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

 

[Yaarel]

"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"

Perkins:

"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. 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."

All WotC 5e products will use these core rulebooks! But not necessarily any content "beyond these core rulebooks".

 

[Bolares]

As I said before, we've had this argument about Eberron's cosmology before, and kept running in circles, I will probably disengage now.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Eberron is already a slave to the Forgotten Realms canon.

 

[Maxperson]

Perkins:

"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. 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."

All WotC 5e products will use these core rulebooks! But not necessarily any content "beyond these corebooks".

That's not what that means. If it did, the words "pubic-facing account" would not be a part of that sentence. They would simply have said, "Beyond these core rulebooks, there is no canon." and been done with it. By adding in what they did, they are telling us straight out that there is internal canon beyond the core three books.

 

[Parmandur]

Perkins:

"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. 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."

All WotC 5e products will use these core rulebooks! But not necessarily any content "beyond these corebooks".

In the same sentence you highlighted, he says that he is talking about what they expect from extwrnal media partners like video games and movies. They aren't going to insist that Weis & Hickman include elements in the Dragonlance books beyond what's in the core three books, like Volo's or Mordenkainen's. Hesnot talking about game books.

 

[Maxperson]

Eberron is already a slave to the Forgotten Realms canon.

That seems overly dramatic. I read the Eberron books and it's nothing like the Realms, even if there are a few similarities.

 

[Parmandur]

That's not what that means. If it did, the words "pubic-facing account" would not be a part of that sentence. They would simply have said, "Beyond these core rulebooks, there is no canon." and been done with it. By adding in what they did, they are telling us straight out that there is internal canon beyond the core three books.

The internal canon is more like....guidelines, than rules.

 

[Yaarel]

That's not what that means. If it did, the words "pubic-facing account" would not be a part of that sentence. They would simply have said, "Beyond these core rulebooks, there is no canon." and been done with it. By adding in what they did, they are telling us straight out that there is internal canon beyond the core three books.

It means, any author out there in the public, needs only to adhere to "every bit of lore" in "these core rulebooks", and can still be suitable for an official WotC product.

As long as they are slaves to the core lore.

 

[Maxperson]

The internal canon is more like....guidelines, than rules.

He even mentions it in the article.

"We have a couple guiding principles:

• If the artwork holds up or the lore has been true in every past edition of the game, we think twice about changing it.
• If the artwork or lore hasn’t withstood the test of time, we can update or discard it."

 

[Faolyn]

It's a rules change to the subclass.

Since I don't feel like getting out my copies of SCAG and Tasha's, why don't you explain how a change in a generic splatbook changes how the class is used in a specific setting's worldbook.

Why? What do they have to do with my players? You specifically were talking about my players. Nice try at moving the goal posts.

That was a generic you and you know it.

The point is, if you have players who insist on reading everything there is about a setting and get mad if you make changes or don't use it all, the problem is with the player, not the canon.

Eh, no. That's completely wrong. If you're having trouble understanding, go back and re-read my posts on it.

Not really. It never seems to help in our conversations.

You know, nearly all of your arguments boil down to "I'm right but I'm not going to explain myself, and if you read the same thing I did but come to a different conclusion, you're wrong."