Dungeons & Dragons Teases New Campaign Settings

Dungeons & Dragons seems to be preparing to explore brand new campaign settings. Last week, EN World had the opportunity to visit Wizards of the Coast headquarters and get new details about D&D's 2025 slate. While much of the focus was on the newly announced Eberron: Forge of the Artificer book or the upcoming pair of Forgotten Realms book, the D&D design team is also looking at expanding their official multiverse to include brand new worlds.

When asked about the decision to return to Eberron in 2025, the D&D design team noted that keeping the Fifth Edition ruleset allowed them to grow the game instead of rehash it. "One of the opportunities that we have by revising the game, as opposed blowing it up and starting over, is we can actually move forward," said Jeremy Crawford, game director . "And I can't wait until we can tell you about 2026 and 2027."

"With Jeremy Crawford taking on the game director role and then Chris Perkins taking on the creative director role is that we were able to really reestablish a world building environment," added Jess Lanzillo, VP of D&D Franchise at Wizards of the Coast. "What does that mean? We can really establish our worlds and settings like the Forgotten Realms and also look to creating new ones again. That's something that we are working on and we don't have anything to really discuss today other than to tell you like we are re-establishing everything that we have and we are going to make some new stuff too."

While Wizards of the Coast has integrated Magic: The Gathering worlds and Critical Role's Exandria as campaign settings for 5th Edition, D&D's last truly new campaign setting was Nentir Vale, a 'points of light' setting that established small bastions of civilization in an otherwise dark world. In 2023, D&D introduced the Radiant Citadel, a new city within the Ethereal Plane that was connected to numerous new civilizations and worlds briefly touched on in anthology books.

 

[majorarcana02]

I already wished for it over in the 2025 wishlist thread, but I'd love to see them release a new Gamma World. There's enough potential in there for new crunch (mutations, tech artifacts, radiation, new playable species) and fluff (examples of how to build a post-apocalyptic setting and campaign) that we don't get from other settings, and it occupies a similar-but-different-enough space from the existing campaign settings.

 

[Yaarel]

Intuitional issues are very big with police forces through history and across national boundaries so the whole "Oh one cop can be different from another!" is a bit of a canard, isn't it? Because a good cop in a compromised organisation (which is basically most police forces, worldwide, and again, through history) is functionally a bad cop or a cop who gets fired.

And Paladins of the same faith/type have to ALL subscribe to the same exact values and code, which go, far, far beyond mere "professionalism". Paladins don't just let things go either, and the way we choose to have police operates means the vast majority of crimes just get written down and then have no action whatsoever taken to deal with them, or absolutely de minimis action. That's not politics or opinion - that's just demonstrable hard cold fact about how police operate, and I can back it up with statistics.

Having a bunch of religious-mandated guys who are literally bound to a code of rules that they can't violate without dire consequences doing this would have wildly different outcomes.

Honestly, all this makes for a great setting.

Also, 5e Paladins are "oath oriented", rather than "religion oriented". It works well for the duties of a cop.

 

[Mercurius]

Birthright is probably deader than dead. A setting about domain management, conquest and rulership determined by bloodlines and divine right is absolutely the wrong thing for this moment.

I basically agree, at least starting with "determined by..." - given recent...events (not to mention, history).

But a setting about domain management, conquest and rulership isn't inherently a bad thing or inappropriate - just as a game about combat and treasure-hunting isn't inherently bad. One could even argue that pretending to be something that you're not, even if it is bad, could be a healthy outlet - or, at least, a valuable way to imagine into a mentality that one doesn't espouse in real life. I mean, isn't that part of the point?

The underlying principles of Monopoly are predatory capitalism and a zero-sum game that usually ends up with someone crying. To each their own, I guess! But it is a mutually agreed upon premise: Let's pretend we're capitalist thugs and try to make each other cry! In truth, I believe the game itself was designed to illustrate the problems of capitalism.

My point being, Monopoly doesn't reflect my morals or any ethos that I personally align with. In truth, I find it a rather despicable paradigm. Not only is that kind of the point, but the game is kind of fun, and me playing it is a temporary, "what if" experience that doesn't translate to how I live my life. I mean, playing pirates could be seen as problematic by some, but should we excise that option from a game of make believe that already emphasizes violence and generally has some degree of taking from others?

This begs the question: Where is the line? I'm asking these questions not to imply a specific answer; or rather, my answer (such as it is) is that these are open-ended questions, usually with no clear answer. Putting out a game about conquest based on bloodlines right now is iffy (to say the least) - or at least might cause more kerfuffle than its worth. But is it it a what if scenario that is inherently bad to play? This, again, is where I think general outlines and maybe example settings are a better approach than "This is the setting you use to play this way." And of course the answer for WotC--with a customer base of tens of millions--might be different from a much smaller publisher.

The rules could offer multiple options for the "determined by" part that don't need to reflect any particular ethos or ideology, or it can be left rather vague and general, with maybe a default setting that has something less overtly unsavory. But I don't think it is always bad to...make believe that you're bad. It usually isn't my cup o tea, at least in extremes (the few times I've played an evil character weren't really all that fun), but I don't think it should necessarily be frowned upon or actively dissuaded.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Honestly, all this makes for a great setting.

Also, 5e Paladins are "oath oriented", rather than "religion oriented". It works well for the duties of a cop.

Yeah I think it could make for an interesting setting if the actual deep and complication implications of such a thing were explored, but it would require real commitment to actually doing something interesting from the author. What would be really rubbish would just be lazily slotting classes into societal roles without considering the implications, which, sadly, is something I've seen done before.

Also I think it's more likely Paladins would end leading a police or crime-solving force rather than being all of the members of it, because there's so much crime you'd need a sizeable section of the population to be Paladins, which doesn't seem like a D&D idea. You might see something more like 40K's Inquisitors and their retinue, but like, less horrifying.

In truth, I believe the game itself was designed to illustrate the problems of capitalism.

It literally was, yes. For me it was very successful in that, particularly in that people constantly cheat and get incredibly angry and so on. I've played RPGs, board games and videogames for years with all sorts of people and even in some sketchy situations, but the only times I've been physically assaulted over a game has been Monopoly, and by people a hell of a lot older than me too!

 

[Mercurius]

It literally was, yes. For me it was very successful in that, particularly in that people constantly cheat and get incredibly angry and so on. I've played RPGs, board games and videogames for years with all sorts of people and even in some sketchy situations, but the only times I've been physically assaulted over a game has been Monopoly, and by people a hell of a lot older than me too!

I played Monopoly with a group of my high school students and asked: "Who has either cried or made someone else cry over a game of Monopoly?" I believe everyone raised their hand - including myself. IIRC, it was my best friend's new girlfriend, too! (We were late 20s, I believe).

 

[payn]

Wow, I’ve certainly seen people get irritated but never actually cry from Monopoly let alone physically assaulted during a game of it.

I haven’t even seen this in Diplomacy, which is part why I love Birthright. It’s a more nuanced fantasy version,IME.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I played Monopoly with a group of my high school students and asked: "Who has either cried or made someone else cry over a game of Monopoly?" I believe everyone raised their hand - including myself. IIRC, it was my best friend's new girlfriend, too! (We were late 20s, I believe).

A much older relative literally flipped a table we were playing Monopoly at in a hotel lounge area once, which was amazing (I got hit by said table too - luckily it was kind of light), pretty sure that made me cry given I was like 12. Wasn't the last time I played Monopoly. It was the last time I didn't just stop playing part-way through the game because people (often people who should know better!) were getting poorly behaved though. That said I know very few Monopoly games actually get played to the rules conclusion.

 

[doctorhook]

Oh boy, another thread where we can throw long-forgotten names into the "never going to happen" pile.

Hey, back in 2008/2009 I used to make the Gamma World joke in these threads, and then Andy Collins got it to print. It could happen!

 

[Mercurius]

I love the idea of a paladin-centered campaign, with paladins as fanatical theocratic cops/enforcers. Of course because I prefer a redemptive arc, I'd probably make the premise of the campaign be towards rebellion and maybe even revolution - but I'd probably set the stage without it being overtly obvious that they were serving a quasi-benevolent tyranny.

One idea that comes to mind is if Gandalf or Galadriel had taken the One Ring, with the PCs as the enforcers of the "Way of Light" that came to rule Middle-earth (or whatever setting).

 

[TheSword]

In essence, expanding on the Bastion rules, with some sort of political frameworks and systems.

In principle, a significant expansion of that but yes in principle.

Abstract, bastions with revenue generating properties, morale levels and moveable dials for various measures. Holdings in Birthright aren’t just buildings though, they represent networks, followers and relationships though as well.