D&D General WotC: Novels & Non-5E Lore Are Officially Not Canon

Status
Not open for further replies.
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."


despair.jpg


"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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's absolutely true. I over reached for a pithy remark.

Perhaps I was oversensitive, I've run into too many folks who think all white men live lives of wealth and opportunity when the truth is like most folks, most white men get used up by the elites and discarded when no longer of use.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Okay. I finally caught up to this thread! I started reading it when it was 10 pages long, and it's 16 as I start writing this (I wouldn't be surprised if it got to 17 or even 18 before I post this).
Edit: Yep. I was on the mark. Page 18 when I posted this. ;)

There is a lot of entitlement and a lot of "true D&D"-ist language going around here.

I'm a newer player. I've been in the hobby for just over 4.5 years now, and I've been a DM for almost all of that. I felt the need to learn as much lore about the Forgotten Realms as I could before I was able to run a campaign in it. It took me nearly a month before I discovered that it was useless, the Forgotten Realms is so bloated with lore that I don't even know 1/100th of it, even after spending hours upon hours studying the Forgotten Realms wiki, watching Forgotten Realms lore Youtube channels like Jorphdan and Mr.Rhexx, reading many of the previous editions' FR setting books, and slaving through R.A. Salvatore's prequel and original series Drizzt novels to understand Menzoberranzan, Icewind Dale, and other parts of the Sword Coast.

I have absolutely no desire to relive that or put anyone else in the game through that. Sure, it wasn't "required" for me to do that, but I felt the need to all the same, because why would anyone that newly comes to the game feel satisfied going against the "official/canon lore"? If I was going to run a campaign in the Forgotten Realms, I wanted to understand the setting, which I'm sure is a regular feeling that new players have. On website forums discussing D&D there are a countless amount of "what the heck is this part of FR's lore about?" threads, and endless discussions on everything Elminster and Drizzt have done in their centuries-long escapades on Toril. The Forgotten Realms is just filled with so much lore that it is impossible for a new player to be able to comprehend all of it, and it's absolutely idiotic to say "if you don't care about the lore, you're not a real D&D/FR fan", which I have encountered several times throughout my attempt to get a better grasp of the Forgotten Realm's deities. Even if my life was staked on it, I could not name 12 deities from the Main Deities table in the SCAG, or the names of all of the Seven Sisters and which version of Mystra was their mother.

This is why I prefer Exandria and Eberron now. Eberron does have a bit of lore bloat, IMO, but it doesn't have the same feeling of being required to learn all of it due to the "It's your Eberron" part of the setting that's made explicit through the mysteries of the Mourning and campaign-dependent setting details. Exandria does have a lot of information from the 2 campaigns of Critical Role, but the campaign setting books ignore them as a default. The only real part of the campaigns' lore that you need to know to play in that setting is that Vecna became a god and was banished to the Outer Planes. These settings are much more user-friendly to new DMs than the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and other settings.

This statement saying "you don't need to learn the lore from past editions and the novels/video-games, all that matters if 5e's lore books" takes a lot of weight off of a new DMs shoulders. It's saying "Hey, don't worry about all that stuff. It's there for if you want to use it, and we may use it in the future and make it explicitly official, but do what you want and not what the vast quantities of lore want". It's a good thing. In no way is it saying "we don't care about the people who care about the lore", to try to spin it as that is a sign of entitlement and a selfish attempt to label yourself as a victim, when, in fact, there have been victims of lore in the past (most especially female gamers, but anyone that has had an experience similar to mine with lore also has been harmed by the feeling of having to learn the "canon of the game"). You still have your lore books from previous editions, your D&D novels, video games, blog posts, podcasts, and everything else. You still have the experiences from your campaigns that included that now "un-canon" lore. No statement from WotC can undo that. No one from Wizards of the Coast is going to force you to play without any of the content from those books. There is no victimization being done to you. None. It's selfish and disrespectful to the people who have been victimized by "canon" in the past to try to claim that. It bears the same amount of weight as the people who say that their feelings were hurt by the reclassification of Pluto as a Dwarf Planet.

It doesn't matter. The only thing that this statement can bring about is good, positive change in the community's approach to canon and "official" lore. WotC isn't actively alienating any of you or attacking the authors of the FR novels. They're just lowering the requirements for the amount of lore you need to know to play in the FR and similar settings from "the whole of the FR wiki", to "what is published in 5e's PHB, DMG, MM, as well as Volo's, Mordenkainen's, Fizban's, and the SCAG" (which is no small feat, either).
 
Last edited:

Reynard

Legend
It still seems like an unnecessary problem. I mean, if nothing else, an FR fan could see each edition as an alternate take on their beloved setting. They might have their favorite, but can enjoy "the 4E version." And so on. Sort of like different eras of a favorite band.

Similarly with Bond. Part of the fun is experiencing a new take on the "Bond archetype," seeing how it can be adapted yet still be "Bondian."

This is not to say that all change is good. But I personally appreciate the idea that RPGs and their settings present a kind of living art-form. Of course the key is still staying true the "spirit" or "essence" of the setting. But that still provides a lot of flexibility and doesn't prevent anyone from enjoying whatever version they prefer.
Here's what I am trying to get at: empathy is the ability to see why people might feel certain ways, even though you feel differently. The idea that nobody should care about this one issue because you personally don't care about it is swinging very wide of the point.
 

Nobody is saying that they never happened: but they are not beholden to them when making future products.

No, Crawford is saying just that: no Novel content ever happened in the 5E RPG Studio Timeline (which I call "Reality 5-Prime.") Not even post-2014 Novel events happened in this Timeline.

Certain events co-happened--they are shared with the Novel Timeline: namely, only those events which the RPG Studio Timeline happens to mention. The other things did not happen in Reality 5-Prime. They happened in "Reality 5-N" (what I call the 5E Novels Timeline).
 

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
Bites tongue

I mean, seriously, do you actually believe WotC made this decision specifically out of spite to FR fans? Really?

The idea that WotC, which has published a 5E book set in FR at least once every year, secretly wants to screw Ed Greenwood and destroy all of FR's works pre-5E is and is nursing an evil grudge against the setting... it's so patently ridiculous.

It's so much more difficult to take seriously your belief that making all this non-canon is negative if you indulge in such nonsense.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
No, Crawford is saying just that: no Novel content ever happened in the 5E RPG Studio Timeline (which I call "Reality 5-Prime.") Not even post-2014 Novel events happened in this Timeline. Certain events are shared with the Novel Timeline: namely, only those events which the RPG Studio Timeline happens to mention. The other things did not happen in Reality 5-Prime. They happened in "Reality 5-N" (what I call the 5E Novels Timeline).
You seem to be over-thinking this: yes, they aren't treating novels as "canon" (which, let us recall, is actually a term taken from the compilation of religious scriptures), but as resources to be used as desired. Exactly the way they intend for people to use their game materials.
 

Urriak Uruk

Gaming is fun, and fun is for everyone
Hey everyone, I typed out a long response to Jeremy Crawford. By the time I finished typing, my post was already three pages behind!
So I'm posting a catch-up link here: D&D General - WotC: Novels & Non-5E Lore Are Officially Not Canon

In short, I'm proposing that Crawford and WotC look to how Star Trek, Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles, and Transformers have consciously supported multiple Realities / Timelines. Rather than shoving everyone into One Official Canon.

Juicy excerpts:
"Crawford's formulation is dry, abstract, and not presented in a storied, colorful way which will be widely known by D&D fandoms."
"[Disney] pushes and shoves everyone into the Story Group [Star Wars] Canon. So far, WotC is going down this unilateral path."

I won't lie to you mate; I zoned out reading the first two paragraphs. A long explanation for how canon is really multiple realities is just as untenable as one where WotC is taking all pre-5E books seriously.
 

I won't lie to you mate; I zoned out reading the first two paragraphs. A long explanation for how canon is really multiple realities is just as untenable as one where WotC is taking all pre-5E books seriously.

TMNT-aficionados and Transformers-aficionados seem to be able to muster the focus.
 


Mercurius

Legend
Here's what I am trying to get at: empathy is the ability to see why people might feel certain ways, even though you feel differently. The idea that nobody should care about this one issue because you personally don't care about it is swinging very wide of the point.
That's a bit of a red herring, Reynard. Further, one can have empathy and still address logical or cognitive inconsistencies that might, if recognized, reduce whatever the concern is. I'm sorry that your enjoyment of the Realms is diminished by this statement of WotC's, but I'm also trying to point out that there are shifts in perspective that could allow you to retain your enjoyment, while also embracing WotC's approach.

Also, I did edit in a question in my last post, which I'll restate: what sort of canon changes would you object to, and what would you be ok with? Where is the line, and how does it differen in the novels vs setting books?
 

So, back in the 1990s, before message boards were common (and were very janky -- I ran some back then, and they were a never-ending source of headaches with security holes and simply crashing regularly), this was a regular topic of discussion on use.net (look it up, kids!) in the White Wolf forums.

There was a dramatic and loud split between people who bought White Wolf products as books to be read and those who bought them for the sake of play. At some point, White Wolf decided that readers were more important than gamers and strongly leaned into metaplot and what one might call a casual approach to balance and rules mastery.

As this went on, it became harder and harder to use their books to play games, often, since there was little gameable in many of them and what was in there was poorly done at best. (And, even for the standards of 1990s adventures, there was a whole lot of watching the company's big name NPCs do the cool stuff while the player characters were sometimes were physically unable to intervene.)

This wasn't sustainable and White Wolf eventually stopped fooling around and initiated the end of the world across all of its game lines. (It was a very fin de siècle set of games, with the looming end of the century/millennium/world hanging over all of them.) So we got a big canonical ending to the stories, some of it actually gameable, and a situation that, frankly, made all parties involved mad.

The company then launched a new World of Darkness (now called the Chronicles of Darkness), cleaning up the rules, fixing up the setting (notably making it less racist, 20 years before D&D) and all but demolishing metaplot. While CoD has a lot of merits (pun intended), it was never the commercial success of WoD, as they'd successfully alienated almost everyone, and the company has bounced through owners for several years and they've brought back the original World of Darkness not once in recent years, but twice (a 20th anniversary line and a continuation of a "whoops, the world didn't end after all" WoD line).

All of which is to say that I think game books should be primarily meant to be books that are used for a game. If other people want to buy them, great. But the products that are designed to appeal to people who are interested in the setting and the characters in a game world should be something other than game books: make them novels, comics, videogames, coffee table books, statuettes, etc.

Because if you decide that your primary audience for game books isn't gamers, you will eventually kill off (or at least mortally wound) the goose that lays the golden eggs, just like White Wolf eventually did.

I as this as someone who prefers and loves the Chronicles of Darkness over the WoD, the consequences destroying the World of Darkness destroyed White Wolf, which once had been a major competitor of WotC, if The Onyx Path hadn't made a deal for licensing Exalted, WoD, and CoD, these setting would have been dead.
 


I mean, seriously, do you actually believe WotC made this decision specifically out of spite to FR fans? Really?

The idea that WotC, which has published a 5E book set in FR at least once every year, secretly wants to screw Ed Greenwood and destroy all of FR's works pre-5E is and is nursing an evil grudge against the setting... it's so patently ridiculous.

It's so much more difficult to take seriously your belief that making all this non-canon is negative if you indulge in such nonsense.

Yes I do believe that, sincerely. They don't hate their version of FR, they hate what came before, but they still want to milk the profits from it.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever


Remathilis

Legend
::sigh:: It is not about the books from the past suddenly disappearing. It is about the new stuff directly contradicting or retconning that material from the past. Because they are invested in the Forgotten Realms (or Eberron or whatever) that IS, based on what has come before, they are afraid the Forgotten Realm of tomorrow won't be the same. That is the loss they are fearing.
Thats... already a thing.

Seriously. D&D continuity is already disjointed mess. Several settings continuities have wildly fluctuated from edition to edition. Hell, within editions things have changed sourcebook to sourcebook. I mean, just a few examples I can think of...

  • Asmodeus became the Lord of Hell because he a.) overthrew Lucifer b.) betrayed an unknown human deity or c.) always was a god.
  • Succubi are a.) demons b.) devils c.) neither, but a unique type of fiend.
  • Dragonmarks in Eberron can manifest a.) only specific marks on specific races or b.) any mark on any race
  • Madam Eva in Ravenloft is a.) a powerful Vistani b.) a Green Hag or c.) Strahd's sister

I mean, those were a few I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure lore gurus can find more.
 

And all of that would be possible to grow from 1486 DR (or wherever FR currently is at) onward. No need to throw out novels that happened 1273 DR from ever having happened
You mean the novels that don't get reprinted and only get read by the older crowd who grew up with them? Why would they bring up literally hundreds of novels for people to read and keep all that lore around?
 

DC I will give you. Marvel in the comics has bent over backwards to keep their canon as close to accurate as they can without messing up the possibility of future stories. Just about ever happened in the Marvel universe...still happened, albeit in broad strokes in some cases. They created the MCU as a separate reality, just like they did with Ultimate universe back in the early 2000s.
So how is this new Forgotten Realms not just a separate reality?
 

You seem to be over-thinking this: yes, they aren't treating novels as "canon" (which, let us recall, is actually a term taken from the compilation of religious scriptures), but as resources to be used as desired. Exactly the way they intend for people to use their game materials.

No, I haven't overthought it.
Right, Crawford is saying that the contents of the 5E RPG books are "scripture." One Canon. Which I call the "RPG Studio Timeline" (aka Reality 5-Prime).
And that the contents of all pre-5E RPG materials, 5E novels, 5E video games, etc. are not part of that Canonical Timeline. In the "RPG Studio Timeline," those events did not take place.
That is the content of those paragraphs which Crawford wrote.

But obviously, the Novel stories and Videogame stories "happened" in some imaginal sense, in some reality or timeline. But not in the "RPG Studio Timeline." So they must've taken place in a D&D Novels Timeline and D&D Video Games Timeline(s).
Crawford says these other timelines may or may not be used for inspiration for the RPG Studio Timeline, but they are separate timelines.

Pretty simple.
Just blurring things together with fuzzy words doesn't make it all copacetic.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Epic Threats

Visit Our Sponsor

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top