D&D 5E D&D's Classic Settings Are Not 'One Shots'

Spelljammer-ship-in-space-asteroid-city.jpeg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I disagree, Robin Hood and Arthur barely changed
I... what? That's indefensible.
Superman, Robin hood?
Like really? Have you ever read any comic books?
Star Wars is a pretty good case for changes almost ruining a franchise.
You may want to check out the newest shows. They are based almost entirely on thins that appeared in the prequel era.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I disagree, Robin Hood and Arthur barely changed, and I like what I consider the originals better than any of the reimaginations.
Ehh... Maybe if you're only looking at the past handful of decades, but over the centuries both Arthurian legend and stories of Robin Hood have changed quite a bit.

Might I recommend a quick overview by Red of Overly Sarcastic Productions?
 


Like really? Have you ever read any comic books?

Recently no, all the reboots got old decades ago.

Is Superman not from a different planet, raised by a down to earth family, noble, and an invincible force of good that tries to represent the best of humanity while being an alien himself? Are the broad strokes different? If so, thats a shame.
 

I disagree, Robin Hood and Arthur barely changed, and I like what I consider the originals better than any of the reimaginations.

Star Wars is a pretty good case for changes almost ruining a franchise. If we just had the original trilogy someone would have made less money, but it did not help with belovedness
King Authur stories have changed consistently from their first inception as the Matter of Britain to the present day. I can't think of any modern re-relling that is close to the original, or even to the late medieval versions. It's telling that many have said, in total seriousness, that the truest adaptation of the Authur story is actually Monty Python's.
 

Recently no, all the reboots got old decades ago.

Is Superman not from a different planet, raised by a down to earth family, noble, and an invincible force of good that tries to represent the best of humanity while being an alien himself? Are the broad strokes different? If so, thats a shame.
Superman's current "broad strokes" are certainly no closer to the original than are Ravenloft's. Living properties that are worked on by huge numbers of creators always change. And then, once they hit the public domain they change even more. D&D settings are no different. It is both inevitable and desirable for them to change over time.
 

King Authur stories have changed consistently from their first inception as the Matter of Britain to the present day. I can't think of any modern re-relling that is close to the original, or even to the late medieval versions. It's telling that many have said, in total seriousness, that the truest adaptation of the Authur story is actually Monty Python's.
Well, true to the Old French Romances...which are centuries and cultures removed from the misty historical Brythonic warlord Riothammus and the Wealth Legends that grew around him.
 

Change can be additive; in most franchises with real longevity it is. Star Wars has changed over the years, but they never said the original films or anything else didn't happen, or happened differently. D&D does.
You don't know that Disney wiped the entire Extended Universe when it brought Star Wars off Lucas??
 

Superman's current "broad strokes" are certainly no closer to the original than are Ravenloft's.

So he has changed? Tragic, but not surprising.

I'm not talking 'original'. I am talking about what people expect out of Superman. The broad strokes exist, or at least they did. If he had to be 'reinvented for a modern audience' then yeah, thats unfortunate.
 

Not gonna lie. I miss the days when Supes would Kool-Aid man through a wall and punch a man for beating his wife.

But taking time out of a day styling on Lex Luthor to talk down and hug a depressed teen? I loke this too.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top