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

 

[BookTenTiger]

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.

From the PHB:

Your DM determines which gods, if any, are worshiped in his or her campaign.

I think they are pretty explicit that it's up to the DM and the players.

 

[Bolares]

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

And 5e has pushed the envelope on their settings IMO... Every setting they published had some new stuff in it. So I don't know how accurate is to say they're just trying to rehash old stuff

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

That's not really what they've been doing, though. They've got three books you can say that about, but the rest is all new stuff, never moreso than this year.

 

[Yaarel]

From the PHB:

Exactly. The Players Handbook only coerces "gods" and the "worship" of them.

There is no hint of "cosmic forces" besides gods or other kinds of relationships besides "worship".

 

[Voadam]

It seems to have been true of WotC's D&D, though. 4E had a different cosmology than 3E and 5E's cosmology isn't exactly the same as either of those.

To my knowledge WotC 4e Forgotten Realms was not a different continuity from WotC 3e FR and the same continuity continued back through WotC 2e FR to TSR 2e and 1e FR.

4e default D&D was explicitly a new different setting than prior default D&D with its own cosmology similar to how 3e and 4e Eberron had their own cosmology distinct from default D&D and how BECMI D&D had a different cosmology.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Exactly. The Players Handbook only coerces "gods" and the "worship" of them.

There is no hint of "cosmic forces" besides gods or other kinds of relationships besides "worship".

Since when has that stopped players or DMs from making whatever they want up?

 

[Yaarel]

Since when has that stopped players or DMs from making whatever they want up?

There is a systemic culture, also.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To my knowledge WotC 4e Forgotten Realms was not a different continuity from WotC 3e FR and the same continuity continued back through WotC 2e FR to TSR 2e and 1e FR.

4e default D&D was explicitly a new different setting than prior default D&D with its own cosmology similar to how 3e and 4e Eberron had their own cosmology distinct from default D&D and how BECMI D&D had a different cosmology.

4E Forgotten Realms connected to the Great Wheel? I am neither a 4E or Forgotten Realms player, but I was under the impression it used the 4E planar structure, which means that it was a different multiverse, even if its history mirrored that of previous editions.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

I may sometimes enjoy reading the metaplot of a setting I'm not running. Sometimes. If it's done well, which it seldom is.

But if I'm actually running a game in that setting, then I want it to friggin' stay put. As soon as the official metaplot diverges from the events of my campaign, future sourcebooks in that setting start to lose value to me, since the lore in them now contradicts what happened at my table. It's far preferable to just not have a metaplot. Leave that to the novel continuity.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I may sometimes enjoy reading the metaplot of a setting I'm not running. Sometimes. If it's done well, which it seldom is.

But if I'm actually running a game in that setting, then I want it to friggin' stay put. As soon as the official metaplot diverges from the events of my campaign, future sourcebooks in that setting start to lose value to me, since the lore in them now contradicts what happened at my table. It's far preferable to just not have a metaplot. Leave that to the novel continuity.

This was a huge issue with the original World of Darkness books in the 1990s.