[UPDATED] RAGE OF DEMONS! New D&D Storyline Features Drizzt, Underdark, & Demon Lords!

Following Elemental Evil this fall, Rage of Demons will launch a new storyline featuring Drizzt Do'Urden, the Underdark, and various demon lords from the Abyss including old favourites like Demogorgon, Orcus and Graz’zt. This will feature on tabletop, console, and PC. "The demon lords have been summoned from the Abyss and players must descend into the Underdark with the iconic hero Drizzt Do’Urden to stop the chaos before it threatens the surface." It begins with the adventure Out of the Abyss, which releases on September 15th for $49.95, and is being designed for WotC by Green Ronin Publishing. (Thanks to Charles Akins for that last scoop!)

​

Drizzt? WotC's Chris Perkins says: "Drizzt's role in the RoD story varies depending on the platform. In the TRPG adventure, the PCs are the stars."

Inspiration: "My inspirations for RAGE OF DEMONS were Lewis Carroll's Wonderland stories and EXILE, by R.A. Salvatore." [Perkins] So this is the Alice in Wonderland inspired story that's been previously alluded to.

Here's the full announcement.

"Today, Wizards of the Coast announced Rage of Demons, the new storyline for Dungeons & Dragons fans coming in Fall 2015. The demon lords have been summoned from the Abyss and players must descend into the Underdark with the iconic hero Drizzt Do’Urden to stop the chaos before it threatens the surface. Rage of Demons is the story all D&D gamers will be excited to play this fall, whether they prefer consoles, PCs or rolling dice with friends.

Following on the critically-acclaimed Tyranny of Dragons and Elemental Evil stories, Rage of Demons will transport characters to the deadly and insane underworld. Rumors of powerful demon lords such as Demogorgon, Orcus and Graz’zt terrorizing the denizens of the Underdark have begun to filter up to the cities of the Sword Coast. The already dangerous caverns below the surface are thrown into ultimate chaos, madness and discord. The renegade drow Drizzt Do’Urden is sent to investigate but it will be up to you to aid in his fight against the demons before he succumbs to his darker temptations.

Dungeons & Dragons fans will have more options than ever to enjoy the Rage of Demons storyline. The themes of treachery and discord in the Underdark are in Sword Coast Legends, the new CRPG (computer role-playing game) coming this fall on PC from n-Space and Digital Extremes. The epic campaign that drives Sword Coast Legends' story forces players deep into the Underdark and continues well after launch with legendary adventurer Drizzt Do'Urden.

For fans of Neverwinter, the popular Dungeons & Dragons-based MMORPG will bring a new expansion – tentatively titled Neverwinter: Underdark – in 2015. The update will see adventurers travel with Drizzt to the drow city of Menzoberranzan during its demonic assault as well as experience a unique set of quests written by the creator of Drizzt, R.A. Salvatore. The expansion will initially be released on PC and will come out on the Xbox One at a later date.

Players of the tabletop roleplaying game can descend into the Underdark in Out of the Abyss, a new adventure which provides details on the demon lords rampaging through the Underdark. Partners such as WizKids, GaleForce 9 and Smiteworks will all support Rage of Demons with new products to help bring your tabletop game to life. To really get in the mind of Drizzt, fans will have to check out Archmage, the new novel by R.A. Salvatore, scheduled for release in early September.

“Rage of Demons is a huge storyline involving all expressions of Dungeons & Dragons, and we’re excited to bring players this story in concert with all of our partners,” said Nathan Stewart, Brand Director at Wizards of the Coast. “I can’t wait to see everyone interact with one of the world’s most recognizable fantasy characters: Drizzt Do’Urden. Descending into the depths won’t exactly be easy for him, and D&D fans will get their mettle tested just like Drizzt when they come face-to-face with all the demon lords.”

​

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

The problem is for me and other FR-haters alone, and that problem is that WotC has chosen a setting that we hate for all their adventures. It's not a problem from Realms-lovers or people indifferent to the setting an adventure is set in. But for me, if I spend a dollar on a product set in a world that I despise, the message I am sending is "Give me more FR!!" (At least, unless I buy it used and my money doesn't feed WotC... but I want to send them my cash.)

Can you give a few examples of why you hate FR (as opposed to for example Greyhawk or Golarion if you like those)? I can understand not liking a setting (I am not in the least interested in Dark Sun), but I am curious what you (and other FR "dislikers") are so opposed to.

 

[the Jester]

An alternate reply to your same post here . . .

WotC did try creating a new generic fantasy setting to use as the core very, very recently, and that didn't work out either!

Have we already forgotten 4E and the Nentir Vale? That seems to be what you are asking for, and WotC did give it a go and have decided to move in a different direction this time. Probably wisely.

The setting was some of the best stuff in 4e and is widely lauded. The problems with 4e had pretty much nothing at all to do with the setting.

That said, I own almost all the 4e-era adventures that WotC published, in part because there was really nothing that couldn't insert smoothly and easily into my game- the setting really didn't intrude (unless you count the planar stuff in the Shadowfell and Feywild- which, personally, I think are excellent additions to the D&D multiverse anyhow).

 

[Wicht]

Since I am reminiscing, I'll mention Forgotten Realms. I bought the Forgotten Realms grey box campaign setting probably about 89 or so, and it was my campaign world of choice for several years. I loved the look of the books, and the setting had a lot of mystery and potential to it. It also had support and I lapped up the Waterdeep supplement and a couple of others also (though Waterdeep was always my favorite of the supplements.) However, the problem with Forgotten Realms and gaming for me was that it was a living world, meaning the supplements and the novels kept advancing the timeline. Rather than producing a static world that you could invest in and then use, they produced a world you had to keep rebuying. That soured me* on the setting as an RPG setting. And is, actually, one of the reasons I like Golarion as a setting is because, other that the results produced at my game table, the world remains the same. Which means that when my kid's character establishes and builds a temple of Erastil near Sandpoint, I don't have to worry about other supplements coming along and putting something else there. Static settings easily become more personal as you use them, compared to living, fluid settings which keep resetting themselves.

*Soured on the setting is not the same as hating the setting. I just don't think its actually a good investment, at this point, for a table-top role playing gamer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

WotC did try creating a new generic fantasy setting to use as the core very, very recently, and that didn't work out either!

Have we already forgotten 4E and the Nentir Vale? That seems to be what you are asking for, and WotC did give it a go and have decided to move in a different direction this time. Probably wisely.

Yeah, FR is pretty generic. Like, there's nothing about the world inherently that's non-generic. That's an advantage if you're trying to sell to folks who want generic fantasy - which is probably most D&D players/DMs. Even if your own world isn't generic, generic stuff is the easiest to export. The trade off a new "generic fantasy" setting would face is between (a) not putting off Realms haters, and (b) not automatically attracting Realms loyalists.

And if your choice is between appeasing haters and appeasing loyalists, you're almost always better to go with the people who love you already and who are primed to buy.

It does mean these "generic" adventures are not very FR-specific in tone or feel, but WotC does'nt seem to think that's much of a big deal.

 

[Mercule]

Like, the, ah, Forgotten Realms?!?!

There are two ways to use the Realms: specific case and general case.

In the general case, I tend to agree. Who cares. File the serial numbers off and move on. Phandelver (especially) and PotA both fell into this category. Please do more of this. It would be even better if they didn't have agents of the Harpers, Zhentarim, etc. called out in ever module; those have been easy enough to ignore, but they're still a constant emphasis of it being set in the Realms and I have to read the whole module before I'm sure it isn't actually important to the plot.

In the specific case, enough dependencies on the Realms are in place that it doesn't neatly fit into another setting. HotDQ was this way. I tried to convert it to both my home brew and Eberron and was really surprised at how hard it was, mostly because of the geography. It would have been more of an "inspired by" thing. I get modules to reduce the amount of work I have to do. Frankly, the general story line wasn't good enough to be worth the effort, IMO.

There isn't a clear line between the two. How much can you include the Harpers before it becomes tightly coupled to the Realms? Is the way goods flow through Baldur's Gate and/or Waterdeep important to the plot or is it window-dressing? If the author is grabbing names just to fill in blanks, groovy. If I would have to have the FRCS to understand, please exclude it. Also, including historic/political/etc. stuff that would have been in a 5E FRCS (like pages 15-16 of PotA) is exactly what I don't want. That should have been in a web supplement.

 

[TwoSix]

A hate hater could hate any amount of hate, since a hate hater hates haters who hate.

View attachment 68285

 

[the Jester]

Can you give a few examples of why you hate FR (as opposed to for example Greyhawk or Golarion if you like those)? I can understand not liking a setting (I am not in the least interested in Dark Sun), but I am curious what you (and other FR "dislikers") are so opposed to.

Sure! Speaking only for myself, and fully acknowledging that these aren't insurmountable issues, my hate stems from a number of things.

EDIT: Oh, duh, added a big one. Well, two.

• Appropriation. The FR have appropriated a lot of stuff that was not FR material to begin with. Why on earth were perytons and leucrotta relegated to the Monsters of Faerun supplement in 3e? Or how about Kara-Tur? In 1e's OA hardback, it's explicitly set in the World of Greyhawk. The recent elemental-themed adventure (PotA) was perfectly themed for GH, but now it seems as though FR is appropriating the Elemental Evil theme, too.
• Super-uber-Mary-Sue npcs. This is probably the most common FR complaint- the setting is about npcs, not the pcs. Of course Elminster never needs to show up in your game, but what the hell is he doing when the demon princes crawl out into Waterdeep? If not him, what about any of the dozens of other epic npcs that are sprinkled throughout the landscape? This may be less true now post-3e, I don't know, but given that Salvatore just raised, like, all his characters from the dead in a recent novel, I think we know how long death sticks in the FR... at least, for npcs.
• The cheapening of formerly awesome elements in D&D. I'm specifically thinking of the contrast between the Drow as originally presented and the FR treatment of them. In all fairness, 1e UA allowed Drow as a pc race, but they were incredibly overpowered. Turning them into a 'legit' pc race, probably due to the popularity of Driz'zt, made them extremely flaccid lettuce instead of stiff, spiny artichokes.
• Dominance of the setting market. I've stated my opinion upthread a couple of times that FR is the most popular 'standard' setting largely because it gets thirty times as much support as any other standard setting (by which I exclude things like Dark Sun, Eberron and other worlds with a very different tone). This results directly in other settings not getting support, which leads to them falling in popularity because what's this Greyhawk you speak of?, and this leads to more support for the popular setting- FR- all over again. It's a vicious feedback loop. If I want to purchase an adventure from WotC that I can fit into my game easily (by which I mean a not-weird-setting adventure), then it's pretty much FR or nothing right now.
• Ridiculous amount of canon and backstory. Another issue is the amount of backstory and canon built up in the FR. This is the result of too many sourcebooks about everything. There was even the equivalent of a Sears catalog at one point! The weight of all that canon is one of the main reasons why the Realms is periodically rebooted... which reminds me a lot of Crisis on Infinite Earths; it was supposed to help but it just made the mess messier. Which leads me directly to...
• Realms-shaking events. Holy cow are these awful. I mean, yes, Time of Troubles was the worst, and it epitomized much of what I hate about the FR- driven by npcs, etc- but the subsequent various RSEs have been only a little better. Shake up the world? Sure, why not? Oh, it was unpopular? Let's backpedal! RSEs don't seem to shake much in the real long term; the status quo always seems to return. But meanwhile, these terrible stories dominate the setting, and if you don't acknowledge them in your game, it really affects the usability of a lot of later-published material. The problem with RSEs is that they attempt to dictate the nature of the setting to the DM rather than enabling or following the DM's path.

There are probably more, but those are what immediately came to mind.

 

[HonorBoundSamurai632]

It's like you are ignoring the facts in your own post in order to make a point.

WotC did try to put Greyhawk forward as THE core D&D setting at the beginning of 3rd edition, as a part of the first nostalgia wave of design and marketing. It didn't work out. By the end of the 3rd edition line, Greyhawk really wasn't the default setting anymore, as many of the RPG products and novels were set in Generistan rather than Oerth. Greyhawk doesn't sell. Sorry.

WotC pushes the Forgotten Realms for one simple reason . . . IT SELLS! It is the most popular and beloved D&D setting despite the constant negativity and whining of the "FR-haters" who just can't accept that their own favorite setting isn't also the most popular. Get over it.

If you don't care for the Realms, fine. If you have another setting you prefer, fine. Just stop the constant whining that WotC has ONCE AGAIN (oh noes) used the Realms as the setting for a new product. Jeesh!

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm showing that even though they claimed Greyhawk was the default setting for that edition, they did not support it. Technically, Fright at Tristor was originally only available through the RPGA Network so it wasn't even a book that was readily available at your local book store or a Barnes & Nobles, etc. As was mentioned, if you were not a subscriber to Dungeon Magazine, you really got 0 updates to Greyhawk during that edition. Where by comparison .... The Realms had TONS of 3rd edition support even though it was not stated it was the default setting for that edition.

Again I point out, this is all a similar pattern with WoTC/Hasbro. And as I have said, it is the only setting to make money, because it's the ONLY setting that has really gotten any support since it first launched.

Greyhawk didn't sell, because many didn't know that there was Greyhawk material out there to be had. Where as by comparison, The Realms are everywhere. If you enjoy D&D, you really can't get away from it.

I apologize for my "whining" as you put it. But I guess that's what I've been reduced to, because even when I bring up ideas on how to update the settings, everyone rips them apart and tells me none of them are good ideas anyway instead of discussing it and expanding on the idea. And to roll me into the category of "FR-hater" is completely unnecessary. If you saw how much Forgotten Realms products I have on my gaming shelf, you'd probably explode. My shelf is proof that if WoTC/Hasbro updated these settings, I would gladly hand over whole paychecks to them.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The problem is for me and other FR-haters alone, and that problem is that WotC has chosen a setting that we hate for all their adventures. It's not a problem from Realms-lovers or people indifferent to the setting an adventure is set in. But for me, if I spend a dollar on a product set in a world that I despise, the message I am sending is "Give me more FR!!" (At least, unless I buy it used and my money doesn't feed WotC... but I want to send them my cash.)

This I don't get. If you're running it in your homebrew setting, you're going to have to file off names and organizations anyways. Say there's an evil church involved. Regardless of whether they use Bane from the realms or St. Baddicus from Genericville, neither are going to match your game.

There's plenty I dislike about the realms, namely that the good guys are disgustingly overpowered compared to the forces of evil, so success seems a foregone conclusion. If you pooch it, hey, Elminster could just solve everything in between his scheduled three ways with Mysta and the jillion other good mega mage sisters. But, please correct me if I'm wrong, none of them really factor in to the published adventures so far. It's more a problem for people actually running the game in the realms, because players might want to call in the uber NPC's to help.

 

[HonorBoundSamurai632]

Sure! Speaking only for myself, and fully acknowledging that these aren't insurmountable issues, my hate stems from a number of things.

• Appropriation. The FR have appropriated a lot of stuff that was not FR material to begin with. Why on earth were perytons and leucrotta relegated to the Monsters of Faerun supplement in 3e? Or how about Kara-Tur? In 1e's OA hardback, it's explicitly set in the World of Greyhawk. The recent elemental-themed adventure (PotA) was perfectly themed for GH, but now it seems as though FR is appropriating the Elemental Evil theme, too.
• Super-uber-Mary-Sue npcs. This is probably the most common FR complaint- the setting is about npcs, not the pcs. Of course Elminster never needs to show up in your game, but what the hell is he doing when the demon princes crawl out into Waterdeep? If not him, what about any of the dozens of other epic npcs that are sprinkled throughout the landscape? This may be less true now post-3e, I don't know, but given that Salvatore just raised, like, all his characters from the dead in a recent novel, I think we know how long death sticks in the FR... at least, for npcs.
• The cheapening of formerly awesome elements in D&D. I'm specifically thinking of the contrast between the Drow as originally presented and the FR treatment of them. In all fairness, 1e UA allowed Drow as a pc race, but they were incredibly overpowered. Turning them into a 'legit' pc race, probably due to the popularity of Driz'zt, made them extremely flaccid lettuce instead of stiff, spiny artichokes.
• Dominance of the setting market. I've stated my opinion upthread a couple of times that FR is the most popular 'standard' setting largely because it gets thirty times as much support as any other standard setting (by which I exclude things like Dark Sun, Eberron and other worlds with a very different tone). This results directly in other settings not getting support, which leads to them falling in popularity because what's this Greyhawk you speak of?, and this leads to more support for the popular setting- FR- all over again. It's a vicious feedback loop. If I want to purchase an adventure from WotC that I can fit into my game easily (by which I mean a not-weird-setting adventure), then it's pretty much FR or nothing right now.

There are probably more, but those are what immediately came to mind.

Thank-you. In a round about way, you have just backed up everything I've been trying to say. Your Dominance of the setting market explanation is everything I have been trying to say, just done so more intelligently than I could have said. Thank-you again.