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.

 

[JEB]

I don't think that I've done such a thing. I merely said that this gives an official stance of what argument is or isn't correct. Whether or not the other side accepts it doesn't matter. They're still wrong, and that matters.

Why?

I haven't been able to read up on that yet. Care to give an explanation of what your point here is?

Advise you check out the successor to this thread: D&D 5E - WotC Explains 'Canon' In More Detail

But the short version is:

• only the core rules for 5E are confirmed to be canon (plus a few quiz answers, I suppose)
• there's more canon beyond that for 5E, but it's not "public-facing", so the rest of the 5E lore is in question
• Perkins indicated that they "think twice" about overriding well-established lore from older editions

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Why?

For the purpose of the argument, at least. If one side is objectively in the wrong, it doesn't matter if they accept it as long as it's clear that they are. It's the same reason why it doesn't matter if I can convince a Flat-Earther that they're wrong by using logic and science, so long as I can show that I'm right to both myself and spectators.

Being right matters, even if the person/people you're arguing against don't accept it.

Advise you check out the successor to this thread: D&D 5E - WotC Explains 'Canon' In More Detail

But the short version is:

• only the core rules for 5E are confirmed to be canon (plus a few quiz answers, I suppose)
• there's more canon beyond that for 5E, but it's not "public-facing", so the rest of the 5E lore is in question
• Perkins indicated that they "think twice" about overriding well-established lore from older editions

Thanks for the rundown. I've been a bit busy lately (in the middle of the move), so I hadn't been able to catch myself up until now.

I don't see how that counters anything I said.

 

[pemerton]

How is this any different from what Ryan Dancey said about 20 years ago?

 

[Malmuria]

Why?


Advise you check out the successor to this thread: D&D 5E - WotC Explains 'Canon' In More Detail

But the short version is:

• only the core rules for 5E are confirmed to be canon (plus a few quiz answers, I suppose)
• there's more canon beyond that for 5E, but it's not "public-facing", so the rest of the 5E lore is in question
• Perkins indicated that they "think twice" about overriding well-established lore from older editions

What I took from the article is that wotc is not going to be prescriptive about lore (or rules) and lend their authority, such as it is, to DMs to define what they want to use. If players have a problem with a dm (either in terms of their interpretation of rules or lore), that's a problem to be resolved at that table and not by wotc (the sage advice thread is relevant here).

It's consistent with 5e being the "don't think about it too hard" edition. Think about acquisitions incorporated and dice camera action, if you are familiar. They bounce around adventure paths and campaign settings and don't seem to sweat the details on lore or rules consistency.

 

[JEB]

For the purpose of the argument, at least. If one side is objectively in the wrong, it doesn't matter if they accept it as long as it's clear that they are. It's the same reason why it doesn't matter if I can convince a Flat-Earther that they're wrong by using logic and science, so long as I can show that I'm right to both myself and spectators.

Being right matters, even if the person/people you're arguing against don't accept it.

I can see the objective value to winning an argument with a Flat-Earther, because folks believing that the world is flat has real-world implications. I'm not sure I see the objective value of winning an argument over what's canon in D&D...

Thanks for the rundown. I've been a bit busy lately (in the middle of the move), so I hadn't been able to catch myself up until now.

I don't see how that counters anything I said.

I'm loath to give ammunition to pedants, but I can think of a few loopholes:

• You can't lean on any details outside the core rules to make a canon argument for 5E, because we don't officially know what's part of the non-public canon. For example, Wizards may have decided that SCAG isn't actually canon anymore, so anything it establishes about the Realms might not "count". You can reasonably argue that it's pretty unlikely not to be canon, since it's an official 5E product... but that little space of ambiguity prevents a clear "win".
• If a piece of lore from older editions is well-established, and nothing in 5E explicitly contradicts it, how would you know that Wizards has overridden it? Maybe they thought twice and decided to keep it, and we simply don't know yet.
• You can also interpret the "think twice" clause as "anything not explicitly contradicted by the current edition could still be true, until they decide otherwise". Which, again, prevents an easy "win".

About the only time, under this policy, where you can "win" a canon argument for sure, is when an established fact in the 5E core rules specifically contradicts an older edition. Anything else, officially, is uncertain. (Crawford's simpler version was actually better for folks who wanted to win arguments...)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Really is this discussion worth it?

Well, given that my thread about why I disliked Halflings got 235 pages and would have continued on for dozens more pages if I hadn't asked for it to be closed down . . .

People online really like discussing things that aren't worth discussing (at least to the lengths that they are discussed).
Edit: Was beaten to this by @Hussar, @pemerton, and @Chaosmancer.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's at least two posters now in this thread that assumed they knew what's going on inside my head. It's kind of interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

Not that it's any of your business, but for the record:

a) Yes, I do like D&D canon, because I think canon is fun; it helps a fictional setting feel more "real" to me, and also gives me a common starting frame of reference with other fans. However, I can happily play in a "non-canon" game, because the only canon that matters at the table is what that DM decides.

b) I'm not particularly afraid of getting the lore wrong, though it is true that I like to work within it, because it's a fun exercise to me. Of course, I'll also happily subvert lore, and I'm a big fan of "that was just one story; there are many others". (The 5E gnoll backstory is just Yeenoghu-cultist propaganda in my games, for example.) If I do get lore "wrong", then oh well, guess my campaign just diverged, no big deal.

c) No, I don't require canon to remain immutable; I'm quite content with retcons, probably thanks to being raised on superhero comics. Erasing things from canon without an explanation is annoying, because it messes with verisimilitude, but sometimes that's just how it has to be; besides, you can always make up your own answer if you must. Obviously, I'll also be disappointed if a retcon removes something I really liked, but that has nothing to do with accuracy to canon.

d) I've never believed my knowledge of canon held me above others, and I've openly criticized folks in this thread who would use canon as a bludgeon to ruin the fun of other players. If someone can't stand playing in a canon-inaccurate game, find another game, don't try to ruin the fun of other players who don't share your obsession.

The point I'm trying to make with all the above? Don't assume that there's only one way to engage with canon, nor that there's only one outcome to being a fan of canon. Everyone is different.

I'm sorry you feel I misrepresented you, but I will direct you to the following quotes:

- Only Wizards themselves knows what the "real" canon for 5E is.
- For those fans who liked the idea of an official canon, and want to know what is actually "true" for 5E.
- is a sort of quantum canon, possibly "true" or "false" for any given product, and not to be relied on.
- So what is "true" now may not be (and probably won't be) true for the rest of 5E.

Four times, in three paragraphs, you talk about "true", "false" and "real". Combining that with Max's post about not being "led astray" paints a picture. Perhaps you don't really care that much if you are using canon or not. Perhaps you don't really care that much whether or not canon changes.

But as a point where I was answering "what do I see as the problem with the single canon model" this is it. This language is it. You aren't trying to bludgeon people with canon... but you are very insistent that there is a "true" version and a "false" version of the lore. Maybe the only canon that matters is what the DM decides.... but the DM has to choose between the "true" version and the "false" version. Maybe it doesn't matter that the campaign diverges.... but you mentally mark that boundary, where you went from the "true" version, to the "false" version.

And this perception adds up. Even if you don't actively attack people with Canon, there is this pressure. This point that people should know that these things are true and real, and those other things are false and fake. And if it truly didn't matter... then you wouldn't even bother to ask the question.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Dude. You're waaaaaaaaaay overthinking what I said. All that sentence meant was that it was a safe assumption to make. It didn't imply that anything was wrong, or bad, or involved any kind of fear, or...

The above is nothing like what I said or meant.

Max, you have made it very clear to me that you are always very careful with your words. Time and Time and Time and Time and Time and Time again.

Why is it a "safe" assumption? What danger is there in not using canon lore except the "danger" of... not being canonical?

You, who have always told me how utterly careful and precise your use of language is, are talking about "being led astray" of "safe assumptions". How are we supposed to read that and not feel like there is some sort of fear or danger involved? If I told someone that "I'm safe in my house" I am implying there is a danger. If I talk to someone and I tell them "that is a safe assumption" then I am saying that is an assumption that avoids being wrong. That is what that turn of phrase means.

The language you are using gives this impression that not following canon or thinking you are following canon but not actually following it, carries a danger of being wrong. Which... is sort of the problem with the "there is only a single canon" model.

 

[JEB]

I'm sorry you feel I misrepresented you,

You did misrepresent me. But I guess you can keep arguing with that strawman version of me if you really want to!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm loath to give ammunition to pedants, but…

You’re perfectly OK with using language that could be taken as antagonistic, making moderation more difficult. ‘K.

Please, everyone, could you consider your poor, overworked moderation staff when choosing your rhetoric?