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

 

[Remathilis]

Double post

 

[Hussar]

I dunno... it seemed to clarify it all very well for the rest of us.

Yeah, I'm kinda baffled where this is unclear at all. It's pretty straight forward and logical.

With the added bonus of pissing off canon junkies.

 

[a.everett1287]

Yeah, I'm kinda baffled where this is unclear at all. It's pretty straight forward and logical.

With the added bonus of pissing off canon junkies.

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

 

[FrozenNorth]

If validation moves units I'm sure they'll do that. Personally, I try to avoid expecting emotional reciprocity from a corporation. And the thing that appeals to me about the game are that the stories are mine and not the appropriated "IP" of said corporation.

That’s why I get my emotional validation from web personalities and forum posts.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It isn't something they expect video game, novel, or film partners to adhere to, no. That is what Perkins is saying: they will hold their partners to PHB and MM details, but not to everything in every 5E book.

Honestly, this reminds me of the SRD: give more freedom to creators who want to grow your game on the reasoning that it is a net benefit for the game.

 

[Maxperson]

But we don't know that and we are specifically told they aren't canon and, again, an internal canon is irrelevant to the public if the public is never made aware of it. Also, the fact that those books are officially not canon is important, very important IMO. And I don't give a lick about canon!

It means that since there is no setting canon, there are no official settings. When none of it matters and none of it can be relied upon officially, then it's just a bunch of words with no real meaning. Removing the setting books as canon removes any foundation that they once provided. Anything and everything can be changed tomorrow.

 

[dave2008]

It means that since there is no setting canon, there are no official settings. When none of it matters and none of it can be relied upon officially, then it's just a bunch of words with no real meaning. Removing the setting books as canon removes any foundation that they once provided. Anything and everything can be changed tomorrow.

Yes, and it is awesome that they are finally being honest about it.

 

[Maxperson]

I dunno... it seemed to clarify it all very well for the rest of us.

It clarifies what their position is. And that position is a huge mess. They've undermined all of their setting books. I mean why would I ever buy another setting book that they put out when it's just a bunch of words instead of canon? They could change anything or everything at the drop of a hat. And yes, I know that they could change canon as well, but companies tend to be much more reluctant to alter canon than a bunch of words with no solidity.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, and it is awesome that they are finally being honest about it.

See above for why I'll never buy another setting book from them.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Canon, in this context, isn't what the public thinks is canon. It's what WOTC thinks is canon when they write stuff. And I am saying right now, WOTC thinks it's canon that orcs are not inherently evil. Which is all they've been talking about here - what they think is canon for purposes of them writing stuff.

That is a good point. As they feature more Orc PCs in the artwork, it suggests that the internal WotC canon is that orcs are not evil, even if they haven’t revised the MM.