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.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

When you can't explain any retcon in D&D then BLAME VECNA AND THE REBOOT THIS CAUSED FROM 2ND TO 3RD! You know, that trouble caused in Sigil in the last published module.

A wizard dwarf was canon in a Dragonlance novel, the antagonist of the story where Flint was king of gullys for a short time.

The lore of Ravenloft may be flexible, and if WotC wanted, they could say the 5e demiplane of the dread is not really a reboot but a "sequel" after Azalin caused serious troubles while he tried to escape. Maybe the metaplot of Ravenlot and Innistrad are going to be closer in the future. Even some possible link with Duskmorun, the future M.tG plane based in 80's horror movies, creepypasta and indie horror comics.

If the cronomancers are reintroduced in 5e the D&D cosmology could be affected radically.

It is not only the coherence between the previous published novels and the new sourcebooks, but also the future videogames and cinematic productions. For example the possible changed details in the comingsoon action-live serie of Dragonlance.

* Have you thought about how could be a new version of "Living Greyhawk" in the current age internet?

* If Capcom wanted a collab with D&D, Mystara should be the setting, or a mash-up version of this.

 

[Golroc]

I think the WotC/Hasbro strategy for the digital table-top is an important part of why they are probably taking multiverse perspective of their campaign worlds - essentially treating each setting book as part of the same overall setting. So he is right when he says they don't consider the settings one-shots. They do plan on revisiting campaign worlds. And I also think the additional content can be of a fairly varied nature - some focusing on different parts of a setting, some focusing on adding depth to the already covered areas, some adding new story lines, etc.

But if the plan is to eventually have a digital table-top where players can seamlessly enter sessions with "strangers" - and where the DM has a lot of AI-assistance or where an AI might even be able to act as DM - then it is important to WotC that the playerbase isn't fragmented with player characters locked to specific settings. They'd want players to be able to bring any character into a game session. A multiverse of settings enables this. They would not want their playerbase to be fixated on always playing in a specific setting and with fellow player characters exclusive to that setting. They would definitely not want settings with special rules that hinder multiverse adventuring.

The cynical view is that this makes settings primarily a way to monetize expanded player options and not so much a way to create unique settings for players to explore and tell stories in. The positive view is that this outlook makes each setting a source of new options, stories and narrative/aesthetic flavor. These view points are not mutually exclusive.

I hope that the future of digital table-top D&D is not one of exclusivity in the sense that alternative platforms are cut-off from hosting D&D sessions - as it is not inconceivable that such platforms become the only option for D&D players and groups who prefer a more homebrew-oriented style. It's not the end of the world if D&D digital ends up being mostly exclusive to a single multiverse-oriented platform. There will be plenty of other systems and platforms, I'm sure. I just hope that some of the new possibilities that technology is going to unlock will also be available to those who wish to adventure in a less multiverse-aspected version of their favorite D&D game setting. I know I'm one such player - even if I will certainly also try out the multiverse experience, I see great value to having campaigns and stories that are all about immersion in a specific setting. As the line between CRPGS and digital table-top starts to blur, I hope I get to experience some of those classic worlds again, and like physical table top games, have a high degree of control in what material to use while doing so.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the WotC/Hasbro strategy for the digital table-top is an important part of why they are probably taking multiverse perspective of their campaign worlds - essentially treating each setting book as part of the same overall setting. So he is right when he says they don't consider the settings one-shots. They do plan on revisiting campaign worlds. And I also think the additional content can be of a fairly varied nature - some focusing on different parts of a setting, some focusing on adding depth to the already covered areas, some adding new story lines, etc.

But if the plan is to eventually have a digital table-top where players can seamlessly enter sessions with "strangers" - and where the DM has a lot of AI-assistance or where an AI might even be able to act as DM - then it is important to WotC that the playerbase isn't fragmented with player characters locked to specific settings. They'd want players to be able to bring any character into a game session. A multiverse of settings enables this. They would not want their playerbase to be fixated on always playing in a specific setting and with fellow player characters exclusive to that setting. They would definitely not want settings with special rules that hinder multiverse adventuring.

The cynical view is that this makes settings primarily a way to monetize expanded player options and not so much a way to create unique settings for players to explore and tell stories in. The positive view is that this outlook makes each setting a source of new options, stories and narrative/aesthetic flavor. These view points are not mutually exclusive.

I hope that the future of digital table-top D&D is not one of exclusivity in the sense that alternative platforms are cut-off from hosting D&D sessions - as it is not inconceivable that such platforms become the only option for D&D players and groups who prefer a more homebrew-oriented style. It's not the end of the world if D&D digital ends up being mostly exclusive to a single multiverse-oriented platform. There will be plenty of other systems and platforms, I'm sure. I just hope that some of the new possibilities that technology is going to unlock will also be available to those who wish to adventure in a less multiverse-aspected version of their favorite D&D game setting. I know I'm one such player - even if I will certainly also try out the multiverse experience, I see great value to having campaigns and stories that are all about immersion in a specific setting. As the line between CRPGS and digital table-top starts to blur, I hope I get to experience some of those classic worlds again, and like physical table top games, have a high degree of control in what material to use while doing so.

To a degree though, this has been WotC's design paradigm since 2000. TSR was notorious for making settings where PC rules were incompatible with each other, but WotC has been making setting options interchangeable for years.

That said, Dragonlance did introduce the notion that certain options are only for people native to that setting. The Knight and Mage feats and backgrounds specifically call out you must be in a Dragonlance campaign (or have DM permission) to take them. I suspect that is something that they will carry on and use more in the future when it comes to setting options. Some will be generic (species and subclasses) while others will be campaign specific (feats and backgrounds).

 

[JEB]

Second is that you just plain retcon it. It's always been that way, the gnome paladins and dwarf warlocks were just well hidden or keeping themselves secret or hanging out with the Entwives.

This is definitely the one I prefer, of the three. Probably because I'm a comic book fan from way back, and this is how Marvel has worked for decades. And it allows the largest amount of lore to remain "true", at least to some degree.

Which solves your player choice problem. but at the cost of a certain degree of setting verisimilitude in places. If dwarves had wizards, dwarf history would have been different in several ways which would have affected the current-day setting.

Certainly such questions can be raised, but the same sorts of questions can be raised whenever any long-running fictional world introduces a new, paradigm-shaking change. I don't think they're deal-breakers if you don't want them to be. In fact, I think they're fodder for interesting discussions (why didn't dwarven wizards radically change dwarf society?), and can inspire creative answers!

 

[humble minion]

This is definitely the one I prefer, of the three. Probably because I'm a comic book fan from way back, and this is how Marvel has worked for decades. And it allows the largest amount of lore to remain "true", at least to some degree.

Yeah, it's certainly my preference as well. But I would have no hesitation in just flat-out banning some stuff too, if i had to. Dragonborn PCs I'd have trouble fitting in Krynn for instance, at least until the War or the Lance is over and you can talk about having draconian PCs. But a tiefling could easily be a one-of-a-kind result of bad magic somewhere along the line, for instance, an archfey warlock could have fallen asleep in Darken Wood and woken up a hundred years later with all their loved ones long dead, even a warforged could be an accidental gnome creation, looking for meaning to its existence. After all, if you don't have a melodramatic angsty backstory in Dragonlance, are you really in Dragonlance?

I'd be much more hard-nosed about Dark Sun probably. But we all have our personal tolerance thresholds for this stuff...

 

[Older Beholder]

I like the idea of more books covering/expanding on the settings released so far. I'm curious what that'll mean.

The most obvious thing would be settings that were released as an adventure first, like the recent Dragonlance book. Given we already have an example of that with Ravenloft it seemsa likely possibility.

But what about things like Spelljammer which was a greater mix of setting, adventure and monsters?
In the 2E days there was a trend towards 'monsters sold separately', so perhaps setting specific monster books could be an option going forward?

I guess a third option is just more campaign specific adventure books.

 

[nevin]

I don’t care if I’m the minority, I’d love to see another campaign style book focused on another part of the Forgotten Realms before anything else.

Problem is once you leave the known area its all stuff like the pseudo mongol horde, the psuedo egyptian empire etc, etc, nithing WOTC is going to touch with a 10 ft pole

 

[Reynard]

Problem is once you leave the known area its all stuff like the pseudo mongol horde, the psuedo egyptian empire etc, etc, nithing WOTC is going to touch with a 10 ft pole

The Dale Lands called...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Problem is once you leave the known area its all stuff like the pseudo mongol horde, the psuedo egyptian empire etc, etc, nithing WOTC is going to touch with a 10 ft pole

I don't really agree that they wouldn't. The intentionally dealt with Chult, after all, which is significantly more problematic.

With faux-Egypt, there's nothing particularly problematic. It's a generic "ancient Egypt somehow in the 1600s-equivalent setting" trope which comes up in a lot of campaigns. This is not generally something that is a point of contention or upset.

The faux-Mongols can be largely ignored and talking about the Mongol horde etc. is not yet problematic, probably because people descended from that group either tend to be somewhat denial about it, or totally embrace it and the whole Mongol deal, and don't find the discussion of that history problematic.

Faux-Asia provides a bit more of a real problem, but again, it could be updated and sort of glossed over at the same.

Maztica is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge problem and I dunno what WotC are going to do about that apart from a massive retcon and rewrite sometime in the future. Until then they'll probably just act like it doesn't exist - it is on another continent at least.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Problem is once you leave the known area its all stuff like the pseudo mongol horde, the psuedo egyptian empire etc, etc, nithing WOTC is going to touch with a 10 ft pole

Poor WotC. So much content they're too scared to work with.