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​

 

[Shardstone]

Let me flip that around. Why is it acceptable and normal to say you want something different that hasn’t been done before, but if you say you preferred the way things are you’re seen as a conservative (little c) reactionary who can’t stand change?

I have no objection to new things. I just like them interspersed with familiar things.

As always, as in life, change generally isn’t a problem, it’s the scale or speed of change that discombobulates people.

You didn't flip anything, you just ignored half my post.

Not every book is designed to be for everyone; that is an exercise in madness. And if you don't like the fact that WotC wants to sell SOME books to different people than you, then that's you need to get over.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

You didn't flip anything, you just ignored half my post.

Not every book is designed to be for everyone; that is an exercise in madness. And if you don't like the fact that WotC wants to sell SOME books to different people than you, then that's you need to get over.

I'll add, folks are quick to develop a pattern in short-term trends. The past two years, we got Strixhaven, Witchlight, and now this. You could argue that's a pattern of "Happy, optimistic, Disney!" like some are... but the two years before them we got Icewind Dale, Ravenloft, and Avernus which were not that trend AT ALL.

The D&D team itself plans things what, at least 3 years ahead of releases? I'm sure the pendulum in the future will swing into a completely different direction and people will find a new "pattern" out of that.

 

[TheSword]

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

It was more a case of giving examples rather demanding you read them. I would highly recommend the Eisenhorn books though. Abnett also created the 2008 Guardians of the Galaxy. He’s an excellent novelist and the books are great whatever your thoughts about Grimdark.

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 couldn’t agree more. I also think it’s just bad writing. He got credit for breaking tropes by having a torturer as a protagonist, but I actually think very little happens in the first book.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

In-universe, it's an invented kid with an invented mother, explicitly created to add dramatic backdrop to an eternal evil beings torment. They are explicitly considered props. They might as well be actors who complain about the script and their screen time backstage while raiding the catering table.

Every single NPC in every single game of D&D is a "prop". Literally all of them are story devices used by the DM to propel the plot/story of the game.

I think that what you're complaining about is actually how this could potentially ruin the players' willing suspension of disbelief while playing the game. Every player already knows that the characters in the game aren't real, but their characters don't know that, which is what allows them to engage with the story and roleplay as their characters. Pulling back the curtain and revealing "actually, 90% of these characters don't have souls and are all doomed to terrible lives no matter what you do" can disillusion the players in the campaign to the setting. "What's the point" is a common question. It's similar to how a lot of people hate the "it was just a dream" twist ending when used in fictional stories.

I think this is a valid complaint, but I also think that the "90% of these characters don't have souls and are doomed to horrible lives no matter what you do" can actually be a good thing in aiding with the bleak theme of the setting. So long as you can pull it off without breaking your players' suspension of disbelief, it can really enhance the more horrific and grimdark elements of the setting and campaign.

And, as others have said, the question "but do they matter, even if they aren't real/don't have souls" is a compelling one. If Warforged didn't actually have souls, would it be okay to murder them? If a person in the real world had no chance of ever achieving anything great and were doomed to die in a horrible way, would you be right to kill them? If the world is doomed to end and take everyone with it due to the petty/selfish actions of just a handful of people, is fighting to try and save the world or ease the suffering of those that will die actually pointless?

To me, the answer to all of those questions is "no", but they're good dilemmas to bring up in-game and have your players (and their characters) ask.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Every single NPC in every single game of D&D is a "prop". Literally all of them are story devices used by the DM to propel the plot/story of the game.

I think that what you're complaining about is actually how this could potentially ruin the players' willing suspension of disbelief while playing the game. Every player already knows that the characters in the game aren't real, but their characters don't know that, which is what allows them to engage with the story and roleplay as their characters. Pulling back the curtain and revealing "actually, 90% of these characters don't have souls and are all doomed to terrible lives no matter what you do" can disillusion the players in the campaign to the setting. "What's the point" is a common question. It's similar to how a lot of people hate the "it was just a dream" twist ending when used in fictional stories.

I think this is a valid complaint, but I also think that the "90% of these characters don't have souls and are doomed to horrible lives no matter what you do" can actually be a good thing in aiding with the bleak theme of the setting. So long as you can pull it off without breaking your players' suspension of disbelief, it can really enhance the more horrific and grimdark elements of the setting and campaign.

And, as others have said, the question "but do they matter, even if they aren't real/don't have souls" is a compelling one. If Warforged didn't actually have souls, would it be okay to murder them? If a person in the real world had no chance of ever achieving anything great and were doomed to die in a horrible way, would you be right to kill them? If the world is doomed to end and take everyone with it due to the petty/selfish actions of just a handful of people, is fighting to try and save the world or ease the suffering of those that will die actually pointless?

To me, the answer to all of those questions is "no", but they're good dilemmas to bring up in-game and have your players (and their characters) ask.

The whole "They aren't real, don't have souls, but should you still care about them?" is kind of an existential question that would be wild for a D&D game to explore... see HBO's Westworld for inspiration. Which honestly, Westworld could inspire it's own Domain all on its own.

 

[darjr]

In preorder.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Let me flip that around. Why is it acceptable and normal to say you want something different that hasn’t been done before, but if you say you preferred the way things are you’re seen as a conservative (little c) reactionary who can’t stand change?

Are you seriously asking "Why is someone labeled a grouchy, gatekeeping grognard just because they complain about the mere existence of new things that aren't catered towards them, that other people enjoy, and constantly whine about how the older stuff was better?"

Like . . . seriously?

Saying that you want something new is acceptable and normal because . . . literally everyone likes certain things and asking for something that you like that has never been made before is 100% valid. Saying that you don't want something to exist because it wasn't specifically made and catered to you is selfish and the very definition of "exclusionary".

That's like asking "why am I labeled a nerd, just because I play Dungeons and Dragons, read fantasy and sci-fi books, and play video games?"

Like, that's literally the definition of the thing you are talking about.

I am utterly baffled that this is a question you felt the need to ask.

 

[Parmandur]

I'll add, folks are quick to develop a pattern in short-term trends. The past two years, we got Strixhaven, Witchlight, and now this. You could argue that's a pattern of "Happy, optimistic, Disney!" like some are... but the two years before them we got Icewind Dale, Ravenloft, and Avernus which were not that trend AT ALL.

The D&D team itself plans things what, at least 3 years ahead of releases? I'm sure the pendulum in the future will swing into a completely different direction and people will find a new "pattern" out of that.

It's not even that strict a trend: we just got Netherdeep, which is not "fluffy."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

From the perspective of an in-person conversation, I don't see much of a difference. That person must have known that was an opinion. If I were the fan in that situation, I would have tried to convince them otherwise; failing that, I would have let it go. What does their opinion have to do with my enjoyment?

In a circumstance where the thing you're talking about is subjective and there are other people that enjoy it, "it wasn't my cup of tea" is always a better thing to say than "this thing sucks".

Like . . . I don't like Friends, Harry Potter, the WWE, Downton Abbey, the DCEU, or Jane Austen's stories, and I'm not going to apologize for disliking them, but I also don't routinely call them garbage, crap on their fanbases, and say that they never should have existed. I just say "they're not for me". I am not the kind of person that these stories are catered to, and that's okay.

And I expect the same thing of others. I don't care if someone else doesn't like Brandon Sanderson's novels, the MCU, Percy Jackson, Star Wars, or 30 Rock, but I do care when people claim that they're garbage or insult the people that like them.

It's just a common courtesy generally expected in society. A very basic social contract that people are supposed to learn throughout their lives. It's a standard that everyone should be held to. Just basic politeness. I'm honestly baffled that this needs explaining.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Every single NPC in every single game of D&D is a "prop". Literally all of them are story devices used by the DM to propel the plot/story of the game.

I think that what you're complaining about is actually how this could potentially ruin the players' willing suspension of disbelief while playing the game. Every player already knows that the characters in the game aren't real, but their characters don't know that, which is what allows them to engage with the story and roleplay as their characters. Pulling back the curtain and revealing "actually, 90% of these characters don't have souls and are all doomed to terrible lives no matter what you do" can disillusion the players in the campaign to the setting. "What's the point" is a common question. It's similar to how a lot of people hate the "it was just a dream" twist ending when used in fictional stories.

I think this is a valid complaint, but I also think that the "90% of these characters don't have souls and are doomed to horrible lives no matter what you do" can actually be a good thing in aiding with the bleak theme of the setting. So long as you can pull it off without breaking your players' suspension of disbelief, it can really enhance the more horrific and grimdark elements of the setting and campaign.

And, as others have said, the question "but do they matter, even if they aren't real/don't have souls" is a compelling one. If Warforged didn't actually have souls, would it be okay to murder them? If a person in the real world had no chance of ever achieving anything great and were doomed to die in a horrible way, would you be right to kill them? If the world is doomed to end and take everyone with it due to the petty/selfish actions of just a handful of people, is fighting to try and save the world or ease the suffering of those that will die actually pointless?

To me, the answer to all of those questions is "no", but they're good dilemmas to bring up in-game and have your players (and their characters) ask.

See now, if they had brought up those ideas as a justification of why they decided to make the NPCs empty soulless husks, that would have been some traction. But instead, they just put it out there and made you come up with a reason why it was "a good thing".