Planescape 5 New D&D Books Coming in 2023 -- Including Planescape!

At today's Wizards Presents event, hosts Jimmy Wong, Ginny Di, and Sydnee Goodman announced the 2023 line-up of D&D books, which featured something old, something new, and an expansion of a fan favorite.

The first of the five books, Keys from the Golden Vault, will arrive in winter 2023. At Tuesday's press preview, Chris Perkins, Game Design Architect for D&D, described it as “Ocean’s Eleven meets D&D” and an anthology of short adventures revolving around heists, which can be dropped into existing campaigns.

In Spring 2023, giants get a sourcebook just like their traditional rivals, the dragons, did in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants will be a deep dive into hill, frost, fire, cloud, and storm giants, plus much more.

Summer 2023 will have two releases. The Book of Many Things is a collection of creatures, locations, and other player-facing goodies related to that most famous D&D magic item, the Deck of Many Things. Then “Phandelver Campaign” will expand the popular Lost Mine of Phandelver from the D&D Starter Set into a full campaign tinged with cosmic horror.

And then last, but certainly not least, in Fall 2023, WotC revives another classic D&D setting – Planescape. Just like Spelljammer: Adventures in Space, Planescape will be presented as a three-book set containing a setting guide, bestiary, and adventure campaign in a slipcase. Despite the Spelljammer comparison they did not confirm whether it would also contain a DM screen.

More information on these five titles will be released when we get closer to them in date.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I disagree with your personal opinion here. The DMG could do a better job providing useful and varied optional rules and playstyle advice, but IMO that is absolutely the job it should be doing.

Spoiler: Rant about the DMG that got too long

The Player's Handbook's primary concern is being a handbook of options and rules for players, often for those newer to the game. It's mostly a good book, because it does what it's intended to do. The Monster Manual is a manual of monsters for DMs to use in their games, typically including the most iconic and common monsters in D&D. It's mostly a good book, because it does what it's intended to do. These books have more defined niches and intents and fulfill them pretty well. However, in the 5e DMG, instead of developing the 3 pillars of D&D and telling DMs how to use/balance them, it wastes pages explaining the most complicated cosmology in the history of D&D, listing the monsters in the Monster Manual, optional rules that don't fit the intent of 5e because WotC forgot to make the game "modular", and other poorly thought-out parts of the game that make the book feel unfinished and badly designed.

There's a reason why "no one reads the DMG" is a meme/joke and why a lot of other systems don't have an equivalent of it. Lots of other TTRPGs have "player's handbooks" and "monster manuals". A lot of them don't have a "DM/GM's guide" because its role in D&D is nebulous, poorly thought out, and it doesn't fulfill the niche it should fill. And that's because the Guide for DMs is for some reason not primarily concerned with guiding dungeon masters (especially newer ones) at how to run the game well.

The main playstyle is not well-supported in D&D 5e. People have been complaining about the half-assed Exploration and Social Interaction rules in D&D since the beginning. The DMG doesn't do a good job of teaching new DMs how to DM. As someone that was introduced to D&D through 5e, I got more information on how to be a good DM from a handful of Matthew Colville videos than I ever did from the 5e DMG. Because it fails at what should be its primary purpose. There are a lot of bad D&D Youtube channels out there. I'm lucky I stumbled across a good one.

If the DMG doesn't teach DMs how to be good DMs, it is poorly designed. Especially if it wastes a lot of space that could be used on teaching DMs how to be good DMs on half-developed optional rules, a poor attempt at explaining how to game design, a gazetteer of the Great Wheel, and other random stuff not necessary for teaching DMs how to DM.

There is such a thing as good game design. There is such a thing as badly designed or poorly thought out books, not just based on opinion. Subjective preferences and playstyles have a place in D&D. It should support multiple playstyles. But it shouldn't be prioritized over educating newer DMs at how to do their job at the table.

You know how later books, like Xanathar's and Tasha's, had rules and guidelines to help new DMs? That was only "necessary" because the DMG failed at its job. The fact that the Session 0 rule was in Tasha's and not the DMG is a design failure.

Not that the other core books in 5e are perfect at this, either. The Xanathar's rules for Tools, Falling, and Downtime should have been in the core rulebooks.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I am curious what "majority playstyle" you think is not being properly supported in the core books.

There are 3 pillars of the game. The one that has mostly sufficient rules is combat. Exploration and social interaction aren't fully developed. This has been an extremely common complaint about the core rulebooks since they were released.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Spoiler: Rant about the DMG that got too long

The Player's Handbook's primary concern is being a handbook of options and rules for players, often for those newer to the game. It's mostly a good book, because it does what it's intended to do. The Monster Manual is a manual of monsters for DMs to use in their games, typically including the most iconic and common monsters in D&D. It's mostly a good book, because it does what it's intended to do. These books have more defined niches and intents and fulfill them pretty well. However, in the 5e DMG, instead of developing the 3 pillars of D&D and telling DMs how to use/balance them, it wastes pages explaining the most complicated cosmology in the history of D&D, listing the monsters in the Monster Manual, optional rules that don't fit the intent of 5e because WotC forgot to make the game "modular", and other poorly thought-out parts of the game that make the book feel unfinished and badly designed.

There's a reason why "no one reads the DMG" is a meme/joke and why a lot of other systems don't have an equivalent of it. Lots of other TTRPGs have "player's handbooks" and "monster manuals". A lot of them don't have a "DM/GM's guide" because its role in D&D is nebulous, poorly thought out, and it doesn't fulfill the niche it should fill. And that's because the Guide for DMs is for some reason not primarily concerned with guiding dungeon masters (especially newer ones) at how to run the game well.

The main playstyle is not well-supported in D&D 5e. People have been complaining about the half-assed Exploration and Social Interaction rules in D&D since the beginning. The DMG doesn't do a good job of teaching new DMs how to DM. As someone that was introduced to D&D through 5e, I got more information on how to be a good DM from a handful of Matthew Colville videos than I ever did from the 5e DMG. Because it fails at what should be its primary purpose. There are a lot of bad D&D Youtube channels out there. I'm lucky I stumbled across a good one.

If the DMG doesn't teach DMs how to be good DMs, it is poorly designed. Especially if it wastes a lot of space that could be used on teaching DMs how to be good DMs on half-developed optional rules, a poor attempt at explaining how to game design, a gazetteer of the Great Wheel, and other random stuff not necessary for teaching DMs how to DM.

There is such a thing as good game design. There is such a thing as badly designed or poorly thought out books, not just based on opinion. Subjective preferences and playstyles have a place in D&D. It should support multiple playstyles. But it shouldn't be prioritized over educating newer DMs at how to do their job at the table.

You know how later books, like Xanathar's and Tasha's, had rules and guidelines to help new DMs? That was only "necessary" because the DMG failed at its job. The fact that the Session 0 rule was in Tasha's and not the DMG is a design failure.

Not that the other core books in 5e are perfect at this, either. The Xanathar's rules for Tools, Falling, and Downtime should have been in the core rulebooks.

Again, starter sets can handle guiding new players, and do. You said that you learned from Matt Coville's videos. Great! WotC should put out videos too.

Nothing you've said convinces me that the DMG should be doing a different job than it's been doing all this time. IMO they should, as I've said more than once before, try to do a better job at providing alternative rules and showcasing multiple playstyles, including the so-called "most popular" one but also others.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Again, starter sets can handle guiding new players, and do. You said that you learned from Matt Coville's videos. Great! WotC should put out videos too.

Nothing you've said convinces me that the DMG should be doing a different job than it's been doing all this time. IMO they should, as I've said more than once before, try to do a better job at providing alternative rules and showcasing multiple playstyles, including the so-called "most popular" one but also others.

would not teach them how to be a good dm be the primery task before styles of play as the latter is rather bad with out the former?

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are 3 pillars of the game. The one that has mostly sufficient rules is combat. Exploration and social interaction aren't fully developed. This has been an extremely common complaint about the core rulebooks since they were released.

Agreed. That's why I'm so happy Level Up exists, as it handles that problem very well in my opinion. I wish WotC would put a little more effort in that area. Hopefully, the new bastion thing they're going to playtest has something in it worth stealing. That's the whole reason I'm watching the new edition playtest at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

would not teach them how to be a good dm be the primery task before styles of play as the latter is rather bad with out the former?

Sure. That why you start with the appropriately named Starter Set, and then add the DMG to the mix.

 

[Reynard]

There are 3 pillars of the game. The one that has mostly sufficient rules is combat. Exploration and social interaction aren't fully developed. This has been an extremely common complaint about the core rulebooks since they were released.

That's not a playstyle.

 

[Remathilis]

You know how later books, like Xanathar's and Tasha's, had rules and guidelines to help new DMs? That was only "necessary" because the DMG failed at its job. The fact that the Session 0 rule was in Tasha's and not the DMG is a design failure.

Not that the other core books in 5e are perfect at this, either. The Xanathar's rules for Tools, Falling, and Downtime should have been in the core rulebooks.

While I agree with most of your thesis, I want to highlight this.

It's amazing how much the RPG landscape changed in the last 10 years, and D&D was playing catch-up after the time the Core books were written. Session Zero, Lines, and Veils, and other concepts like that were still on the fringes of RPG design, not the standard. Hence why they got introduced in later supplements like Tasha or Van Richten. Likewise, a few ideas were clearly second bites at the apple: the encounter-building, downtime, and magic item classification in Xanathar's were obvious attempt to fix some areas they didn't get right in the DMG (and PHB). In my mind, that's less a failing of WotC's DMG as much as its WotC learning from their mistakes and attempting to course correct mid-run (see also: Customizing your origin in Tasha).

Now, I fully expect that after 10 years of feedback, tinkering, and experimenting, the 1D&D DMG will include far better info regarding these topics. Will it be perfect? Not a chance. The RPG landscape is still evolving. But I don't fault WotC for not seeing where the headwinds were blowing a decade ago.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That's not a playstyle.

The 3 pillars of the game are what support the "base playstyle". If they're not properly supported, then the main playstyle isn't properly supported.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

While I agree with most of your thesis, I want to highlight this.

It's amazing how much the RPG landscape changed in the last 10 years, and D&D was playing catch-up after the time the Core books were written. Session Zero, Lines, and Veils, and other concepts like that were still on the fringes of RPG design, not the standard. Hence why they got introduced in later supplements like Tasha or Van Richten. Likewise, a few ideas were clearly second bites at the apple: the encounter-building, downtime, and magic item classification in Xanathar's were obvious attempt to fix some areas they didn't get right in the DMG (and PHB). In my mind, that's less a failing of WotC's DMG as much as its WotC learning from their mistakes and attempting to course correct mid-run (see also: Customizing your origin in Tasha).

Now, I fully expect that after 10 years of feedback, tinkering, and experimenting, the 1D&D DMG will include far better info regarding these topics. Will it be perfect? Not a chance. The RPG landscape is still evolving. But I don't fault WotC for not seeing where the headwinds were blowing a decade ago.

Yeah, I'm not mad at WotC for including those rules in later books. It's good that they realized that some things were unclear and not properly supported and included official versions in later books. But it should have been in the DMG and should be in the OneD&D DMG.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Again, starter sets can handle guiding new players, and do. You said that you learned from Matt Coville's videos. Great! WotC should put out videos too.

Not everyone buys starter sets. I didn't. The first book I got was the Monster Manual, and then the rest of the core rulebooks. I didn't get a "starter set" until years later, and I'd already been a long-time DM at that point. I only have access to the Lost Mines of Phandelver because D&D Beyond made it free last year. All that should be required for new players/DMs to learn how to play the game well are the 3 core rulebooks.

DM advice videos and online discussions will always have their place. But taking some of the advice of how to be a good DM would make the DMG better.

Nothing you've said convinces me that the DMG should be doing a different job than it's been doing all this time. IMO they should, as I've said more than once before, try to do a better job at providing alternative rules and showcasing multiple playstyles, including the so-called "most popular" one but also others.

Learning different playstyles is DMing 201. You have to learn DMing 101 before you can branch out into running radically different playstyles. The DMG doesn't properly support teaching DMs how to do their job and wastes pages on unnecessary things that could be replaced with making it a better DM-educator.

Agreed. That's why I'm so happy Level Up exists, as it handles that problem very well in my opinion. I wish WotC would put a little more effort in that area. Hopefully, the new bastion thing they're going to playtest has something in it worth stealing. That's the whole reason I'm watching the new edition playtest at all.

What does the LevelUp DMG do differently? Because I'm suggesting a change to the design of the 5e DMG, which is something LevelUp does.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not everyone buys starter sets. I didn't. The first book I got was the Monster Manual, and then the rest of the core rulebooks. I didn't get a "starter set" until years later, and I'd already been a long-time DM at that point. I only have access to the Lost Mines of Phandelver because D&D Beyond made it free last year. All that should be required for new players/DMs to learn how to play the game well are the 3 core rulebooks.

DM advice videos and online discussions will always have their place. But taking some of the advice of how to be a good DM would make the DMG better.

Learning different playstyles is DMing 201. You have to learn DMing 101 before you can branch out into running radically different playstyles. The DMG doesn't properly support teaching DMs how to do their job and wastes pages on unnecessary things that could be replaced with making it a better DM-educator.

What does the LevelUp DMG do differently? Because I'm suggesting a change to the design of the 5e DMG, which is something LevelUp does.

It expands considerably on the exploration and pillar of the game, primarily in the details of the Journey rules. The PH equivalent provides rules on strongholds, followers, downtime, and many PC abilities that interact with exploration and social aspects of the game.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It expands considerably on the exploration and pillar of the game, primarily in the details of the Journey rules. The PH equivalent provides rules on strongholds, followers, downtime, and many PC abilities that interact with exploration and social aspects of the game.

Okay. And does it have the section of optional rules? Or huge amounts of the book dedicated to the cosmology? What's the page count?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay. And does it have the section of optional rules? Or huge amounts of the book dedicated to the cosmology? What's the page count?

It does talk about the cosmology. It doesn't explicitly call out any of its rules as optional to my knowledge, which I'm actually fine with.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It does talk about the cosmology.

How much compared to the 5e DMG?

 

[Faolyn]

What does the LevelUp DMG do differently? Because I'm suggesting a change to the design of the 5e DMG, which is something LevelUp does.

The DMG is split between the cosmos, traveling, journey activities and exploration encounters, and magic items.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How much compared to the 5e DMG?

Do you really need comparative page counts? Is that what's important here?

 

[glass]

Now, I would say 2E actually deserves much a much harsher critique for keeping level limits than 1E did for introducing them. 1E was a highly experimental game, trying out a lot of new ideas, some good, some... not so sound. So fair enough to 1E on this.

Are you saying OD&D did not have level limits? Interesting! I always assumed they were there from the start.

As for why 2e did not get rid of level limits, it reminds me a bit of random ability scores. From the start, I hated the possibility of rolling crappy ability scores and being stuck with a sub-par character, and so did pretty-much everyone I played with, so we house-ruled ever more generous/more reliable/less random rolling methods. But it did not occur to me for over a decade to just not roll. Even my first few 3e characters were rolled for, even though point buy was an official option at that point. Never underestimate the inertia of "that's just hoe its done".

That said, we house-ruled out level limits pretty-much immediately, instead giving humans +1 to any stat, the ability to multiclass, and 5 or 10% extra experience (I had forgotten that last part until @Twiggly the Gnome's post upthread reminded me).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Are you saying OD&D did not have level limits? Interesting! I always assumed they were there from the start.

Kinda, race as class makes it complicated.

It's hard to summarize in any reasonable fashion. Like in RC D&D Elves are "limited" to 10th level but actually continue to advance, just slowly and with only XP values as a guide not "levels".

That said, we house-ruled out level limits pretty-much immediately, instead giving humans +1 to any stat, the ability to multiclass, and 5 or 10% extra experience (I had forgotten that last part until @Twiggly the Gnome's post upthread reminded me).

Yeah I used to give humans +10% XP, and I also didn't remember that until @Twiggly the Gnome reminded us! The things you can dredge up!

* = There are some deeply obscure exceptions which someone else can cover lol.

 

[glass]

Kinda, race as class makes it complicated.

Yeah, but race-as-class was an innovation of the Basic branch; it wasn't in OD&D either.