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

 

[Faolyn]

Huh. I didn't know that since I usually ignore errata. However, that just strengthens my argument as it is no long a simple optional Tasha's subclass.

In your version of the Realms, are Bladesingers limited to elves or not? Because that is literally the only thing that's setting-important about that archetype.

 

[dave2008]

Real-world beliefs aside--and I'm an atheist in real life--it's incredibly insulting to say that atheists deserve to be be shoved into a wall as punishment or be turned into demons. You wouldn't write something like this about any other real-world group; why write it about atheists?

Of course we do, we are disrespectful heathens that deserve everything we get

PS I added the emoji this time to emphasis that I am being sarcastic (I was the first time too)

 

[Faolyn]

No it says the default is that listed alignment (it then immediate says you can make it whatever you want). Default =/= always.

The definition of default:

a selection made usually automatically or without active consideration due to lack of a viable alternative.

 

[dave2008]

I disagree. "Official" is a nearly worthless distinction. It is a claim to authority that really has only the weight you give it.

To play in Kobold Press's Midgard you need to use the 5e DnD ruleset. Who is the official source for that game? Kobold Press, WoTC or the DM at the table who is deciding how things actually work? Practically, only one voice matters.

And I disagree with you - glad we cleared that up

 

[Faolyn]

Eh...

Why couldn't dwarves be magic users prior to 3e? Any answer you give beyond "mechanical balance concerns" would be lore-based.

Or a meta-reason. Because the actual reason is "Gygax and Tolkien."

 

[dave2008]

I think some people mix official with quality.

Kanon is not official, that does not mean it's not the best source for Eberron material.

I would say Kanon is not official, but it is the best source for Eberron material (lore at least).

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

In our own games we say what is canon or not, but the IPs as multimedia fiction need a delicate balance between creative flexibility and continuity coherence.

The true key is what changes or retconns are going to be accepted, tolerated, allowed or rejected by the fandom. In the tabletop game is a thing, but as readers or audence the things can be very different. This may be worse if we are talking about Entertaiment-One producing a new supernatural-romance franchise enough strong to be rival of WoD.

In the past humanoids with longer lives needed more time to become adults but but now allmost all humanoids are adults in the same age nearly to avoid troubles about a 18y elf can marry. (This is an example of possiblely neccesary retcon).

* I don't worry too much, only I need a right explanation of the D&D cosmology that can allow to add elements from other IPs.

* The secret main villain of Loki season 2 is...Vecna!

When we can't agree about what is the true canon lore/sacred timeline then it happens something like this.

 

[Yaarel]

"In your campaign, you might decide" "you might want to incorporate elements from other realms" "Perhaps you want to use"

Yes. But if you choose to deviate from the three core rulebooks, your creation cannot become an official WotC product.

I don't see anything in that section that says that the events and characters from any other setting will affect Eberron--only that if you, the DM, want to use those events and characters from other settings, then here's some suggestions on how to handle it.

The mere factual existence of Forgotten Realms has destroyed the delicate ambiguity of Eberron agnosticism.

Do you really want WotC to have written that it's completely impossible for you to include something from another setting?

What I want is, for the core three rulebooks to be more carefully setting neutral.

When the core does present lore, it needs to be flexible enough to apply to various settings. For example, it is more adaptable if the Cleric class refers to a "cosmic force" that can apply to most settings, rather than refer to "gods" that are only true in some settings.

 

[Remathilis]

Or a meta-reason. Because the actual reason is "Gygax and Tolkien."

Touche.

That said, even "Gygax was borrowing Tolkien's dwarves" is still a lore answer, it's just Tolkien's lore rather than D&D's they're using.

 

[dave2008]

Novels from WotC would be "official" without being "canon".

Agree

Even Xanathars and Tashas are "official" without being "canon".

Agree

In the case of Eberron, there is an "official" setting canon published by WotC, and a separate "canon" defined by Baker etal.

Disagree. Eberron via WotC is official, but not Canon. At best you can say it is canon within the official world of Eberron. But with recent incites this is even stretch.

If I recall correctly, the Baker canon accepts the WotC setting canon as "true" (indeed Baker is a central author of it). But the Baker canon adds a considerable amount of lore on top of this. Much of this lore accumulated over the years, partly as answers to questions.

That is my understanding too.

I would consider the new books that are available via the DMsGuild to be "official" Baker setting canon, without being official WotC setting canon.

Disagree, there is only one official (for better or worse) and that is WotC content. They own it.