D&D 5E Further Future D&D Product Speculation

[Ruin Explorer]

Al-Qadim seems both more redeemable and more replaceable (with another SWANA/MENA setting) than most things in D&D. So I'd honestly be unsurprised to see either approach.

 

[see]

To be honest, I feel the best thing is to not touch Al-Qadim, and bring in cultural consultants/writers to just make a new setting that is inspired by the Near East and Arabia. Maybe keep the old name if you really need to, but trying to reboot the old Al-Qadim seems like a lot of effort to "fix" something when they could just start over.

Given Toril has been through the Spellplague, the Second Sundering, and somewhere around 120 years of in-game time since we last saw Al-Qadim, there's lots of room for transformation.

 

[Parmandur]

Given Toril has been through the Spellplague, the Second Sundering, and somewhere around 120 years of in-game time since we last saw Al-Qadim, there's lots of room for transformation.

Not to mention that they could always throw older versions under the bus of an unreliable narrator.

Al-Qadim seems both more redeemable and more replaceable (with another SWANA/MENA setting) than most things in D&D. So I'd honestly be unsurprised to see either approach.

Agreed there.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

It's part of the Forgotten Realms, is part of the thing: WotC has an interest in redeeming their core IP. Letting Juatice Srmin, Taymor Rahman and others take point and reclaim Al'Qadim might make sense on thst basis.

Given Toril has been through the Spellplague, the Second Sundering, and somewhere around 120 years of in-game time since we last saw Al-Qadim, there's lots of room for transformation.

Yeah, I don't think WotC wants to redeem all of their IP. The popular stuff, sure. But I don't think Al-Qadim is exactly a powerful brand (it's just "The Old" in Arabic) and I would prefer to see some of these writers just get to start over with a blank slate.

If you just take the name (and I think the name's a little silly) and have the team try to keep some stuff, remove the other stuff, fill in stuff they actually want to do... it's obviously going to look very different than OG Al-Qadim. Which means anyone who actually cared about that brand will probably not like it, and the folks who will like the new stuff probably don't care much about OG Al-Qadim.

So at that point, why bother rebooting Al-Qadim after all? Gives the writers a lot more freedom to make their own material, and Radiant Citadel is already proof of how writers can kept cool worldbuilding made when they get a blank slate.

Btw if anyone looks at the above and thinks its a criticisms of 5E Ravenloft... it's not, I think 5E Ravenloft pulls a lot of stuff from older iterations. Plus, I actually think Ravenloft has a strong popular brand, which I don't feel about Al-Qadim.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah, I don't think WotC wants to redeem all of their IP. The popular stuff, sure. But I don't think Al-Qadim is exactly a powerful brand (it's just "The Old" in Arabic) and I would prefer to see some of these writers just get to start over with a blank slate.

If you just take the name (and I think the name's a little silly) and have the team try to keep some stuff, remove the other stuff, fill in stuff they actually want to do... it's obviously going to look very different than OG Al-Qadim. Which means anyone who actually cared about that brand will probably not like it, and the folks who will like the new stuff probably don't care much about OG Al-Qadim.

So at that point, why bother rebooting Al-Qadim after all? Gives the writers a lot more freedom to make their own material, and Radiant Citadel is already proof of how writers can kept cool worldbuilding made when they get a blank slate.

Btw if anyone looks at the above and thinks its a criticisms of 5E Ravenloft... it's not, I think 5E Ravenloft pulls a lot of stuff from older iterations. Plus, I actually think Ravenloft has a strong popular brand, which I don't feel about Al-Qadim.

Yeah, I'd much rather they come out with something new with a new name rather than something that uses an old name for something that has basically nothing to do with the original. You think Ravenloft or Spelljammer fans are upset about those changes? Try putting out an Al-Qadim book that only uses the name and nothing else from the original.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Wanna do an Avatar bet? Anyone else want in on this action? Team Greyhawk versus Team Reqlms?

I'll get on this. I don't really know what the bet is, but if it is "Which setting gets a setting book explicitly as part of the 50th Anniversary" hell yeah Team Greyhawk makes way more sense there.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

There's just no way you can explain a dozen factions (and likely associated mechanics) AND Sigil AND even begin to explain the planes in even the world's most focused 64-page book. You could do two of those in a much-reduced form, but all three? I don't think the original spent 192 pages on that just because it was waffling. If they dropped the adventure and just had a 64-page "player book" which had most of the stuff on the Factions in it (as well as player mechanics), that could work. I can't see a 64-page bestiary for PS which isn't 80% "Who cares?" or "Variant on on a monster seen once a campaign even in Planescape" though. Which does give me some hope they might not do that.

Can't you just put the very baseline traits of each faction in a table? I get that's the bare minimum of explaining factions, but you could do it. The pic below is a snapshot of one faction, briefly explained on a wiki. You could do similar info for each faction, in a table or something, and it'd be... 3 pages? 4 max? Doesn't seem hard to do.

 

[Parmandur]

I'll get on this. I don't really know what the bet is, but if it is "Which setting gets a setting book explicitly as part of the 50th Anniversary" hell yeah Team Greyhawk makes way more sense there.

This might necessitate a new thread to lay ground rules and track results: the idea is that the winner dictates what the loser has their Avatar for some period of time.

@Quickleaf bet that there would not be a Spelljammer book, hence their current avatar, whereas @ersatzphil and I bet between seeing a Spelljammer Setting book or Adventure, and we both changed our Avatars because we were both simultaneously right and wrong as we got both in the slipcase.

 

[Parmandur]

Can't you just put the very baseline traits of each faction in a table? I get that's the bare minimum of explaining factions, but you could do it. The pic below is a snapshot of one faction, briefly explained on a wiki. You could do similar info for each faction, in a table or something, and it'd be... 3 pages? 4 max? Doesn't seem hard to do.

View attachment 156243

If you give each faction about 2-3 pages pages, that still leaves room for the player rules and details on Sigil (or at least detailed at the level of a book like Van Richten's Guide). Essentially, the Factions could be treated like the Domains in Van Richten's Guide, as the drivers of plot in the City and Outlands. Then the Tour of the Planes Adventure can show how it all works in practice.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

This might necessitate a new thread to lay ground rules and track results: the idea is that the winner dictates what the loser has their Avatar for some period of time.

@Quickleaf bet that there would not be a Spelljammer book, hence their current avatar, whereas @ersatzphil and I bet between seeing a Spelljammer Setting book or Adventure, and we both changed our Avatars because we were both simultaneously right and wrong as we got both in the slipcase.

I feel like the bet is relatively simple... if Greyhawk or FR gets a setting book around the 50th anniversary, and the book is partly marketed as related to the 50th anniversary, your team wins. If neither does, neither wins no one has to change avatars.