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.

 

[Remathilis]

I think so many fantasy and sci-fi properties have at least a foot in this area that it’s only when someone gets down to an analytical, i.e. not playing the game, POV and decides to compare and contrast with current events does one maybe get squeamish about it. From a “Will the general buying public notice or care?” perspective, I have a hard time buying that.

There is a fine line between saying this exists as a concept and promoting it by having the PCs BE the divine nepobabies. The latter is effectively an endorsement of the concept. You are assumed to be the "good guys" and this system is supporting you.

It's one thing to have Iuz be a demigod ruler and be opposed by the PCs, it's quite another to have the PCs be the "demigod" ruler.

(Yes I know Birthright PCs do not meet the power level of a demigod in D&D parlance)

 

[TiQuinn]

I might be wrong but I think you’re misunderstanding how the setting and layering a few assumptions onto it.

There are multiple examples (including the starter realms) of a regent inheriting the bloodline and the title because they were the best person for the job. It’s not physical it’s magical.

I really think you need to see the bloodlines as less Hapsburg dynasty and more Highlander.

Not to mention, the game already has these notions. The gods of most D&D settings are real aspects of that world. Celestials and tieflings are descendants of planar beings and derive their abilities from them. Sorcerers are differentiated from wizards based on their bloodlines, whether they get their powers from dragons, or godlike beings, etc. In many games (not all but many), it’s assumed that the PCs are simply better than the normal populace.

 

[Reynard]

Would you like me to modify my post to remove “miniatures” because to clarify, it’s the progression from RPG to a completely different type of play style, be it domain management or simulated wargaming, that I find unappealing.

You're welcome to not enjoy domain management or wargames. I just take issue with the idea that incorporating those things suddenly makes it "not an RPG." You can role-play rulership.

 

[Remathilis]

Not to mention, the game already has these notions. The gods of most D&D settings are real aspects of that world. Celestials and tieflings are descendants of planar beings and derive their abilities from them. Sorcerers are differentiated from wizards based on their bloodlines, whether they get their powers from dragons, or godlike beings, etc. In many games (not all but many), it’s assumed that the PCs are simply better than the normal populace.

Again, I'm not against the notion of magical bloodlines. I'm against the notion that magical bloodlines GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.

I don't know how else to explain this without breaking the "no politics" rule...

 

[TiQuinn]

You're welcome to not enjoy domain management or wargames. I just take issue with the idea that incorporating those things suddenly makes it "not an RPG."

All I’ve stated is that it does not appeal to me, and no, I don’t feel that’s the same kind of RPG. Can you have this? Sure. But I also feel that’s a different game altogether and probably not one that they’d want to go towards.

 

[TwoSix]

There is a fine line between saying this exists as a concept and promoting it by having the PCs BE the divine nepobabies. The latter is effectively an endorsement of the concept. You are assumed to be the "good guys" and this system is supporting you.

It's one thing to have Iuz be a demigod ruler and be opposed by the PCs, it's quite another to have the PCs be the "demigod" ruler.

(Yes I know Birthright PCs do not meet the power level of a demigod in D&D parlance)

I mean, considering the entire zeitgeist of the world seems to be moving away from liberal meritocracy and towards the reentrenchment of oligarchial authoritarianism, why not have a fantasy where we can be pretend to be "good guy" aristocrats?

 

[payn]

Still, it’s been a natural progression whenever that aspect of D&D comes up - strongholds lead to domain play which inevitably leads to some sort of wargaming, be it Chainmail back in the early days, to Battlesystem to a card based approach such as Matt Colville’s Strongholds and Followers (Colville was also a big fan of Birthright and talked about how that was a source of inspiration.)

That wasnt my experience. BR was actually the first time I never used a miniature at all in D&D. On top of that, we did have mass battles, but it was usually the result of many sessions of play coming to a head. So, it didnt ever feel particularly wargamey to me. If anything, it was Fantasy Diplomacy, with a splash of wargaming.

The real reason that BR is of note to me though is the inversion of the RP dynamic. My typical experience to this point, was the players taking turns role playing with the GM. Yes, the players did sometimes role playing with each others characters, but it was probably an 80/20 split between individual with GM and player to player. BR flipped this on its head. Suddenly, everyone was role playing with each other, with occasional input from the GM. This gave the GM a focus on the major events and goings on of the world and let the players take a proactive approach to the plot.

Due to the above, I really gained an appreciation for BR. However, I did always have a sort of bad reaction to the divine nepotism, or at least its exclusivity. I did note the ways and means of the Birthright power shifting, which is what I think the focus should be on for the setting mechanically, but know some GMs did not think along those lines. To me, it always seemed like a cool concept that teh magical leylines would open up power to those who can wield it (deserving or not). Like a theocracy electing a pope among the clerics, or a monk like Li Mu Bai mastering the arts and becoming the leader. Those that are particularly ruthless and/or undeserving serve as foils like any antagonist in a story. They are meant to be deposed. Anyways, thats the re-framing and focus id put on a BR for 5E.

 

[TiQuinn]

Again, I'm not against the notion of magical bloodlines. I'm against the notion that magical bloodlines GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.

I don't know how else to explain this without breaking the "no politics" rule...

You don’t have to get political because I know what you mean.

I’m saying no one gave a care for whether Aragorn had the right to rule either or that he was special in some way by virtue of that versus other men. It’s perfectly fine to analyze that but I think you overstate the degree to which it needs to be focused on in-game as opposed to the origin of the setting.

 

[Remathilis]

I mean, considering the entire zeitgeist of the world seems to be moving away from liberal meritocracy and towards the reentrenchment of oligarchial authoritarianism, why not have a fantasy where we can be pretend to be "good guy" aristocrats?

I don't think WotC is the company to be trying that.

 

[Reynard]

All I’ve stated is that it does not appeal to me, and no, I don’t feel that’s the same kind of RPG. Can you have this? Sure. But I also feel that’s a different game altogether and probably not one that they’d want to go towards.

I mean, sure? A dungeoncrawl is not the same kind of RPG as a plot focused heroic fantasy. They are still both RPGs.