D&D 5E Volo's Other Book(s) / Future Spoilers?

[I'm A Banana]

Taking inspiration from Dragonlance for Tyranny of Dragons, Tomb of Elemental Evil for Princes of Evil, and Raveloft (I6) for Curse of Strahd were savvy, smart moves by the D&D team. So is the possibility of adapting the Tomb of Horrors for 5E and set in the Forgotten Realms.

I agree with all this. However, all those plot lines are weaker tied to the Realms than they otherwise could be free of it. Hell, Curse of Strahd has been the most fun so far for me, and there's, like, one plot hook that involves FR and the rest is totally unconcerned with it.

There is also a big difference between "inspiration" and "literally the same thing." Having played through both in 5e now, the War of the Lance and Tyranny of Dragons are both very different kinds of games, despite the similarity of their antagonist, for instance.

While not "original" in the sense of a completely new storyline (and certainly not a "rip-off"), it isn't any less original than the previous adventure paths, which were all high quality and well received, and dare I say it, fun!

It could be less original, since previous adventure paths, if they used those old storylines, used them as the starting point for what could be in the Realms. If WotC wants to have a Realms story with an ancient dungeon ruled by a lich, hey hey hooray! (Though, you know, possibly weaker than if they went with a more realms-specific plotline...but I'm sure there's a lot of Realms-specific liches of ancient power, too *cough*Thay*cough). If they want to literally teleport the Tomb of Horrors into Faerun...eh...kind of lame.

To create something new based on a classic storyline set in D&D's most popular setting (by leagues) is smooth moves by WotC and is hitting all of my buttons, and helping to make "D&D Next" the most popular and successful D&D edition yet.

Dragonlance fans, Ravenloft fans, Greyhawk fans . . . adapting adventures set in your favorite worlds to the Realms isn't taking anything away from you, the sour grapes are beyond tiresome. All of those classic settings are awesome, but we are very unlikely to ever see them featured in print again (at least not in pure form) simply because YOUR SETTING ISN'T POPULAR ENOUGH. Sad perhaps, but true. Enjoy the revivals for what they are, bringing something cool from classic settings and storylines into the current edition. It's a good thing.

You're misreading the criticism. I want whatever setting WotC deems worth doing to be done well. That means having its own identity, making it different not just from other D&D worlds but from the vast oceans of generic fantasy that fill the media landscape these days. That includes FR. I want FR to be done well. I want more things like Storm King's Thunder, which uses the particularly FR-centric giant/dragon lore as a launching point (to a large degree, Tyranny of Dragons does that too, though less stridently). I'd take more things like Curse of Strahd where you can make an FR character pulled in through a portal. Distant third on that list are "genericized" adventures that maybe pull some themes from old adventures and blend them with FR stuff.

Off the list for me are hackneyed crossovers.

Even if they do an OK job justifying it, it makes sense in the lore, all that...it's still a crossover, and this, inherently, makes it kind of lame.

Hell, look at Mordenkainen's cameo in Curse of Strahd. Fairly well justified, makes sense in the lore, all that. But still, pretty lame that one of the greatest wizards his world had ever known got a bump on the noggin from a mid-level vampire and went all Comedy Amnesia.

And that's the criticism: I don't want lame hackey adventure material.

Even a good crossover is fighting an uphill battle against the feeling of your dad showing up at your dorm with a twelve pack of Budweiser and saying, "Hey, kids, let's listen to some Whitesnake and get wasted, el oh el!"

 

[Shasarak]

I haven't read every word of the booklet but a tidbit under the Tomb of Horrors caught my eye. Volo claims to have heard rumors that Acererak and the Tomb have appeared on Faerûn. Then later in the section on Greyhawk it ends explaining that Acererak and the Tomb of Horrors are originally from Greyhawk but that Acererak is "well known" in Faerûn, suggesting that "the boundries between the two worlds may somehow be breaking down." There is even a section on Acererak in Dungeonology.

I'll be the first to admit that I am rather new to the lore of D&D's various settings, but this is new, right? Does this mean that Wizards is planning a Tomb of Horrors revisit for an upcoming adventure? Or are they just trolling us? It seems like they are going out of their way to place the tomb into the Forgotten Realms. My feeling is they wouldn't do this without a purpose.

Thoughts? Please feel free to educate me!

Looks like Forgotten Realms has beaten up Greyhawk and taken all of its stuff.

 

[PMárk]

Dragonlance fans, Ravenloft fans, Greyhawk fans . . . adapting adventures set in your favorite worlds to the Realms isn't taking anything away from you, the sour grapes are beyond tiresome. All of those classic settings are awesome, but we are very unlikely to ever see them featured in print again (at least not in pure form) simply because YOUR SETTING ISN'T POPULAR ENOUGH. Sad perhaps, but true. Enjoy the revivals for what they are, bringing something cool from classic settings and storylines into the current edition. It's a good thing.

Oh, please, stealing iconic things from the settings and butchering them up (including FR!)... Forgive me if I won't pop a champagne over it. I don't say it isn't make sense as a business move, but I'm still not an employee of WotC and still don't like what they do with great things from the past. No, it's not a good thing.

 

[PMárk]

I agree with all this. However, all those plot lines are weaker tied to the Realms than they otherwise could be free of it. Hell, Curse of Strahd has been the most fun so far for me, and there's, like, one plot hook that involves FR and the rest is totally unconcerned with it.

There is also a big difference between "inspiration" and "literally the same thing." Having played through both in 5e now, the War of the Lance and Tyranny of Dragons are both very different kinds of games, despite the similarity of their antagonist, for instance.


It could be less original, since previous adventure paths, if they used those old storylines, used them as the starting point for what could be in the Realms. If WotC wants to have a Realms story with an ancient dungeon ruled by a lich, hey hey hooray! (Though, you know, possibly weaker than if they went with a more realms-specific plotline...but I'm sure there's a lot of Realms-specific liches of ancient power, too *cough*Thay*cough). If they want to literally teleport the Tomb of Horrors into Faerun...eh...kind of lame.



You're misreading the criticism. I want whatever setting WotC deems worth doing to be done well. That means having its own identity, making it different not just from other D&D worlds but from the vast oceans of generic fantasy that fill the media landscape these days. That includes FR. I want FR to be done well. I want more things like Storm King's Thunder, which uses the particularly FR-centric giant/dragon lore as a launching point (to a large degree, Tyranny of Dragons does that too, though less stridently). I'd take more things like Curse of Strahd where you can make an FR character pulled in through a portal. Distant third on that list are "genericized" adventures that maybe pull some themes from old adventures and blend them with FR stuff.

Off the list for me are hackneyed crossovers.

Even if they do an OK job justifying it, it makes sense in the lore, all that...it's still a crossover, and this, inherently, makes it kind of lame.

Hell, look at Mordenkainen's cameo in Curse of Strahd. Fairly well justified, makes sense in the lore, all that. But still, pretty lame that one of the greatest wizards his world had ever known got a bump on the noggin from a mid-level vampire and went all Comedy Amnesia.

And that's the criticism: I don't want lame hackey adventure material.

Even a good crossover is fighting an uphill battle against the feeling of your dad showing up at your dorm with a twelve pack of Budweiser and saying, "Hey, kids, let's listen to some Whitesnake and get wasted, el oh el!"

Basically this. FR, as the largest setting incorporated things from the other ones by osmosis for a long time. But blatantly stealing those other setting's most iconic things and rewriting them and shoehorning them into FR? That's too blatant for me. D&D was a multiverse, now D&D=FR and everything else is a footnote. It's simply sad and doubly so, because that wasn't the picture I firstly got from the corebooks. I understand that it's the most viable business-wise, but losing diversity is never a good thing. I say this as someone, who basically likes FR, but never got into GH, or Mystara, or even DL beyond reading novels. I still mourn the loss of them, because D&D was more interesting as a big multiverse and I'm sad for the fans of those settings. If only WotC would license out those "not popular enough" settings to interested 3rd parties for an official license...

Also, this way even FR loses it's own identity, I'd agree with that. They could make Szass Tam, or Lalroch.

 

[Parmandur]

Basically this. FR, as the largest setting incorporated things from the other ones by osmosis for a long time. But blatantly stealing those other setting's most iconic things and rewriting them and shoehorning them into FR? That's too blatant for me. D&D was a multiverse, now D&D=FR and everything else is a footnote. It's simply sad and doubly so, because that wasn't the picture I firstly got from the corebooks. I understand that it's the most viable business-wise, but losing diversity is never a good thing. I say this as someone, who basically likes FR, but never got into GH, or Mystara, or even DL beyond reading novels. I still mourn the loss of them, because D&D was more interesting as a big multiverse and I'm sad for the fans of those settings. If only WotC would license out those "not popular enough" settings to interested 3rd parties for an official license...

Also, this way even FR loses it's own identity, I'd agree with that. They could make Szass Tam, or Lalroch.

Maybe Szass Tam and Larloch get drafted to Ackeracks skeletal psycho wizard dream team for some Eeeevil Plot. We honestly have no idea what they are doing at this point, other than setting up setting crossovers in the future

 

[gyor]

Basically this. FR, as the largest setting incorporated things from the other ones by osmosis for a long time. But blatantly stealing those other setting's most iconic things and rewriting them and shoehorning them into FR? That's too blatant for me. D&D was a multiverse, now D&D=FR and everything else is a footnote. It's simply sad and doubly so, because that wasn't the picture I firstly got from the corebooks. I understand that it's the most viable business-wise, but losing diversity is never a good thing. I say this as someone, who basically likes FR, but never got into GH, or Mystara, or even DL beyond reading novels. I still mourn the loss of them, because D&D was more interesting as a big multiverse and I'm sad for the fans of those settings. If only WotC would license out those "not popular enough" settings to interested 3rd parties for an official license...

Also, this way even FR loses it's own identity, I'd agree with that. They could make Szass Tam, or Lalroch.

Yeah this is bad for FR and other settings, its one thing to borrow ideas, or have cross overs, its another to rip off iconic dungeons.

 

[bmfrosty]

Was listening to the Dragon Talk podcast about Dungeonology, and it was stated by Matt Forbeck that there were things in Dungeonology that were about future adventure paths.

 

[gyor]

Was listening to the Dragon Talk podcast about Dungeonology, and it was stated by Matt Forbeck that there were things in Dungeonology that were about future adventure paths.

Yeah, I took a peak at it in the store, I saw what you mean by hints.

 

[Prakriti]

Roll20 has tagged all the monsters in their database with either SRD or VG1, suggesting that they, at least, anticipate more Volo's Guides.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Roll20 has tagged all the monsters in their database with either SRD or VG1, suggesting that they, at least, anticipate more Volo's Guides.

That does make it seem likely that we'll be seeing Volo's Guide to Dragons or Volo's Guide to X, Where Dragons Are a Subset of X in the not excessively distant future then...