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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no way WotC comes out of this ahead.

A) Publish new settings. Fans endlessly bitch that their per setting isn’t getting any love.

B) continue the setting. Potential new fans bounce off the wall of lore surrounding the setting. Any addition is immediately pilloried for not being “true” to the setting.

C) reboot. Why do you hate fans WotC? You are destroying our beloved setting.

They absolutely cannot please everyone here so by and large they’ve gone with C. Because other than vocal super fans that seems to be the safest course.

I've explained my position on this quite clearly. If they don't want to do B, then do A.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But the 2e and 3e material for Dragonlance isn’t compatible at all. Not with Shadows anyway. All that material is either contradicted (if it comes before the War of the Lance) or doesn’t actually exist in the setting yet.

Shadow’s absolutely rewrites Dragonlance at least as much as Ravenloft did.

It’s just that DL fans are so used to their setting being completely rewritten over and over again that they don’t really care that much.

I assumed I wouldn't like 5e Dragonlance, because after 5e Ravenloft I no longer trust WotC, so I didn't buy it. Looks like I made the right call.

 

[Hussar]

I've explained my position on this quite clearly. If they don't want to do B, then do A.

So they make you happy but get crucified by another crowd.

That’s not a win. That’s just mitigation. And it’s just mitigation no matter what they choose to do.

 

[Demetrios1453]

See this is why advancing the timeline is bad on any setting is bad.

I don't think many complained too much about the slow, steady advance of the FR timeline. There were grumblings about having to keep up with so much, but the various campaign setting books (which usually occurred the start of a new edition, with 2e and 3e having books with mini-updates about halfway through) would give updates on the main events of the advancement of the meta-plot. Moving forward around 5 years at a time gave the setting the feeling of a living, changing world, which is what some people want with their setting. Of course, doing something completely stupid and alienating such as advancing the timeline over a century (on top to basically nuking the setting) predictably annoyed basically everyone.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The continuity in TTRPGs is not the same than comics or movies. In the tabletop the DM can change radically the lore to stop players who know too much thanks internet.

A zombie apocalypse in Falkovnia is a videogame for children comparing with the previous dystopia, to use a softer word. And now the rules are different, for example the mind-control powers are taboo. Goodbye the love potions because relations have to be consensual and that type of things.

Do we know how Vecna escaped the demiplane of dread? Maybe it was his fault. Or when a dark lord dies then the dark domain could be rebooted.

What about Innistrad? If this plane has got a Shadowfell, maybe some old domains are relocated there. Maybe Ravnica also has its own "Shadowfell", working practically like a mash-up crossover with White Wolf's World of Darkness.

What if there are secret links in the metaplots of Ravenloft, Innistrad and the future Duskmourn?

* The reboot or retcon may be necessary because gameplay reasons, for example to explain how the new classes and PC species are added.

* My opinion is for a long time the metaplot of all settings (but maybe FR) will be "frozen" or stopped, because Hasbro would rather this to be written by screenwritters for cinematographic productions, or videogames.

* WotC worries more about the lore when it is for the main media, where the money is moving, and within the TTRPG market this can be changed.

* I am afraid WotC worries more about the new generetion of players, the future source of incomes, before the old veterans or grognards. Then they are more willing to sacrifice the continuity. The priority is to get new fans before keeping the loyalty by the old ones.

 

[humble minion]

I don't think many complained too much about the slow, steady advance of the FR timeline. There were grumblings about having to keep up with so much, but the various campaign setting books (which usually occurred the start of a new edition, with 2e and 3e having books with mini-updates about halfway through) would give updates on the main events of the advancement of the meta-plot. Moving forward around 5 years at a time gave the setting the feeling of a living, changing world, which is what some people want with their setting.

I can't speak for everyone of course, but from what i was seeing and reading at the time, the FR metaplot even back in its 90s heyday seemed to be actively hated by a large proportion of the player base. Novels came out much faster than game material, and the communication/coordination between TSRs game department and novel department was dreadful, so game supplements were never consistent with each other (supplement X that came out before novel trilogy Y was inevitably inconsistent with supplement Z, which came out afterwards) or the fiction line. Plus the fiction line just continually stacked ludicrous apocalypse upon ludicrous apocalypse, and had novel characters solve the big problems and kill the big villains from the books.

People even back then were begging for a stop to the Realms Shaking Events. But the fiction line was what was paying the bills for late-era TSR, so they continued. There was a bit of relative stability for a while in the 3e era when WotC was producing the (excellent) regional sourcebooks like Silver Marches and Shining South, which generally stuck to the same time point as the FRCS, but it didn't last long.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. Some of us appreciated the Spell Plague and it was the clearing away of so much cruft that actually got me to dip my toes into FR.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So they make you happy but get crucified by another crowd.

That’s not a win. That’s just mitigation. And it’s just mitigation no matter what they choose to do.

No argument, just my preference.

 

[humble minion]

Heh. Some of us appreciated the Spell Plague and it was the clearing away of so much cruft that actually got me to dip my toes into FR.

Different perspectives I guess. For me, it just added an extra (hundred year thick) layer of cruft, and didn't even bother to explain most of the cruft or put it in the remotest context with ... anything at all that had gone before.

I was 100% alongside the idea of bringing FR back to a steady state, stopping the rolling cycle of dubious apocalypses, and actually making it a functional game world again. But they tried to solve a problem that had been caused by too many poorly-written off-screen NPC driven upheavals with a poorly-written off-screen NPC-driven upheaval, and just too much baby got thrown out with the bathwater in the process for my personal taste.

Judging from various people's comments on here, and a few references here and there from WotC people, I think that 4e FR was quite well-received by people who'd liked the idea of FR but found the lore unwieldy and daunting, largely ignored by the people who hated FR in the first place, and strongly disliked by the people who were actually into FR in previous editions. I can sympathise with what WotC were trying to do there, to try to make new players feel welcome into FR and drop the barriers of entry. Unfortunately in the process I think they didn't pay enough attention to what the pre-existing player base thought or liked about the setting. I think that WotC eventually came to that conclusion as well, given their various post-4e statements and the eventual handwavey reset back to quasi-status-quo-ante we saw in SCAG.

 

[Velderan]

Adding bards, sorcerers, paladins, warlocks, Dragonborn,Tieflings, sp spellcasting rangers, druids, monks, rewo king the t st of high sorcery, and that’s just off the top of my head are what you consider minor changes.

But dropping a bunch of domains that no one has heard of, let alone played, is huge.

Ok. We’re just not going to agree here.

You haven't actually read the Dragonlance material, have you? They're not going to agree with you because you're wrong.

SotDQ lists Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Humans and Kender as playable races so not sure where you're getting dragonborn and tiefling from. The People from Beyond note that says people who aren't native might still find their way to Krynn? So basically what previous editions going back to the 1e Dragonlance Adventures have said. Spellcasting Rangers, Bards, and Paladins being new? The things that were all allowed in the 2e material? I'm pretty sure the 3e material mentioned them as well with a specific carveout for healing spells prior to the gods return. Monks are new? The 2e material called out the god Majere as attracting followers that are described as being monks, it's just the class didn't* exist in 2e. Reworking the test? You're half right there because SotDQ does a pretty half-assed job of portraying it but it also doesn't render the previous material completely incompatible as you're saying. If I were running SotDQ I'd have zero issue working in a traditional test based on how they're presented in the 2e/3e material.

Remember when we were so desperate to find flaws in SotDQ that the lack of mustaches in the art was a criticism?

* That I'm aware of, there was so much optional material in 2e that someone will probably correct me.