, though.

Prior to Tasha's I had the Sword Coast Bladesingers as canon for my game. Then along comes Tasha's, retconning the subclass, and suddenly my burden was increased(admittedly not by much) as I had to examine the new class and figure out if I was going to use the new version or not.

What about the bladesinger kit from 2e or the prestige class from 3e? Surely this change in Tasha's mechanics is much less onerous than the changes from prior editions in regards to FR lore.

 

[Parmandur]

If that's the goal, they've bungled it. I had no burden before. I didn't have to include the lore of prior editions. I could have easily just picked up the Sword Coast book and used that alone as canon.

However, now that nothing is canon, it will be very easily for them to just switch things up if a designer thinks it's cool, which will cause waves in what I have determined to be canon. The players won't know if the new stuff is going to be used in my game. It might be or it might not, depending on what it is. And I'm going to have to make the decision individually on every piece that is changed. My burden is increased, not decreased.

But there is no material change here, except to match closer to D&D-as-played by customers. The game offers a menu of options, not a set in stone formula.

 

[Bolares]

Sure they are. IF they affect the game world. If they do, then they alter and have a lore impact on the setting. Bladedancers being a subclass, have such a lore impact. Before Tasha's they could not use a cantrip and attack as part of their attack action. After, they could and that ability impacts the story of the setting. That mechanic is ALSO lore.

Could we say "mechanics aren't lore, but sure do influence lore"?

 

[Maxperson]

By that logic, the easiest way to end your burden is too not have WotC produce and D&D product again. No new canon, no new burden.

You're conflating new canon(which is not a problem) with changes to canon(which is the problem).

 

[Yaarel]

You assume future products have to adhere to the canon... They do not. Not every book published by WotC adhere's to the core books, in fact, most of them have something that is different from core.

The current plan is, WotC will ENFORCE adherence to the core-three rule books, to be "official" D&D. This policy was already in effect anyway, and is how WotC killed the mystique of Eberron.

 

[lingual]

Well... what did you expect? if you don't read a thread it's really hard to know what the hubbub is about

Sorry! Only read a portion of the hundreds of posts. I suppose I don't agree with the people that are upset about this. I don't think WOTC is lazy or whatever and I think they actually know their business better than us! They have priorities other than pleasing certain niches of the customer base and know their customer base better than any of us.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure they are. IF they affect the game world. If they do, then they alter and have a lore impact on the setting. Bladedancers being a subclass, have such a lore impact. Before Tasha's they could not use a cantrip and attack as part of their attack action. After, they could and that ability impacts the story of the setting. That mechanic is ALSO lore.

Of course, that means every edition of D&D is either an AU or a retcon of every campaigns world published. 1e Realms is not the same canon as 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, etc...

 

[Maxperson]

I thought all the Tasha's class options were optional.

They are, and I had my burden increased by having to review to see if I would opt in.

 

[Bolares]

The current plan is, WotC will ENFORCE adherence to the core-three rule books, to be "official" D&D. This policy was already in effect anyway, and is how WotC killed the mystique of Eberron.

Sorry, but this seems kinda tin-foil hatty to me