FANDOM


Forums: Helping Hand > Canon query concerning DMsGuild

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}


Hi folks. Quesiton about canon. The folks over at DMSGuild sell PDFs of old D&D books but they also publish their own straight-to-PDF adventures and expansions. It seems they have a licence from WOTC. I'm wondering how we treat these canon wise as they are expanding on WOTC books but are not directly from WOTC.

Here's some examples;

The Forgotten Realms Atlas Project: Book One contains a great high quality map of Silverymoon but m not sure if I can use it on the wiki. I've included an image of the inside cover of the PDF to clarify the licence.

File:Dmsguild atlas project FORUM DISCUSSION.jpg

Sundered Realms Player's Guide This short PDF has lots of interesting information about Anchôromé but like a lot of the DMSGuild work it has a bit of a fan-made feel to it.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

-Thomas Love Star_tiny.png [talk] 03:09, October 26, 2016 (UTC)


Coming in way late, but I feel like anything in the DM's Guild not published by WotC (as they have published their own material through the DM's Guild on occasion) should not be treated as canon.
-- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:21, March 16, 2018 (UTC)


DM's Guild works like Elminster's Guide to Magic are not by WotC, not licensed by them to another company, but only use WotC's content with their permission. It feels like just another third-party publisher, or more likely an avenue for fan works. On a more practical basis, as fan works, they will inevitably contradict. So, I don't think they should be handled by the Forgotten Realms Wiki. These could be archived by a fanon wiki like the Candlekeep Wiki.
— BadCatMan (talk) 00:40, March 16, 2018 (UTC)


I guess we can consider canon (or pseudo-canon) those works under the Guild Adept Program, as those products are written by people specifically chosen by WotC to write such stuff following specific guidelines (such as to be related with the current product/storyline WotC is publishing at the time). For the other stuff, I'm with BadCatMan: those stuff is fanon.
Zero (talk) 00:57, March 16, 2018 (UTC)


I actually asked Matt Sernett about the Guild Adept program a few days ago:

Me: Are DM's Guild Adepts publications considered canon to the Realms? Specifically the ones approved for Adventurers League play.

Sernett: They generally play in a different place from the areas official products cover, so their relation to canon is not yet established.

Me: Would that also apply to things that are tie-ins, for example Ruins of Mezro?

Sernett: That is similarly “shadow canon.” The Tortle Package isn’t technically canon despite being written by Chris Perkins, but it might become canon in a future product. A similar case is Xanathar’s Guide to Everything, which took online articles and made them official rules.


So they are "shadow canon", not actually canon until referenced in an official product. I think we should steer clear of these sources in general. There is so much other material to cover, no need to make it confusing by adding a new layer of "maybe canon".

Ir'revrykal (talk) 07:37, March 16, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.