D&D General Did Dragonlance/Krynn exist in 4e canon?

[Echohawk]

Would it be okay for me to post this on the Dragonlance Nexus?

Of course, but please note @pemerton's catch of my mistaken characterization of the draconian article in Dragon #421, which does indeed reference Krynn.

 

[Werthead]

Following on from my similar question about Greyhawk...

Per official Wizards policy there would be distinct versions of the Dragonlance setting for 1e, 2e, 3e, and 5e. (Plus however Fifth Age canon would be categorized, since it was a separate game rather than a D&D edition.) Was there also any official coverage of the Dragonlance setting for 4e? I believe there were 4e draconians, but no idea if their lore tied them to Dragonlance, Nentir Vale, or none of the above...

No, but there was going to be one.

WotC were, at the least, considering a massive full-spectrum reboot of Dragonlance using novels and gaming material, with a strong tie-in to 4th Edition. They wanted well-known Dragonlance mega-fan and massively successful author Jim Butcher (The Dresden Files) to head that up and went some way down the road of talking to Butcher, getting ideas on board etc. But Butcher kept asking them if he could talk to Weis & Hickman about the project, get their input, and WotC had to eventually admit they weren't on board. Butcher then told them to sod off, and as the 4E sales crash was already hitting, WotC dropped the idea.

Tracy and Margaret are the reason I ended up not doing that. I’d gone to them and said, “I think this is a fantastic idea! I’ve got a lot of a whole bunch of really good ideas of how this would work out.” I’d already started building all these characters and re-read the first book and was trying to figure out how to do that a little bit different. And I said, “Tracy and Margaret are okay with this, right?” And I got all these weasely answers from the far end and I’m like “No, screw you guys. If this is something that’s not kosher with Tracy and Margaret, it’s not going to happen.” And then 4th Edition crashed and they had more problems than that. And they were expecting 4th Edition to go insane and it HAD gone insane already, they just didn’t realize it. But yeah, I was going to have a good time with that. I was going to base Raistlin on House.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And just as silly a question. WotC do not need to publish anything for a setting for it to exist. All it takes is for players to play in it.

WotC didn’t publish any for the forgotten Realms for a couple of months : “oh no, the Forgotten Realms doesn’t exist any more!”

The vast majority of D&D stuff WotC publish is setting agnostic. Ergo a setting does not need to be mentioned by name for it to be supported.

Even if we accept the idea if canon-ness in DnD settings, they aren’t really edition-bound. The canon exists until it’s changed, regardless of rules support. If they wrote a new DL novel during the 4e run, that would be canon.

I understand what OP is asking, but that’s just not really how dnd works.

 

[JEB]

Even if we accept the idea if canon-ness in DnD settings, they aren’t really edition-bound.

Not according to Wizards' official canon policy. Which has been reflected in their treatment of Dragonlance lore in 5e - though Shadow of the Dragon Queen is much more compatible with older lore than, say, 5e Ravenloft. Likewise, the official policy separates novels and other media out as their own versions of canon (which is probably why the newest DL novels are marketed as "Classic Dragonlance").

Of course, fans can certainly do whatever they want! And some prominent fan communities like the Forgotten Realms wiki - which otherwise try to follow the official line - have chosen to ignore Wizards' current policy and continue treating all the editions as canon.

Mostly, though, I'm just rolling with this idea of separating every edition's canon and seeing what that looks like. (If I had a lot more time on my hands, I'd dig into specific differences - I know 2e Dragonlance made some notable retcons to 1e Dragonlance in the Tales of the Lance boxed set, for example.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not according to Wizards' official canon policy.

As I said, that doesn't mean what you think it means. What he was saying is that new stuff replaces old stuff. In the event of a conflict (if it actually matters - in your home game it does not), then you should use the new stuff. He is using "5e" to mean "new stuff", not to imply everything changes whenever the edition changes. Changes are made over the lifetime of an edition. So, for example, the drow lore in early 5e (e.g. in SCAG) is changed by Salvatore's recent novels. Ravenloft changes between CoS and VGR. If there are no changes, then the earlier version still remains canon.

The other thing is, that is a post from 2021. Company policies change all the time. So it doesn't tell us anything about what the policy was during 3e or 4e (and the tone suggests a recent change). And it doesn't tell us what the policy is now. Three years is a long time in policies.

 

[JEB]

As I said, that doesn't mean what you think it means.

To quote directly from the policy:

The current edition of the D&D roleplaying game has its own canon, as does every other expression of D&D. For example, what is canonical in fifth edition is not necessarily canonical in a novel, video game, movie, or comic book, and vice versa.

Every edition of the roleplaying game has its own canon as well. In other words, something that might have been treated as canonical in one edition is not necessarily canonical in another. For example, the succubus was classified as a devil in fourth edition, even though it had been a demon in previous editions.

WHY NOT ADOPT THE CANON OF EARLIER EDITIONS AND BE DONE WITH IT?
The most important reason why we maintain our own continuity, separate from other expressions and earlier editions of D&D, is to lessen the burden on DMs.

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.

So:

• 5e has its own distinct, separate canon from the other editions, which definitely includes the current core, but they don't confirm what is canon for 5e beyond that. Though odds are that in practice, new 5e stuff does replace old 5e stuff, as you say. (We do know a few things that aren't canon in 5e anymore, because they were marked as Legacy Content on D&D Beyond.)
• Every other edition also has its own distinct canon. They clarify this with an example of how 4e differed from the canon of previous editions (and by implication 5e, since succubi also aren't devils in 5e).
• Other expressions of D&D beyond the RPG (novels, video games, movies, comics, and presumably other media) are also treated separately from each edition's canon.
• Each canon may or may not include lore from other canon (the "not necessarily canonical" bit). But they are still treated separately from one another by default, and 5e very specifically does not "adapt the canon of earlier editions" wholesale.

The other thing is, that is a post from 2021. Company policies change all the time. So it doesn't tell us anything about what the policy was during 3e or 4e (and the tone suggests a recent change).

You are correct, we don't know what the policy was in 4e or earlier. Though 4e certainly seemed to be a different continuity from the previous editions - something the 2021 policy even calls out - that doesn't seem to be the case with 1e, 2e, and 3e. Though as noted earlier, even between those editions there were retcons, some apparently controversial with fans (such as in Tales of the Lance).

As for 5e, I would agree that the 2021 policy seemed to be a recent change: Ravenloft earlier that year was the first 5e setting product that radically broke from earlier canon. They certainly seemed to have a different idea in 2014, since the original 5e DMG notes:

Even if you're using an established world such as the Forgotten Realms, your campaign takes place in a sort of mirror universe of the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital games are assumed to take place.

Other references to older settings in the 2014 5e DMG similarly point inclusively to all the media that came before.

And it doesn't tell us what the policy is now. Three years is a long time in policies.

This is true. Notably, the policy disappeared from public view when they moved the old D&D website over to D&D Beyond. Perhaps that could indicate they've reconsidered.

However... they haven't provided a new policy. And setting updates since 2021, up through the 2024 DMG, continue to reflect the approach in that policy (albeit less dramatically than Ravenloft). So I see no reason to think they've changed their mind.

Now, folks are certainly welcome to dislike the policy and/or ignore it for their own unofficial efforts (such as the FR wiki). I'm not asking anyone else to embrace it. But I am taking Wizards at their word, that this is how they treat the official material now. And I think it's an interesting thought experiment to see what that looks like. Especially for settings that didn't get a dedicated treatment in certain editions, like Dragonlance.

 

[pemerton]

I read Chris Perkins account of how the D&D Studio treats canon: D&D Canon | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

I don't think this is a policy. To quote:

I will describe our studio’s position on canonicity. . . . [W]e use canonical lore internally to maintain consistency across our fifth-edition products.​

It's a position adopted by a design studio, to guide their decisions as designers. It's not a statement about what is "true" or "canonical" in any other sense.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

To quote directly from the policy:




So:

• 5e has its own distinct, separate canon from the other editions, which definitely includes the current core, but they don't confirm what is canon for 5e beyond that. Though odds are that in practice, new 5e stuff does replace old 5e stuff, as you say. (We do know a few things that aren't canon in 5e anymore, because they were marked as Legacy Content on D&D Beyond.)
• Every other edition also has its own distinct canon. They clarify this with an example of how 4e differed from the canon of previous editions (and by implication 5e, since succubi also aren't devils in 5e).
• Other expressions of D&D beyond the RPG (novels, video games, movies, comics, and presumably other media) are also treated separately from each edition's canon.
• Each canon may or may not include lore from other canon (the "not necessarily canonical" bit). But they are still treated separately from one another by default, and 5e very specifically does not "adapt the canon of earlier editions" wholesale.

You are correct, we don't know what the policy was in 4e or earlier. Though 4e certainly seemed to be a different continuity from the previous editions - something the 2021 policy even calls out - that doesn't seem to be the case with 1e, 2e, and 3e. Though as noted earlier, even between those editions there were retcons, some apparently controversial with fans (such as in Tales of the Lance).

As for 5e, I would agree that the 2021 policy seemed to be a recent change: Ravenloft earlier that year was the first 5e setting product that radically broke from earlier canon. They certainly seemed to have a different idea in 2014, since the original 5e DMG notes:



Other references to older settings in the 2014 5e DMG similarly point inclusively to all the media that came before.


This is true. Notably, the policy disappeared from public view when they moved the old D&D website over to D&D Beyond. Perhaps that could indicate they've reconsidered.

However... they haven't provided a new policy. And setting updates since 2021, up through the 2024 DMG, continue to reflect the approach in that policy (albeit less dramatically than Ravenloft). So I see no reason to think they've changed their mind.

Now, folks are certainly welcome to dislike the policy and/or ignore it for their own unofficial efforts (such as the FR wiki). I'm not asking anyone else to embrace it. But I am taking Wizards at their word, that this is how they treat the official material now. And I think it's an interesting thought experiment to see what that looks like. Especially for settings that didn't get a dedicated treatment in certain editions, like Dragonlance.

You are being massively legalistic in your interpretation. This is a letter about the policy, it is not the policy itself. Chris is using plain English, not legalise, and his objective is to justify when WotC make changes to try and justify why WotC make changes to setting lore. It is clear that by "5e" Chris means "new stuff" and by "earlier editions" he means "old stuff".

Companies do not share polices with customers - indeed they almost always include a confidentiality clause that prevents employees talking about them. I expect Chris got special dispensation to talk about this, to try and diffuse some of the toxicity that surrounds "canon". Ergo, we would not expect to be informed about any changes. Indeed, it's quite possible that Chris was being deliberately disingenuous about what the policy actually is. If you look at what actually happens, WotC make lore changes as and when they feel they need to. Usually when a new product is released for that setting, the mid 5e drow changes being an exception. It has nothing to do with which edition it is (even though there is a past history of blowing up the Forgotten Realms when a new edition comes out, that is only one setting, and it's quite clear WotC has learned that that is a bad idea and is no longer something they do).

 

[JEB]

It's a position adopted by a design studio, to guide their decisions as designers.

Agreed! That's how canon works for a fictional property, and it's absolutely been applied to products since it was shared publicly (and likely before - see Ravenloft).

It's not a statement about what is "true" or "canonical" in any other sense.

Well, they seem to disagree...

In this short blog post, I will describe our studio’s position on canonicity. When we refer to D&D’s canon, we are talking about truths that we cling to in fifth edition or things we know to be true in some other expression of D&D.

 

[JEB]

You are being massively legalistic in your interpretation.

I'm taking them at their word, reinforced by how subsequent 5e products have been consistent with the policy. You are certainly welcome to interpret it otherwise!