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.

 

[TwoSix]

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

I mean, having the biggest company in the space do it would make the most sense, thematically.

 

[TiQuinn]

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

That’s fine. I don’t think that’s likely to be where a new D&D setting will want to go, nor do I expect a Birthright revival.

 

[TheSword]

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 could extend that to the noble houses and rulers of any fantasy series though.

I get that in a modern age we believe in meritocracy and for the most part democracy. But in medieval fantasy settings we happily accept that the king of X country inherited the title, or was born to? Should we be dismayed that Aragorn becomes the king of Gondor? Why should the Starks rule the North?

There’s nothing wrong with preferring your fantasy more egalitarian, but I’m struggling to see the line that is being crossed that makes this particularly problematic, to the point that it can’t be made but other things can.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

And ultimately, I’m saying while that’s fine, and the game has its benefits and fans, it’s not where I’d want a new or revived campaign setting to go. To me, it’s like a totally different game.

 

[Von Ether]

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 ...

Mass Combat definitely as Savage Worlds, Reign, and other RPGs have rules to determine how the PCs preparation and strategy plays out in a battle without the need for miniatures and table of terrain. And most of those RPGs will call those subsystems "Mass Combat."

As several companies and thousands of gamers with paint pots in hand will tell you, wargaming involves more than just rolling dice and is a whole hobby onto its own.

 

[TiQuinn]

As several companies and thousands of gamers with paint pots in hand will tell you, wargaming involves more than just rolling dice and is a whole hobby onto its own.

Sure. And I would never confuse Warhammer 40K for example with D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

I get that in a modern age we believe in meritocracy and for the most part democracy. But in medieval fantasy settings we happily accept that the king of X country inherited the title, or was born to? Should we be dismayed that Aragorn becomes the king of Gondor? Why should the Starks rule the North?

I think there is a difference between a game where the idea of inherited political power is a facet of society and one where it's promoted as Good Actually. We would not accept a setting where the PCs acquire slaves (even if the PCs were expected to be good and protective of them) despite the fact that medieval society accepted such notions and many heroes of history (up unto the Founding Fathers) were slaves owners. It's not something we should be promoting as good.

 

[Von Ether]

Apologies, I meant to add that for many ttRPG fans, Mass Combat rules probably just seem to be another flavor of theatre of the mind combat. e.g. Savage Worlds is even minis friendly but with Mass Combat, the game is still a ttrpg, the same for Reign which never uses minis.

If someone wants to declare Mass Combat is a step to far, that's their right, but it's going to be an uphill battle to change minds.

 

[Reynard]

That’s fine. I don’t think that’s likely to be where a new D&D setting will want to go, nor do I expect a Birthright revival.

Oh, for sure, there is a 0% chance of a birthright revival. And while I think there is lots of room for domain management in D&D, I don't expect WotC to make it a central feature anytime soon. I think Bastions was all we are going to get on that front.

 

[payn]

And ultimately, I’m saying while that’s fine, and the game has its benefits and fans, it’s not where I’d want a new or revived campaign setting to go. To me, it’s like a totally different game.

Yeap, I get what you are saying, just have quibbles with how you are saying it. Hope you dont mind, but your comments helped springboard my mind into what I like about BR, and im not trying to stir the pot.