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]

Perkins mentions as examples of 5e canon:

• Strahd
• Menzoberranzan
• Zariel

Do all of these appear somewhere in the core books?

Strahd is name-dropped in the PHB, as an example of what Divine Sense will and won’t tell you (specifically, it will tell you he’s undead, it won’t tell you he’s the vampire Strahd Von Zarovich). And the Monster Manual establishes that vampires have to sleep in coffins.

 

[Dausuul]

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

The 1990s were the Metaplot Era. Everyone and their dog had this idea that a campaign setting was a place for game designers to push their own pet storylines, taking everyone else along for the ride whether they liked it or not.

That idea seems to have mostly faded now. I'm very glad to see that 5E has officially renounced it.

 

[Faolyn]

Wacky, I had no idea. I guess that means, in theory, that we could be in the same continuity throughout and -- clears throat -- the Spellplague might be behind the changes in Ravenloft.

Nah. The Dark Powers just decided to mess with everyone's minds.

 

[Vyshan]

I like to play Genasi so its interesting that from 3.5 to 4th to 5e their history as a people is still considered canon.

 

[SehanineMoonbow]

I would argue that Salvatore has always done his own thing, regardless of edition lol (he mostly ignores the lore), and that DMs and players have always been able to make the game what they will. And I feel like 5e has been treating the lore willy-nilly, anyway, and making up new things with every release (see "new" drow, which conveniently ignores the fact there have always been goodly drow in the Realms, in the followers of Eilistraee, and to a lesser extent, Vhaeraun. Why not just build the new "canon" drow societies around them, or at least use them as a foundation?), so it sometimes feels like they're changing their mind from one product to the next, but, in an effort to not dislike this entire approach and constantly say something negative about it, I can see their reasoning in wanting DMs and players to be able to use their content without having to sift through every single product, game, and novel to keep up with a particular storyline, as that can easily get overwhelming.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and trying to be able to put into words why exactly I feel so strongly about this decision. I think it's because I came to D&D through the Forgotten Realms novels (I've always been a big reader, so the novelization of something is a good way to get me interested lol). I feel in love with the lore and the world. Speaking specifically about FR, I loved the rich detail and history. It made it feel like a living, breathing place. Of course I didn't like every single aspect about it, but overall, I was invested (both monetarily and emotionally). What was in the official products mattered to me, because it was the "state" if you will, of the world. For example, when 4e happened and they got rid of the drow pantheon, I was very disheartened by the loss of Eilistraee. Sure, I could have her still be around in my home world, but that didn't change the fact that in the official material, she was gone. If I picked up a novel or source book and read it, she would still be gone in the "actual" world.

That was an example, but I think that is why this approach and "if it's prior to 5e, it ain't canon" statement bothers me so much. I don't think the past editions are the gold standard or should be kept in stone without moving the setting forward, but saying they are no longer canon is too far on the other end, imho. If they want to prevent new players and DMs from feeling all around, they can at least give a summary, like they did in the SCAG. I personally don't like the bare bones approach they seem to be taking with lore, but it would be something.

Or maybe I just need to take a break from anything D&D related for awhile (except for CR and another stream I watch), and come back later and see where it's at.

 

[Yaarel]

The 1990s were the Metaplot Era. Everyone and their dog had this idea that a campaign setting was a place for game designers to push their own pet storylines, taking everyone else along for the ride whether they liked it or not.

That idea seems to have mostly faded now. I'm very glad to see that 5E has officially renounced it.

Heh. "Game designers push their own pet storylines, taking everyone else along for the ride whether they liked it or not." Sorta like Forgotten Realms "gods" are doing now.

 

[grimslade]

I am interested in what this means for the remaining 'classic' settings releases next year. Dark Sun and Dragonlance are the odds on favorites for a rebirth. I wonder if the foofaraw of the new Dragonlance Trilogy from Weiss and Hickman is resolved by the 'different media, different canon' and they will be taking a hard reset of the War of the Lance. We have already seen the lack of desire to design a psionic system for Dark Sun so I imagine they will scrap psionics maybe implement a feat system for wild talents or scrap that as well?
If they are going to deviate from the existing canon, they will be going for small changes with problematic elements, i.e. Gully Dwarves, Muls origins in DS, and low key changes to plot elements or resetting events. There was some upset with the Ravenloft changes but the uproar was limited in scope. I imagine the D&D design team is very conservative in what changes they want to make if the UA review policy is any guide. I imagine we will see arguments over the implications of these minor alterations, but there will never be a large scale reset if they can avoid it.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

I think that is a valid worry, but not all 5e adventures are "re-visits" to old adventures. I don't have the stats, but there still is fresh material being published no?

 

[Ancalagon]

Now THAT is a throwback!

bows

 

[Ancalagon]

I wonder how important "remaining consistent" is for TSR 1, TSR 2, TSR 3 and TSR 4....

(It's been a while since we heard about them... )

don't say their names 3 times or you will summon TSR5! :O