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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair, the Far Realm is also a retcon (along with the feywild, elemental chaos and shadowfell's increased importance) and should be hated like the first world lore is. Right?

Right?

None of those things de-value existing campaign settings. And for the record, I'm not a big fan of the Feywild, although that's mostly because I think WotC pushes it too hard, I suspect due the designer's personal interest.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If it isn't true, then yes, its just a bit of lore I don't like. If it is true, it lessens the value of every campaign setting by presenting them as fractured copies of the true world. This is the third time I've said it.

This is something I really do not get. Why would a DM let WotC decide what is true. Is that not the DMs job?
There are 3 or 4 versions of the King Author myth (not including modern re-imagining). Which one is True?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No more, even less actually, than the far realm doesn't it? I mean the Far Realm is now woven into everything and the "First World" is barely a blurb in one book that is noted as crazy dragon ideas.

I mean the far realm wasn't a thing, and then it was, and then it was everywhere. Isn't that more an issue?

Same/similar with the feywild and shadwofell actually.

How, in your opinion, @Micah Sweet is the "First World" different from the "Far Realm" or "Shadowfell" or "Feywild?" Now, I also believe there are differences, but I think they are more similar than different when it comes to damaging the lore of every campaign setting. But I am genuinely interested in your opinion of these difference, in large part you are a lot more familiar with the 2e-3e lore than I am.

What do any of those realms do to change or re-contextualuze the history of D&D's settings? They are other planes, not an alternate history of the universe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is something I really do not get. Why would a DM let WotC decide what is true. Is that not the DMs job?
There are 3 or 4 versions of the King Author myth (not including modern re-imagining). Which one is True?

Why do you all have a problem with my dislike of the First World? Are we not allowed to like different things?

It doesn't affect my game personally. It affects the history if the universe, in the same way something like this would affect the history of, say, Star Wars, or Middle-Earth, or the Marvel Universe. In Star Trek, there was an episode where it was revealed that most of the species of the galaxy, including humanity, were in fact seeded on different planets by a progenitor race. Wasn't a big fan of that either.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Why do you all have a problem with my dislike of the First World? Are we not allowed to like different things?

Probably because people want to understand how it makes you believe that other settings are less valuable.
You yet failed to explain it.

So you may dislike or disagree. But other people also may disagree with you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Probably because people want to understand how it makes you believe that other settings less valuable.
You yet failed to explain it.

No, I've explained my reasoning several times, you just don't agree. And that's ok. I said before I'm tired of talking about this anyway.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, I've explained my reasoning several times, you just don't agree. And that's ok. I said before I'm tired of talking about this anyway.

Ok. You explained. But those explanations failed to convince anyone.
So. Over and out.

 

[mamba]

There are 3 or 4 versions of the King Author myth (not including modern re-imagining). Which one is True?

none of them?

 

[dave2008]

What do any of those realms do to change or re-contextualuze the history of D&D's settings? They are other planes, not an alternate history of the universe.

Other planes are an alternate history of the multiverse. Similar to the first world. How is the inclusion of completely new realms of reality not a change to the history of D&D settings that never had them?

 

[dave2008]

Why do you all have a problem with my dislike of the First World? Are we not allowed to like different things?

It doesn't affect my game personally. It affects the history if the universe, in the same way something like this would affect the history of, say, Star Wars, or Middle-Earth, or the Marvel Universe. In Star Trek, there was an episode where it was revealed that most of the species of the galaxy, including humanity, were in fact seeded on different planets by a progenitor race. Wasn't a big fan of that either.

But the first world is not that. It is an idea that dragons have about the history of the universe. Thus far, it has not extended its scaly claws into any WotC D&D lore beyond that. It is not a retcon or change.

Personally I like it, and would use it. However. I can understand, and respect, not likely it for exactly the reasons you stated. However, it isn't an example of WotC destroying other settings IMO. That is the characterization I am pushing back against. This bit of lore, thus far, changes much less than the Far Realm, Shadowfell, and Feywild. I also like those realms, but they have changed more of D&D history and lore than the First World.

EDIT: as a follow up, per WotC, Fizban's is not canon. Only the corebooks are canon. So the first world is specifically only relevant to those who want to use it.