Two New Settings For D&D This Year

if it comes out this year i would agree with you. Possibly published by a third party company that has a good reputation (Green Ronin etc)

However if it’s coming next year I would stake all the money in my pockets that it will be a Curse of Strahd style book. Campaign with background and new monsters etc. Curse of Strahd was too successful not to repeat!

 

[Kobold Avenger]

It's been suggested we might hear more about the Planetouched PC race they mentioned that Tieflings from Planescape are supposedly of now rather than being Tieflings.

Those symbols I haven't seen before, even if they have elements of a few others, like the triangle with a line in one of the symbols does represent Celestia/7 Heavens except it's inverted...

I'd definitely want Planescape back as it's my favourite setting, one they could release in different books here and there, though if they already have 2 adventures based in a big city set to be released this year, it might not be a book featuring Sigil.

Maybe there will be some completely unexpected surprises like it's actually Spelljammer, but they decided to have the Fraal (aka Greys) from Alternity as a PC race...

 

[SirGrotius]

There's so much talk here about Spelljammer and Planescape that I'm starting to assume that it'll be one or both of these settings! I personally would prefer a Dragonlance, since I loved the novels, richness of the world, and could do with some Epic fantasy these days. The minotaur discussion got the creative juices flowing.

Either way, the quality and comprehensive of the latest 5th edition materials leave me feeling very optimistic which future treatments of these settings. I would devour almost any of them.

 

[Jer]

Why can't we have a new setting?

I could answer this with sarcastic jokes, but it's worth thinking about why almost all of our pop culture right now is remixes and adaptations of older material. Partly it's nostalgia - the people with disposable income right now are the Gen-Xers who are now in their 40s/50s. There's also crossover with the late boomers who are in their 50s as well. So we see a lot of movies, TV shows, games, etc. all kind of revamping older properties.

But a lot of it is the risk-averse nature of large companies. Movie studios and TV studios spend a lot of money on their products and the guys in charge want something "safe" that will return their money to them at a profit. Big companies in general are unlikely to do much that is "new" - there's a reason that they heyday of character creation in Marvel comics was when it was a young company perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy and new characters have come out in a trickle ever since. TSR burned through one idea after another and taking lots of risks when they were a young upstart company (and make no mistake - even at its heyday TSR was always a tiny upstart compared to the Parker Bros and Milton-Bradleys of the gaming industry), but Wizards is one of the largest and most profitable gaming companies in the world - even though they have more capital at hand, their success makes them less likely to take risks on crazy ideas. (And of course TSR went bankrupt, as do many companies that take a lot of risks, which is why successful companies generally become more and more risk averse as time passes - they have more to lose).

And then there's Wizards own recent history - they had a big bomb of an edition a few years ago and they had to invest a lot of time and effort (and money) to rebuild their cred. The perception is that the edition bombed because it went too far outside the box for D&D, so the risk-averse move is to try to be the most D&D-like game that you can be. And that means putting out a setting that is new and different is a risk.

Also too - and this is all just my opinion - I'm not sure the hunger is there for new D&D settings like there was back in the 90s and during the d20 explosion of the early 2000s. There are so many options available now setting wise that a new one really would need to bring something truly different to the mix. The 90s was a big experimental time for D&D when it came to settings - how far can we push this game engine designed for vaguely Dark Ages fantasy game play. Can we do fantasy space? Can we do fantasy horror? What about fantasy Victorian horror? Does it have to be European - we had an Asian supplement in the 80s, what about Arabian Nights style? What about different kinds of fantasy - can we push the game engine to handle a pseudo-Renaissance level of tech? Can we do weird other-dimensional fantasy? Can we dial it back to its roots and still do John Carter of Mars style fantasy?

At this point a new setting would need to bring something new to the table and not be a rehash of what's already out there to be worth doing. I think there's a reason that we only really got one major new D&D setting in 3rd edition - Eberron - and it's because Eberron brought something new to the table (investigative pulp fantasy). And even there as much as I love Eberron I'm not sure if it were released today it would be seen as "different enough" to be a successful new setting. I think any new setting would need to fill a niche that isn't already being filled, and it's tough to see an empty niche that would be large enough to justify coming up with a totally new setting.

And finally - I also think that when TSR was exploding settings left and right they were also book publishers and had an eye towards putting out novels in those settings. Also most of those settings generated tie-in video games through TSR's partnership with SSI. I think Wizards was still thinking the same way when they developed Eberron. The setting was more than just a place to play games - it was a brand in and of itself that could generate a lot of revenue for the company. Wizards doesn't publish books anymore, and to be fair the market for tie-in novels isn't what it was in the 90s either. And Hasbro's always had problems with their video game licensing. Now the setting has to stand by itself as a game setting without thinking of it as a "brand" and that makes it harder to justify the investment.

 

[kenmarable]

Planescape and Spelljammer have similar points of appeal. They are both high magic, high fantasy, and about as far from grounded, mud and blood Game-of-Thronesism as it is possible to get. If the point is to have something different, this is as different as it gets.

As someone who LOVES Planescape and although having never played Spelljammer is fascinated by it, this sums it up quite well. Plus "grounded, mud and blood Game-of-Thronesism" sounds utterly unappealing to me, personally. Of course, I was the weird kid growing up who was far more likely to play monster PCs than something as "boring" (my subjective opinion only!) as a human. To me, if you want to play fantasy, then play FANTASY!! but that is absolutely 100% the way my brain is wired, and I'm glad there is plenty of room in this industry for all sorts of tastes. So I can entirely understand someone having no interest in Planescape and Spelljammer. Personally, I don't see the draw of Greyhawk other than nostalgia, but that is my limitation, not Greyhawk's.

So I guess this underlines why fans really need more than one setting, because tastes vary so much. Hopefully WotC can find a middle ground between "All Forgotten Realms All the Time" and late 2e's "Publish as many settings as we possibly can! Not enough! I mean MOAR SETTINGS!!!" It is tricky, but I'm glad they are hopefully moving more towards that middle ground now.

 

[kenmarable]

Why can't we have a new setting?

Jer answers it very well on why a new setting might not be coming any time soon.

With that being said, as well as the fact that there are several settings I would really really love new material for, I would also really love to see a new setting. Not because I know there's some niche that isn't being filled or anything, but it's because the 5e products have been such high quality and even though I have disagreed with some creative decisions, it's clear that the current D&D team are remarkably skilled and imaginative. So if they were do create a new setting, I have no doubt it would be incredible. It might not be my style, but I would be fascinated to see what the current D&D team would do for a new setting. That's also one of the reasons I would love to see old settings come back - not just because I'm greedy for new content for them (which I am, of course), but I would love to see what this team does with that setting.

I guess it's a testament to their skill that I really want to see what they would do with some of the older settings I enjoyed as well as what they would do when building an entirely new setting that I would never expect. I would love to be surprised and amazed at a new setting from this team, but I also realize there are many reasons why that is unlikely any time soon. *shrug*

 

[mrpopstar]

I'm dying for Planescape-focused material! Dyinggg.

 

[hbarsquared]

What Jar said, with regards to a new setting.

With that said, there are still so many stories to tell, within the established settings. We don't need a new setting, not because "everything has already been done," but expressly because because every story has not been told. There is still so much room for creativity, imagination, and inspiration within all the established settings, even Forgotten Realms and "generic D&D," as shown by the highest of quality products for 5E WotC has been putting out.

 

[Jester David]

Some time to kill. I think I'll just rank the settings by how much I'd like to see them, and comment on the chances I think we'll get them.

1) Ravenloft. It's cool and we only saw Barovia. There's a whole world beyond that I'd like them to acknowledge, and there's room for new mechanics such as races, fear, subclasses, etc. Odds: Super low. It's been done.

2) Dragonlance. This got me into D&D. And the novels keep it popular. It's well known and not entirely generic. Odds: Medium, and tricky to boot. It's generic, but slightly different than the norm and the novels keep it popular. But the setting has really been hit hard by constant changes and tweaks from the shifting editions and game lines, and even the DL fans are divided on what they want to see.

3) Planescape. Simple setting of Sigil and ties into every other setting, making it something you can use without restarting a campaign. And its just neat. Odds: High.

Eberron. The new kid on the block at *just* fifteen years old. The anniversary makes it appealing, and easily updated with the fewer new variant rules. Odds: Fairly high.

5) Dark Sun. D&D for people who hate D&D. It's distinct and can really engage with fans who are tired of the generic and know what to expect from the world. Odds: Low. Popular but you *need* psionics and new races and a lot more room to expand on how each race is different and how the world works. Plus alternate rules like bone weapons, defiling, wild talents, elemental priests, etc. To say nothing about an entire bestiary of new creatures...

6) Al Qadim. Arabic Adventures. Tales of 1001 Nights, the world. Technically already open and available on the Guild, but might be neat to give it a signal boost. It's traditional fantasy, but very different. Odds: Low, as it's technically already available. And has some cultural appropriation elements now.

7) Spelljammer. I love the quirkiness of this setting, but the funky rules and limitations placed on things made it awkward at low levels. You *needed* a high level caster. And not everyone likes the idea of space in their campaign setting being, well, space. Reimagining this setting as on the Astral Sea might work better, with the "crystal spheres" being portals to worlds in the Material Plane. Odds: Lower. This feels like a good option for the second or third set of settings.

8) Greyhawk. The classic but very similar to the Realms. I find the world bland and lacking in good story hooks personally. But it's also more open to DM customisation. Odds: Medium. I think they might go for more different and odd settings first before providing more generic settings.

9) Kara Tur. I think there's room for some fun Wuxia campaigns and the reminder to new players that you don't *have* to play Western fantasy. Odds: Low, as already on the Guild.

10. Maztica. A neat idea of colonial South America mixed with fantasy. I don't know much about it. Odds: Super low. Never really popular, and technically part of the Guild already as it's in the Realms. And the colonial aspect and real world analogies have some nasty cultural appropriation implications.

11) Mystara. I know very little about this world. The Hollow World aspect is neat, but this feels like a separate sub-setting. Odds: See "Greyhawk". Different but not different enough. I imagine the "no gods" thing might be interesting for some. It's probably easier to do than Greyhawk, honestly.

12) Birthright. Another setting I only know tangentially. It's neat, but would require some Mass Combat rules and kingdom management to play properly. Odds: Low at this time, since we haven't seen any of the content in UA to playtest.

13) Council of Wyrms. Less a setting and more a hook for playing dragons. Odds: Super low. Not a good choice since balancing dragons would be hard and we haven't seen a dragon class in UA.

14) Blackmoore. The first campaign setting. Odds: Zero. The rights were retained by Arneson who used them with Zeitgeist Games and published by Goodman Games. I doubt WotC can touch them.
(Similar things can be said about Dragon Fist (sold to Green Ronin), Lankhman, and Kalamar.)

15) Nentir Vale. Originally, this was supposed to be in the Realms. They just changed the proper names when they decided not to make FR the default setting of 4e. This setting is bland. It's a mishmash of ideas created randomly by dozens of different people as books were written without planning or real forethought. The whole point was a generic world people could build into their own setting or place into whatever existing setting they're using. There's no hook, and nothing to distinguish it from every other generic fantasy world WotC does. Odds: Medium. Really, because it's so simple, they could repeat the lore pretty quickly. And it's hook of being a simple setting people can make their own still works.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Doubtful they'd even consider it, but couldn't Masque of the Red Death which is 19th century Earth but sort of a spin-off of Ravenloft and Urban Arcana a D20 Modern campaign setting for bringing hidden Fantasy into modern day count as potential settings. For the later they did after all have the UA which introduced a 1st level spell that could charge your phone...

 

[Yaarel]

Some time to kill. I think I'll just rank the settings by how much I'd like to see them, and comment on the chances I think we'll get them.

1) Ravenloft. It's cool and we only saw Barovia. There's a whole world beyond that I'd like them to acknowledge, and there's room for new mechanics such as races, fear, subclasses, etc. Odds: Super low. It's been done.

2) Dragonlance. This got me into D&D. And the novels keep it popular. It's well known and not entirely generic. Odds: Medium, and tricky to boot. It's generic, but slightly different than the norm and the novels keep it popular. But the setting has really been hit hard by constant changes and tweaks from the shifting editions and game lines, and even the DL fans are divided on what they want to see.

3) Planescape. Simple setting of Sigil and ties into every other setting, making it something you can use without restarting a campaign. And its just neat. Odds: High.

Eberron. The new kid on the block at *just* fifteen years old. The anniversary makes it appealing, and easily updated with the fewer new variant rules. Odds: Fairly high.

5) Dark Sun. D&D for people who hate D&D. It's distinct and can really engage with fans who are tired of the generic and know what to expect from the world. Odds: Low. Popular but you *need* psionics and new races and a lot more room to expand on how each race is different and how the world works. Plus alternate rules like bone weapons, defiling, wild talents, elemental priests, etc. To say nothing about an entire bestiary of new creatures...

6) Al Qadim. Arabic Adventures. Tales of 1001 Nights, the world. Technically already open and available on the Guild, but might be neat to give it a signal boost. It's traditional fantasy, but very different. Odds: Low, as it's technically already available. And has some cultural appropriation elements now.

7) Spelljammer. I love the quirkiness of this setting, but the funky rules and limitations placed on things made it awkward at low levels. You *needed* a high level caster. And not everyone likes the idea of space in their campaign setting being, well, space. Reimagining this setting as on the Astral Sea might work better, with the "crystal spheres" being portals to worlds in the Material Plane. Odds: Lower. This feels like a good option for the second or third set of settings.

8) Greyhawk. The classic but very similar to the Realms. I find the world bland and lacking in good story hooks personally. But it's also more open to DM customisation. Odds: Medium. I think they might go for more different and odd settings first before providing more generic settings.

9) Kara Tur. I think there's room for some fun Wuxia campaigns and the reminder to new players that you don't *have* to play Western fantasy. Odds: Low, as already on the Guild.

10. Maztica. A neat idea of colonial South America mixed with fantasy. I don't know much about it. Odds: Super low. Never really popular, and technically part of the Guild already as it's in the Realms. And the colonial aspect and real world analogies have some nasty cultural appropriation implications.

11) Mystara. I know very little about this world. The Hollow World aspect is neat, but this feels like a separate sub-setting. Odds: See "Greyhawk". Different but not different enough. I imagine the "no gods" thing might be interesting for some. It's probably easier to do than Greyhawk, honestly.

12) Birthright. Another setting I only know tangentially. It's neat, but would require some Mass Combat rules and kingdom management to play properly. Odds: Low at this time, since we haven't seen any of the content in UA to playtest.

13) Council of Wyrms. Less a setting and more a hook for playing dragons. Odds: Super low. Not a good choice since balancing dragons would be hard and we haven't seen a dragon class in UA.

14) Blackmoore. The first campaign setting. Odds: Zero. The rights were retained by Arneson who used them with Zeitgeist Games and published by Goodman Games. I doubt WotC can touch them.
(Similar things can be said about Dragon Fist (sold to Green Ronin), Lankhman, and Kalamar.)

15) Nentir Vale. Originally, this was supposed to be in the Realms. They just changed the proper names when they decided not to make FR the default setting of 4e. This setting is bland. It's a mishmash of ideas created randomly by dozens of different people as books were written without planning or real forethought. The whole point was a generic world people could build into their own setting or place into whatever existing setting they're using. There's no hook, and nothing to distinguish it from every other generic fantasy world WotC does. Odds: Medium. Really, because it's so simple, they could repeat the lore pretty quickly. And it's hook of being a simple setting people can make their own still works.

Except for Eberron and Dark Sun, in my eyes all the other settings are the same thing as Forgotten Realms.

Essentially, they are Forgotten Realms 1, Forgotten Realms 2, Forgotten Realms 3, ...

Planescape too is just an other region of Forgotten Realms.