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]

"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."

You skipped the second sentence there.

"Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners."

That says very clearly that for them, there's more to canon than the first three books. It includes every bit of lore from the first three, but also has more canon outside of it. Setting canon can and does differ. See Eberron. The default core cosmology doesn't allow for isolation, yet Eberron has it. Their internal canon differs from the public facing canon.

 

[Parmandur]

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

No, he said that third party partners will only be expected to adhere to what's in the three core books: don't see any Eberron novels, video games, or films coming soon.

 

[Yaarel]

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

"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."

All WotC 5e products will use this canon.

 

[Parmandur]

You skipped the second sentence there.

"Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners."

That says very clearly that for them, there's more to canon than the first three books.

Rather, thst WotC feel free to use as much prior.lore as they feel like, and even will default to it if there is no compelling reason not to (such as realizing that Gypsy stereotypes are kind of bad).

 

[Yaarel]

You skipped the second sentence there.

"Beyond these core rulebooks, we don’t have a public-facing account of what is canonical in fifth edition because we don’t want to overload our fellow creators and business partners."

That says very clearly that for them, there's more to canon than the first three books.

Again, that refers to films and novels, each adding their own canon to the core-three WotC canon.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, that refers to films and novels, each adding their own canon to the core-three WotC canon.

No it doesn't. Nothing in that sentence says what you are arguing here. And Eberron itself proves that to be wrong.

 

[Bolares]

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.

The thing is... we tend to deal in extremes. Either they adhere completely to canon and can't stray away from it or canon doesn't matter at all and they should give up on it entirely. To me none of those are true. T

 

[Yaarel]

And Eberron itself proves that to be wrong.

Eberron is "consistent" with the Forgotten Realms assumptions of core canon.

That is why Eberron elves are clones of the elves that sprung from the blood of Corellon: to enforce consistency with the canon.

 

[Bolares]

"We use canonical lore internally to maintain consistency across our fifth-edition products." is not a sinonym to "all 5e products will use this canon". And none of those mean "all future products must follow all of the canon all of the time and forgotten realms will be inserted in every story for the end of time"

 

[Maxperson]

Eberron is "consistent" with the Forgotten Realms assumptions of core canon.

No, it absolutely is not. There's nothing in Realms canon that is consistent with complete isolation from the Great Wheel. That's a canonical change for Eberron.

You're taking one small facet of Eberron lore, the inclusion in the Great Wheel as an isolated separate cosmology, and trying to use that as proof that they will be slaves to the core three and force that on every setting in every way, and it just doesn't work. Eberron's difference in cosmology, orc lore and more all prove that to be wrong.