D&D 5E The Next D&D Book is JOURNEYS THROUGH THE RADIANT CITADEL

We peered, poked, squinted, flipped, and enhanced the teaser image that WotC put out last week, and it turns out we got it right -- the next book is, indeed, Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel.

Wraparound cover art by Evyn Fong​

Through the mists of the Ethereal Plane shines the Radiant Citadel. Travelers from across the multiverse flock to this mysterious bastion to share their traditions, stories, and calls for heroes. A crossroads of wonders and adventures, the Radiant Citadel is the first step on the path to legend. Where will your journeys take you?

Journeys through the Radiant Citadel is a collection of thirteen short, stand-alone D&D adventures featuring challenges for character levels 1–14. Each adventure has ties to the Radiant Citadel, a magical city with connections to lands rich with excitement and danger, and each can be run by itself or as part of an ongoing campaign. Explore this rich and varied collection of adventures in magical lands.

• Thirteen new stand-alone adventures spanning levels 1 to 14, each with its own set of maps
• Introduces the Radiant Citadel, a new location on the Ethereal Plane that connects adventurers to richly detailed and distinct corners of the D&D multiverse
• Each adventure can be set in any existing D&D campaign setting or on worlds of your own design
• Introduces eleven new D&D monsters
• There’s a story for every adventuring party, from whimsical and light to dark and foreboding and everything in between

Slated for June 21st (update - I just got a press release which says it's June 21st "in North American stores"; I'm not sure what that means for the rest of us!), it's a 224-page adventure anthology featuring a floating city called the Radiant Citadel. The book is written entirely by people of colour, including Ajit George, who was the first person of Indian heritage to write Indian-inspired material for D&D (in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft). Around 50 POC writers were involved in total in various ways.

The Radiant Citadel is on the ethereal plane and is carved from the giant fossil of an unknown monster. A massive gemstone called the Royal Diamond sits at the core, surrounded by a bunch of smaller Concord Jewels, which are gateways to the Citadel's founding civilizations. DMs can link any world to the citadel by placing a Concord Jewel there.

The Citadel, unlike many D&D locations, is more of a sanctuary than a place of danger. The book's alternate cover features a Dawn Incarnate, a creature which is the embodiment of stories and cultures.

D&D 5E - Here's Radiant Citadel's press release

Dropped in my inbox a short while ago, if you want the official announcement. It's the same info as in the news article on the front page. Dungeons & Dragons Invites You to Explore the Radiant Citadel Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel is a new collection of short adventures set in wondrous...

www.enworld.org

The adventures are as follows:

• Salted Legacy
• Written In Blood
• The Fiend of Hollow Mine
• Wages of Vice
• Sins of Our Elders
• Gold for Fools and Princes
• Trail of Destruction
• In the Mists of Manivarsha
• Between Tangled Roots
• Shadow of the Sun
• The Nightsea’s Succor
• Buried Dynasty
• Orchids of the Invisible Mountain

UPDATE -- the press release contains a list of some of the contributors: "Justice Ramin Arman, Dominique Dickey, Ajit A. George, Basheer Ghouse, Alastor Guzman, D. Fox Harrell, T.K. Johnson, Felice Tzehuei Kuan, Surena Marie, Mimi Mondal, Mario Ortegón, Miyuki Jane Pinckard, Pam Punzalan, Erin Roberts, Terry H. Romero, Stephanie Yoon, and many more."

Regular cover by Even Fong

Alternate Cover by Sija Hong​

 

[Micah Sweet]

So let’s be clear, I wasn’t commenting on quality, writing, creativity etc. All of which would be subjective.

I was talking about the structure of the book and an anthology by its nature. Particularly has a follow on from Candlekeep. If we look at that book as an example.

• These are small individual adventures (fact)
• They don’t reference the NPCs from other adventures in the anthology (fact)
• They don’t build in locations from the other adventures (fact)
• They don’t have a progression of wider story line (fact)

Now my disliking this structure is subjective and entirely my own opinion. I made that really clear and explained that I understood why they were making them.

I don’t really see the problem with pointing out the flaws in this kind of product. There are enough people pointing out how wonderful it is. Surely it can stand up to a little counterpoint.

There are only sides in this discussion. Sadly, no one seems to care about reasons.

 

[Faolyn]

It is my opinion. I always assume anyone talking to me about the quality of something is giving their opinion. How else would you take it?

If someone says to me "this thing sucks," then I take it that they are claiming that the thing itself sucks (and is therefore intrinsically unlikable), not that they personally don't like the thing or it's not to their tastes.

 

[Jer]

If someone says to me "this thing sucks," then I take it that they are claiming that the thing itself sucks (and is therefore intrinsically unlikable), not that they personally don't like the thing or it's not to their tastes.

I used to be like that but the internet warps language. Now if someone says "this thing sucks" I take it to mean "this thing is something that I personally do not care for but other folks may like it". Even when their intent in saying "this thing sucks" actually means "this thing is something that I do not like and I think anyone who does like it is an unintelligent dullard".

It's an abuse of the English language, but I've never been a language prescriptivist and it stops pointless Internet fights that no one will win.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Regarding Grimdark, I think those settings are more about the context. Than the stories that take place there.

If we look at Dan Abnett (most popular author) of the W40k world (the original Grimdark setting) his stories are full of heroism, and triumph against evil. The context is oppression, endless war, the dystopian mass of humanity toiling under an uncaring dictatorship but the protagonists are almost always heroic… and usually successful. Even if they have to give a little of themselves to do so.

Grimdark doesn’t have to mean hopeless, lacking in heroism or sympathy.

By what has become the normal usage of the term, IME, the bolded means that those stories are not grimdark.

In the grim darkness of the future, there is only war, or whatever.

If heroic characters can win, and aren't just naive fools one dumb decision away from a painful death, and the protagonists both start and finish are fairly good people with decent intentions, it isn't what many (maybe most) people see as grimdark.

I irritated Robert Schwalb online one time by reacting to a post about SoTDL as "yet another grimdark setting where everything and everyone sucks and there's no hope" and he snapped at me that this was a bunk description of the work, and that it isn't grimdark, there is hope, and the expectation is that most PCs are heroic people. I heard him out, and apologised, but it stuck with me that he rejected the label of grimdark, for the game.

 

[Scribe]

If heroic characters can win, and aren't just naive fools one dumb decision away from a painful death, and the protagonists both start and finish are fairly good people with decent intentions, it isn't what many (maybe most) people see as grimdark.

I've always seen it not so much that there cannot be victory, but that victory requires a sacrifice, where its ambiguous on if it was really a victory at all, and certainly the characters may (or must) give up a piece of themselves in securing that victory, either physically/mentally or morally.

I irritated Robert Schwalb online one time by reacting to a post about SoTDL as "yet another grimdark setting where everything and everyone sucks and there's no hope" and he snapped at me that this was a bunk description of the work, and that it isn't grimdark, there is hope, and the expectation is that most PCs are heroic people. I heard him out, and apologised, but it stuck with me that he rejected the label of grimdark, for the game.

I dont know about the metaplot or anything, but at a glance, that stuff certainly looks dark..

 

[TheSword]

By what has become the normal usage of the term, IME, the bolded means that those stories are not grimdark.

In the grim darkness of the future, there is only war, or whatever.

If heroic characters can win, and aren't just naive fools one dumb decision away from a painful death, and the protagonists both start and finish are fairly good people with decent intentions, it isn't what many (maybe most) people see as grimdark.

I irritated Robert Schwalb online one time by reacting to a post about SoTDL as "yet another grimdark setting where everything and everyone sucks and there's no hope" and he snapped at me that this was a bunk description of the work, and that it isn't grimdark, there is hope, and the expectation is that most PCs are heroic people. I heard him out, and apologised, but it stuck with me that he rejected the label of grimdark, for the game.

In 40k The worlds are grim, the NPCs are grim, the encounters are grim, the social structures are grim, the lives of most people are grim. In essence the setting is grim. How the protagonists react is heroic… that’s the original Grimdark.

Read Eisenhorn, Read Ravenor, Read the Horus Heresy books, read Gaunts Ghosts. Play the Dark Heresy Game that was influenced by them. Play Wrath or Glory. These are the stories that put meat on the bones of the 40k setting. They are undeniably heroic.

I would suggest if your definition of Grimdark doesn’t include the original and most famous Grimdark setting it’s probably not an accurate description.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

In 40k The worlds are grim, the NPCs are grim, the encounters are grim, the social structures are grim, the lives of most people are grim. In essence the setting is grim. How the protagonists react is heroic… that’s the original Grimdark.

Read Eisenhorn, Read Ravenor, Read the Horus Heresy books, read Gaunts Ghosts. Play the Dark Heresy Game that was influenced by them. Play Wrath or Glory. These are the stories that put meat on the bones of the 40k setting. They are undeniably heroic.

I would suggest if your definition of Grimdark doesn’t include the original and most famous Grimdark setting it’s probably not an accurate description.

40k was also written as a parody of Dune, Alien, and even Paradise Lost. Yeah it's grimdark, but it's also pointing out the inherent ironies and ridiculousness of the whole setting. The more 40k moves to Space Marines being heroic, the more I'm reminded that they were originally intended to be parodies of over-militarism.

To me the background to 40K was always intended to be ironic. [...] The fact that the Space Marines were lauded as heroes within Games Workshop always amused me, because they're brutal, but they're also completely self-deceiving. The whole idea of the Emperor is that you don't know whether he's alive or dead. The whole Imperium might be running on superstition. There's no guarantee that the Emperor is anything other than a corpse with a residual mental ability to direct spacecraft. It's got some parallels with religious beliefs and principles, and I think a lot of that got missed and overwritten.

— Rick Priestley, in a December 2015 interview with Unplugged Games

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm pretty sure Warhammer is in the Grimdark context is the wargame where literally ever faction is bad guys who thought they were good like the Starship Troopers movie.

And after that there's a LOT of misaimed fandom that thinks the Imperium is good for example and then turned around and portray them as good and... the light from D&D will take ten million years to reach where this discussion slammed itself through the guard rail and went hurtling off into the desert, spewing flames and cans of Bud Light.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In 40k The worlds are grim, the NPCs are grim, the encounters are grim, the social structures are grim, the lives of most people are grim. In essence the setting is grim. How the protagonists react is heroic… that’s the original Grimdark.

Read Eisenhorn, Read Ravenor, Read the Horus Heresy books, read Gaunts Ghosts. Play the Dark Heresy Game that was influenced by them. Play Wrath or Glory. These are the stories that put meat on the bones of the 40k setting. They are undeniably heroic.

I would suggest if your definition of Grimdark doesn’t include the original and most famous Grimdark setting it’s probably not an accurate description.

You can argue anything you like, but I'm gonna go with the most common usage that I see in daily life, regardless.

And I'm gonna say no to reading any more Warhammer or any other grimdark stuff than I already have, thanks.

Abercrombie or whatever his name is. The First Law books. No one stays decent and also survives, nothing ultimately matters, it's just bleak myopic pessimism. I stopped reading before the one or two remaining characters I still somewhat liked got ruined as badly as Shivers.

I've always seen it not so much that there cannot be victory, but that victory requires a sacrifice, where its ambiguous on if it was really a victory at all, and certainly the characters may (or must) give up a piece of themselves in securing that victory, either physically/mentally or morally.

Depends on how one defines victory, I guess. Is it a victory for the protagonists to win, if the protagonists aren't much better (or often, better at all) than what they're fighting?

I dont know about the metaplot or anything, but at a glance, that stuff certainly looks dark..

It really does, and especially did when it was first coming out and I saw buzz about it.

 

[billd91]

So let’s be clear, I wasn’t commenting on quality, writing, creativity etc. All of which would be subjective.

I was talking about the structure of the book and an anthology by its nature. Particularly as a follow on from Candlekeep only one year previous. If we look at that book as an example.

• These are small individual adventures (fact)
• They don’t reference the NPCs from other adventures in the anthology (fact)
• They don’t build in locations from the other adventures (fact)
• They don’t have a progression of wider story line (fact)

Now my disliking this structure is subjective and entirely my own opinion. I made that really clear and explained that I understood why they were making them.

Yeah, you did like... what, 9 hours after posting a relatively threadcrappy drive-by estimation that the product lacked material depth. That would be the initial impression you left people with. And it's not like other critics have been better by pointing out one or two pictures as indicating a trend in the game's art direction.

If you had initially come in with the elaboration that you were hoping for another mini-campaign (of which we've had many) and are disappointed it's an anthology of adventures, that would have given a significantly different impression and, I daresay, you'd have gotten less personal pushback (though that doesn't apply to some of the other shallow critics - they made their own impressions).