• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

dnd novels no longer canon?

Was anyone using them to begin with? DnD novels never were canon to begin with, and I don't think I ever saw novel infos on the wiki.
 
Firstly, no, they are not used for power scaling. At the moment I don't think any of the profiles use novel information. It's something we've been meaning to improve about novel-centric pages, namely Drizzt.

Secondly. This is a statement by Jeremy Crawford. Jeremy Crawford is the rules developer for D&D- not an author or anything of that sort. He's speaking in the sense of games being canon to the DM's own game.

"Part of that is we don't want DMs to feel that in order to run the game, they need to read a certain set of novels. We want you to read them for the joy of reading them, but not as homework."

So aye.
 
I'd ignore this personally, this is just WoTC going "No, you don't have to read all the novels to run the game"
So same sentiment as Bambu really
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Firstly, no, they are not used for power scaling. At the moment I don't think any of the profiles use novel information. It's something we've been meaning to improve about novel-centric pages, namely Drizzt.

Secondly. This is a statement by Jeremy Crawford. Jeremy Crawford is the rules developer for D&D- not an author or anything of that sort. He's speaking in the sense of games being canon to the DM's own game.

"Part of that is we don't want DMs to feel that in order to run the game, they need to read a certain set of novels. We want you to read them for the joy of reading them, but not as homework."

So aye.
Click to expand...
i disagree, i think he's talking about their canonicity related to the dnd games in general. which is to say that anything that is not the dnd tabletop game is not canon

he's also part of Wizards of the Coast itself . I don't think he's talking about just the games of the DM, but DND as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Tllmbrg said:
cool
We disagree with you disagreement
Click to expand...
i disagree with you disagreeing with my disagreement, as WoTC also said this:

"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."
 
Meganova_Stella said:
i disagree, i think he's talking about their canonicity related to the dnd games in general. which is to say that anything that is not the dnd tabletop game is not canon

he's also part of Wizards of the Coast itself . I don't think he's talking about just the games of the DM, but DND as a whole.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not an author or story developer or anything like that. This is the Sage Advice guy. He wrote the game mechanics to D&D, not the lore. He is speaking explicitly in the context of running a game- you only need to acknowledge content from 5e and published books to do so. This is his very specific wording.

So while we don't have anything from non-game materials currently on-site, this means very little for our definition of canon.
 
Yea, this looks like another case of journalists using clickbait titles. In the interview, he says that DMs can choose whether or not they want to make the novels canon in their game, so the novels are still canon.
 
It's not like the novels were canon to begin with tho. They are mere spin-offs.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Again, this is not an author or story developer or anything like that. This is the Sage Advice guy. He wrote the game mechanics to D&D, not the lore. He is speaking explicitly in the context of running a game- you only need to acknowledge content from 5e and published books to do so. This is his very specific wording.

So while we don't have anything from non-game materials currently on-site, this means very little for our definition of canon.
Click to expand...
i heavily disagree with you, but i'll put this discussion off until that blog gets released.
 
QuasiYuri said:
It's not like the novels were canon to begin with tho.
Click to expand...
No, they total are canon. FR has a giant well documented novel list for what's happened in universe that's referenced through game books. Dragonlance also has a bunch of canonical novels.

To quote some stuff from the article
"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," Crawford said. "Part of that is we don't want DMs to feel that in order to run the game, they need to read a certain set of novels. We want you to read them for the joy of reading them, but not as homework."
Click to expand...
"For me, Dragonlance has always been a wonderful D&D war story where every DM gets to play through their own version of that war story. And then the novels are one way where that story plays out. That's how we view all D&D novels." Crawford also noted that they would dive more into the idea of D&D canonicity in a future developer blog post in the coming months.
Click to expand...
"When it comes to the RPG, what's important is each DM's story and the story they create with their players," Crawford said. "The moment you are at the game table, it's no longer "our" Dragonlance or "our" Forgotten Realms, it's your Forgotten Realms, it's your Dragonlance. You're now telling your stories in those settings. You're not bound to the stories in the novels, as wonderful as they might be. We hope you take as much inspiration from them as it gives you joy to do so. The same goes for D&D video games or for D&D comics."
Click to expand...
Why is this important? It quite literally aligns with player's handbook for the edition Crawford works for
The best-known worlds in the multiverse are the ones that have been published as official campaign settings for the D&D game over the years- Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Dragonlance, the Forgotten Realms, Mystara, Brithright, Dark Sun, and Eberron, amount others. Each of these worlds boasts its own cast of heroic adventurers and scheming villains, its own ancient ruins and forgotten artifacts, its own dungeons and its own dragons. But if your campaign takes place on one of these worlds, it belongs to your DM- you might imagine it as one of thousands of parallel versions of the world, which might diverge wildly from the published version.
Click to expand...
The novels are canon for the core setting of those universes. Its just that they might not be canon for the DM's versions of those universes. All his quote do it just align with what is already written text wise.

At least for now.
Mr._Bambu said:
At the moment I don't think any of the profiles use novel information.
Click to expand...
From memory:
  • Ygorl's 2-A key is based on a Gord novel
  • Blackmoor's Low 1-C rating is based on a novel
 
Last edited:
I wasn't aware of Blackmoor but aye, I'd forgotten the Entropy rating.
 
o
Qawsedf234 said:
No, they total are canon. FR has a giant well documented novel list for what's happened in universe that's referenced through game books. Dragonlance also has a bunch of canonical novels.

To quote some stuff from the article



Why is this important? It quite literally aligns with player's handbook for the edition Crawford works for

The novels are canon for the core setting of those universes. Its just that they might not be canon for the DM's versions of those universes. All his quote do it just align with what is already written text wise.

At least for now.

From memory:
  • Ygorl's 2-A key is based on a Gord novel
  • Blackmoor's Low 1-C rating is based on a novel
Click to expand...
oh ok my bad
 
Meganova_Stella said:
oh ok my bad
Click to expand...
Like I said it's only for now. If for whatever reason it becomes strick Wizard policy to decanonize all of their material then it'll be a different policy.

But considering the 8 trillion different Drizzt novels there are I don't think it'll happen.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
Like I said it's only for now. If for whatever reason it becomes strick Wizard policy to decanonize all of their material then it'll be a different policy.

But considering the 8 trillion different Drizzt novels there are I don't think it'll happen.
Click to expand...
i dunno wotc is kinda acting stupid now
 
An understatement, of sorts.
 
Even if they are or not canon - as long as the profiles can be split (if needed) then it won't affect much it on wiki. Like for Drizzt and its many many books - make one profile for book series while the current stand as it is.

Basically the Star Wars situation with Legends and Canon.
 
Zaratthustra said:
Even if they are or not canon - as long as the profiles can be split (if needed) then it won't affect much it on wiki. Like for Drizzt and its many many books - make one profile for book series while the current stand as it is.

Basically the Star Wars situation with Legends and Canon.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I s'pose. Not necessary as of yet though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top