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

 

[lingual]

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.

Lol. That probably is the safest route to ensure that no one gets upset.

 

[Maxperson]

Different critter all together. The dwarf thing was lore being supported by mechanics, and they changed the lore along with the mechanics.

The lore of the Bladesinger isn’t different because they can turn on Bladesong proficiency bonus per day rather than twice per short rest.

It IS different because of the new ability to use cantrips in place of an attack, though.

 

[Bolares]

The lore of the Bladesinger isn’t different because they can turn on Bladesong proficiency bonus per day rather than twice per short rest.

But does it change if non elven characters can do the bladesong?

 

[Remathilis]

To that extent, sure, but mechanics change so that part of it also has to change. Some changes to canon are necessary, especially when going from one edition to another. I accept that necessity. Changing it within a single edition like Tasha's did? No. That's not a necessity.

Wouldn't be the first time Mechanics have changed intra-edition. (Psionics, I'm looking at you).

 

[lingual]

No. If you TWIST my logic you get there, but my logic doesn't result in that.

Sorry. I was equating "optional mechanics" to "optional lore" which would make "optional canon" - which would be contradictory.

 

[Yaarel]

I did, didn't see that there at all.

"Our studio treats D&D in much the same way that Marvel Studios treats its properties. The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D."

"Fifth edition’s canon includes every bit of lore that appears in the most up-to-date printings of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide."

"We use canonical lore internally to maintain consistency across our fifth-edition products."

 

[Bolares]

Lol. That probably is the safest route to ensure that no one gets upset.

Good luck with that. Making no one upset can never be the goal. Because 1) it's almost impossible and 2) it would probably be VERY boring. I prefer to be upset by game designer than bored by them.

 

[Maxperson]

You read the article by Perkins. He says plainly, WotC products will adhere to the core-three rule books as the canon.

He doesn't say that at all.

 

[Bolares]

First sentence.

"Our studio treats D&D in much the same way that Marvel Studios treats its properties. The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D."

Sorry, I miss the part where he says "AND THEREFORE ALL WORLDS SHALL KNEEL BEFORE THE FORGOTTEN REALMS".

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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.

There are several takes on canon one can adhere to or not.

Position A : DMs and players are beholden to canon (harsh, but it could happen)
Position B : Outside writers are beholden to canon (good for in universe consistency, but sometime you want an "extended universe"
Position C : As you posit, the main author isn't beholden to canon.

If their position is both to refuse A, B and C, then one must ask why WOTC is talking about canon when the canon isn't binding for ANYONE, including their own stories. If they don't intend to follow their own canon, it's tantamount to Tom Cruise speaking of canon between Eyes Wide Shut and Edge of Tomorrow. They could just as well say "there is no continuity between D&D books" and nobody would bat an eye (or simply say nothing at all). If they decided to talk about canon, it must have at least some significance.