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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I wonder if there is a difference in how long time DC or Marvel comic book fans view this vs those that never were.

I think in any fandom there are people who take it too far. For some the fiction becomes their reality.

 

[Umbran]

I think in any fandom there are people who take it too far. For some the fiction becomes their reality.

Mod Note:

You should step back from making personal remarks about people who don't agree with you if you want to remain in this discussion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Would openning up DM's Guild for that setting count as unretiring it?

I don't think so, but I'm not an expert.

My understanding is that DM's Guild is only for new material for WotC-owned settings which have had a setting book in 5E - Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, Ravnica, and Theros

Content and Format Questions

What can I use in my titles on the Dungeon Masters Guild? When you create your own title for the Dungeon Masters Guild, you get access to a hoard of resources. Your work can use any of the 5th Edit...

support.dmsguild.com

If they just said "Yeah, fine, you can make content for X!" but didn't release a setting-book for it in 5E, that would seem more like a strong implication that they had, in fact, "retired" that setting for 5E, and just didn't care any more. In fact I suspect that's a big part of why they don't let people make new material for other settings.

Like, if they decided they wanted to re-do Dark Sun in 5E, but they'd been letting people make Dark Sun products for years on DM's Guild, it might be that one of those products was extremely popular, and not in alignment with WotC's vision for the setting, which would potentially create a problem. Hence they just don't allow it, despite the $$$ it might generate.

 

[Bolares]

I don't think so, but I'm not an expert.

My understanding is that DM's Guild is only for new material for WotC-owned settings which have had a setting book in 5E - Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, Ravnica, and Theros

Content and Format Questions

What can I use in my titles on the Dungeon Masters Guild? When you create your own title for the Dungeon Masters Guild, you get access to a hoard of resources. Your work can use any of the 5th Edit...

support.dmsguild.com

If they just said "Yeah, fine, you can make content for X!" but didn't release a setting-book for it in 5E, that would seem more like a strong implication that they had, in fact, "retired" that setting for 5E, and just didn't care any more. In fact I suspect that's a big part of why they don't let people make new material for other settings.

Like, if they decided they wanted to re-do Dark Sun in 5E, but they'd been letting people make Dark Sun products for years on DM's Guild, it might be that one of those products was extremely popular, and not in alignment with WotC's vision for the setting, which would potentially create a problem. Hence they just don't allow it, despite the $$$ it might generate.

I ask because you said Ebrron was a one and done... well, if they still support Dm's Guild production on it I don't think it is retired again... but your take is interesting

 

[Zardnaar]

I'll explain it like this. Feel free to disagree.

You start reading novels. You enjoy say Star Wars. You want to know what happens to those characters and the universe they inhabit.

You do it over say 20 years. They have children those characters develop. You get attached to it. And then Disney pulls the legends thing. Well you were happy to take my money for 20 years F you.

D&D similar thing. You follow say FR can easily be Dragonlance. Much like legends some if it is good alot of it is bad but things tick over. Unlike a tradional trilogy or whatever there's no real end.

It's a shared universe in book form.

And then they take it away. Which is purely within their rights to do not disputing that.

But then you think do you really want to go and do it all over again. Well no not really why get emotionally involved if (when) it happens again.

Basically it doesn't matter if those new novels are the greatest thing ever you're not interested. From previous experience it's usually worse.

So yeah not gonna waste more time and money repeating it personally what you do is up to you. I checked out of D&D novel in the lead up to 4E and Drizzt was doing those awful Orc King books.

Well I stopped buying them anyway and got some out from the library. Something about Gauntylgrimm however you spell it. Well it made those Orc King books look good.

Doing something new is fine rehash, reboots blech. Soft reboot if you must can work very rarely is it an improvement they just want to milk an existing IP for more money with no vision, no creativity or originality.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

Do you want to read about this fun universe and explore the what-could-have-beens? Or do you only want to add on top of an ancient pillar and hope the thing doesn't collapse under its own weight?

I want things that expand and build on what has come before rather than just retelling the same stories again and again
Sequels not remakes. Continuations not reimaginings or departures
For the books I paid money for to matter rather than be obsolete and ignored after a certain number of years

If they're just going to ignore continuity and what came before, what reason do I have to care about what comes next, when that in turn is just going to be ignored in five or ten years
FIZBAN'S TREASURY OF DRAGONS doesn't add new content or value to the dragon books I own, it just replaces the dragon books I own and will in turn be replaced by the 6th Ed dragon book
I might as well skip it then, and all future WizCo offerings

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I ask because you said Ebrron was a one and done... well, if they still support Dm's Guild production on it I don't think it is retired again... but your take is interesting

I mean, my take derives from the specific criticism in the article.

The article says "WotC should stop updating these boring-ass settings and get some new ones!" (which, to be honest, I faintly sympathize with, despite liking the FR and Ravenloft).

But the issue is that WotC does stop updating settings. Letting fans update something, on a slightly-obscure (to most D&D players) third-party PDF sales site that I'm not sure WotC even links to (does it?) isn't, to my mind, or in any literal fashion, WotC updating those settings. I'm pretty sure WotC does not regard DM's Guild material as canon, for example.

So I can't see much argument that a setting being on DM's Guild means it's "not retired" from WotC's perspective. As I see it, it's basically territory-marking. WotC only allows territory it has already thoroughly claimed to be worked on there, to prevent someone accidentally or intentionally making a "land-grab" on a setting WotC hasn't decided either way on.

 

[Bolares]

I'll explain it like this. Feel free to disagree.

You start reading novels. You enjoy say Star Wars. You want to know what happens to those characters and the universe they inhabit.

You do it over say 20 years. They have children those characters develop. You get attached to it. And then Disney pulls the legends thing. Well you were happy to take my money for 20 years F you.

D&D similar thing. You follow say FR can easily be Dragonlance. Much like legends some if it is good alot of it is bad but things tick over. Unlike a tradional trilogy or whatever there's no real end.

It's a shared universe in book form.

And then they take it away. Which is purely within their rights to do not disputing that.

But then you think do you really want to go and do it all over again. Well no not really why get emotionally involved if (when) it happens again.

Basically it doesn't matter if those new novels are the greatest thing ever you're not interested. From previous experience it's usually worse.

So yeah not gonna waste more time and money repeating it personally what you do is up to you. I checked out of D&D novel in the lead up to 4E and Drizzt was doing those awful Orc King books.

Well I stopped buying them anyway and got some out from the library. Something about Gauntylgrimm however you spell it. Well it made those Orc King books look good.

Doing something new is fine rehash, reboots blech. Soft reboot if you must can work very rarely is it an improvement they just want to milk an existing IP for more money with no vision, no creativity or originality.

well, but there is a BIG difference here. D&D is not, and should not, be focused on its stories. It's a game first and foremost. Books, old lore, NPCs, should not come in the way of the game. And that's why other media is not canon for the game. Novels still have their continuity, they still matter in their own medium. They just don't make the game obligated to follow their steps. Games can be inspired by the novels, when D&D often is, but they sould not be canon

 

[jayoungr]

If they just said "Yeah, fine, you can make content for X!" but didn't release a setting-book for it in 5E, that would seem more like a strong implication that they had, in fact, "retired" that setting for 5E, and just didn't care any more.

Conceptually, maybe ... but in practical terms, it would keep the setting more alive, more available and able to attract potential new fans, than WotC just sitting on it.

The article says "WotC should stop updating these boring-ass settings and get some new ones!" (which, to be honest, I faintly sympathize with

I don't, particularly. There are so many AMAZING settings already released for 5E, with more on the way, that it seems really petty to whine because they don't happen to be published by WotC.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I want things that expand and build on what has come before rather than just retelling the same stories again and again
Sequels not remakes. Continuations not reimaginings or departures
For the books I paid money for to matter rather than be obsolete and ignored after a certain number of years

I might as well skip it then, and all future WizCo offerings

I mean, yeah, you might as well, not in an insulting way, but because what you want from this RPG doesn't match up with what is beneficial to the owners of the RPG, nor, I suspect to the bulk of the audience of the RPG - most of whom are in the 18-30 range, and may of whom don't know much about previous iterations of various settings.

I do think there is a bit of a gap in the market, somewhat, for what you want, i.e. setting the owners commit to updating solely in a linear, additive way, which will continue for decades, but equally, that's kind of how all settings work, until it isn't.