D&D 5E WotC: 5 D&D Settings In Development?

WotC's Ray Winninger spoke a little about some upcoming D&D settings -- two classic settings are coming in 2022 in formats we haven't seen before, and two brand new (not Magic: the Gathering) settings are also in development, as well as return to a setting they've already covered in 5E. He does note, however, that of the last three, there's a chance of one or more not making it to release, as they develop more than they use.

Two classic settings? What could they be?​

So that's:

• 2 classic settings in 2022 (in a brand new format)
• 2 brand new settings
• 1 returning setting

So the big questions -- what are the two classic settings, and what do they mean by a format we haven't seen before? Winninger has clarified on Twitter that "Each of these products is pursuing a different format you've never seen before. And neither is "digital only;" these are new print formats."

As I've mentioned on a couple of occasions, there are two more products that revive "classic" settings in production right now.

The manuscript for the first, overseen by [Chris Perkins], is nearly complete. Work on the second, led by [F. Wesley Schneider] with an assist from [Ari Levitch], is just ramping up in earnest. Both are targeting 2022 and formats you've never seen before.

In addition to these two titles, we have two brand new [D&D] settings in early development, as well as a return to a setting we've already covered. (No, these are not M:tG worlds.)

As I mentioned in the dev blog, we develop more material than we publish, so it's possible one or more of these last three won't reach production. But as of right now, they're all looking great.

Of course the phrase "two more products that revive 'classic' settings" could be interpreted in different ways. It might not be two individual setting books.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I suspect this is the proper takeaway - a big adventure centered on Sigil or an anthology of small adventures which all feature Sigil as a hub could be just as much of a 'Planescape revival' as a proper campaign setting.

A planar Candlekeep Mysteries/Ghosts of Saltmarsh with a mini-Sigil gazeteer would definitely qualify and probably be a pretty good product.

 

[Umbran]

Then likely Curse of Strahd style setting specific adventure paths.

Except it is a format we haven't seen before (at least in 5e).

 

[ersatzphil]

A planar Candlekeep Mysteries/Ghosts of Saltmarsh with a mini-Sigil gazeteer would definitely qualify and probably be a pretty good product.

Honestly, before Candlekeep Mysteries and Van Richten's guides came out, I was dead certain that was how they'd revisit the Domains of Dread - an anthology of adventures where each one brought you through a different domain. Still, it'd work just as well with each one bringing you briefly to a different plane or gate town.

 

[Zaukrie]

Here is a format I could get behind....something like World Anvil, but the Realms. An electronic map you could zoom in and out of. With more and more detail as you zoom. NO CHANCE that is what it is, imo. But a full on map would be great. You can then buy more detailed maps of towns or dungeons......micro transactions and subscriptions.....

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, Planescape definitely sounds like the Perkins project. It's the only classic setting (other than Ravenloft) I know he is keen on (he could like others I've just never heard him mention them).

The "formats you've never seen before" thing is intriguing. I think Winninger could very much mean boxed sets here; yes we've seen boxes like Starters/Essentials before, but not setting specific boxes before.

The returning setting... I mean, that has to be Forgotten Realms isn't it? Maybe Greyhawk, if you count Ghosts of Saltmarsh?

"Format we've written seen before" could be a boxed set: that's new to 5E, and would likely look super different than the last D&D Setting boxed set...which came out in 1996, I think?

 

[AmerginLiath]

I’m curious if we may see a Planescape/Spelljammer/Planejammer product which is more of a literal toolkit, in the sense of determining travel via different mechanisms than dice and tables (think of the deck in Ravenloft) to simulate just how other that passage is?

 

[Argyle King]

"Format we've written seen before" could be a boxed set: that's new to 5E, and would likely look super different than the last D&D Setting boxed set...which came out in 1996, I think?

It could also mean something like an app/game for smart phones.

 

[Parmandur]

While I really thought Wyatt's book was a Faerun Campaign book, I knew the one other possiblity was a Volo's Style Dragon Book. There is still enough revealed that I still hold out hope for 2022. I mean I waited for what seemed like forever for a turned based 5e game preferably in FR when folks across the internet told me it would NEVER happen, TB games just don't sell, then BAM BG3, and bonus Solasta. Same with a new Star Trek series, then BAM Discovery.

I comfort myself with the hilarious fact that Ray's twitter account mangered to eciplse both Week of Legend Lore and Dragon Talks 300th episode for actually D&D news .

Depending if WotC counts the SCAG as a setting book or not, FR could be one of the 2022 setting books with new formats (WTF are these new Formats?) or the Setting revisit (alternate they might view the Domains of Delight as an expansion of Ravenloft into the Feywild instead of seperate setting). I don't think the revisit will be Ravnica or Theros, so the only 3rd possiblity is Eberron.

So now we have a host of new mysteries, perhaps some of the answers will be at D&D Celebration.

My gut says the revisit is FR related, but don't forget about Exandria: a new Critical Role product would be reasonable.

 

[overgeeked]

Except it is a format we haven't seen before (at least in 5e).

Right. But not with those settings. The "haven't seen before" bit is a pretty vague statement and can be applied to any part of the info. It's just as likely he means "haven't seen [with these settings] before" as he means "haven't seen [in 5E] before". Who knows? Who nose.

 

[Umbran]

Right. But not with those settings. The "haven't seen before" is a pretty vague statement.

Well, of course it is vague. You don't create much buzz with clear, precise, accurate statements. Vagueness generates energetic speculative discussions.