D&D 5E D&D's Classic Settings Are Not 'One Shots'

In an interview with ComicBook.com, WotC's Jeremy Crawford talked about the visits to Ravenloft, Eberron, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and (the upcoming) Planescape we've seen over the last couple of years, and their intentions for the future.

He indicated that they plan to revisit some of these settings again in the future, noting that the setting books are among their most popular books.

We love [the campaign setting books], because they help highlight just how wonderfully rich D&D is. They highlight that D&D can be gothic horror. D&D can be fantasy in space. D&D can be trippy adventures in the afterlife, in terms of Planescape. D&D can be classic high fantasy, in the form of the Forgotten Realms. It can be sort of a steampunk-like fantasy, like in Eberron. We feel it's vital to visit these settings, to tell stories in them. And we look forward to returning to them. So we do not view these as one-shots.

- Jeremy Crawford​

The whole 'multiverse' concept that D&D is currently exploring plays into this, giving them opportunities to resist worlds.

When asked about the release schedule of these books, Crawford noted that the company plans its release schedule so that players get chance to play the material, not just read it, and they don't want to swamp people with too much content to use.

Our approach to how we design for the game and how we plan out the books for it is a play-first approach. At certain times in D&D's history, it's really been a read-first approach. Because we've had points in our history where we were producing so many books each year, there was no way anyone could play all of it. In some years it would be hard to play even a small percentage of the number of things that come out. Because we have a play-first approach, we want to make sure we're coming out with things at a pace where if you really wanted to, and even that would require a lot of weekends and evenings dedicated to D&D play, you could play a lot of it.

- Jeremy Crawford​

You can read more in the interview at ComicBook.com.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, I’m aware. I mean for the settings they’re ignoring. Open those up to the Guild. Like Dark Sun. They’re flat out said they’re never going to have the spine to touch it, so open it up on the Guild for others to toy with. So too with Mystara, Hollow World, Birthright, Nentir Vale, etc. WotC still gets their cut. They’re not out anything.

I don't disagree, but why do we need DM's Guild?

Mystara 5E is already out there, doing The Good Work from their own website and their own thriving fan community (Vaults of Pandius). And they're not alone, either: Star Wars 5E is out there too, a labor of love from the fans of both the 5E rules set and the Star Wars universe, all for free. If you want 5E Dark Sun, allow me to introduce you to the Obsidian Portal where fans of that campaign setting produce quality Dark Sun content for your 5E game (for free.)

 

[Azzy]

I think the people who want updated settings want one of two things, or both:

1) Conversion stats. Lots of people feel uncomfortable homebrewing monsters, spells and subclasses and would like the pros to do it for them.

This it for me—I just want the mechanical support so I can use the older setting material or use elements from different settings of the past in my homebrew settings. I don't expect WotC to do more than shallow renderings of old settings, so I'm good with just the game mechanics thereof.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Yes, I’m aware. I mean for the settings they’re ignoring. Open those up to the Guild. Like Dark Sun. They’re flat out said they’re never going to have the spine to touch it, so open it up on the Guild for others to toy with. So too with Mystara, Hollow World, Birthright, Nentir Vale, etc. WotC still gets their cut. They’re not out anything.

I don't necessarily disagree, but past actions make it pretty clear that their current policy is to only open up a setting on DMsGuild when they release a corresponding 5e product for that setting.

I'm sure there's a decent business rationale behind it - it keeps some third party from creating an authorized version of one of their settings and build up years of inertia that they then have to fight against when/if they want to revisit it officially. Plenty of people say things like "I don't need 5e Planescape/Spelljammer/etc. because I still have the 2e books", so them already having third party 5e books for those settings possibly years before WotC can get their official version ready isn't liable to be a boon for sales.

It also lets WotC be the ones to plant the flag of "this is what is/isn't an official part of this setting in 5e" (for example, toning down and/or removing slavery in a hypothetical 5e Dark Sun) instead of letting others make decisions that they'll later need to reign in, or possibly take the heat for should some controversy blow up in their face.

 

[Parmandur]

The assertion that I was responding to was that the adventures listed included hard R material up front.

I mean, by that standard they don't include any material up front at all. However, WotC frequently feature some pretty gritty material for use...or not.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, by that standard they don't include any material up front at all. However, WotC frequently feature some pretty gritty material for use...or not.

WotC implies some grit, in the same way the MCU and Star Wars do.

Except Ravenloft. That book actually leans into the horror and I'm impressed. But folks suggesting Avernus is Doom are way overstating it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I mean, for some reason, we all (self included) expected a setting book for Spelljammer despite being told to our face that wasn't going to happen.

It is a setting book. It is not the setting book many people wanted. If it was called something other than "Spelljammer" there would be no question that it's a setting book.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm sure there's a decent business rationale behind it - it keeps some third party from creating an authorized version of one of their settings and build up years of inertia that they then have to fight against when/if they want to revisit it officially.

I suspect the 3E licensed Ravenloft looms large in their memory. WotC would never have done anything comparable to that, and now they have this huge body of quasi-official canon that fans keep referencing.

 

[Sketchpad]

Honestly, I miss the support that was given back in the 1e/2e days. Box sets, city books, adventures, equipment guides...

 

[Parmandur]

WotC implies some grit, in the same way the MCU and Star Wars do.

Except Ravenloft. That book actually leans into the horror and I'm impressed. But folks suggesting Avernus is Doom are way overstating it.

Not really.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Honestly, I miss the support that was given back in the 1e/2e days. Box sets, city books, adventures, equipment guides...

Apparently a number of those lines actively lost money. I think it's unlikely WotC will ever be quite that reckless. (Although, given how they started 2023, never say never.)