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

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not my understanding of the past treatments of D&D setting lore. 1e greyhawk was not a separate continuity from 2e or 3e Greyhawk, the timeline advanced but the continuity was the same. Same thing for Forgotten Realms.

My knowledge of Greyhawk is limited, but it was my understanding that its various iterations are not fully compatible and fans of various iterations have sundry opinions about their canonicity. As far as WotC is and should be concerned, when there are conflicts with past lore, the currently-supported iteration always wins. That doesn’t mean continuity gets thrown out without reason, but it does mean that previous iterations are not canon.

 

[Malmuria]

A lot of people apparently

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

One update that I hope becomes "core" "canon" is, the cosmic-force Cleric.

This thematic of a cosmic force allows more reallife ethnicities to relate more comfortably to the game, and allows the core books to function better in the other settings besides Forgotten Realms.

It’s in the 5e PHB, so it’s canon.

 

[Parmandur]

An interesting bit:

"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."

@JEB well, that changes things a bit.

 

[Audiomancer]

The question is what domains Galactus grants access to.

Hunger Domain, most likely.

 

[Fritterfae]

I feel like I'm in a minority of folks who actually don't like this. It basically means that each edition is just an excuse to retread adventures and keep things basically the same. I love classic adventures as much as the next guy, but if we just keep going back to the same place at the same time with minor tweaks for the edition it seems kinda boring. I can understand the hesitancy to have living worlds when you have multiple worlds. That's definitely a lot to hold onto. But there's something far juicier about seeing the progress of the world move on, political boundaries shift, and games having consequences. That's something that I loved seeing happen in the Pathfinder universe as they moved to 2e, because their campaign setting is deeply effected by their stories. Every time they go back to a place it's changed since the last time. That's fascinating, and yes, a lot to hold onto, but that's what I like seeing in my campaign settings.

 

[Ancalagon]

Or is posting here under a pseudonym?

I am Brannich Blacksmoke!!!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I feel like I'm in a minority of folks who actually don't like this. It basically means that each edition is just an excuse to retread adventures and keep things basically the same. I love classic adventures as much as the next guy, but if we just keep going back to the same place at the same time with minor tweaks for the edition it seems kinda boring. I can understand the hesitancy to have living worlds when you have multiple worlds. That's definitely a lot to hold onto. But there's something far juicier about seeing the progress of the world move on, political boundaries shift, and games having consequences. That's something that I loved seeing happen in the Pathfinder universe as they moved to 2e, because their campaign setting is deeply effected by their stories. Every time they go back to a place it's changed since the last time. That's fascinating, and yes, a lot to hold onto, but that's what I like seeing in my campaign settings.

The theory I think is meant to be that YOUR adventures and games are what are meant to advance the setting... not their declarations in new books after the fact.

 

[Yaarel]

It’s in the 5e PHB, so it’s canon.

I see Xanathars describe the concept of a "cosmic force". But there is insufficient indication of it in the Players Handbook.

Heh. Basically, the D&D game belongs to the DM and the players. EXCEPT the "gods". The "gods" absolutely belong to the Intellectual Property of the Hasbro/WotC corporation and their "branding". When it comes to aggressively imposing "gods" in every official core book, document, and style guide, they really dont care about reallife DMs or players. It is all about pressuring the inclusion of "gods" in every setting, whether gamers actually want them or not.

 

[Parmandur]

I feel like I'm in a minority of folks who actually don't like this. It basically means that each edition is just an excuse to retread adventures and keep things basically the same. I love classic adventures as much as the next guy, but if we just keep going back to the same place at the same time with minor tweaks for the edition it seems kinda boring. I can understand the hesitancy to have living worlds when you have multiple worlds. That's definitely a lot to hold onto. But there's something far juicier about seeing the progress of the world move on, political boundaries shift, and games having consequences. That's something that I loved seeing happen in the Pathfinder universe as they moved to 2e, because their campaign setting is deeply effected by their stories. Every time they go back to a place it's changed since the last time. That's fascinating, and yes, a lot to hold onto, but that's what I like seeing in my campaign settings.

It's all new to the players who are 14.