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, but they are not canonical for the D&D roleplaying game."

"If you’re looking for what’s official in the D&D roleplaying game, it’s what appears in the products for the roleplaying game. Basically, our stance is that if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don’t consider it canonical for the games."

2014 is the year that D&D 5th Edition launched.

He goes on to say that WotC takes inspiration from past lore and sometimes adds them into official lore.

Over the past five decades of D&D, there have been hundreds of novels, more than five editions of the game, about a hundred video games, and various other items such as comic books, and more. None of this is canon. Crawford explains that this is because they "don’t want DMs to feel that in order to run the game, they need to read a certain set of novels."

He cites the Dragonlance adventures, specifically.

 

[Faolyn]

I thought Session 0 was all about avoiding resolving exactly this problem. I mean, there might be a disconnect between expectations on the part of the player and the DM, but that's not necessarily a lore thing per se. If you want to run a monk character who's a masked luchador wrestler, and the DM wants to run a gritty horror campaign, there's going to need to be some discussions about how to make those work, or what to do if they can't be reconciled (and I speak from experience regarding those particular examples).

But that also assumes that the DM and players think to bring that specificity up. And there's a difference between a player making a genre-inappropriate character and a player using some lore that the DM doesn't know about or doesn't like but didn't think to bring up.

A minor example: In 2e Ravenloft, there was this whole prophecy thing that led up to the Grand Conjunction and ended up reshaping the Core. I don't care about that prophecy because it was part of some adventures I didn't buy (I almost never buy adventures) and anyway, I don't like metaplots. If a player read up on Ravenloft lore and decided they had a character who was directly affected by that prophecy in some way, I'd have a devil of a time figuring out how that actually worked in my version of Ravenloft--and it may be that it was impossible for that background to work without totally restructuring parts of the setting. But I also wouldn't think to tell my players not to use that prophecy because, as I said, I didn't buy or read the adventures that involved it.

 

[Alzrius]

@Alzrius Ok, interesting post but I still have a question, does it matter that the lore exits or does it matter more that it has an official stamp of approval?

I'd say that's up to each individual to determine for themselves. The issues come when some people say the former, some say the latter, and never the twain shall meet.

What I've seen a lot of is people going from the latter to the former when the canon evolves in a way that they dislike or disapprove of. While I find "headcanon" to be a contradiction in terms - since the nature of canon (as I understand it) is that it's the recognition of a particular body of lore whose definitions (with regards to what is and is not part of said body) are external to yourself (the exception being the one(s) recognized as having authority over the development of said lore, though who exactly that is can sometimes be a discussion unto itself) - there's a lot of that when fans of a setting decide that the people in charge haven't lived up to their (the fans') expectations.

I mean I appreciate that people are interested in lore and continuity, I have been interested and engaged with lore in the past but if official lore goes in a direction that I do not like or contradicts previous lore I pick what I like.

That gets into modes of engagement, albeit at a potentially more granular level. If we accept that canon is the conceptual framework that defines a particular work of imagination - one whose definitions are set, externalizing it from us in a way that stabilizes the particulars involved - then it's not hard to see how some people can come to a point where it's stabilized enough that they don't care about further canonical development; they've gotten to a point of sufficient definition, and from there on in feel comfortable further defining it as they like.

But that point is going to be different for everyone (and, for that matter, different for each particular franchise). Some people won't have that happen at all for a given body of work, and are always reveling in further development of canon. The thing there is that the cessation of further development, or the de-canonization of old work, therefore adversely impacts them, whereas those who've already reached their point of maximum value from developments won't care (or at least, are less likely to care).

 

[Alzrius]

And here is where I don't really disagree, but that I think the point gets muddled and lost.

Let us say Canon is the ground you stand on. And let us say you have a kingdom built on a volcanic island like O'ahu. Then one day the King decides to move the kingdom to the new island, like Kaho'olawe.

To the king and the kingdom, they are now living on this new island. With this new canon... but O'ahu still exists. Nothing was torn down, the buildings are just empty. And you can still go live on O'ahu.

I'm not sure using a concrete example for a conceptual framework is the best way to go about analogizing things, at least with regard to this particular topic. I'd make an example of the king announcing that he's reached a deal whereby the entire island is now under the political control of a foreign power; a mainland empire, if you will. Your personal life might not change much - the foreign rulers might not ever visit your homestead, only showing up once or twice a year at a port on the other side of the island - and your taxes now go to the local king to be passed on up the political food chain, rather than being his alone. But it's not hard to understand why some people might find such a situation unpalatable, despite no practical difference in their everyday lives; the political (i.e. conceptual) framework that they're operating under has changed dramatically.

Maybe this is a problem of language. I've been thinking of "canon" as "the official canon being utilized" and maybe for other people it is "the continuity of knowledge and lore". But just like The Last Ringbearer didn't destroy Tolkien, nothing WoTC is doing now destroys the lore of 2e or 3.X. It is still in the museum. Still floating nearby in the ocean. Still accessible and still usable... it just isn't where WoTC is going to be building.

To clear things up: the existence of non-canon things - when made by people with no (perceived) authority to determine what is and is not canon - isn't really an issue. No one cares that there's fanfiction about Middle-Earth, or Harry Potter, or My Little Pony, etc. so long as it doesn't come from Tolkien, or Rowling, or whoever at Hasbro gets to decide what's in MLP.

The issue is when the established canon is suddenly redefined.

"Canon" (in my understanding) is an acknowledgment of status; it necessarily requires an acceptance of externalized authority with regard to our imaged worlds who arbitrates what has that status and what does not. By adhering to that guideline, we're able to understand the work in question as having definition, which gives it a "realistic" quality (to use a very loaded word), since it now shares an important aspect with the real world: both are beyond our ability to simply alter them at will. That grounds the fantasy world in a way that I and many other people find pleasing.

That might seem odd, to consider that we're essentially giving up what seems like a large degree of personal agency with regards to something as personal as imagination, but it's important to remember that this surrender is entirely voluntary. As I noted previously, nothing prevents someone from saying "this level of definition is sufficient for me" and ceasing to care about further canon; but likewise, that point will vary for everyone.

In a very real way, it's about how boundaries help define the spaces within them, hence why RPGs are essentially make-believe with rules; the rules limit what you can do, and so we find more fun playing D&D than playing Calvinball.

 

[TheSword]

C’mon now. Everyone needs to quit it with the social media snobbery. These forums right here are plenty rough, and chock full of personal sniping and all kinds of sharp knives (not to mention years-old grudges). You can avoid Twitter, Reddit, etc but don’t act like they’re inherently worse or beneath you.

No, I’m pretty convinced Twitter will spell the end of the universe, when the wrong 280 character phrase creates a rift to the Realm of Chaos and the end times begin.

 

[The Green Hermit]

But that also assumes that the DM and players think to bring that specificity up. And there's a difference between a player making a genre-inappropriate character and a player using some lore that the DM doesn't know about or doesn't like but didn't think to bring up.

A minor example: In 2e Ravenloft, there was this whole prophecy thing that led up to the Grand Conjunction and ended up reshaping the Core. I don't care about that prophecy because it was part of some adventures I didn't buy (I almost never buy adventures) and anyway, I don't like metaplots. If a player read up on Ravenloft lore and decided they had a character who was directly affected by that prophecy in some way, I'd have a devil of a time figuring out how that actually worked in my version of Ravenloft--and it may be that it was impossible for that background to work without totally restructuring parts of the setting. But I also wouldn't think to tell my players not to use that prophecy because, as I said, I didn't buy or read the adventures that involved it.

In this case, I would use the bare bones of the prophecy, but let the player know that you wouldn't be trying to stick to canon, just melding it into your current campaign in whatever way made sense.

 

[Alzrius]

But that also assumes that the DM and players think to bring that specificity up. And there's a difference between a player making a genre-inappropriate character and a player using some lore that the DM doesn't know about or doesn't like but didn't think to bring up.

There will be issues of the presumptions everyone brings to the table regarding what's worth mentioning versus what's assumed, sure. But again, that's sort of what Session 0 - and even beyond that, what simple familiarity with the other players - is supposed to help with. "Help" being the operative word; whether explicitly or by what you can intuit with regard to the other people around the table, some exchange of information is going to have to happen. There's only so much of that that the books can do for you.

A minor example: In 2e Ravenloft, there was this whole prophecy thing that led up to the Grand Conjunction and ended up reshaping the Core. I don't care about that prophecy because it was part of some adventures I didn't buy (I almost never buy adventures) and anyway, I don't like metaplots. If a player read up on Ravenloft lore and decided they had a character who was directly affected by that prophecy in some way, I'd have a devil of a time figuring out how that actually worked in my version of Ravenloft--and it may be that it was impossible for that background to work without totally restructuring parts of the setting. But I also wouldn't think to tell my players not to use that prophecy because, as I said, I didn't buy or read the adventures that involved it.

Which strikes me more as an issue of the underlying assumptions surrounding the ways lore is used than the particulars of the lore itself. I've talked to plenty of players who think that if you're using a published setting, you're giving an implied acknowledgment that the prior materials of that setting are going to be relevant...or at the very least, that you're familiar with them. I've also talked to plenty of other players who had no such understanding. These aren't really issues that declarations of what is and is not canon can solve (otherwise, that note in the 5E DMG would have resolved this discussion before it ever got started).

 

[Dire Bare]

Of all the devices I want telling on me, the last one I want with the ability to do so is my fridge.

WHIZBANG'S FRIDGE: "Really, more ice cream in the freezer? How about more vegetables in the crisper."

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Oh, man. I live in Southern California, where it's been above 100 degrees during much of the summer. So much ice cream ...

 

[Hussar]

After 47 years the shared experiences of this IP have created a Culture. For many people, this culture is real and meaningful (sometimes even saving their lives). Cultures shift and change all the time. Some elements die off, new ones spring up, etc.

But it's generally not okay to tell someone their culture is less valid than another. If it fades away naturally? Sure. But to actually say it? To make it your official stance? No.

I'm sorry, but no.

Forgotten Realms wonks are not a "culture". Nor is it anything even remotely protected in any way, shape or form. It's actually pretty offensive to compare something as trivial as "People who like Forgotten Realms Lore" to real cultures which have often faced horrendous persecution, murder, rape and torture simply for existing.

Forgotten Realms might have fans. But, being a fan is not a "Culture".

 

[Hussar]

To the point of declaring that everything prior to 2005 is non-canon?

What do you think the Time War was?