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.

 

[Parmandur]

I knew Hickman hated that Ravenloft nicked Soth from Dragonlance, but i didn't know he hated the entire setting.

It's interesting the dynamic though. Hickman is heavily involved in CoS, and CoS kinda expands Barovia to include EVERY possible Gothic horror trope - you've got werewolves, evil puppets, child-eating hags, fallen angels, twisted animal/human mutants, angsty flesh golems, etc etc etc. It looked to me at the time that CoS was all the Ravenloft we were ever going to get in 5e, so they had to cram everything into it, even stuff that would traditionally find a home in another domain.

Then VRGtR comes along, and expands the setting beyond a single domain again. Hickman is not in the credits there (outside of a mention where they talk about old products that provided inspiration), but several other authors who got their start in the old Ravenloft netbooks on the Kargatane or Fraternity of Shadows sites (which were heavily, heavily into the broader Core setting) were contributing authors.

Personally, I'd be very, very surprised if the future production of VRGtR was even considered a possibility at the time that CoS was written. All signs point towards it having been intended as a one-shot, and that WotC changed their minds (as they're perfectly entitled to do!) later on.

Sure, absolutely. But Curse of Strahd is what any follow-up has to follow. Not 90's books.

 

[humble minion]

Sure, absolutely. But Curse of Strahd is what any follow-up has to follow. Not 90's books.

I get what you're saying, and in most part I agree. In modern D&D, in the most populous D&D player demographic, CoS largely defines Ravenloft, and of course it's going to be the most dominant influence on a follow-up book.

But CoS itself IS a followup to 90s books (and the 00s Arthaus stuff). As soon as you stick the word 'Ravenloft' on the cover, you're voluntarily bringing some of that baggage on board.

I wasn't complaining, more making an observation. It's very clear that there's many ways to view and play the setting - just to state the obvious. Hickman obviously has one viewpoint, he apparently disliked the Core and some of the other Ravenloft stuff that came along after the original module. So when WotC wanted to write a one-off Strahd-centric module, they brought him on to the project. But there's lots of later-generation writers who liked other domains, and some of the later expanded Ravenloft lore, so when WotC wanted to write a broader setting book, that's who they tapped. I think we on the outside sometimes tend to see 'WotC' as a lockstep creative monomind, whereas that's clearly not the case. Opinions there change between writers as well as over time. Maybe different people were in charge when VRGtR was greenlighted and written than were during the creation of CoS, or maybe the people in charge had their opinions change over time. Again, probably stating the obvious, but it's worth keeping in mind.

 

[Parmandur]

I get what you're saying, and in most part I agree. In modern D&D, in the most populous D&D player demographic, CoS largely defines Ravenloft, and of course it's going to be the most dominant influence on a follow-up book.

But CoS itself IS a followup to 90s books (and the 00s Arthaus stuff). As soon as you stick the word 'Ravenloft' on the cover, you're voluntarily bringing some of that baggage on board.

I wasn't complaining, more making an observation. It's very clear that there's many ways to view and play the setting - just to state the obvious. Hickman obviously has one viewpoint, he apparently disliked the Core and some of the other Ravenloft stuff that came along after the original module. So when WotC wanted to write a one-off Strahd-centric module, they brought him on to the project. But there's lots of later-generation writers who liked other domains, and some of the later expanded Ravenloft lore, so when WotC wanted to write a broader setting book, that's who they tapped. I think we on the outside sometimes tend to see 'WotC' as a lockstep creative monomind, whereas that's clearly not the case. Opinions there change between writers as well as over time. Maybe different people were in charge when VRGtR was greenlighted and written than were during the creation of CoS, or maybe the people in charge had their opinions change over time. Again, probably stating the obvious, but it's worth keeping in mind.

But they did make a point during the initial marketing that it was not 90's Ravenloft...Hickman in no uncertain terms.

 

[MockingBird]

I would be really happy if we get another Chult adventure and really dig in on Yuan-ti cults that silently rule the jungles.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I knew Hickman hated that Ravenloft nicked Soth from Dragonlance, but i didn't know he hated the entire setting.

It's interesting the dynamic though. Hickman is heavily involved in CoS, and CoS kinda expands Barovia to include EVERY possible Gothic horror trope - you've got werewolves, evil puppets, child-eating hags, fallen angels, twisted animal/human mutants, angsty flesh golems, etc etc etc. It looked to me at the time that CoS was all the Ravenloft we were ever going to get in 5e, so they had to cram everything into it, even stuff that would traditionally find a home in another domain.

Then VRGtR comes along, and expands the setting beyond a single domain again. Hickman is not in the credits there (outside of a mention where they talk about old products that provided inspiration), but several other authors who got their start in the old Ravenloft netbooks on the Kargatane or Fraternity of Shadows sites (which were heavily, heavily into the broader Core setting) were contributing authors.

Personally, I'd be very, very surprised if the future production of VRGtR was even considered a possibility at the time that CoS was written. All signs point towards it having been intended as a one-shot, and that WotC changed their minds (as they're perfectly entitled to do!) later on.

It absolutely was never intended to turn into a setting and several things that originated in CoS are inimical to such.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I get what you're saying, and in most part I agree. In modern D&D, in the most populous D&D player demographic, CoS largely defines Ravenloft, and of course it's going to be the most dominant influence on a follow-up book.

But CoS itself IS a followup to 90s books (and the 00s Arthaus stuff). As soon as you stick the word 'Ravenloft' on the cover, you're voluntarily bringing some of that baggage on board.

I wasn't complaining, more making an observation. It's very clear that there's many ways to view and play the setting - just to state the obvious. Hickman obviously has one viewpoint, he apparently disliked the Core and some of the other Ravenloft stuff that came along after the original module. So when WotC wanted to write a one-off Strahd-centric module, they brought him on to the project. But there's lots of later-generation writers who liked other domains, and some of the later expanded Ravenloft lore, so when WotC wanted to write a broader setting book, that's who they tapped. I think we on the outside sometimes tend to see 'WotC' as a lockstep creative monomind, whereas that's clearly not the case. Opinions there change between writers as well as over time. Maybe different people were in charge when VRGtR was greenlighted and written than were during the creation of CoS, or maybe the people in charge had their opinions change over time. Again, probably stating the obvious, but it's worth keeping in mind.

I will never understand having Hickman as a consultant to Ravenloft (where his influence was actively destructive on the setting) rather than Dragonlance. It honestly boggles my mind...

 

[mamba]

I will never understand having Hickman as a consultant to Ravenloft (where his influence was actively destructive on the setting) rather than Dragonlance. It honestly boggles my mind...

Hickman wrote the original Castle Ravenloft. I assume he was involved in the 5e adventure, not the setting book?

 

[Azzy]

Hickman wrote the original Castle Ravenloft. I assume he was involved in the 5e adventure, not the setting book?

I couldn't find his name in the credits to Van Richten's, so it seems he had nothing to do with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is at lot of what's already happened is kind of, bad. Ravenloft is the big example of this were a lot of the domains are Just Bad. Not like 'evil bad' but 'I kind of get where you're coming from but man you didn't just fail to stick the landing, you ruined it'

There is a point where being beholden to bad decisions in the past shouldn't be a thing and, sorry big lore fans, but D&D is long since past it. Even Sherlock Holmes didn't stick to its canon all the time and that was just one person writing. This is a game series where the whole thing is your character goes off and has adventures, including entire books of "Here's how to cause an apocalypse in your setting", and "Party grows so powerful it ends up turning Oerth into a salt mine" is downright famous as a series of events. Canon should serve people playing, not be an eternal chain around player's necks keeping them to 40 year old ideas that are irrelevant to a modern audiance

That's what new settings are for.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's why I'm bemused when people get upset about WotC saying that only 5E lore counts. They have already shown a desire to bring back all the good stuff (allowing for personal tastes). They just don't want to be beholden to keeping the lore consistent about who is shoeing horses in Daggerdale or what kind of underwear Volo prefers.

The dumb stuff from the past will (mostly) get dumped and the good stuff from the past will (mostly) get brought forward.

In what way have they shown a desire to bring back the good stuff?