D&D 5E D&D's Classic Settings Are Not 'One Shots'

In an interview with ComicBook.com, WotC's Jeremy Crawford talked about the visits to Ravenloft, Eberron, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and (the upcoming) Planescape we've seen over the last couple of years, and their intentions for the future.

He indicated that they plan to revisit some of these settings again in the future, noting that the setting books are among their most popular books.

We love [the campaign setting books], because they help highlight just how wonderfully rich D&D is. They highlight that D&D can be gothic horror. D&D can be fantasy in space. D&D can be trippy adventures in the afterlife, in terms of Planescape. D&D can be classic high fantasy, in the form of the Forgotten Realms. It can be sort of a steampunk-like fantasy, like in Eberron. We feel it's vital to visit these settings, to tell stories in them. And we look forward to returning to them. So we do not view these as one-shots.

- Jeremy Crawford​

The whole 'multiverse' concept that D&D is currently exploring plays into this, giving them opportunities to resist worlds.

When asked about the release schedule of these books, Crawford noted that the company plans its release schedule so that players get chance to play the material, not just read it, and they don't want to swamp people with too much content to use.

Our approach to how we design for the game and how we plan out the books for it is a play-first approach. At certain times in D&D's history, it's really been a read-first approach. Because we've had points in our history where we were producing so many books each year, there was no way anyone could play all of it. In some years it would be hard to play even a small percentage of the number of things that come out. Because we have a play-first approach, we want to make sure we're coming out with things at a pace where if you really wanted to, and even that would require a lot of weekends and evenings dedicated to D&D play, you could play a lot of it.

- Jeremy Crawford​

You can read more in the interview at ComicBook.com.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Sure, but people will complain much more about existing things being rebooted, than they do about old things simply being left out. It's the direct replacement of the old version in favor of a new version that tends to bother such fans.

Besides, fans of Lamordia or whatever could simply assume such domains were out there in the Mists, in their classic form, if there wasn't a new version explicitly replacing it.

EDIT: Also, we have a concrete example of this phenomenon in 5E Dragonlance. Some things were changed and some formerly conspicuous elements were left out. Of what complaints there have been (much less overall than Ravenloft), it's the changes that attract the most attention, less so the omissions.


The Core was broken up in 5E, so that would have been a moot point. And even if they did have a Core in 5E, it would hardly be the first time it had been reshuffled.

I would a million times have preferred a 5E Ravenloft that had the Dragonlance treatment. At least all your 2E and 3E material is still usable and compatible.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The issue would have been people whining that Dementieu, Lamordia, and Falkovnia were forgotten while the designers new domains of Alice, Bob, and Clyde were given space. Further, since those domains were part of the Core, they would have to have been touched upon. So we'd still have to deal with Lord Consent-Issues, Not-Frankenstein, and Vlad Hitler.

Besides, how many Frankenstein expy domains do we need?

I have talked to many people who disliked what happened to the setting in 5E and let me tell you...

...no, they wouldn't have been as upset. The paragraph worth of information that most domains had would have been sufficient, DMSGuild could provide the rest.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The issue would have been people whining that Dementieu, Lamordia, and Falkovnia were forgotten while the designers new domains of Alice, Bob, and Clyde were given space. Further, since those domains were part of the Core, they would have to have been touched upon. So we'd still have to deal with Lord Consent-Issues, Not-Frankenstein, and Vlad Hitler.

Besides, how many Frankenstein expy domains do we need?

There's quite a good thematic reason that having a female Frankenstein expy completely misses the point of Mary Shelley's story, and honestly, in a world of werewolves and vampires and saturated with the usual D&D violence, people are still upset that one of the darklords has mind powers? So does Strahd! Perish the thought our monsters be monsters. Noooooo....

 

[Hussar]

I would a million times have preferred a 5E Ravenloft that had the Dragonlance treatment. At least all your 2E and 3E material is still usable and compatible.

But the 2e and 3e material for Dragonlance isn’t compatible at all. Not with Shadows anyway. All that material is either contradicted (if it comes before the War of the Lance) or doesn’t actually exist in the setting yet.

Shadow’s absolutely rewrites Dragonlance at least as much as Ravenloft did.

It’s just that DL fans are so used to their setting being completely rewritten over and over again that they don’t really care that much.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

But the 2e and 3e material for Dragonlance isn’t compatible at all. Not with Shadows anyway. All that material is either contradicted (if it comes before the War of the Lance) or doesn’t actually exist in the setting yet.

Shadow’s absolutely rewrites Dragonlance at least as much as Ravenloft did.

It’s just that DL fans are so used to their setting being completely rewritten over and over again that they don’t really care that much.

As someone who extensively played Dragonlance through 2E, SAGA and 3E and read most of the novels, it really isn't. Not even in the slightest. A few tweaks about the undocumented Kalaman part of the war, coupled with some minor inconsistencies about who can and can't be a Knight of Solamnia or Wizard of High Sorcery is not even close to being the same as ripping up the whole fabric of the setting and starting again.

 

[Hussar]

Adding bards, sorcerers, paladins, warlocks, Dragonborn,Tieflings, sp spellcasting rangers, druids, monks, rewo king the t st of high sorcery, and that’s just off the top of my head are what you consider minor changes.

But dropping a bunch of domains that no one has heard of, let alone played, is huge.

Ok. We’re just not going to agree here.

 

[Hussar]

This is the same problem that always comes up in canon discussions. Canon is only important if someone happens to like it. Canon they don’t care about is unimportant.

Iow, it has zero to do with preserving canon or lore and everything to do with fighting for personal preference.

Some people really like the old Ravenloft lore so changes are bad. But change isn’t the problem. Because it’s perfectly fine that the 5e monster manual rewrites the lore of virtually every monster in the game.

If lore was important in and of itself then every change would be bad. But that’s never the case. Change is only bad when they are changing something that is liked.

Don’t change lore = don’t change this thing I like.

 

[Azzy]

Then WoTC decided to get his advice on Ravenloft because of his love for the setting.

He had input on Curse of Strahd—because he wrote the original module. He had nothing to do with Van Richten's Guide.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And people would have complained they ignored Core domains while giving valuable space to new domains that aren't even part of the Core.

I stand by my statement. Better forgotten than mangled.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is the same problem that always comes up in canon discussions. Canon is only important if someone happens to like it. Canon they don’t care about is unimportant.

Iow, it has zero to do with preserving canon or lore and everything to do with fighting for personal preference.

Some people really like the old Ravenloft lore so changes are bad. But change isn’t the problem. Because it’s perfectly fine that the 5e monster manual rewrites the lore of virtually every monster in the game.

If lore was important in and of itself then every change would be bad. But that’s never the case. Change is only bad when they are changing something that is liked.

Don’t change lore = don’t change this thing I like.

I specifically said I don't like the monster lore in 5e, and don't use it.