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

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not going to lie, part of my joy comes from watching @Henadic Theologian spiral.

Not only did you make it personal, you used the notification system to ENSURE your target was aware of it.

This earns you a one way trip out of the thread.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I asked myself in this context, why are they even bothering to revisit a FR setting book? It dawned on me. The Obilesks, they are going to set them off all at the same time, and that is how they will justify having all these different timelines and canons, THIS is what they have been building up to with the Obilesks, The Shattering of the Forgotten Realms and the broader D&D multiverse. This is why they compared it to Marvel with its multiverse.

I highly doubt that.

 

[lingual]

I asked myself in this context, why are they even bothering to revisit a FR setting book? It dawned on me. The Obilesks, they are going to set them off all at the same time, and that is how they will justify having all these different timelines and canons, THIS is what they have been building up to with the Obilesks, The Shattering of the Forgotten Realms and the broader D&D multiverse. This is why they compared it to Marvel with its multiverse.

The vast majority of the player base is probably unaware of "previous canon" nor familiar with previous versions. To them, Forgotten Realms is new.

WOTC runs a business and has been very successful with expanding their base to include a whole new generation of players. It may very well upset some minority of the player base but that is the nature of business. As always, the very nature of the game allows you to ignore or change parts of the game to your liking.

 

[JEB]

But we do already have glimpses and fragments of such a meta-continuity system, even in D&D. Here are examples from D&D products which involve the co-existence of multiple continuities, rather than just planar travel:

• The system from Appendix I in AD&D 1e Manual of the Planes, which gives numerical designations describing Alternate Prime Material Planes, based on three factors: Physical Factor (PF), Magical Factor (MF), and Temporal Factor (TF).
• Gygax's continuum of alternate Oerths, based on their degree of magic-vs.-technology: Oerth, Yarth, Aerth, Uerth, and Earth.
• The world of Uerth (an evil mirror of Oerth) in 3E Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk.
• "Up, Away, and Beyond" DRAGON mag article by Bruce Heard, which explains the co-existence of rules-based realities, which can be crossed over using a new deity-level spell "Reality Shift." The article explains how Immortals from the BD&D "game universe" (what I call Multiverse-B), such as Odin, co-exist as deities in Multiverse-1.
• The Alternate World Gates from AC: Book of Marvellous Magic, where a Bard from Multiverse-1 crosses over to Multiverse-B, and mutters something about "incompatibility." Not to mention crossovers with various Earth timelines (Boot Hill, Gangbusters, Dawn Patrol) and Sci-Fi settings (Gamma World and Star Frontiers).
• 2E Chronomancy sourcebook.
• The different continuities of the The River of Time in the Dragonlance setting. They exist in-world, and some characters know of their co-existence. Of all the D&D settings, DL probably has the most prominent concept of "alternate timelines", since these actually play into the novels and fiction. There was a whole 3E DL sourcebook devoted to alternate timelines.
• Bruce Cordell's terminology his Die Vecna Die! 2E-to-3E conversion adventure (in the paragraphs which explain how Multiverse-2 is metamorphosing into Multiverse 3) and his Alternity Tangents sourcebook, both of which refer to "superspace." Also the reference to "half-worlds" and "paraverses." That one word "superspace", confirms that the D&D Multiverse is shared with Alternity's Tangent cosmology. The Tangents sourcebook is the most "clearly complex" system for Parallel Planes ever published by TSR. It has a numerical designation for each Parallel Plane, based on an X-Y axis. There are five divisions of superspace: Historical, Biological, Cosmological, Fantastic, and Beyond.
• The Alternity Tangents system was distilled for d20 Modern as the Dimension X campaign model in d20 Future. And the similar Project Javelin campaign model which was released as free PDF.
• Back when WotC had the Star Wars RPG license, there's was one (and only one!) official cross-over adventure seed between all the d20Modern Alternate Dimensions, the D&D Multiverse, and the Star Wars Universe! See d20 Modern Project Javelin Campaign Primer, p.4: "For the purpose of the Project Javelin adventures, the alternate dimensions are the mini-settings found in the various d20 MODERN books. GMs wishing to create some filler adventures to complete the progression from level 1 to 20 are encouraged to either use the settings from those books or create new and different worlds. For example, one farflung dimension might resemble the standard DUNGEONS & DRAGONS multiverse, and another the STAR WARS universe."

While I wouldn't bet on Wizards doing any sort of systematization of the different D&D continuities as you advocate, just wanted to note that this is a neat little list of crossover Easter eggs. You could certainly build some kind of personal meta-canon off them!

 

[Malmuria]

The vast majority of the player base is probably unaware of "previous canon" nor familiar with previous versions. To them, Forgotten Realms is new.

WOTC runs a business and has been very successful with expanding their base to include a whole new generation of players. It may very well upset some minority of the player base but that is the nature of business. As always, the very nature of the game allows you to ignore or change parts of the game to your liking.

And by making the Forgotten Realms the setting of the starter set/essentials kit and almost every adventure path, they've introduced the setting to a whole new generation of dnd fans (who, in 20 years, may have nostalgic memories of Phandalin similar to the ones 1e players have for Hommlet). I'm not an FR fan (I sort of hate it...), but it is surprising to me that FR fans are not thrilled that their setting gets to continue with a new generation of fans, canon or no. And that they are doing all these things with the setting, like continuing the videogames, the "year of drizzt" (facepalm), and the movie set in FR.

What if they had made Greyhawk or a new setting the location of all those APs, and left FR to wither on the vine? Is that actually preferable for FR fans?

 

[MNblockhead]

The only canon that matters in my games is my head canon.

And I have trouble keeping that straight.

 

[Maxperson]

So by that token, just don't buy Tasha's, or don't use that section from Tasha's, and use that as your canon.


So what canon has actually been removed that you can't put right back in?

So you do understand that all your arguments against me here also apply to alignment, right? You're arguments are the same as the pro-alignment side. So I guess you're now okay with just not using alignment and leaving it in.

 

[JEB]

Of course, that means every edition of D&D is either an AU or a retcon of every campaigns world published. 1e Realms is not the same canon as 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, etc...

Funny enough, you could probably read Perkins' post to support that view: "Every edition of the roleplaying game has its own canon as well."

They're a style guide. They make sure the art, tone mechanics, and writing adhere to the same style for coherence. It has nothing to do with timelines, the events of novels or interplanar politics and everything to do with the look of trolls and how potions of healing work.

While the only examples we get are lore about monster mechanics, we don't really know that it's just a style guide. I'd actually be surprised if they don't have some lore beyond that: say, stuff to make sure Mordenkainen or Tasha or the Xanathar are portrayed consistently if they appear in different works, and quite probably some reference lists that point to what 5E (or earlier edition) works should be drawn on when describing settings or other locations. But ultimately, we don't really know anything for sure (and probably never will, unless there's a leak).

 

[Dungeonosophy]

just wanted to note that this is [...] neat [...]!

Thank you!

 

[JEB]

I asked myself in this context, why are they even bothering to revisit a FR setting book? It dawned on me. The Obilesks, they are going to set them off all at the same time, and that is how they will justify having all these different timelines and canons, THIS is what they have been building up to with the Obilesks, The Shattering of the Forgotten Realms and the broader D&D multiverse. This is why they compared it to Marvel with its multiverse.

While I doubt this is specifically why they're likely doing a new Realms setting book, I will admit that
a) the Realms setting book very well may include retcons, and
b) it seems likely that they introduced those obelisks for some purpose, so something like this can't be completely written off, especially with the Realms' grand tradition of in-universe events explaining game-level paradigm shifts.

That said, I wonder if whatever plans they had for the obelisks might now be moot; a lot has changed since 2017, when they first appeared.