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.

 

[Scribe]

Not trying to yuck anyone's yum, but canon-enshrining is a gatekeeping tactic that has a toxic history in fandom.

And so by association, to desire a hard canon, to be against statements such as Wizards is making, is to be aligned with if not outright labeled, as a toxic gatekeeper.

Fantastic.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

IMO most of the changes to Krynn will probably be to allow for more core stuff content in the setting. Finding ways to add in orcs, tieflings, and other stuff.

They have bigger issues to tackle than the lack of orcs.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And so by association, to desire a hard canon, to be against statements such as Wizards is making, is to be aligned with if not outright labeled, as a toxic gatekeeper.

Fantastic.

Hard canon is pretty central to the whole gatekeeping phenomenon.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

It's helpful to look at what happened with Disney and the Star Wars extended universe. It was all technically wiped away, but the good stuff, like Thrawn, reappeared almost immediately

Some of the good stuff
Still no Mara Jade

Pretty much just Thrawn, really

 

[BookTenTiger]

I had never really considered "canon" as something that existed for D&D. Even with the established settings, at each table the group chooses what to use and what not to use.

It's interesting comparing the idea of canon between something like D&D and Star Wars. When Disney started work on the sequel trilogy, they made a statement that the Expanded Universe novels, comics, games, etc. would not be considered canon. This was significant because there was a lot of established lore, so when you read a novel set in the Star Wars universe it often built on other characters, settings, and developments established in other books.

However, when I sit down to watch Star Wars, I have no power in changing the plot (other than in my head canon). So whatever Disney decides is canon or not, I have no control over that.

D&D is such a different art form, though. When I sit down to play D&D, or create a campaign, I have complete control of what is and is not canon. For example, the game I play in is set in the Forgotten Realms on the Sword Coast. There's a lot of plot involving dwarves, and so we did a bunch of research into the "official" dwarven holds and then make significant changes. That's now canon in our experience of the game, and it doesn't change at all even if Wizards of the Coast makes a declaration about what is or is not canon about dwarves or the holds of the Sword Coast.

At the same time, D&D's lore has frequently changed with its editions. I feel like this statement is less a revelation and more a clarification?

 

[Parmandur]

At the same time, D&D's lore has frequently changed with its editions. I feel like this statement is less a revelation and more a clarification?

Exactly!

 

[Scribe]

Hard canon is pretty central to the whole gatekeeping phenomenon.

I don't really care. If there is something wrong with established facts that build up a shared history, or world building, then there's little point in fiction based on a setting anyway.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I don't really care. If there is something wrong with established facts that build up a shared history, or world building, then there's little point in fiction based on a setting anyway.

The fun and joy of reading a story?

 

[Scribe]

The fun and joy of reading a story?

Has it's place. Tie-in fiction, has something else going for it.

That shared World, built up over decades and dozens of sources has an appeal.

I'm not saying everyone must care.
I'm not saying everything must be true to everyone, at every table.

For me? To lose that, is just a lessening of the settings, the World.

 

[Stormonu]

Regarding FR - I stopped following the official canon when the original Time of Troubles occurred.

Granted, I only use the Realms sparingly, and mostly for inspiration, but the Realms has been shattered so many times and changed so much (in the middle of many folk’s campaigns, I’m sure) that even with this setting aside the old books and such is there really a point to the death of “canon” that exists?

The books are tales about NPCs on FR, not the game characters and plots folks are using at the table - if used, I’ve only seen them referenced as past events or cameos at best. The existance (or, actually, lack of existance for me) of Drizz’t, for example, has no impact at my game table.

I think, moreover, it may actually help Dragonlance. The world can be re-presented so the players can do their own things during the War (and do not need to follow the Companion’s footsteps) or the end of the War can be used as the starting point for the campaign - the Dragonarmies are weakened and scattered, but still a threat with some areas still under siege or control of various evil forces. But now, the Chronicles are history to be drawn from, instead of the actual campaign narrative.