log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Which three classic settings do you think WotC will publish in 2022-23? (Fixed)

Pick three and only three

  • Planescape

    Votes: 106 71.6%
  • Spelljammer

    Votes: 53 35.8%
  • Dark Sun

    Votes: 90 60.8%
  • Forgotten Realms (Faerun)

    Votes: 33 22.3%
  • Beyond Faerun (Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, Maztica, etc)

    Votes: 8 5.4%
  • Dragonlance

    Votes: 78 52.7%
  • Greyhawk

    Votes: 32 21.6%
  • Mystara

    Votes: 10 6.8%
  • Birthright

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Nentir Vale

    Votes: 11 7.4%
  • Council of Wyrms

    Votes: 3 2.0%
  • Ghostlight

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Blackmoor

    Votes: 2 1.4%
  • Pelinore

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Jakandor

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dragon Fist

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rokugan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other non-D&D setting (e.g. Gamma World, etc)

    Votes: 4 2.7%
  • Don't Care/Whatever

    Votes: 3 2.0%

  • Total voters
    148

log in or register to remove this ad

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Dude you can push your Tier theory to the moon and back, it wouldnt matter if that was what FR was based on, it would NEVER be mentioned again in a Wizards Product published in the year 2021 or beyond.

You will never see 'Here's a setting based on colonization, ransacking, and conquering other people!' literally ever again, come out of Wizards, and any setting it is or was a part of, will be retconned (there is no canon remember) to the Nine Hells and back, if it ever did see print.
The game is about breaking into people’s homes, murdering them, rifling their pockets for change, searching and robbing their house, then finding another house to roll. D&D is a game about colonization, ransacking, and conquering.
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
So...

Tier 1: Eberron (done), Ravenloft (done twice), Dark Sun, Planescape, and FR (done to death).

Tier 2: Greyhawk (sorta done), Dragonlance, and Spelljammer (a few cameos).

Tier 3: Everything else.

If there’s two “new” classic settings next year, they’re almost certainly the remaining two Tier 1 settings. Planescape and Dark Sun. Dark Sun would match the comment about a scary place. The cameo could be any of the rest, but it’s likely Spelljammer as it’s already been featured the most without actually getting an adventure or setting book.

So that leaves the third “new” classic and the revisit. The revisit is still most likely FR. Which leaves Dragonlance or Spelljammer for the last “new” classic setting. I don’t know. After the DL lawsuit I can see WotC sour on the setting but they’re a business and nostalgia moves books. But the vast majority of current players are not long-time players. So which would be an easier sell to the modern fan? Between DL and Spelljammer...I gotta say the weirdness and goofiness of Spelljammer seems way more sellable. “D&D in Space...with guns” has more of an inherent difference and draw as a setting than “normal D&D with lots more dragons”.

Though the revisit could also be the rumored Exandria / CR anthology. Marisha Ray was supposed to be working on something with WotC but it seems to have disappeared from memory.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
The game has not been about that for years. Might've started out about that, but isn't about that anymore.
The majority of the rules in the game are dedicated to murdering things (combat). There’s a core book dedicated to nothing but things to murder (MM). There are a dozen or so other books with collections of suggestions of different orders in which to murder things (modules). There’s an entire chapter dedicated to where and how much treasure adventurers should get after murdering...including random tables for just how much pocket change things you murder should have on them...along with other random tables for just how much treasure the family you just murdered had in their house. The designers are bending over backwards to pat themselves on the back and sell people on how cool and innovative Witchlight is because they...gasp...include non-violent solutions to conflicts. Think about that. Violence and violent solutions are so ingrained in the game and the player base that the designers think putting out a module with non-violent solutions is shockingly new and wildly innovative. Sorry, but your objection doesn’t hold water.
 

Scribe

Hero
The game is about breaking into people’s homes, murdering them, rifling their pockets for change, searching and robbing their house, then finding another house to roll. D&D is a game about colonization, ransacking, and conquering.
I believe things have expanded beyond that point. Not that they MUST but the official look from Wizards wants it to be more than that.
 

Mercurius

Legend
Ideally the game is about whatever you want it to be, although I can't remember a time where I played it as "colonizing and conquering." Usually there was some justification for killing things, beyond wanting their stuff, if only under the guise of "evil." But I've never played D&D in such a way that you go find a dragon who is nice or not bothering anyone, then kill it and take its hoard. Usually the dragon first took the hoard from a dwarven city it destroyed, or is currently terrorizing a region. Same with orcs; I've never played "let's go attack and kill that harmless orc village and rape the orc women and eat their babies." It has always been, "Orcs are marauding and attacking a defenseless village who call upon you to save them."

Now of course this approach misses nuance and isn't always grounded in realism. But it doesn't have to be. Fairy tales aren't, neither are myths and legends, or many epic tales, past and present. It is fantasy, and a game of myths and legends, archetype and imagination.

If you want to leaven your game with social and economic realism, more power to you. Maybe those orcs are marauding because their tribe is starving, and when the PCs find out, they're faced with a dilemma, a more complex problem to solve (can they find a way to facilitate the villagers and orcs peacefully co-existing?). Maybe when they get to the dragon's den, the dragon (believably) tells them that the hoard was reclaimed from the dwarves who stole it from her, while killing her baby dragons in the process.

Or maybe you don't want to play games that are based on combat at all. Maybe you want to play a pacifist cleric, who only heals or subdues, trying to re-channel and transform aggression and evil into peace and love. Nothing wrong with that.

All of the above implies: D&D is about a lot of things. In fact, it is about whatever you want it to be. That's the beauty of it. I'd suggest that we all stop insisting that it is only about a narrow band of things, things that we want it to be about. In truth, that is a rather colonial attitude: "Hey grog, no more senseless killing and meaningless adventure -- we're killing you and taking your stuff, because we find it offensive." The converse is also true, "Hey young 'un, your way of playing is silly and soft. There was a time when men were men, and women were women, and everything was clearly defined, with none of this funny business, which I don't want tainting my precious RPG books."

Personally speaking, I'm somewhere between. I am attracted to the mythic atmosphere of sword and sorcery, of fantasy lands dripping in forgotten history and arcane lore, with eldritch horrors, mysteries to be solved, adventure and, yes, combat as a major facet of the imaginative arena. But I also like a seasoning of complexity and nuance, that the monsters usually aren't just simplistic murder targets, but actually have their own ecology and raison d'etre. But yeah, sometimes they're demons from the Abyss, or a horde of undead, who just want to destroy everything in their path. But sometimes they're orcs with mouths to feed. I mean, maybe the orcs were pushed out of their homeland by elves, and are now trying to repeat the same to a local group of humans.

There are some aspects of D&D that are currently in vogue that I personally don't resonate with. I tend to cringe at the mention of the word "whimsy," generally don't like anthropomorphic races (except in rare occasions), and find that over-the-top thespianism generally isn't my cuppa. But I'm happy with the fact that WotC has broadened its umbrella to not merely accommodate, but support and encourage, a diversity of play styles, tropes, and character identities, especially when it means that more actual human beings can play the game.

I mean, via la difference! No?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The game is about breaking into people’s homes, murdering them, rifling their pockets for change, searching and robbing their house, then finding another house to roll. D&D is a game about colonization, ransacking, and conquering.
No. It isn’t.

No one in my entire group has ever played D&D that way, for instance.

D&D is, especially these days, a game of heroic fantasy. Big damn heroes and (hopefully compelling) villains.

What new APs from Wizards have featured any PC-side colonization? Which feature any PC-side murder? Where is there any PC-side conquering going on? There isn’t any. For a reason.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
I expect Darksun and some kind of Faerun update for Forgotten Realms, specifically mentioning the new Drow cultures.

I feel a "Planescape" setting wont happen, but regional settings of it will happen, maybe a focus on Sigil, starjammer ships, and Astral Plane generally.

Dragonlance seems possible.

I feel a proto-D&D Blackmoor regional setting is an awesome way to channel old-school vibes. Blackmoor relates to the wider world of Mystara. Mystara is a landmine for reallife cultural sensitive issues, but perhaps is salvageable. Compare how some Magic The Gathering settings are also realworld-culture-esque. In any case, Blackmoor specifically as a region, is probably a fine way to present an update of Mystara.

I expect more Magic The Gathering settings, and am enjoying the ones we have so far, including Ravnica and soon Strixhaven. I would love for the modern near-future Japan-esque to make it into a D&D setting.
 

The majority of the rules in the game are dedicated to murdering things (combat). There’s a core book dedicated to nothing but things to murder (MM). There are a dozen or so other books with collections of suggestions of different orders in which to murder things (modules). There’s an entire chapter dedicated to where and how much treasure adventurers should get after murdering...including random tables for just how much pocket change things you murder should have on them...along with other random tables for just how much treasure the family you just murdered had in their house. The designers are bending over backwards to pat themselves on the back and sell people on how cool and innovative Witchlight is because they...gasp...include non-violent solutions to conflicts. Think about that. Violence and violent solutions are so ingrained in the game and the player base that the designers think putting out a module with non-violent solutions is shockingly new and wildly innovative. Sorry, but your objection doesn’t hold water.
Ideally the game is about whatever you want it to be, although I can't remember a time where I played it as "colonizing and conquering." Usually there was some justification for killing things, beyond wanting their stuff, if only under the guise of "evil." But I've never played D&D in such a way that you go find a dragon who is nice or not bothering anyone, then kill it and take its hoard. Usually the dragon first took the hoard from a dwarven city it destroyed, or is currently terrorizing a region. Same with orcs; I've never played "let's go attack and kill that harmless orc village and rape the orc women and eat their babies." It has always been, "Orcs are marauding and attacking a defenseless village who call upon you to save them."

I think this tension is longstanding within dnd. It is part a difference between sword&sorcery and high fantasy, but also pertains to the way that colonial scenarios are "justified" via an assumed moral lens, usually one connected to alignment. That is, in effect, the PCs are mercenaries for a colonial state, driven by greed, but their actions can also be glossed as defeating the forces of chaos and/or evil. The Keep on the Borderlands. (Incidentally this dynamic--exploitative violence dressed up as justice or as a "civilizing mission," is central to colonial ideology).

The essentials kit is interesting in this regard. Phandelver has, for me, the feel of a settler mining town from a Western, with some fantasy gloss. There's reference to ancient history, but no sense that the human locals have any primary claim to the land or the mines. The antagonists are all alignment-evil, but they also have more prosaic motivations, namely they've all been displaced and are in turn displacing others. For the most part what they are after is food and shelter. The only antagonist acting outside of these types of concerns is an cult of an evil storm god (that could probably be reskinned as druids). Probably the way that most groups play this adventure is to defeat an antagonist in combat, level up, then defeat the next most powerful antagonist, justifying all of it via the evil alignment, but non-colonial solutions are on the table.

Anyway when it comes to settings, I do think they will try for a non-colonial, non-orientalizing kara tur or zakhara, if not as a setting than as an adventure, just because of some things some of the writers for VRGtR were hinting at on twitter. Whatever settings they do, they will have to be marketable and tightly themed for new audiences

The more interesting question for me is: when are they going to run out of nostalgia and classic settings?
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I think this tension is longstanding within dnd. It is part a difference between sword&sorcery and high fantasy, but also pertains to the way that colonial scenarios are "justified" via an assumed moral lens, usually one connected to alignment. That is, in effect, the PCs are mercenaries for a colonial state, driven by greed, but their actions can also be glossed as defeating the forces of chaos and/or evil. The Keep on the Borderlands. (Incidentally this dynamic--exploitative violence dressed up as justice or as a "civilizing mission," is central to colonial ideology).
And the thing to keep in mind is that only a small fraction of the fan base likely cares about this stuff. The forums represent a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the fans. Twitter and other social media are much the same. I don't know, but I'm willing to bet the majority of people either don't notice or don't care about the obvious colonialism in much of D&D.
The essentials kit is interesting in this regard. Phandelver has, for me, the feel of a settler mining town from a Western, with some fantasy gloss. There's reference to ancient history, but no sense that the human locals have any primary claim to the land or the mines. The antagonists are all alignment-evil, but they also have more prosaic motivations, namely they've all been displaced and are in turn displacing others. For the most part what they are after is food and shelter. The only antagonist acting outside of these types of concerns is an cult of an evil storm god (that could probably be reskinned as druids). Probably the way that most groups play this adventure is to defeat an antagonist in combat, level up, then defeat the next most powerful antagonist, justifying all of it via the evil alignment, but non-colonial solutions are on the table.
I still think anti-colonialism games would be fun. Reverse dungeons, basically. Humans and "typical" PC races as the colonizers and the PCs of the game are the "monster" races who're defending their homes and lands from the invaders.
Anyway when it comes to settings, I do think they will try for a non-colonial, non-orientalizing kara tur or zakhara, if not as a setting than as an adventure, just because of some things some of the writers for VRGtR were hinting at on twitter. Whatever settings they do, they will have to be marketable and tightly themed for new audiences.
I'm really, really hopeful they will branch out and do non-European. One of the VGR writers is Indian and mentioned he was working on another D&D project. I'm hopeful he's heading an Indian-themed setting. So much fascinating and rich history in the subcontinent. A well done and culturally sensitive Indian setting is kinda high on my wishlist.
The more interesting question for me is: when are they going to run out of nostalgia and classic settings?
They will never run out of nostalgia to draw on. Now it's the older gamers with time and disposable income. In a decade or two it will be the current new players who eventually drift away and WotC will be able to draw on their nostalgia.

There's a finite list of classic settings. When they've done them all, then they've run out.

But once sales of 5E dip low enough, 6E will come in, and we get to start the cycle all over again. Chomping at the bit for them to release X or Y setting that they haven't done in ages.
 
Last edited:

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
The majority of the rules in the game are dedicated to murdering things (combat).
Fallacy one: Combat equals murder. Combat can be to take prisoners, for self defense, to protect other people, to hunt a monster, to show your strength in a war game, or any other type of fighting that isn't meant to murder other people. No reasonable person would say that killing an Owlbear is murder, or that killing a demon that is trying to open a portal to the Abyss and destroy the world is murder.
There’s a core book dedicated to nothing but things to murder (MM).
No, it's dedicated to monsters. Monsters and murder are two very different things.
There are a dozen or so other books with collections of suggestions of different orders in which to murder things (modules).
Modules are adventures, and the point of basically all of the modern adventures is not murder. They're largely to save the world (or a region) from some extreme threat (the Death Curse in Tomb of Annihilation, from Tiamat in Rise of Tiamat, from the cults of Elemental Evil in Princes of the Apocalypse, prevent Icewind Dale from freezing to death in Rime of the Frostmaiden, prevent Baldur's Gate from being sucked into Avernus in Descent into Avernus (and saving Elturel and possibly redeeming Zariel), and freeing Zibylna (and Prismeer) in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight from a coven of hags that you don't even have to kill).

Those are not "murder modules", they're "heroic adventures".
There’s an entire chapter dedicated to where and how much treasure adventurers should get after murdering...including random tables for just how much pocket change things you murder should have on them...along with other random tables for just how much treasure the family you just murdered had in their house.
. . . Your group is murdering families and stealing from their bodies? My table has literally never done this. Yes, there are pocket change tables, but I normally use those for if a Rogue wants to pick someone's pockets. Yes, there are hoard tables, but those are typically for monsters like Dragons, Beholders, and Mind Flayer Colonies that are threatening the region around them.
The designers are bending over backwards to pat themselves on the back and sell people on how cool and innovative Witchlight is because they...gasp...include non-violent solutions to conflicts.
There's a difference between "violent" and "murder"/"colonization". Killing a dragon that is attacking a village is violent, but that doesn't mean that it's murder.
Think about that. Violence and violent solutions are so ingrained in the game and the player base that the designers think putting out a module with non-violent solutions is shockingly new and wildly innovative. Sorry, but your objection doesn’t hold water.
Sorry, but your argument of "violence equals colonization" is so incoherent and baffling that I'm surprised you didn't realize it halfway into writing this post of yours.

Violence doesn't equal murder and murder doesn't equal colonization. There are 3 pillars of the game, and violence/combat is only one of them. There are plenty of games that lean more into the roleplay or exploration/adventure pillars of the game, and even the ones that do focus largely on violence/combat aren't the same thing as colonization. The party in my Eberron campaign recently fought and "killed" Mordakhesh (they knocked him out, put dimensional shackles on him, and then banished him back to Khyber), the Rakshasa Warlord from the Demon Wastes, in order to prevent him from attacking the Eldeen Reaches. It was violent, but it wasn't "murder" and certainly wasn't "colonization".

The reason why there's so many mechanics in 5e for combat is because combat is the pillar of the game that needs the most rules. Exploration is adventuring, discovering new places, and surviving the world in non-combat manners and Social Roleplay largely depends on improvisation and minor "mechanics", like Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, and Quirks. There's rules and suggestions for all of that in the Dungeon Master's Guide, Xanathar's Guide to Everything, and the Player's Handbook. Just because Combat is the most rule-intensive Pillar of the Game, it doesn't mean that it's the most important to the game designers, and it especially doesn't mean that "murder" or "colonization" is the core theme of the game.

"Violence" =/= "Murder" =/= "Colonization"
 

Dude you can push your Tier theory to the moon and back, it wouldnt matter if that was what FR was based on, it would NEVER be mentioned again in a Wizards Product published in the year 2021 or beyond.

You will never see 'Here's a setting based on colonization, ransacking, and conquering other people!' literally ever again, come out of Wizards, and any setting it is or was a part of, will be retconned (there is no canon remember) to the Nine Hells and back, if it ever did see print.

I never said anything about "Here's a setting based on colonization, ransacking, and conquering other people!" . All I did was point out that there is no way a T3 setting gets published before all T1s have a good book.
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
I never said anything about "Here's a setting based on colonization, ransacking, and conquering other people!" . All I did was point out that there is no way a T3 setting gets published before all T1s have a good book.

I think one hiccup in the Tier thing, is that although Forgotten Realms is a T1 setting, it's also already gotten one setting book and numerous adventures that add further setting material. So that may remove it from consideration, if WotC internally feels that Forgotten Realms has been covered.

I know you personally don't agree with that and believe the SCAG and other material is insufficient... but the 5E D&D Team may think so.
 


Mercurius

Legend
I think this tension is longstanding within dnd. It is part a difference between sword&sorcery and high fantasy, but also pertains to the way that colonial scenarios are "justified" via an assumed moral lens, usually one connected to alignment. That is, in effect, the PCs are mercenaries for a colonial state, driven by greed, but their actions can also be glossed as defeating the forces of chaos and/or evil. The Keep on the Borderlands. (Incidentally this dynamic--exploitative violence dressed up as justice or as a "civilizing mission," is central to colonial ideology).
The essentials kit is interesting in this regard. Phandelver has, for me, the feel of a settler mining town from a Western, with some fantasy gloss. There's reference to ancient history, but no sense that the human locals have any primary claim to the land or the mines. The antagonists are all alignment-evil, but they also have more prosaic motivations, namely they've all been displaced and are in turn displacing others. For the most part what they are after is food and shelter. The only antagonist acting outside of these types of concerns is an cult of an evil storm god (that could probably be reskinned as druids). Probably the way that most groups play this adventure is to defeat an antagonist in combat, level up, then defeat the next most powerful antagonist, justifying all of it via the evil alignment, but non-colonial solutions are on the table.
In truth, that S&S vs. HF dynamic goes back well before D&D and is rooted in the beginnings of modern fantasy, over a century ago. Some fantasy historians speak of two "streams:" One codified with Howard, who transmuted pulp adventure into fantasy, and the other with Tolkien (or, before him, Lord Dunsany and William Morris), who drew upon Medieval epics and mythology. Historian Jamie Williamson characterized these as "low" and "high" brow fantasy. It wasn't until around 1970 that fantasy became a distinct genre; before then, the low/pulp stuff was an offshoot of either science fiction or adventure pulp, and the high/epic stuff was often shelved with literature.

I mention this because D&D was born as the fantasy literary genre was being formed. The Ballantine Adult Fantasy series (1969-74) was an attempt to create a fantasy canon of the higher brow type. But more importantly, there wasn't really a "tension" between the two "brows," especially as they came together under one umbrella, that has continued to evolve and expand. As one fantasy literary agent explained to me, old forms aren't erased, they're just added to. Thus if you're an aspiring author and want to publish a more classic fantasy yarn, there's a place for that because it is an established part of the genre, even if the latest fad is more towards the gritty and subversive.

As far as D&D is concerned, the early years--the first decade or so--was far more towards the low-brow. But especially if we look at the fantasy roots, it wasn't as much a matter of colonization, but existing within a frontier land, or the remnants of a fallen, higher culture. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I don't remember a strong theme of the PCs invading native humanoids and taking their land. It was all less distinct, and everyone in the same wild fantasyland. Meaning, everyone--humans, demi-humans, humanoids, and monsters--exist within a wild landscape, one on the fringes of civilization. The PCs aren't--and never were, really--the colonizers pillaging the natives of the wilderlands, they were explorers and even inhabitants of the wilderlands who co-existed with monsters and humanoids.

And it was always up to the DM what sort of backstory formed the context of the D&D world. Some DMs might, indeed, take a more colonial approach, that the PCs were like Old West frontiersmen pushing back the "Indians" (orcs). Others took almost the reverse, that humans and demi-human civilization was in decline or fallen, with humanoids and monsters invading from all around.

But my main point was that D&D can facilitate a wide variety of thematic qualities, and to centralize around a core theme at the expense of others is antithetical to the spirit of the game. IMO. Specific worlds and adventures can do that, but the core rules--the game itself--should be open-ended and flexible, and the community should be embracing, or at least tolerant, of diverse play styles. Thankfully WotC seems to get this, which is why they are bringing forth such a range of worlds. I think this "cosmopolitan" approach will be further crystalized once we see Planescape/Spelljammer and Dark Sun; the former because it literally opens up the game to "all worlds," and the latter because it brings back a more gritty, low fantasy world into the D&D family.
Anyway when it comes to settings, I do think they will try for a non-colonial, non-orientalizing kara tur or zakhara, if not as a setting than as an adventure, just because of some things some of the writers for VRGtR were hinting at on twitter. Whatever settings they do, they will have to be marketable and tightly themed for new audiences
Well, after the planes, Asian-themed D&D is one of the biggest thematic groupings that hasn't really been touched by 5E, so I could see that as well, whether it is east Asia, south Asia, or the Middle East. With D&D getting so big, I wonder if we see the emergence of some kind of "WotC International." A great place for that would be Istanbul, as it connects two continents and is close to a third, but I'm not sure if there's much of a Turkish D&D fan-base! But it may be that WotC will either contract out non-European fantasy worlds and/or publish them within an international context. I mean, how cool would be to see a Nihon Adventures book written in Japan and translated into English?
The more interesting question for me is: when are they going to run out of nostalgia and classic settings?
Well, they're pushing out a bunch of classic settings, with four in 2021-23 (plus that fifth "cameo"). That still leaves several popular-enough classics they can draw from, maybe one every year or two from 2024.

But the brilliance of the 5E strategy, imo, is that it is focused on "stories and worlds," of which there are no end to the possibilities, and it also doesn't require a system reboot every decade or so, because the new base is more focused on those elements, not the crunch (afaik). There are still dozens of Magic planes they can tap into, and no end to new setting possibilities. Once they get through these next few classics, I imagine their focus will be on new worlds, Magic planes, and with some other classics sprinkled in.

I also don't think every classic will be a "one and done" product like we've seen with the previous setting books--all, really, except for the Forgotten Realms. Planescape quite literally opens up the game to countless possibilities, not just the plethora of material from 2E, but also new worlds. Dark Sun could also involve a series of products. In other words, I could see some of these "new classics" being new lines, with a series of campaign books coming out every year or two after the initial book.

So to respond to your question, they won't run out for years, even decades. And really, they probably aren't looking beyond the next five or so years, maybe ten lightly. By that point, the context will be different and the question may be irrelevant. But in the meantime, they have plenty of classic stuff to mine and publish for a decade or more.

As a simple exercise, here is an example of the type of classic worlds publishing schedule that I could see. This isn't a prediction of what I think we'll see, just an arrangement to see how it could look (core book in bold, campaign supplements in regular):

2021: Ravenloft
2022: Dragonlance, Planescape, Planescape adventure
2023: Dark Sun, Planescape campaign, Dragonlance part 2
2024: Greyhawk, Ravenloft expansion
2025: Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun expansion (e.g. Silt Sea), Planescape expansion
2026: Mystara, Planescape adventure
2027: Forgotten Realms expansion, Dark Sun expansion
2028: Gamma World, Planescape expansion
Etc.

Or something like that. that's usually 2-3 classic products a year, in addition to 1-2 new/Magic settings, 1 splat, and 2 general adventures, or 6-8 major products a year.

I think also that they'll know from sales which classic settings to expand on, and which to leave as one-and-done. Maybe Dragonlance takes off, or maybe Dark Sun is a dud. But they'll adjust accordingly.
 
Last edited:



So what we are really saying, is 'snowballs chance'. :ROFLMAO:

To put it mildly. Once the Tier one and most popular Tier 2 settings are done and few more MtG settings and some new settings are done you MIGHT see Mystara again because there was a time when it could be called a Tier 1 setting (if they categorized settings like that back then) rivaling FR at the time for novels, but it would have to be massively reworked and update, not only be colonism issues, reason, but because it's cosmology was radically different. But that is like 6-10 years from now most likely, if at all.

So yeah snowballs chance right now.
 

Bitbrain

Fully vaccinated!
Just for fun, if WOTC is coincidentally following the current result of the poll up until 2024, we would get:

2022:
Planescape campaign (100 votes, first place)
Dark Sun campaign (82 votes, second place)
Spelljammer cameo (49 votes, fourth place)

2023:
Dragonlance (74 votes, third place)
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top