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.

 

[Hussar]

If lore for a setting is too restrictive (although I struggle to understandhow that can be), make a new setting.

You don’t understand how lore could be restrictive?

Lessee. According to Dragonlance lore, devils do not exist since there is no Hell in the cosmology. Granted, that gets retconned in later books, but that’s kinda the point. Oh, no bards either since healing was flat out off the table. No non-human or non-elves magic users. And that’s just off the top of my head.

The recent Dragonlance book ejects so much DL canon.

 

[Scribe]

You have to look at this from the point of view of the corporation. Light weight lore is fine but anything that splits the market of adds overhead to the production of new product is not worth it in the long run.

Did Wizards or anyone actually point out what was so flawed with the lore of MtoF that it had to be nuked? I get why they wanted to move on from Volo's but I dont remember anything in ToF that was of issue, other than 'exists as canon'.

 

[JEB]

The recent Dragonlance book ejects so much DL canon.

Can you provide some examples? It seemed to me that they overtly changed very little, and mostly just opted not to mention any inconvenient old lore, which allows veteran fans to mix it with the new setting if they want. (Unlike Ravenloft, which was pretty blatant and comprehensive with its setting changes, and isn't very compatible with the old stuff.) But some folks seem pretty upset with the book regardless, so I'm wondering what I missed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Elrond:
Our time here is ending, Arwen's time is ending. Let her go... let her take the ship into the West. Let her bear her love for you to the Undying Lands, there it will be ever green...

Aragorn:
...but never more than a memory.

Lovely quote, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You don’t understand how lore could be restrictive?

Lessee. According to Dragonlance lore, devils do not exist since there is no Hell in the cosmology. Granted, that gets retconned in later books, but that’s kinda the point. Oh, no bards either since healing was flat out off the table. No non-human or non-elves magic users. And that’s just off the top of my head.

The recent Dragonlance book ejects so much DL canon.

Haven't read the new ones. But if you have a story that doesn't work with an established world, and you can't for example simply move it to a different part of that world, then you need to find and/or create a new world for your story.

 

[Remathilis]

Lovely quote, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

We may want to keep the things we love unchanged, ever green. But the cost is they do not grow, they become a memory. I would gladly take Dragonlance or Ravenloft adapted to the game and audience of today, alive and thriving, over the memory from 30 years ago kept perfect and undying but never touched again.

 

[Clint_L]

You can still use those old settings all you want. Many if not most of the adventures even have 5e adaptations, if you prefer to use them with the current game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We may want to keep the things we love unchanged, ever green. But the cost is they do not grow, they become a memory. I would gladly take Dragonlance or Ravenloft adapted to the game and audience of today, alive and thriving, over the memory from 30 years ago kept perfect and undying but never touched again.

I would not, given what we've received from WotC instead.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Aetherpunk is a well known enough term for it to create very specific outputs in AI generated art, suggesting that it is probably more well known than you think. It is also the genre definition of one of the most successful and lauded gaming adaptations of recent years, Arcane.

But, sure, maybe "aetherpunk" is obscure. "Steampunk" is just wrong, though.

I know I probably don't represent the normal sample size, but I never heard of 'aetherpunk' until this conversation. I've gamed since 1982. I consider myself decently exposed to fantasy and scifi... never heard of it.

Personally, instead of the nominclature, I feel the issue with Eberron should be Eberron does NOT equal Sharn. Sharn you could describe was whatever-punk, but there is so much more going on in the world than anything related to artificers

 

[Demetrios1453]

Did Wizards or anyone actually point out what was so flawed with the lore of MtoF that it had to be nuked? I get why they wanted to move on from Volo's but I dont remember anything in ToF that was of issue, other than 'exists as canon'.

Honestly, I think they simply decided to go to the Fizban's/Bigby's model. Volo's and Mordenkainen's were very superficial and unfocused when it came to what they covered.