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

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's fine for people to care about canon, but what I take from Perkins' post is that it is just impractical for wotc and serves no concrete benefit for the majority of their customers. For a company that lends out the IP to video game, movie, novel creators, (not to mention freelance writers), it is too difficult to maintain continuity and restricts creativity. From a game design perspective, overly detailed, canonical lore is not a 'best practice,' given the inherently creative nature of ttrpgs.

So I get that some people like the deep lore of settings, and for that lore to matter it has to be consistent and needs to be recognized by an official authority. What I take exception to is that this preference comes at absolutely no cost to anyone else, either
a) creators (of, say, dnd videogames) who are trying to be creative and come up with narratives suitable for their form of media;
or b) customers of the ttrpg products, who prefer books that are usable at the table with a manageable amount of place-names to memorize as opposed to deep dive faux history books.

I could further do without the maudlin "wotc doesn't care about us" complaints. We can have a conversation about what kinds of lore continuity or canonicity are practical and useful without it being centered around that resentful pathos.

I agree with you that is probably best for the game. I also agree with others that this move, as a public announcement, is for business and likely political reasons. They are going to start making large changes to classic settings, soon, and many people are not going to like those changes. Now, probably more people will like them, which is why this will probably be good for the game. And while I would never expect them to admit to it, I do think they care less about the older demographic than they used to. As a card-carrying member, that makes me a little sad.

 

[JEB]

Those changes were reactions to social issues. That sort of correction doesn't in any way invalidate what I said. Agree with those changes or not, those changes were akin to correcting bad math.

I guess we'll see your theory tested in future products. I think it may be significant, however, that they provided an official canon statement which only includes the core rules, and not all of 5E as Crawford originally stated. I don't think they plan on being bound by 5E any more than they are by older editions.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess we'll see your theory tested in future products. I think it may be significant, however, that they provided an official canon statement which only includes the core rules, and not all of 5E as Crawford originally stated. I don't think they plan on being bound by 5E any more than they are by older editions.

Had they not heavily, heavily implied that they have inward facing canon, I'd agree with you. But by very specifically using the words, "Public facing canon is just the core three," they pretty much said that they have a greater internal canon that they go by.

 

[JEB]

Had they not heavily, heavily implied that they have inward facing canon, I'd agree with you. But by very specifically using the words, "Public facing canon is just the core three," they pretty much said that they have a greater internal canon that they go by.

Right, but if the internal canon includes all 5E RPG products, why not just say so, like Crawford did? Instead, they only confirm the core and hide the rest. Suggests to me some bits in 5E didn't make the cut internally. But we'll see.

 

[Parmandur]

Now, there's also the bigger question: why tell us this? The most likely answer, as with Crawford's off-the-cuff version, is that Ravenloft

Baldur's Gate 3 is getting a final release soon, and they are almost done shooting the film. Time to set expectations.

 

[Malmuria]

And while I would never expect them to admit to it, I do think they care less about the older demographic than they used to. As a card-carrying member, that makes me a little sad.

I don't know - the main people in charge basically are part of that demographic? They are approaching the game as middle-age-ish (?) white men who have been playing dnd since they were little. I don't think any of these moves indicates that they don't care about the older demographic except that their job is to grow the game and think about the playerbase as a whole. At least on the design/editorial side, not sure about the business side.

 

[Azzy]

D&D

Tell it to the Transformers design team. And I mean, c'mon: this is D&D for goodness sakes, which has 100s of pages of rulebooks, and rules changes justified by specific Multiverse Shattering Events, etc. If Transformers aficionados can follow clear complexity, so can D&D grognards.
And please refrain from mental health diagnoses on a game forum!

"Clear complexity"

There's a difference between "can" and "should"—this just seems like unnecessary flagellance. I, mean, you do you and all, but I'm not sure how much of D&D fandom really cares enough about the subject to codify timelines and such.

 

[Parmandur]

Right, but if the internal canon includes all 5E RPG products, why not just say so, like Crawford did? Instead, they only confirm the core and hide the rest. Suggests to me some bits in 5E didn't make the cut internally. But we'll see.

Perkins makes it pretty clear: they don't want cross media partners (and cross media partnerships are literate business plan) to be responsible for adhering to thousands of pages of material.

 

[Faolyn]

Deleting some antagonistic stuff...

Yes, a table that allows you to only use it and not alignment.

Do you really think they're going to have a list of ideals that don't have alignment attached? Like they did for the all the monster Ideals in VGM? And as I said to Scribe, that's fine, because that allows to show how individuals act, rather than demanding the entire race act in a particular way.

Again, ways have been proposed that keep alignment without every member of the species being that alignment. You just won't hear of any possible compromise and only want to get your own way.

Those ways are completely meaningless as long as (A) the alignment is listed in the statblock without qualifier, (B) the creature is written as if they are all of one alignment, and (C) WotC doesn't use examples of those creatures with a variety of alignments.

 

[Faolyn]

Listen, I am no lover of alignment and generally pay it no attention; however, this is not a great compromise. Have to reverence a different alignment table instead of the stat block is not a good option.

I don't see how--it would almost certainly be on the same page as the statblock, or at least within the description of the creature. Now, if it involved looking up a table in the back of the book, I can see your point, but this would involve someone moving their eyes a tiny bit.