D&D 5E 3 Classic Settings Coming To 5E?

On the D&D Celebration – Sunday, Inside the D&D Studio with Liz Schuh and Ray Winninger, Winninger said that WotC will be shifting to a greater emphasis on settings in the coming years.

This includes three classic settings getting active attention, including some that fans have been actively asking for. He was cagey about which ones, though.

The video below is an 11-hour video, but the information comes in the last hour for those who want to scrub through.



Additionally, Liz Schuh said there would be more anthologies, as well as more products to enhance game play that are not books.

Winninger mentioned more products aimed at the mainstream player who can't spend immense amount of time absorbing 3 tomes.

Ray and Liz confirmed there will be more Magic: The Gathering collaborations.

 

[Aldarc]

It is shallow, but that's a feature, not a bug. D&D is built on tropes, and the Factions hit the trope version of some philosophical concepts pretty well.

I mean, they COULD have built faction around alignment; Factions as presented are a big step up from that.

"Feature not a bug" gets used almost too liberally to excuse some pretty shoddy things that aren't necessarily designed to be meaningful features IMHO. I guess my own preference is not that the factions are built around either alignment or shallow readings of philosophy, but, rather, in ways that actually engage the D&D multiverse and planes in interesting ways. Athars IMO come close as they challenge the standard D&D treatment of gods as gods.

 

[TwoSix]

"Feature not a bug" gets used almost too liberally to excuse some pretty shoddy things that aren't necessarily designed to be meaningful features IMHO. I guess my own preference is not that the factions are built around either alignment or shallow readings of philosophy, but, rather, in ways that actually engage the D&D multiverse and planes in interesting ways. Athars IMO come close as they challenge the standard D&D treatment of gods as gods.

Well, I didn't think it was shoddy work, so "feature not a bug" felt like appropriate usage.

Considering those Planescape factions were probably the first exposure to some of those philosophical concepts for a lot of players, I think they did a pretty good job.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I didn't think it was shoddy work, so "feature not a bug" felt like appropriate usage.

Considering those Planescape factions were probably the first exposure to some of those philosophical concepts for a lot of players, I think they did a pretty good job.

If they are a feature and not a bug, then that certainly doesn't improve my opinion of the setting any. The Planescape Factions never really engaged me as either a reader, a player, or a GM. They were always IMO the least interesting part of the setting along with a general sort of postmodern sophistry surrounding belief changing the universe. So I'm not sure if they did a particularly good job, but your mileage obviously varies. My own preference would likely have been something less of "philosophers with clubs," as per Zeb Cook's own description, and something more along the lines of "city guilds with doctrines, ethics, or values." The difference being primarily a matter of emphasis and primary function.

 

[TwoSix]

If they are a feature and not a bug, then that certainly doesn't improve my opinion of the setting any. The Planescape Factions never really engaged me as either a reader, a player, or a GM. They were always IMO the least interesting part of the setting along with a general sort of postmodern sophistry surrounding belief changing the universe. So I'm not sure if they did a particularly good job, but your mileage obviously varies. My own preference would likely have been something less of "philosophers with clubs," as per Zeb Cook's own description, and something more along the lines of "city guilds with doctrines, ethics, or values." The difference being primarily a matter of emphasis and primary function.

Much like Alanis Morissette, "belief shaping reality" was cool back in the '90s. Tastes change. But I'm still a 90s kid at heart, so I still like it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If they are a feature and not a bug, then that certainly doesn't improve my opinion of the setting any. The Planescape Factions never really engaged me as either a reader, a player, or a GM. They were always IMO the least interesting part of the setting along with a general sort of postmodern sophistry surrounding belief changing the universe. So I'm not sure if they did a particularly good job, but your mileage obviously varies. My own preference would likely have been something less of "philosophers with clubs," as per Zeb Cook's own description, and something more along the lines of "city guilds with doctrines, ethics, or values." The difference being primarily a matter of emphasis and primary function.

Your entire argument here reeks of snobbery and "Well it didn't meet my high standards so it sucked for everyone!". You sneer at "feature not a bug", but it's true. It is whether you like that or not. You were too good for the setting? You sneered at it? (and whilst this post is toned down and only sneering a bit - "sophistry" - /rolleyes, your previous posts were outright sneering). Well guess what, that happens! I've been too good for things too. I'm far too good for Harry Potter. I sneered at it (I read to the fourth book before deciding the whole thing was ghastly) - I still do! Didn't stop it being massively popular, did it? Didn't mean that it was "done wrong", despite it being about as shallow as a pancake.

The final point you make is more interesting but also shows a big problem with your suggestion. Philosophers with clubs is a lively and engaging concept that anyone can get into - especially because of broad, shallow, accessible design of the Factions. "Guilds with doctines and ethics" is nerdy nonsense that most players are going to bounce the hell off.

If you like Ravnica so much, you already have Ravnica at home, but guess what? It's not very popular, and there's a lot of reasons for that. Some of them being that it's not a very accessible or engaging setting. We've had this discussion before on these forums, and it looks like there brief burst of popularity when it came out, and every year afterwards, fewer and fewer people play it, or even mention it.

 

[Aldarc]

Much like Alanis Morissette, "belief shaping reality" was cool back in the '90s. Tastes change. But I'm still a 90s kid at heart, so I still like it.

I grew up in the '90s too, but the '90s were nevertheless my musical Dark Ages. I think that Planescape has a number of interesting ideas, but overall I don't find it or its themes particularly engaging.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I grew up in the '90s too, but the '90s were nevertheless my musical Dark Ages. I think that Planescape has a number of interesting ideas, but overall I don't find it or its themes particularly engaging.

Congratulations, you have bad taste. Or great taste. Depends who you ask. But I'm pretty sure any taste that says "Planescape sux" is not a taste shared by most people who played it, nor, I suspect, most people who would encounter an updated Planescape for 5E. And the Factions being shallow is definitely not a problem of any description.

(Ps if most of the '00s were not also your "musical Dark Ages", then god help you, because that, especially the Bush era, was pretty much the nadir of music, certainly outside of certain genres of rap - things have improved considerably since then.)

 

[TwoSix]

The final point you make is more interesting but also shows a big problem with your suggestion. Philosophers with clubs is a lively and engaging concept that anyone can get into - especially because of broad, shallow, accessible design of the Factions. "Guilds with doctines and ethics" is nerdy nonsense that most players are going to bounce the hell off.

For what it's worth, I like both Ravnica AND Planescape, but that's because I'm shallow AND I enjoy nerdy nonsense. I also liked Mage: the Ascension, the OG game of postmodern sophistry.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For what it's worth, I like both Ravnica AND Planescape, but that's because I'm shallow AND I enjoy nerdy nonsense. I also liked Mage: the Ascension, the OG game of postmodern sophistry.

Being shallow is tragically underrated. Still waters don't run deep- it's more that ... wait, what were we talking about?

The only thing that should be deep is a grave.

 

[Aldarc]

For what it's worth, I like both Ravnica AND Planescape, but that's because I'm shallow AND I enjoy nerdy nonsense. I also liked Mage: the Ascension, the OG game of postmodern sophistry.

To be clear: I don't think anyone is shallow for liking the setting. It's simply not to my preferences or liking due to my aforementioned reasons. I certainly have not insulted anyone for whatever opinions that they hold about the setting.