Planescape 5 New D&D Books Coming in 2023 -- Including Planescape!

At today's Wizards Presents event, hosts Jimmy Wong, Ginny Di, and Sydnee Goodman announced the 2023 line-up of D&D books, which featured something old, something new, and an expansion of a fan favorite.

The first of the five books, Keys from the Golden Vault, will arrive in winter 2023. At Tuesday's press preview, Chris Perkins, Game Design Architect for D&D, described it as “Ocean’s Eleven meets D&D” and an anthology of short adventures revolving around heists, which can be dropped into existing campaigns.

In Spring 2023, giants get a sourcebook just like their traditional rivals, the dragons, did in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants will be a deep dive into hill, frost, fire, cloud, and storm giants, plus much more.

Summer 2023 will have two releases. The Book of Many Things is a collection of creatures, locations, and other player-facing goodies related to that most famous D&D magic item, the Deck of Many Things. Then “Phandelver Campaign” will expand the popular Lost Mine of Phandelver from the D&D Starter Set into a full campaign tinged with cosmic horror.

And then last, but certainly not least, in Fall 2023, WotC revives another classic D&D setting – Planescape. Just like Spelljammer: Adventures in Space, Planescape will be presented as a three-book set containing a setting guide, bestiary, and adventure campaign in a slipcase. Despite the Spelljammer comparison they did not confirm whether it would also contain a DM screen.

More information on these five titles will be released when we get closer to them in date.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I'm fine with them being reduced or gone personally, as long as the power differential that led to them is also gone. Making humans better back in 1e would have been an idea more to my liking.

Back in the day, we gave Humans a 10% xp bonus (no bonus for having high stats). Worked better for us than level limits.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However, that doesn't mean that the way things used to be done was "dumb", or objectively bad. Those are insulting and disrespectful terms, and that attitude is the main issue I have here.

That's just an incorrect claim.

Dumb is an insult, and disrespectful if directed at a person.

"Objectively bad" is neither of those things.

You might argue against the objectivity of a claim, but to say game design is "bad" is not to be insulting or disrespectful. You don't have to like that, but you're being extremely disingenuous to claim it is.

The simple fact is that a lot of early D&D and RPG design in general was naïve. Instead of looking holistically at achieving specific goals through game design, a lot of design was based more on "vibes", and half-considered ideas. This isn't really open for debate, I would suggest - some of the bad math alone can show how bad the issues could get. Entire games were made that barely functioned.

Level limits are a great example of this.

You've repeatedly stated that the reason for level limits was the power differential between humans and non-humans. There have also been designers who have suggested this.

However, level limits are obviously objectively an extremely poor way to address that, for a number of reasons. Let's look at them.

1) In 1E, level limits for most race/class combos are low (6-11 mostly), but for Thief for everyone but Half-Orcs, it's U (Half-Orcs get U in Assassin instead), and randomly, Half-Elves also get U in Druid.

This undermines the idea that power is the issue pretty severely, because it randomly doesn't matter in certain cases, apparently.

2) In 1E having a LOWER primary stat means a LOWER level limit.

This is obviously not remotely congruent with the idea that power is why they are designed this way. Weaker characters are punished, stronger ones rewarded.

3) In 2E, most of the Us are gone (still some), but a lot of level limits are now so high, especially with a high primary stat, that the odds of them being reached are extremely low.

This means that, functionally, most level limits don't exist. This demonstrates a profound failure of design, because the balancing tool never actually kicks in.

4) In 2E, and 1E beyond the original PHB, particularly in other setting-books, the more powerful a non-human race is, the HIGHER its level limits are, generally speaking.

This is hard proof that if power-limiting was the intention, the design is outright, objectively bad. Because in fact more power is rewarded. This is congruent with higher stats being rewarded with higher limits, too - which once more shows if the goal was limiting power, it was a failure.

It's not just my "opinion" that level limits are bad in some snippy "I don't like that" way. It's easy to demonstrate logically, and by looking at what their stated goal is, vs. what they actually achieved and say they were objectively bad design.

But let's look at it from a more positive angle, what do level limits achieve?

5) They cause anxiety in players who want to play non-human PCs and make them consider human PCs, often irrationally, because the campaign is unlikely to ever reach that level.

Is that a good thing? Some might say it was, I can't really see it myself. But it doesn't fit with the stated goal (power limitation).

6) They cause certain PCs to effectively stop being playable. In 1E, this could actually be at the mid-point or towards the climax of a campaign. In 2E, it was usually so high most campaigns were done.

Is this a good thing? No-one, including you, @Micah Sweet has explained why it's good, actually that PCs become unplayable. The explanation would need to incorporate why less-power PCs are more likely to become unplayable. Anyone want to field this?

7) They are arranged in such a way, particularly in 2E, that, on top of race/class restrictions, they further push certain races into certain classes or multiclass combos.

This is arguably thematic, though it's highly inconsistent, and probably unnecessary on top of race/class restrictions, but I guess you could argue it was good?

So what's the conclusion? That if the goal was to make it so that humans and non-humans were more balanced with each other, it was completely failed. Objectively failed. This means the design was objectively bad, in exactly the same way as plane that can't take off is badly designed.

Now, you could shorthand that to "dumb". Maybe we shouldn't, but we can certainly say that, based on the stated goals, level limits are objectively bad design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's just an incorrect claim.

Dumb is an insult, and disrespectful if directed at a person.

"Objectively bad" is neither of those things.

You might argue against the objectivity of a claim, but to say game design is "bad" is not to be insulting or disrespectful. You don't have to like that, but you're being extremely disingenuous to claim it is.

The simple fact is that a lot of early D&D and RPG design in general was naïve. Instead of looking holistically at achieving specific goals through game design, a lot of design was based more on "vibes", and half-considered ideas. This isn't really open for debate, I would suggest - some of the bad math alone can show how bad the issues could get. Entire games were made that barely functioned.

Level limits are a great example of this.

You've repeatedly stated that the reason for level limits was the power differential between humans and non-humans. There have also been designers who have suggested this.

However, level limits are obviously objectively an extremely poor way to address that, for a number of reasons. Let's look at them.

1) In 1E, level limits for most race/class combos are low (6-11 mostly), but for Thief for everyone but Half-Orcs, it's U (Half-Orcs get U in Assassin instead), and randomly, Half-Elves also get U in Druid.

This undermines the idea that power is the issue pretty severely, because it randomly doesn't matter in certain cases, apparently.

2) In 1E having a LOWER primary stat means a LOWER level limit.

This is obviously not remotely congruent with the idea that power is why they are designed this way. Weaker characters are punished, stronger ones rewarded.

3) In 2E, most of the Us are gone (still some), but a lot of level limits are now so high, especially with a high primary stat, that the odds of them being reached are extremely low.

This means that, functionally, most level limits don't exist. This demonstrates a profound failure of design, because the balancing tool never actually kicks in.

4) In 2E, and 1E beyond the original PHB, particularly in other setting-books, the more powerful a non-human race is, the HIGHER its level limits are, generally speaking.

This is hard proof that if power-limiting was the intention, the design is outright, objectively bad. Because in fact more power is rewarded. This is congruent with higher stats being rewarded with higher limits, too - which once more shows if the goal was limiting power, it was a failure.

It's not just my "opinion" that level limits are bad in some snippy "I don't like that" way. It's easy to demonstrate logically, and by looking at what their stated goal is, vs. what they actually achieved and say they were objectively bad design.

But let's look at it from a more positive angle, what do level limits achieve?

5) They cause anxiety in players who want to play non-human PCs and make them consider human PCs, often irrationally, because the campaign is unlikely to ever reach that level.

Is that a good thing? Some might say it was, I can't really see it myself. But it doesn't fit with the stated goal (power limitation).

6) They cause certain PCs to effectively stop being playable. In 1E, this could actually be at the mid-point or towards the climax of a campaign. In 2E, it was usually so high most campaigns were done.

Is this a good thing? No-one, including you, @Micah Sweet has explained why it's good, actually that PCs become unplayable. The explanation would need to incorporate why less-power PCs are more likely to become unplayable. Anyone want to field this?

7) They are arranged in such a way, particularly in 2E, that, on top of race/class restrictions, they further push certain races into certain classes or multiclass combos.

This is arguably thematic, though it's highly inconsistent, and probably unnecessary on top of race/class restrictions, but I guess you could argue it was good?

So what's the conclusion? That if the goal was to make it so that humans and non-humans were more balanced with each other, it was completely failed. Objectively failed. This means the design was objectively bad, in exactly the same way as plane that can't take off is badly designed.

Now, you could shorthand that to "dumb". Maybe we shouldn't, but we can certainly say that, based on the stated goals, level limits are objectively bad design.

Fair enough. I'll concede the point, even the rules in question aren't an issue for me. I tend to be very easy on rules that don't affect me personally, even if they have issues.

I still object to calling it "dumb", however. That is not an acceptable short hand. Provide an explanation of your position like you just did, rationally, and I obviously can be convinced (as I just have been).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fair enough. I'll concede the point, even the rules in question aren't an issue for me. I tend to be very easy on rules that don't affect me personally, even if they have issues.

I still object to calling it "dumb", however. That is not an acceptable short hand. Provide an explanation of your position like you just did, rationally, and I obviously can be convinced (as I just have been).

Yeah, fair I'll lay off the dumb, and stick to objective failure!

Now, I would say 2E actually deserves much a much harsher critique for keeping level limits than 1E did for introducing them. 1E was a highly experimental game, trying out a lot of new ideas, some good, some... not so sound. So fair enough to 1E on this.

By the time 2E rolled around, there'd been a decade to see the issues with the design, and it was obvious that it didn't achieve the goal. There'd been a decade of gradually increasingly rational/logical RPG design. Other designers, in other games, had solved the human/non-human problem in various ways.

What's particularly weird is, 2E did change them - pretty profoundly, but it mostly seems to be a mitigation. Like, they know they're not achieving the goal, but instead of say, removing them and giving humans a 10 or 20% XP bonus or something, they just made them high enough to be unlikely to matter. All the fundamental conceptual flaws were retained, though (power rewarded etc.).

Why? I mean, unless we cross-question 2E designers somehow we'll probably never know, but I think it's got to basically be sacred cow stuff. They didn't want to change too much too fast, so they arguably changed too little, which is part of why D&D's popularity stalled in the early '90s, and part of why 3E was nigh-universally praised for getting rid of level limits (and race restrictions, actually).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I used to call racial level limits back in 2e "racist level limits", I don't think anyone I knew liked the explanations for why they existed in the first place.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, fair I'll lay off the dumb, and stick to objective failure!

Now, I would say 2E actually deserves much a much harsher critique for keeping level limits than 1E did for introducing them. 1E was a highly experimental game, trying out a lot of new ideas, some good, some... not so sound. So fair enough to 1E on this.

By the time 2E rolled around, there'd been a decade to see the issues with the design, and it was obvious that it didn't achieve the goal. There'd been a decade of gradually increasingly rational/logical RPG design. Other designers, in other games, had solved the human/non-human problem in various ways.

What's particularly weird is, 2E did change them - pretty profoundly, but it mostly seems to be a mitigation. Like, they know they're not achieving the goal, but instead of say, removing them and giving humans a 10 or 20% XP bonus or something, they just made them high enough to be unlikely to matter. All the fundamental conceptual flaws were retained, though (power rewarded etc.).

Why? I mean, unless we cross-question 2E designers somehow we'll probably never know, but I think it's got to basically be sacred cow stuff. They didn't want to change too much too fast, so they arguably changed too little, which is part of why D&D's popularity stalled in the early '90s, and part of why 3E was nigh-universally praised for getting rid of level limits (and race restrictions, actually).

I'm sure that's true. 5e is a stronger game mechanically than 2e was, IMO for the most part (obviously I have some exceptions personally). My love for 2e is based on the settings created there.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm fine with them being reduced or gone personally, as long as the power differential that led to them is also gone. Making humans better back in 1e would have been an idea more to my liking. But I really don't like the insulting language used here, and I don't like opinion stated as fact. That I have occasionally been guilty of the same behavior just makes me strive to be better.

So you're more interested in tone policing than the merit of the discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you're more interested in tone policing than the merit of the discussion.

In this case, I have an issue with the insulting tone of the discussion, yes. A strong, polite explanation for why level limits are a bad idea was just made, convincingly, to me.

 

[Velderan]

In this case, I have an issue with the insulting tone of the discussion, yes. A strong, polite explanation for why level limits are a bad idea was just made, convincingly, to me.

If the thread was about 1e/2e level limits, I probably would have expanded more on why I find the rules to be dumb. I just didn't want to derail a thread further so I kept my comment short and to the point; I find the rule to be dumb. If people really want to discuss the rules further, making a separate thread would be a good idea IMO.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If the thread was about 1e/2e level limits, I probably would have expanded more on why I find the rules to be dumb. I just didn't want to derail a thread further so I kept my comment short and to the point; I find the rule to be dumb. If people really want to discuss the rules further, making a separate thread would be a good idea IMO.

I think we've pretty much covered it lol.