D&D 5E 5e isn't a Golden Age of D&D Lorewise, it's Silver at best.

Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him
Yes, that is the choice we can make. It's the choice we could always make, and many have made (including me!).

But Wizards isn't encouraging you to pick and choose with their current policy. They encourage you to imagine the lore of each edition as limited to that edition, and for the 5E lore to only include 5E material (and not even all of it). You can make up your own canon, they say, but they don't encourage mixing. (The implication I get is that they'd rather you use 5E lore, or modifications thereof.)

If they really wanted to encourage players to tap into the lore of every edition, they would have said that instead, rather than creating barriers between different editions' canon. Or just not said anything at all.
You are misreading the piece: the canon policy is for the benefit of the movie producers and toy designers, not players. They expect media partners to stick to depictions in the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook according to the most recent errata, but they don't expect the movie producers to stick to every detail in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guidde let alone 2E material.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad




Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I’m saying some people want settings to be specific and “real” and WoTC has abandoned that idea, they’re just going to say, “ here’s some ideas, but do whatever you want” and I’m saying that’s hard for some who want their settings to be specific and ”real” outside their own game/ideas.
Personally, I love this approach. When given the option between the SCAG's lore and the lore from Eberron, I'd choose Eberron in a heartbeat.

Eberron has lore. A lot of it. However, it has major parts of the world where it gives you options instead of explicit answers and encourages creative thinking. Eberron has a bunch of lore about the origins of Warforged, Kalashtar, the Dragonmarked Houses, the history of Khorvaire, and plenty of other stuff. But it has major mysteries that the DM has to come up with answers to, instead of just searching for the answer on a wiki. Because that's what you do for most questions brought up in Forgotten Realms products. If there's a question, if you search about it on the wiki, there's almost always an answer. Which is almost always less engaging than just giving you an answer to everything.

If someone hears about the Mourning from Eberron, they're going to wonder what caused it. A DM will think through the options (Erandis Vol, an experiment from House Cannith, the Dreaming Dark/Riedra, the Cults of the Dragon Below, some Draconic Prophecy BS, something something Ravenloft, et cetera) and choose the one that they like the best. Players literally don't have the option of searching for the answer on a wiki because the wiki does not have an answer. The setting has a ton of unanswered mysteries that make it a lot more engaging and creatively interesting than something like the Forgotten Realms where almost every question you could have does have an answer written somewhere, whether it's a novel, sourcebook, or adventure.

I want options, like how lore is approached in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. Giving options instead of explicit, definite answers requries more creativity to make (just because it takes more work to give 20 possible ideas than just a single answer), can attract/engage more people (because more options for one question means that any individual person has a higher likelihood of enjoying one of the options), and no single answer to become the easy or default option. Because that's boring. You cannot guarantee that none of your players will come across the answer to what caused the Mourning in Eberron online, because there is no canon answer. They can't spoil your campaigns if you're the only one that knows the answer, even when hundreds of other people have played through campaigns revolving around the same mystery and gotten their own answers.

Eberron and Fizban's, not Forgotten Realms. That's my taste. You cannot spoil a mystery if there is no canon answer, you cannot contradict the "canon" if the base lore allows for all possible options, and more creativity goes into creating these types of mysteries than just infodumping all of the setting's lore on the people that buy the books.
 



JEB

Legend
Mystara has received a pretty streak of references, including suggestions for alternate locations for Saltmarsh (coast of Karamekios, natch). So my point is that they haven't really changed their approach at all.
Saltmarsh came out two years before the canon policy statement, so it probably falls under the old approach. What the Radiant Citadel ref means is TBD. (But that is interesting.)

Perkins put a #WotCStaff tag on the post, which in line with their corporate Social Media policy means he was stating it as a Hasbro employee not just on his own.
Interesting, can you link me to the post in question. And when was it?

You are misreading the piece: the canon policy is for the benefit of the movie producers and toy designers, not players.
I'm really not. Most of it is directed at "DMs" and "players." And why would they release a public statement that's only intended for licensees?

Also of note: There's a whole section called "Why not adopt the canon of earlier editions and be done with it?"
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
And why would they release a public statement that's only intended for licensees?
Maybe to prepare people for if the lore is "messed up" in the D&D movie or Baldur's Gate 3? Because the D&D community is filled with rabid nitpickers that won't stop talking about how Owlbears are Monstrosities and not Beasts so neither Wild Shape nor Polymorph would allow the Druid in the D&D movie to turn into it? Because of how much backlash they got for doing a soft-retcon on the Forgotten Realms with the Spellplague in 4e and wanted to make it clear to D&D pedants that things would be handled differently now than they had in the past? And maybe to try and make the lore less overwhelming for DMs that are just starting to get into D&D and want to research the most popular settings, but are intimidated by the sheer quantity of lore from the nearly 50-year-history of D&D?

It can be a combination of reasons. Primarily to make the "canon" for licensing deals clear to both the companies they're working with and their rabid fanbase but also to make it slightly easier for new DMs. That's my guess.
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Book-Friend, he/him
Saltmarsh came out two years before the canon policy statement, so it probably falls under the old approach. What the Radiant Citadel ref means is TBD. (But that is interesting.)
You misapprehended the point: there is no old.policy and new pics, Perkins just wrote a blog post explaining what the D&D team had been doing for the whole Edition. There was no change at any point in how they view canon.

Like @AcererakTriple6 suggests, heading off canonical nitpicking if Baldur's Gate 3 and the movie appears to have been the motivation to get more explicit, but there is no difference to how they been treating canon across 5E (as a resource to be mined, not a strict rule).
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top