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.

 

[overgeeked]

The OP makes sense, in spite of some folks’ embittered skepticism.

Why revisit settings when the well known settings weren’t even all out yet? Now they are, and we shall see what we shall see.

Ravenloft got two books before Spelljammer, Dragonlance, or Planescape were released. Or even announced, afaik. And all the well-known settings aren’t out yet. Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Mystara, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Odd angle, when we are talking about not just the 'global leader' but the essential monolith in the space who have as a corporate entity.

Had block buster success in games.
Had NTY Best Sellers.
Had established characters over decades.
Had actual settings with depth.
I assume, have people within the company looking around and seeing what else is successful, or has been successful.

Just because Wizards literally fell into success ass backwards despite consecutively rolling natural 1's over and over and over, doesnt mean they shouldnt be able to apply some actual logic. Some of us have been saying for years on end "yeah thats nice and all, but when do we get something for us?" to all the over sanitized 'safe' PG stuff.

Never. They have no financial reason to do differently than they have been.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Not always. Plenty of Ravenloft products on DMsGuild use the old material instead of VRGtR as the base.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

WotC did do that. They licensed the material to Arthaus.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Not always. Plenty of Ravenloft products on DMsGuild use the old material instead of VRGtR as the base.

Sure. There's nothing preventing people from basing their work off of 2e/3e Ravenloft material rather than Van Richten's, and I don't think anyone takes issue with them doing so.

All I'm saying is that WotC has decent reasons for wanting to have their own official version in place before they open the floodgates.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ravenloft got two books before Spelljammer, Dragonlance, or Planescape were released. Or even announced, afaik.

I generally think of CoS as very distinct from the Ravenloft setting, but sure. With the exception of the most popular setting (FR) and the most popular adventure’s settings (CoS/Ravenloft), then. I don’t think my point is especially diminished.

And all the well-known settings aren’t out yet. Dark Sun, Greyhawk, Mystara, etc.

I wouldn’t include Mystara on the “well known list”, but I also don’t really care about the details. Replace all with most, the point is not diminished.

 

[JEB]

People that want these settings want them because that means the setting is alive. And, more importantly, it means their preferences are validated.

2) They want a new audience to share their enthusiasm for the setting, which is most likely to happen with a new product.

Absolutely.

Of course, this also explains why some fans get upset at major changes to the revived settings. Especially changes that outright contradict elements of the old setting. Because those changes invalidate their preferences. And the new fans are enthusiastic for the new setting, not the one veteran fans enjoyed. Worse, it makes it that much harder to attract people to the old, implicitly flawed version of the setting, because it's competing with the new shiny.

As such, I don't blame veteran fans who - at this point - no longer trust Wizards with their favorite old settings, and would almost rather they just stop updating them. After 5E's take on Ravenloft (and to a lesser extent, Spelljammer and Dragonlance), some fans clearly felt burned. (Though if I'm being honest, Dragonlance seemed super cautious with its updates, so I don't quite understand the upset... but it's out there.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

those come out in year 51

Original D&D release is 1974, 50th anniversary is thus 2024? No? 74+51 = 125.

Am I missing something? Did the new core books get bumped to 2025 when I wasn't paying attention?

 

[Parmandur]

Original D&D release is 1974, 50th anniversary is thus 2024? No? 74+51 = 125.

Am I missing something? Did the new core books get bumped to 2025 when I wasn't paying attention?

No, but the WotC team did say that the core books are not getting alt covers in 2024, because of the scale of the logistics. So there will be some box set in a future year where we may see alt covers for a three pack.

 

[Incenjucar]

Generally I think new voices are best used to explore new ideas rather than overwriting the old. Faction War is a good example of how that can go. Old settings can always be expanded or given greater detail without invalidating what came before, moving the lense to something new in the same picture.