D&D 5E WotC Explains 'Canon' In More Detail

Status
Not open for further replies.
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).


canon.png


 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad

TheSword

Legend
It means that since there is no setting canon, there are no official settings. When none of it matters and none of it can be relied upon officially, then it's just a bunch of words with no real meaning. Removing the setting books as canon removes any foundation that they once provided. Anything and everything can be changed tomorrow.
When you say ‘none of it matters’ you get that it’s a game right? So in perspective no, none of it matters. What’s more, it never did. Do you know how many DMs ignored The Death of the Dragon because they liked the king and didn’t want to use his daughter/niece whatever. It literally didn’t matter.

A campaign source book is a collection of ideas and suggestions. That’s it. That’s all they ever have been. They’re not the gospels.
 




Yaarel

Mind Mage
Haha. Well, for 6E, I'd prefer the default setting to be an "Un-Setting", where worldbuilding your own setting from scratch is the default way to play D&D, just as rolling your own character is the default.
Yes!

Even the 5e core could be approached more along the lines of an "un-setting", focusing on core and worldbuilding.

A setting like Forgotten Realms belongs in a separate setting guide, similar to the Eberron guide, and so on.
 




Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
Again a needlessly spiteful, nasty comment.
Seeing how you say anything that is counter to your own taste is lazy, nonsensical and a mess (making us that love this change what exactly? Mad? ), and saying that the designers are lazy incompetents looking for a quick buck.

I'd take a minute before saying someone is making spiteful and nasty comments.
 


dave2008

Legend
For Eberron, there is a WotC canon (corresponding to Eberron: Rising from the Last War + PH-MM-DMG).

But there is also a separate canon that Baker speaks about, that involves other Eberron books and much content online.
No, Crawford just said only the PHB, MM, & DMG are canon. Eberron: Rising from the Last War is not canon. It is just a book about Eberron.

PS I don't necessarily believe him, but I personally love the idea.
 
Last edited:

Seeing how you say anything that is counter to your own taste is lazy, nonsensical and a mess (making us that love this change what exactly? Mad? ), and saying that the designers are lazy incompetents looking for a quick buck.

I'd take a minute before saying someone is making spiteful and nasty comments.

The designers picked this fight not me, they didn't need to do this, this very act was spiteful on their part.
 




Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
The designers picked this fight not me, they didn't need to do this, this very act was spiteful on their part.
No, you want to read it this way.

You decided this was an act of war, decided that it was deserving of boycott or a petition.

They did not target anyone. You chose to make it personal.

As you can see, there's no one from WotC here to argue against. So insulting them brings you nothing.

You are the one being full of spite toward and invisible foe.
 


Yaarel

Mind Mage
No, Crawford just said only the PHB, MM, DMG are canon. Eberron: Rising from the Last War is not canon.

PS I don't necessarily believe him, but I personally love the idea.
The three core books are the WotC canon.

However, the Forgotten Realms setting is the default setting for the three core books. (That is the way it is, tho I wish core lacked a default setting, and focused on worldbuilding and examples from various other settings.)

Players who are playing in a different setting, have their own canon for that setting. Namely, the setting guide. For Eberron, this setting content is split between the official WotC book, Eberron: Rising from the Last War, and additional content that Baker and collaborators provide elsewhere.

Perkins doesnt explicitly mention the canonicity of Eberron, but he does mention how separate novels and separate gaming campaigns develop their own canon that is true for their own world. Eberron is in that category. The additional Eberron material comes from the games that Baker and others play.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I think people are over simplifying the statement. The setting books are obviously canon for that specific setting.
They give contradictory information. They say that only the core three are canon, right after they title the section "canon begins with the core three." Then they say, "If you not sure what else is canonical..." indicating that more is canon than the core three.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top