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.

 

[Remathilis]

No, that was actually resolved with Enterprise.

But STD, and Strange New Worlds made a mess of all that (though I really like the latter, it's thrown several monkeywrenches into established lore).

Nickcageyoudontsay.jpg

Almost all media projects end up self contradictory if they go long enough. I've learned you either accept it for what it is or you get off the ride. But I really can't stand the "they fired me as a fan" argument.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nickcageyoudontsay.jpg

Almost all media projects end up self contradictory if they go long enough. I've learned you either accept it for what it is or you get off the ride. But I really can't stand the "they fired me as a fan" argument.

I just a sincere attempt to maintain continuity to be made. The franchises I respect have largely done so. D&D has not.

 

[darjr]

There are some more details and explanations in the video

 

[Azzy]

Which is weird, because they did not have to. It is the Klingon Empire. That doesn't mean every species in the Empire has to be native Klingons. maybe different clans were different strains? Maybe the Precursors (is that what they are called in ST) seeded a dozen nearby worlds with proto-Klingons. "Our special effects changed" is an opportunity to expand lore, not create convoluted methods to preserve it.

I really wish that they hadn't. IMO, they should have just rolled with like there was no difference at all.

 

[Hussar]

They are now, anyway. Up until that declaration a few years ago, anyone following the Realms from 1E to 5E would reasonably assume it's all the same canon (complete with crisis events to mark edition changes). Other settings largely continued the same canon from 1E to 3E (and early 5E suggested that 4E-era reboots had been rolled back).

Dragonlance has entered the chat.

As has The Known World.

 

[Hussar]

I just a sincere attempt to maintain continuity to be made. The franchises I respect have largely done so. D&D has not.

See you keep repeating this like it’s true. 5e has contradicted very little of previous lore. Simply because they don’t actually have a lot of lore outside of adventures. So, no contradiction.

Can you give some clear examples where they are changing or removing lore?

 

[JEB]

Can you give some clear examples where they are changing or removing lore?

5E Ravenloft, which changed or removed nearly everything from the previous versions of the setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See you keep repeating this like it’s true. 5e has contradicted very little of previous lore. Simply because they don’t actually have a lot of lore outside of adventures. So, no contradiction.

Can you give some clear examples where they are changing or removing lore?

Ravenloft. I've been pretty vociferous on the subject.

 

[Velderan]

See you keep repeating this like it’s true. 5e has contradicted very little of previous lore. Simply because they don’t actually have a lot of lore outside of adventures. So, no contradiction.

Can you give some clear examples where they are changing or removing lore?

While overall I think they did a salvageable job of sidestepping the existing lore in Shadow of the Dragon Queen given the task they had in front of them, having Soth involved in any way was definitely a change.

 

[Hussar]

While overall I think they did a salvageable job of sidestepping the existing lore in Shadow of the Dragon Queen given the task they had in front of them, having Soth involved in any way was definitely a change.

Fair enough. But, then again, Soth's been retconned fifteen ways from Sunday anyway. Let's be honest here, the ship sailed a LONG time ago on complaining about changes to Dragonlance continuity.

Ravenloft? Fair enough. And...? I mean that's one setting. A setting that had not had official material since 2e, virtually none of which anyone actually played. We know that because Ravenloft didn't sell very well at all. The number of people who actually know anything about previous Ravenloft lore is vanishingly small. Are we really going to be beholden to the three people who actually care about this?

But, ok, I'll grant Ravenloft. OTOH, we've had several adventures in FOrgotten Realms that have done a pretty decent job in keeping in line with lore. A Greyhawk adventure that, other than a couple of updates like adding Tieflings, is virtually identical to the original adventures as in word for word identical. Spelljammer doesn't really contradict any existing Spelljammer material (mostly becuase it lacks so much information) and does manage to present the framework, if only in a very minimal way.

Yet, funnily enough, I head over to DM's Guild and see The Harvesters of Worlds - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild Harvester of Worlds, which presents all sorts of Spelljammer lore in a very interesting adventure. If Spelljammer had completely changed the setting, how come I can run modules in 5e Spelljammer that dovetail very nicely with existing lore?

Yes, we get it. Some people don't like the new Ravenloft material. But, it's not like WOtC has done that to every setting. WotC's actually been taking a very light touch about lore.