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.

 

[humble minion]

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...

I'd have to look it up (it was part of the threads about the lawsuit Weis and Hickman brought against WotC for messing them around on the contract for the new DL novel trilogy) but I believe we found out that Hickman disagreed with some of the changes that WotC wanted to make to Dragonlance. Whether that was about the stuff like female Solamnic knights, or more to do with the messing with timelines and canon about Soth, the Cataclysm, the retreat of the good dragons, etc etc, I have no idea. But it ended up getting resolved that W&H could write what they liked in the novel line under the name 'Dragonlance Classics' while the game material was WotCs playground.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I'd have to look it up (it was part of the threads about the lawsuit Weis and Hickman brought against WotC for messing them around on the contract for the new DL novel trilogy) but I believe we found out that Hickman disagreed with some of the changes that WotC wanted to make to Dragonlance. Whether that was about the stuff like female Solamnic knights, or more to do with the messing with timelines and canon about Soth, the Cataclysm, the retreat of the good dragons, etc etc, I have no idea. But it ended up getting resolved that W&H could write what they liked in the novel line under the name 'Dragonlance Classics' while the game material was WotCs playground.

Yes, so really his position was opposite on the two setting, and the one where his attitude was "burn it down for all I care" was the one they sought his input on.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

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

I know he did. But CoS became the "base" for the latter 5E setting which led to all the bad decisions from CoS being folded into the setting (a long with a whole bunch of other stuff which can't be directly blamed on it). Add that to all the weird Perkinisms that ended up in CoS (reused NPCs and concept from unrelated Dungeon magazine adventures).

 

[mamba]

I know he did. But CoS became the "base" for the latter 5E setting which led to all the bad decisions from CoS being folded into the setting

what bad decisions (genuine question)?

How is he responsible for what gets added to a setting he is not working on?

 

[Scribe]

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

I've already told you this.

I can feel my cynicism rising and so will have to bow out.

 

[JEB]

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

To be fair, every revived setting for 5E has brought back something that someone considered "good" about the original. That includes Ravenloft, despite its many, many changes from the original. We can tell because otherwise, the new settings really would be in name only, and even the familiar names and Easter eggs would be absent.

However, that doesn't mean that everything they chose not to bring back was "bad" - because that's going to be subjective in all but the most extreme cases.

 

[Hussar]

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

Well let’s see.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh - brings back all sorts of Greyhawk goodness.

Candlekeep - massive deep dives into FR lore.

Rime - brings out all sorts of Ten Towns lore.

Spelljammer- brings back rather a lot of Spelljammer lore and makes the settin a hundred times more popular than it originally was.

That’s off the top of my head.

 

[Hussar]

I know he did. But CoS became the "base" for the latter 5E setting which led to all the bad decisions from CoS being folded into the setting (a long with a whole bunch of other stuff which can't be directly blamed on it). Add that to all the weird Perkinisms that ended up in CoS (reused NPCs and concept from unrelated Dungeon magazine adventures).

Isn’t CoS considered the best 5e module to date?

 

[Mecheon]

That's what new settings are for.

Then what, we just kill every setting because 30 years ago someone wrote some half-baked module on minimum concern for a magazine article, and apparently that half-baked one-off module has such cosmic concern to the ongoing narrative that we can't just ignore it and instead need to either stick with it, or invent an entirely new setting?

Look, we like to giggle at the Forest Oracle, but I am absolutely sure people ignore that one all the time and no one suffers for it

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

The Ravenloft book is mostly revamped old stuff. Just, y'know, giving reasons for certain Darklords other than 'oooo a wolfwere isn't a werewolf its spooooky' like certain Old Ravenloft domains used to be.

 

[Maxperson]

Spelljammer- brings back rather a lot of Spelljammer lore and makes the settin a hundred times more popular than it originally was.

Can you point out any setting lore brought back in the setting book beyond the few Rock of Bral pages at the end?