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

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Can we now cancel the petition that's going around to force WotC to protect FR's canon?

It would be unfair for the good workers at WotC to be confronted monday by this massive flow of...9... signatures!

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I appreciate Perkins amended the word "canon" and affirmed the co-existence of multiple Official Canons (Timelines) . Now, if WotC would just recognize their reality in-game, so that there can be occasional "what-if" world-hopping between the different Official Multiverses.

Multiverse-5 = the fifth edition reality.
Multiverse-N = the novels reality
Multiverse-AG = Adventurers Guild reality.
Multiverse(s)-V = various video game licensee realities.
Multiverse(s)-C = various comic book licensee realities.
Multiverse-F = Sweet Pea licensee film reality.
Multiverse-L = the Legacy reality. The culmination of the all previous editions, which includes all the "lens shifts" due to edition changes. This was the Timeline which went off-screen when Multiverse-5 appeared in 2014. Multiverse-5's past is not the same as the Legacy Multiverse.
Multiverse-4 = the fourth edition reality (eternally 4e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-3 = the third edition reality (eternally 3e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-2 = the second edition reality (eternally 2e, past, present, and future; seen in the 2E War of the Lance adventures, which "should've" been portrayed with 1e lens, since it was before the Chaos War which converted Krynn from 1e to SAGA lens; and also in the Arcane Age FR books which used 2e rules, which "should've" been a 1e lens, since it was before ToT.)
Multiverse-1 = the first edition reality (eternally 1e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-B = the basic reality (eternally BD&D, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-O = the original reality (eternally OD&D, past, present, and future)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am interested in what this means for the remaining 'classic' settings releases next year. Dark Sun and Dragonlance are the odds on favorites for a rebirth. I wonder if the foofaraw of the new Dragonlance Trilogy from Weiss and Hickman is resolved by the 'different media, different canon' and they will be taking a hard reset of the War of the Lance. We have already seen the lack of desire to design a psionic system for Dark Sun so I imagine they will scrap psionics maybe implement a feat system for wild talents or scrap that as well?
If they are going to deviate from the existing canon, they will be going for small changes with problematic elements, i.e. Gully Dwarves, Muls origins in DS, and low key changes to plot elements or resetting events. There was some upset with the Ravenloft changes but the uproar was limited in scope. I imagine the D&D design team is very conservative in what changes they want to make if the UA review policy is any guide. I imagine we will see arguments over the implications of these minor alterations, but there will never be a large scale reset if they can avoid it.

Gaming-wise both Dragonlance and Dark Sun suffer from the interesting conflicts being already resolved in the novels, so rebooting these settings is a great idea if WotC plans to publish them as gaming supplements.

 

[Malmuria]

Perkins mentions as examples of 5e canon:

• Strahd
• Menzoberranzan
• Zariel

Do all of these appear somewhere in the core books?

I wonder if the adventure paths set in the FR are supposed to be consistent with each other? Are they?

Otherwise it doesn't seem like the books reference each other a lot. Like, Zariel may be archduke of Avernus, but I'm guess it's not likely that any future product will actually bring that into play in a meaningful way; it's just the set up for DiA.

 

[Voadam]

Wacky, I had no idea. I guess that means, in theory, that we could be in the same continuity throughout and -- clears throat -- the Spellplague might be behind the changes in Ravenloft.

Ahem.

They could have done that as an explanation to change things back through time, but they have not done so or provided any explanation to tie the contradictory new lore to the old lore.

Many of Van Richten's changes to Ravenloft seem a clear example of old edition lore is not cannon and a different continuity from 5e.

 

[Malmuria]

I appreciate Perkins amended the word "canon" and affirmed the co-existence of multiple Official Canons (Timelines) . Now, if WotC would just recognize their reality in-game, so that there can be occasional "what-if" world-hopping between the different Official Multiverses.

Multiverse-5 = the fifth edition reality
Multiverse-N = the novels reality
Multiverse(s)-V = various video game licensee realities.
Multiverse(s)-C = various comic book licensee realities.
Multiverse-L = the Legacy reality. The culmination of the all previous editions, which includes all the "lens shifts" due to edition changes.
Multiverse-4 = the fourth edition reality (eternally 4e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-3 = the third edition reality (eternally 3e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-2 = the second edition reality (eternally 2e, past, present, and future; seen in the 2E War of the Lance adventures, which "should've" been portrayed with 1e lens, since it was before the Chaos War which converted Krynn from 1e to SAGA lens; and also in the Arcane Age FR books which used 2e rules, which "should've" been a 1e lens, since it was before ToT.)
Multiverse-1 = the first edition reality (eternally 1e, past, present, and future)
Multiverse-B = the basic reality (eternally BD&D, past, present, and future)

Why though? Given that a) in practice DMs will mix, match, and invent, and b) once the players get involved what ever speculative world they are in applies only to them?

It's like trying to make sculptures out of steam

 

[Weiley31]

It's Enworld, of course we want to quibble!

Not like anything wrong happened or threads were shut do-oh wait.

 

[Maxperson]

QFT. This, by far, is the most important point, and should be front and center in bold flashing lights.

While that bolded line is absolutely true, I very much doubt it's the reason that they aren't producing bigger source books with more lore. Nothing about a source book inhibits the bolded line. I've been ignoring and adding in lore to the Forgotten Realms for a very long time.

Far more likely is that they want to make the most money with the least cost in order to appease Hasbro and are using the bolded line as an excuse.

 

[Weiley31]

Perkins mentions as examples of 5e canon:

• Strahd
• Menzoberranzan
• Zariel

Do all of these appear somewhere in the core books?

They appear/get mentioned in the core line of 5E books that have been released from 2014 up until now and continuing on with the next three books.

 

[Maxperson]

Thank you Chris. They have responded to the calls to clarify their position. Clearly, definitively and based on very sensible logic, business and creative practice. Everyone knows where they stand now.

Now can we have a revised version of Ruins of Myth Drannor for 5e in 2022 please!

Clarification?

"It can also be said that every campaign that’s ever been run in any of our published settings has its own canon. Your version of the Forgotten Realms has its own canon, which doesn’t make it any less valid than anyone else’s version. Elminster might be a lich in your Forgotten Realms campaign. Elminster might be a miniature giant space hamster in mine—both are acceptable and awesome."

So anything and everything we use or create is canon. So quite literally everything official, every novel, and every video game is canon(all that has ever been made officially is used by someone in a campaign) and everything official is simultaneously not canon, as it's has been ignored in some one personal campaign or another.

Some clarification. They made it worse. Now there's no such thing as canon as quite literally everything is both canon and not canon.