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

[teitan]

What if it is a slip case with a book on FR, Greyhawk and The Known World/Mystara? That would be a huge 50th anniversary product and a slipcase with those three would be absolutely worthy of that distinction or one that is a new GH book, the SCAG with the adventure Gazeteer materials included/reprinted and Eberron?

 

[TheSword]

If 14th level PCs were fighting Acererak and didn't die in 2.3 seconds, something was terribly wrong. That guy ate gods for breakfast.

"Around a hundred years ago, Acererak's quest led him to the Forbidden City of Omu in Chult, on the world of Toril, whose priests were routinely killed in a series of death traps to appease their nine trickster gods. Impressed, Acererak killed all nine gods, enslaved the people, and forced them to build a dungeon beneath the cliffs called the Tomb of the Nine Gods."

Nonetheless, he is the BBEG in Tomb of Annihilation. With the right tools PCs are expected to defeat him.

Kalak should be no different. It’s perfectly reasonable in the scale of challenges as a late campaign encounter.

 

[Aldarc]

2. There are other geographies other than strictly national ones. The United States was obviously an English settler colony and dominant American culture is inundated with European cultural references. We read english literature in school, learn about European history, learn European languages (often poorly, but still). Politically, America is part of the "global north," and culturally associates itself with the geography of "the West."

Yeah. America's approach to "World History" is often taught and framed through a decidely European lens for the vast bulk of it, particularly with a focus on the Anglophonic portions of the British Isles. One does often get non-European history in there in the pre-classical period, primarily focused on Mesopotamia and the Levant, but once you hit ancient Greece and Rome? It's mostly all Euro-centric history from then on out. We learn about the settlement of England by the Anglo-Saxons, the Danelaw, the unification of England, the Norman Conquest, the War of the Roses, etc. We are even taught to root for the English at Agincourt. The shift to "American history" really only begins with the age of exploration and colonization, with 18th century conflicts such as the Seven Years War framed as the more American-centric "the French and Indian War." But it's not like we ignore the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars or everything after it just because the USA is no longer part of the United Kingdom. Even post-revolution, our framed viewpoint into European history tends to be British.

A lot of the myths, legends, and literature Americans are most familiar with comes from this Anglophonic sphere. We grow up learning English nursery rhymes, tales, and legends. We read the gamut of English lit in schools, often covering classics across a broad range of time periods like Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare, and Milton. How would a British reading list or history curriculum compare to what we are taught in schools?

 

[Aldarc]

So how is this different from a general “Asia” setting then that covers various Asian cultures or a general Middle East setting covering various Semitic and Arabian cultures? It’s the same.

Asian cultures do not enjoy the comparatively privileged position that European culture, literature, and history possesses in the American education system. Regardless of whether you deem that understanding as "superficial," it's still a pretty significant portion of our educational background.

White Americans have very little connections to their European roots beyond a very broad understanding unless they are first or second generation Americans.

What sort of "connections to their European roots" are you imagining here? I'm definitely not making family visits to long-distant relations in England, Northern Ireland, or Germany. Nor am I celebrating modern European dishes that didn't even exist in Europe in the time when our paths diverged from Europe.

This is even apparent in analyzing takes on Spanish names and assumptions by Americans that it indicated the person is from Latin America or South America instead of Spain being a possibility for the person’s origins.

Wait? There are over 442 million people who speak Spanish natively, and you're mad that people in an American nation with a large Latin American population assumes that a Spanish name means that they come from the 387 million chunk (Latin America) and not the smaller 55 million chunk (i.e., Spain)?

There is very little connection to Europe or understanding of European folklore. I know a handful who are very proud of their Irish Heritage but it amounts to celebrating St Patrick’s Day and wearing green and vague stories about snakes and druids and a possible historic figure. Stretching beyond that more recent Italian Or Mediterranean history outside of WWI-WWII era is virtually nil and understanding of Classical Greek culture is barely even superficial.

White and non-white Americans are bombarded with European history and literature in schools.

There is more Fey folklore, authentic Fey folklore, in a chapter of Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell than any D&D American product since 2e.

And?

 

[TheSword]

As long as they stay away from the Sword Coast, which has been done to death. Bored Coast, actually.

The Sword Coast is as boring as the quality of writing that details it.

There is plenty of space to explore new ideas or areas, whilst building on existing work. What we need is new ideas using old things rather than using old ideas with new things.

“The real voyage of discovery involves not seeking new landscapes, but having new eyes.” The plethora of MTG campaign settings has taught me that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah. America's approach to "World History" is often taught and framed through a decidely European lens for the vast bulk of it, particularly with a focus on the Anglophonic portions of the British Isles. One does often get non-European history in there in the pre-classical period, primarily focused on Mesopotamia and the Levant, but once you hit ancient Greece and Rome? It's mostly all Euro-centric history from then on out. We learn about the settlement of England by the Anglo-Saxons, the Danelaw, the unification of England, the Norman Conquest, the War of the Roses, etc. We are even taught to root for the English at Agincourt. The shift to "American history" really only begins with the age of exploration and colonization, with 18th century conflicts such as the Seven Years War framed as the more American-centric "the French and Indian War." But it's not like we ignore the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars or everything after it just because the USA is no longer part of the United Kingdom. Even post-revolution, our framed viewpoint into European history tends to be British.

A lot of the myths, legends, and literature Americans are most familiar with comes from this Anglophonic sphere. We grow up learning English nursery rhymes, tales, and legends. We read the gamut of English lit in schools, often covering classics across a broad range of time periods like Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare, and Milton. How would a British reading list or history curriculum compare to what we are taught in schools?

British as taught in English schools History? We get taught next to no world history (unless it pertains to the glorious British Empire or how we won two world wars single handed).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

British as taught in English schools History? We get taught next to no world history (unless it pertains to the glorious British Empire or how we won two world wars single handed).

I dunno, Paul, I must have got some pretty different history lessons, and we covered a ton of world history aged 10-14 - even stuff like the pre-Colombian Aztecs.

The only section time which seemed to be "glorious British empire" was at primary school (up to age 10), when we covered a lot of British kings and bloody Isambard Kingdom Brunel in frankly wildly excessive detail.

At GCSE level it was basically WW1 and WW2 (including the context to both) and not much else, but we were taught it was "Britain would definitely have lost/surrendered unless America kept pumping us with supplies" and that WW2 was almost entirely the fault of the Allied side of WW1 being total dicks to Germany after WW1.

One thing that I note is that the history I was taught - and that friends were taught - was never "beginning to end", i.e. never linear. There was never a suggestion that we would be taught "all of history" or something. Rather it jumped around and covered various periods and events in detail (there may have been some overview but it was very light).

We were also talk strong critical thinking re: sources.

 

[delericho]

A lot of the myths, legends, and literature Americans are most familiar with comes from this Anglophonic sphere. We grow up learning English nursery rhymes, tales, and legends. We read the gamut of English lit in schools, often covering classics across a broad range of time periods like Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare, and Milton. How would a British reading list or history curriculum compare to what we are taught in schools?

It should perhaps be noted here that the curriculum varies at least somewhat across the UK - the history I was taught doesn't match up with @Paul Farquhar 's description up-thread. In Scotland we got a lot about the highland clearances, the Unions of the crown and of parliament (that led to Scotland and England/Wales becoming the United Kingdom). I suspect Northern Ireland also has a somewhat different take on history.

(Curiously, we also did quite a lot about Russia in the time of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. But I think that was because that was the pet obsession of one of our teachers.)

 

[delericho]

What if it is a slip case with a book on FR, Greyhawk and The Known World/Mystara? That would be a huge 50th anniversary product and a slipcase with those three would be absolutely worthy of that distinction or one that is a new GH book, the SCAG with the adventure Gazeteer materials included/reprinted and Eberron?

I suspect that would be met with a huge amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Honestly, each of those three settings need more space than a third of a slipcase would allow for - I suspect the respective fans of each of the settings are more likely to see that as an insult to their favourite than they are to buy in.

(That said, I may be wrong about that - that would be a product I would skip as I'm no longer in the market for any of those settings. I wouldn't object to their being covered, of course; it's just not for me.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I dunno, Paul, I must have got some pretty different history lessons, and we covered a ton of world history aged 10-14 - even stuff like the pre-Colombian Aztecs.

I'm exaggerating a bit, and further down the school there is more freedom for good teachers to do their stuff, but currently there is a lot of pressure from above for teachers to only teach how great the British Empire was.

But my history teacher treated me much the way Snape treated Harry Potter, and I'm pretty sure my dad never bullied him at school, and he was slightly less progressive than Colonel Blimp (my teacher, not my dad), so my opinions may be a bit jaded!

One thing that I note is that the history I was taught - and that friends were taught - was never "beginning to end", i.e. never linear. There was never a suggestion that we would be taught "all of history" or something. Rather it jumped around and covered various periods and events in detail (there may have been some overview but it was very light).

This is true. Judging by school history lessons, the Romans where immediately followed by the Tudors and Stewarts.

We were also talk strong critical thinking re: sources.

Critical thinking in history came in after I left school, and it currently being forced out again.