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.

 

[Aldarc]

Bring back Greyhawk! That setting is the ultimate in being adventurer friendly while not being overloaded with lore.

You mispronounced "Nentir Vale."

 

[Reynard]

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.

No. I meant that "Superman, last Son of Krypton, Defender of Truth, justice and the American Way" is in broad-strokes just as accurate as "Ravenloft, Demiplane of Dread" is. That is, the broad strokes for Ravenloft haven't changed beyond recognition any more than Supes' broad strokes have. Even if it is different, it is recognizable -- which is the state you want for a living property that is decades old. If you prefer some particular snapshot of a character or setting from its life, the books etc.. that defined it at that point still exist. Use that. Don't ask it not to continue to evolve, tho.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You don't know that Disney wiped the entire Extended Universe when it brought Star Wars off Lucas??

I never read them, so it didn't affect me. Prior to the Disney buy out, the only Star Wars I was familiar with was the six films and the Clone Wars, which they coincidentally kept.

Also, the Extended Universe was never officially canon, like the current stuff is. Thus, I never treated it as such.

 

[mamba]

What do you think yhe "original" of King Arthur is...? Because odds are it's a reimagination.

there is no clear original King Arthur, he was presumably a ruler fighting off the Anglo-Saxons somewhere towards the end of Roman rule in Britain

Much of what we have today with Excalibur, Merlin, etc. is embellishment, from 1200 onwards. I am not sure that a story that stayed pretty much the same for 700 years is a good example for needing changes to stay relevant

 

[mamba]

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

not sure how reliable I would consider those, will watch them later

 

[MichaelSomething]

I never read them, so it didn't affect me. Prior to the Disney buy out, the only Star Wars I was familiar with was the six films and the Clone Wars, which they coincidentally kept.

Also, the Extended Universe was never officially canon, like the current stuff is. Thus, I never treated it as such.

So you can empathize when a company decides to eliminate a large portion of previous lore to more focus on the stuff they're currently making??

 

[Clint_L]

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?

Popping in with a big thumb's up for all of Red's stuff on Overly Sarcastic - if you have even a vague interest in these topics, watch them! They're super entertaining while also being surprisingly comprehensive.

Also, I had a classmate in grad school who was a Robin Hood scholar, from whom I learned that the Robin Hood mythos is unbelievably complicated!

 

[Reynard]

Much of what we have today with Excalibur, Merlin, etc. is embellishment, from 1200 onwards. I am not sure that a story that stayed pretty much the same for 700 years is a good example for needing changes to stay relevant

The point is that it hasn't. It has changed a lot, and continues to do so.

One of the premier lecturers on the topic: The Great Courses

 

[Parmandur]

there is no clear original King Arthur, he was presumably a ruler fighting off the Anglo-Saxons somewhere towards the end of Roman rule in Britain

Much of what we have today with Excalibur, Merlin, etc. is embellishment, from 1200 onwards. I am not sure that a story that stayed pretty much the same for 700 years is a good example for needing changes to stay relevant

But...it didn't? Stuff got changed all the time, even after the Medieval consolidation into Romances?

I actually took some deep dive classes on Arthuriana from world experts on the literature in College, and there were assuredly lost original amd intermediate versions that experts have teased clues out of the Medieval Legends, too. An everevolving legendarium, as legendaria are wont to do.
 

 

[mamba]

The point is that it hasn't. It has changed a lot, and continues to do so.

One of the premier lecturers on the topic: The Great Courses

I am sure some scholar can find a lot of differences where a casual observer would say they are essentially the same. Since the retellings are aimed at the casual observer…

As to changing itself, I do not think there is something akin to an evolution happening. Different people put a different emphasis or even make actual changes for their version, but the next one then does not branch off from theirs, it goes back to an older source and makes different choices, independent of the previous one. The core stays, the different stories drift roughly equidistant around that center.

Would you say Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings and Jackson’s movie are drastically different or essentially the same?