Two New Settings For D&D This Year

if it comes out this year i would agree with you. Possibly published by a third party company that has a good reputation (Green Ronin etc)

However if it’s coming next year I would stake all the money in my pockets that it will be a Curse of Strahd style book. Campaign with background and new monsters etc. Curse of Strahd was too successful not to repeat!

 

[AmerginLiath]

The fact that the kingdom management minigame could be ported (with effort) into another campaign world doesn't change the fact that Cerilia is an independent setting specifically built to support the assumptions and flavor of that minigame. Cerilia <> Faerun <> Golarian <> Greyhawk <> Mystara, despite them all being generic medieval campaign settings with a mish-mash of kingdoms.

Suspecting that Cerilia is unlikely to be reintroduced as a setting, I reintroduce my suggestion of doing Birthright as the next of the WotC D&D board games, having a “Domain Board” with shifting resources and other control elements along the line of both the classic setting and various conquest games. Meanwhile, the game itself would come with an “Adventure Board” with party-level scenarios played out in Cerilia between characters and monsters (which, as in the classic setting, act to affect the Domain Turn).

A group could play a combination of a single Adventure Scenario and Domain Scenario together or choose to keep the same Domain Game going across multiple games of Adventure play. Likewise, it could be designed so that — instead of using the Adventure Scenarios in the box or otherwise released for the game — a group could play 5e adventures along with the Domain Board and have the microcosm of character actions in the campaign affect global Domain Rounds. Per the question of setting vs. mechanics, while the game would be designed around the assumptions of Cerilia, it would include notes on how to play the Domain Board in other settings/campaigns (such as how to add it to an FR campaign and work the Weave into the assumptions of the game).

I think that’s a product that could sell both on its own face (as a game that doesn’t require D&D and appeals to conquest game players) and as an expandable campaign accessory for folks looking to shake things up.

 

[colinbuckler]

From a business sense WOTC might want to capture and capitalise in areas where a 5E product currently doesn't go.

With that in mind I think they may release 2 small books? (more likely PDF's) to cover Spelljammer and Planescape. This would give something in the area of Starfinder (not quite the same I know) as well as tie in nicely with the Spelljammer helm thats reportedly included with the two new Waterdeep products. This in turn opens the door for other realms via other Crystal Spheres or planes. (would love to have more on Spelljammer personally).

There is also a possibility of some form of campaign management - think on the success of the Pathfinder products and especially the success of Strongholds kickstarter earlier on this year. I don't think it will go full Birthright (which is a shame in my opinion).

And a final thought which everybody appears to missed - what about a surprise "Modern 5E" version?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I fundamentally disagree with this take. Every DM is, or can be, the author and creator not only of their own prime material plane, but the entire multiverse.

And your multiverse is a part of the D&D multiverse. Because you're playing D&D. That's why the goblins that appear in your world when you use the stats from the Monster Manual are the exact same goblins that appear in mine. Is that just the most unlikely of coincidences? Nope. Cause our individual worlds are connected at a meta level to D&D.

Now there might be no way for any character in your world or planar structure to use magic to GET to any other plane in some other person's world or indeed even believe some other DM's world might even exist. Sure. You can say that, and indeed you might make it a point to never have that happen in the context of your own stories. But have you ever had a player bring a PC into your game world that they've played in a different world at a different table? Or have any of your players ever taken a character they've played in your game and then played it at a game store or in Adventurer's League at some point?

If it has, how is it possible? The "same" character showing up in two different worlds? It's possible because in the multiverse there are infinite numbers of everyone and everything. And even if one of me will never ever meet another one of me, that doesn't mean that the other me doesn't exist.

And it's the same way with D&D. No one in your world might believe in the world of Eberron that Keith Baker plays or have any way to get there (because the magic or physics of your world doesn't allow for it.) But if you both happen to have Holy Avengers, and your orogs all have the same stats, and you both reference the Elemental Planes with a creature in one of them by the name of Yan-C-Bin... it's because you are a part of the D&D narrative. And no amount of denial on your part can make it not true.

How do you not be a part of the D&D multiverse? You don't play D&D.

 

[Yaarel]

No one gets to decide whether or not any worlds are connected to each other, via Planespace or whatever. They already are. In the meta of Dungeons & Dragons, Dark Sun things have appeared elsewhere in other games. Greyhawk things have appeared elsewhere in other games. All the terminology of all the facets of D&D have appeared back and forth across all the settings. It's already happened. It's been written. It's been produced. It's been published. And just because you as a specific DM do not want your specific table to be "connected" to any of it doesn't matter. You are a part of the D&D multiverse because you are playing D&D.

The best you can do is say that for your table and your game and your little pocket of the D&D multiverse, it isn't "connected" to anything else. It is it's own little area where never the twain shall meet. Which is great! Go right ahead! You can SAY whatever you'd like. Every DM's prime material plane for each game they run may or may not have any connections to any other game being run in terms of that DM's narrative. I mean usually there *is* a connection even if you don't mean it to... seeing as how you usually are using the exact same monsters that happen to have the exact same stats as the multitude of every other DM's pocket plane, and you use the exact same magic items that have the exact same names and abilities as the multitude of every other DM's pocket plane, and the physics of your world involve their exact same representation via the exact same game rules as the multitude of every other DM's pocket plane... but sure, yours is it's own thing. You can say whatever you'd like.

But because you are playing D&D, on the meta level you are part of D&D. Whether or not you want to admit it.

I feel the above assessment is correct. The ‘multiverse’ is canon. All official settings interconnect. 5e emphasizes this. There is only one supersetting, and all other settings assimilate into it.

Unfortunately, this is what makes the D&D products less and less appealing to me.

All settings are homogenizing.

The D&D 1e spirit of create your own worlds is dead.




If the Star Trek Borg was ever a setting, Planescape is it. ‘We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.’

The polytheism is totalitarian. The sun elf is dead − only Borg elves roam existence now.

The world builder swims against a stronger current of unwanted flavor.




The damage seems to have been. Everything has been assimilated.

 

[Aldarc]

See, this is where perception means everything; I find Greyhawk, bland, painfully generic, and barely a setting as a collection of proper nouns and references that is unique and memorable only due to their constant inclusion in the core rulebooks and repeated retreads if nostalgic modules. It's never been more than the default assumptions given a proper name.

But that is the assumptions I have from the end of 2e and 3e era; when that's what they sold it mostly as. You see a pulpy world mercenaries, I see genericland. It's the same problem people are having with Planescape or Birthright in this thread; peoples preconceived notions are coloring whether a setting should get published.

I have never played Greyhawk. I also came in when 3e was released. Sure, the 3e PHB had a barebones Greyhawk (mostly just a handful of deities), but my GM used his own homebrew. I also thought that Greyhawk seemed kinda bland and generic. I was curious as to why people remembered Generichawk so fondly. I even remember being wide-eyed about the release of this pretty new book called Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. But then came Eberron...

It was not until much later, within the past four or so years, that I looked back at Greyhawk, spurred by grognards here talking about what makes Greyhawk unique. A lot of responses recounted something akin to the above, and I know that I am not doing their responses justice. It was not until I gained more experience GMing that I started seeing the appeal of Greyhawk from the GM-side of things. It was something akin to an "Oh " epiphany moment. I still haven't played it, but when imagining "What would it be like to run Greyhawk," it seemed to click.

Any thoughts on my earlier reply to you about what other settings D&D could do? Or did I miss that?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The D&D 1e spirit of create your own worlds is dead.

Unfortunately, you just never realized back then that even 1E was part of the D&D multiverse. It was just never referenced. So any belief in individuality or uniqueness was just an illusion because you didn't know any better.

Why did ever single player have red dragons in their worlds that did the same amount of damage and had the same number of attacks, and had the same baseline personality? Because we all used the Monster Manual as our guide. Our red dragons were all virtually identical. Because they were all just "alternate universe" red dragons that were all part of the D&D multiverse.

Or why were there tens of thousands of 'Acererak's out there? All who had the exact same tomb, all of whom did the exact same thing of pulling adventurers into his tomb to kill them? All of whom had the exact same traps and abilities to do so? Because they were all just "alternate universe" Acereraks that were all part of the D&D multiverse.

And that's really the point. If you play D&D, and use the tools of D&D, you are a part of D&D. It's just the way it is.

 

[Bitbrain]

If the Star Trek Borg was ever a setting, Planescape is it. ‘We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile.’

The sun elf is dead − only Borg elves roam existence now.

Off topic, but this is brilliant. I need to go homebrew a nanotech Sorcerous origin.

 

[Mercurius]

And your multiverse is a part of the D&D multiverse. Because you're playing D&D. That's why the goblins that appear in your world when you use the stats from the Monster Manual are the exact same goblins that appear in mine. Is that just the most unlikely of coincidences? Nope. Cause our individual worlds are connected at a meta level to D&D.

Now there might be no way for any character in your world or planar structure to use magic to GET to any other plane in some other person's world or indeed even believe some other DM's world might even exist. Sure. You can say that, and indeed you might make it a point to never have that happen in the context of your own stories. But have you ever had a player bring a PC into your game world that they've played in a different world at a different table? Or have any of your players ever taken a character they've played in your game and then played it at a game store or in Adventurer's League at some point?

If it has, how is it possible? The "same" character showing up in two different worlds? It's possible because in the multiverse there are infinite numbers of everyone and everything. And even if one of me will never ever meet another one of me, that doesn't mean that the other me doesn't exist.

And it's the same way with D&D. No one in your world might believe in the world of Eberron that Keith Baker plays or have any way to get there (because the magic or physics of your world doesn't allow for it.) But if you both happen to have Holy Avengers, and your orogs all have the same stats, and you both reference the Elemental Planes with a creature in one of them by the name of Yan-C-Bin... it's because you are a part of the D&D narrative. And no amount of denial on your part can make it not true.

How do you not be a part of the D&D multiverse? You don't play D&D.

Yes, my game draws upon the well of D&D. If that is what you mean, sure. No doubt. But whether or not Eberron exists in my multiverse is entirely up to me. Not you, not Keith Baker, not the lich of E Gary Gygax (RIP). It isn't a matter of what I believe, as DM, but what I decide to be so.

Canon is just the default that individual games can follow if they choose, but don't have to. This is entirely up to individual DMs and/or groups. It is a toolbox, not hard-written rules that Everyone Must Follow Or Forever Be Cast Out of the D&D Family.

So if you're saying that every D&D campaign is part of the overall D&D "well of ideas," then yeah, of course that is true. But if you are saying that every campaign world is part of D&D's multiverse whether the campaign world's designer wants it or not, that is absurd. Every campaign world and game table is its own "absolute multiverse," and it is entirely up to individual DMs and groups how they choose to interact with the D&D multiverse - if at all.

 

[kenmarable]

If it has, how is it possible? The "same" character showing up in two different worlds?

Um... because it's all make believe? Look, I'm a big fan of Planescape, Spelljammer, and linking settings, and you've lost me.

Or maybe you are onto something... maybe none of this is real and we are all just inside Tommy Westphall's head!

 

[DEFCON 1]

So if you're saying that every D&D campaign is part of the overall D&D "well of ideas," then yeah, of course that is true. But if you are saying that every campaign world is part of D&D's multiverse whether the campaign world's designer wants it or not, that is absurd. Every campaign world and game table is its own "absolute multiverse," and it is entirely up to individual DMs and groups how they choose to interact with the D&D multiverse - if at all.

I'm saying that the "well of ideas" and "multiverse" are exactly the same thing. At a meta level there is no difference. Which means there's absolutely no point in trying to split hairs. And whether someone says "My table is part of the D&D Multiverse." or "My table is not a part of the D&D multiverse" really means absolutely nothing at the hand-on level of actually playing at the table. At the table, neither answer matters.

Which is exactly why I point it out because so many people get so hung on it. At your table, what WotC says about everything in D&D being a part of the "D&D multiverse" means jack squat at your table. So why let yourself get so bent out of shape over it when they say it?