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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Because, when it was new it was not “just another generic” whatever. It was the first official D&D setting. For some it was the first fantasy setting they played in, official adventures or not.

It's the RPG equivalent of the first girl I ever kissed. Realistically, it holds no real attraction for me now, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have some warm and fuzzy feelings for it tucked away somewhere inside me.

 

[Golroc]

Yes. They want to sell the games they produce and make money. That's their job.

Oh. I have no problem with them doing that. Not at all. I am just weirded out that it seems there's not much else - especially when I see this massive amount of releases for other games. Like Games Workshop is making more money than ever and they're releasing tons of books - even their licensed RPGs have a ton of releases. And there's a massive amount of indie companies putting out very high production quality material. With things like Critical Role and the apparent uptick in popularity for RPGs and D&D in particular I'd just expected to come back to a much more exciting wealth of material. But it's like someone else said - books seem aimed at having players switch campaign worlds all the time and just buy everything that comes out. Maybe that works well, and D&D is just a homebrew game for me these days - but I am envious when I look at the material other publishers put out for their worlds.

And really the job of the executive management at WOTC is to keep stock prices up and that's not always connected to profitability at all, but rather the potential for growth and all that. Their jobs aren't really about profitability in the current economy - although it does matter more in recent days than just a few years back. But that's a very different discussion. And as a consumer and returning veteran I'm just disappointed. They seem to have the player base and the enthusiasm to put out more books. Why not do it? People aren't buying them, or?

 

[deganawida]

Because, when it was new it was not “just another generic” whatever. It was the first official D&D setting. For some it was the first fantasy setting they played in, official adventures or not.

Yeah, and I understand that.

I will say that I believe that just articulating that poorly-conceived hypothesis has led me to a conclusion on the root problem which I mentioned regarding Greyhawk. Will post that in unpopular opinions.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I would be extremely surprised to see either a full-blown Dragonlance campaign setting book or a full Manual of the Planes - in both cases, that would make the setting essentially "done". My bet would instead be something more like the old "Planes of Law" set - something covering a fairly broad (but, crucially, incomplete) slice of the setting, coupled with one or more big-ish adventures. Two books is better than one, but why stop there?

The only example we have is CoS followed up by a full Ravenloft campaign setting book. While they could still flesh out some of the domains that were just given a paragraph or so, they've made no indication that they are going to do so. And, moreover, once you start making multiple books for multiple settings, you're veering into '90s TSR bloat territory, which I'm sure they're trying to avoid. I would be very surprised if for any serting we see anything beyond an adventure (which includes adventures packaged with some setting rules) possibly followed up by a full setting book, other than the Forgotten Realms, where we already have multiple adventures.

 

[overgeeked]

It's the RPG equivalent of the first girl I ever kissed. Realistically, it holds no real attraction for me now, but I'd be lying if I didn't have some warm and fuzzy feelings for it tucked away somewhere inside me.

Exactly. You always remember your first. And, over time, a lot of people pour their hopes and dreams into their first-love settings. If only they could play that campaign they've dreamed about since they were 10. If only other people appreciated the setting like they do. If only...

Nothing wrong with that. I'm not mocking that behavior. I'm exactly that way. But trying to rationalize or reason your way into understanding another geek's obsessions is taking the problem by the wrong end.

 

[deganawida]

Exactly. You always remember your first. And, over time, a lot of people pour their hopes and dreams into their first-love settings. If only they could play that campaign they've dreamed about since they were 10. If only other people appreciated the setting like they do. If only...

Nothing wrong with that. I'm not mocking that behavior. I'm exactly that way. But trying to rationalize or reason your way into understanding another geek's obsessions is taking the problem by the wrong end.

Admonition taken to heart

 

[Maxperson]

5E's return to leaning on adventures is actually really interesting if you think about it.

Return? They never seemed to get away from that to me.

 

[Maxperson]

They've been really heavy into trying to ensure there's content to play with. A lot of 1E and 2E had reading material for the DM, with the assumption the DM would create the play content. The shift in focus really ties into "I don't have enough time to make stuff, just do it for me so I can jump into the action". For us old-timers, its a bit disconcerting because a fair bit of lore is mixed in/hidden in those adventures that we're used to getting in setting sidebars or pages on the subject in the setting book.

See, adventures are where I lean into 3rd party content. There are lots and lots and lots and lots and...you get the point...people who are willing and capable of making adventure content. I'd much rather WotC give us quality settings instead of giving us adventures I can easily get somewhere else, unlike official lore content.

 

[Parmandur]

The only example we have is CoS followed up by a full Ravenloft campaign setting book. While they could still flesh out some of the domains that were just given a paragraph or so, they've made no indication that they are going to do so. And, moreover, once you start making multiple books for multiple settings, you're veering into '90s TSR bloat territory, which I'm sure they're trying to avoid. I would be very surprised if for any serting we see anything beyond an adventure (which includes adventures packaged with some setting rules) possibly followed up by a full setting book, other than the Forgotten Realms, where we already have multiple adventures.

And Curse of the Netherdeep following after Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. I think what Crawford is saying is that the two examples are a precedent they intend to follow, rather than aberrations.

 

[Erdric Dragin]

Yeah they'll be revisited once every 5 years probably at the snail pace of book releases they're doing since 5e came out.