log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E WotC: 5 D&D Settings In Development?

WotC's Ray Winninger spoke a little about some upcoming D&D settings -- two classic settings are coming in 2022 in formats we haven't seen before, and two brand new (not Magic: the Gathering) settings are also in development, as well as return to a setting they've already covered in 5E. He does note, however, that of the last three, there's a chance of one or more not making it to release, as they develop more than they use.

settinss.jpg

Two classic settings? What could they be?

So that's:
  • 2 classic settings in 2022 (in a brand new format)
  • 2 brand new settings
  • 1 returning setting
So the big questions -- what are the two classic settings, and what do they mean by a format we haven't seen before? Winninger has clarified on Twitter that "Each of these products is pursuing a different format you've never seen before. And neither is "digital only;" these are new print formats."

As I've mentioned on a couple of occasions, there are two more products that revive "classic" settings in production right now.

The manuscript for the first, overseen by [Chris Perkins], is nearly complete. Work on the second, led by [F. Wesley Schneider] with an assist from [Ari Levitch], is just ramping up in earnest. Both are targeting 2022 and formats you've never seen before.

In addition to these two titles, we have two brand new [D&D] settings in early development, as well as a return to a setting we've already covered. (No, these are not M:tG worlds.)

As I mentioned in the dev blog, we develop more material than we publish, so it's possible one or more of these last three won't reach production. But as of right now, they're all looking great.


Of course the phrase "two more products that revive 'classic' settings" could be interpreted in different ways. It might not be two individual setting books.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

The big selling point for Exandria is that it's the Critical Role world. Otherwise, it's a kitchen sink world similar to what many home DMs have.

The Tal'Dorei book is now out of print and publication rights have apparently reverted to Critical Role, so if they had previously been talking to D&D Beyond, it's not impossible that we'd be seeing it there. Personally, if I were Critical Role, I'd want a second, updated edition to come out in time for the Amazon show, with concept art, etc., from that.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
The big selling point for Exandria is that it's the Critical Role world. Otherwise, it's a kitchen sink world similar to what many home DMs have.

The Tal'Dorei book is now out of print and publication rights have apparently reverted to Critical Role, so if they had previously been talking to D&D Beyond, it's not impossible that we'd be seeing it there. Personally, I'd want a second, updated edition to come out in time for the Amazon show, with concept art, etc., from that.

I know some folks like Wildemount for disentagling a lot of races from their alignments, to make a more politics driven, "Everyone nation is both bad and good" kind of plot. But that's specific to Wildemount, I don't know anyone interested in Tal'Dorei, it is really just generic fantasyland.
 

I know some folks like Wildemount for disentagling a lot of races from their alignments, to make a more politics driven, "Everyone nation is both bad and good" kind of plot. But that's specific to Wildemount, I don't know anyone interested in Tal'Dorei, it is really just generic fantasyland.
I think that's probably also a reflection that Mercer, like a lot of us, is part of the discussion about always-evil races and likely tweaking his campaign setting as it goes on. I suspect a future take on Tal'Dorei might look a little different than it did last time around.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I know some folks like Wildemount for disentagling a lot of races from their alignments, to make a more politics driven, "Everyone nation is both bad and good" kind of plot. But that's specific to Wildemount, I don't know anyone interested in Tal'Dorei, it is really just generic fantasyland.
Actually, I like that it is a generic fantasyland: the selling point is that there is no selling point. Tal'Dorei is a craft project Mercer made for his friends to enjoy, not as a product to sell. And as such...it is enjoyable.
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
I think that's one of the main reasons so many home campaigns are kitchen sink settings: It's the easiest way to make player concepts work at the table.
That and players get really worked up if they can't do whatever they want. It's generally easier to just destroy whatever sense of cohesion or backstory the DM had for their world that would result in a potential option being taken off the table than it is to convince an intractable player that even the notion of less options isn't somehow bad or wrong (especially if they weren't planning on using that option).
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
Actually, I like that it is a generic fantasyland: the selling point is that there is no selling point. Tal'Dorei is a craft project Mercer made for his friends to enjoy, not as a product to sell. And as such...it is enjoyable.

Oh I've got nothing wrong with generic fantasyland. But if that's what I need, I'll probably pick something up like FR or Greyhawk instead. No offense to Mercer, but Tal'Dorei is both kind of boring and too familiar for big fans for me to want to use.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
That and players get really worked up if they can't do whatever they want. It's generally easier to just destroy whatever sense of cohesion or backstory the DM had for their world that would result in a potential option being taken off the table than it is to convince an intractable player that even the notion of less options isn't somehow bad or wrong (especially if they weren't planning on using that option).

The easiest way to get my players to use certain character options (races, classes, subclasses, whatever) is to send them all an e-mail and let them know that I'm banning those options from the game for balance reasons. Suddenly, they will trample themselves trying to talk me out of it, and several of them will roll up new characters out of spite.

ME: So I took a look at the Hollow One and the Echo Knight from Wildemount and we won't be using these in our campaign. They are just too overpowered.​
LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE: Noooooo! I want to play one of those! You can't do this to us! Why do you hate fun?! If I can't play a Hollow Echo Knight I will quit! Look, I already rolled one up!​
ME: [evil laugh]​

Okay, I'm exaggerating but not by much. The truth is if I put anything on a ban list in my game, I'm only putting a spotlight on it. It could be anything -- a race, class, spell, feat, potion, a pet -- and my players will completely ignore it until they think it's out of reach. Once it's off the table they can't stop obsessing about it, wondering what prompted me to make such a decision, and wondering if there is some kind of overpowered combo or trick that I don't want them to exploit. And they live for that thrill of finding a hidden exploit.

TL;DR: it's fun to mess with min/maxers. :devilish:
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
The easiest way to get my players to use certain character options (races, classes, subclasses, whatever) is to send them all an e-mail and let them know that I'm banning those options from the game for balance reasons. Suddenly, they will trample themselves trying to talk me out of it, and several of them will roll up new characters out of spite.

ME: So I took a look at the Hollow One and the Echo Knight from Wildemount and we won't be using these in our campaign. They are just too overpowered.​
LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE: Noooooo! I want to play one of those! You can't do this to us! Why do you hate fun?! If I can't play a Hollow Echo Knight I will quit! Look, I already rolled one up!​
ME: [evil laugh]​

Okay, I'm exaggerating but not by much. The truth is if I put anything on a ban list in my game, I'm only putting a spotlight on it. It could be anything -- a race, class, spell, feat, potion, a pet -- and my players will completely ignore it until they think it's out of reach. Once it's off the table they can't stop obsessing about it, wondering what prompted me to make such a decision, and wondering if there is some kind of overpowered combo or trick that I don't want them to exploit. And they live for that thrill of finding a hidden exploit.

TL;DR: it's fun to mess with min/maxers. :devilish:
Exactly. The best way around that, I've found, is to have players submit several character concepts and I pick one. Explain it away as making sure we don't have double ups or too similar concepts or lack of a healer, etc. And, as if by magic, none of the stuff I've banned ends up in the game. Seems to work well enough.
 

CR is very popular, but I guess Matt Mercer would rather total creative freedom for the future campaigns. Other reason is better to keep all the new elements in the lore for the show to can cause surprise in the audence. The books only should show things appeared in the serie.

I wonder why WotC doesn't broadcast shows set into other world, not only FR and Ravenloft.
 

Laurefindel

Legend
I think that's one of the main reasons so many home campaigns are kitchen sink settings: It's the easiest way to make player concepts work at the table.
It's the only way to avoid the "no, you can't do that in this setting" or the "I know it's in the PHB/Volo/Mordenkanen/Xanathar/Tasha, but it doesn't exist here". Even settings such as Eberron, which I consider a kitchen sink, can't include all concepts. The wider the character options, the wider the representation, the more kitchen sink-y it becomes and the less specific it can be (as a whole). That's inevitable, and not always a bad thing (I have the impression kitchen-sink settings are often bashed on)

At best you can make a specifically tailored homebrew around the characters' concepts and make a non-kitchen-sink setting for this campaign, or else make a setting presuming the (nondescript) existences of other planes/lands for characters to come from when they do not fit in the default paradigm.

I think the most specific setting that still allows for a wide array of character options is the Star Wars universe. It's cinematic origin makes it easier for people to create something using the same codes, but it's a remarkable exploit nonetheless.
 

Rikka66

Adventurer
CR is very popular, but I guess Matt Mercer would rather total creative freedom for the future campaigns. Other reason is better to keep all the new elements in the lore for the show to can cause surprise in the audence. The books only should show things appeared in the serie.

I wonder why WotC doesn't broadcast shows set into other world, not only FR and Ravenloft.

I have not read either book, but I'm sure they have things in them that haven't appeared in the series.

FR is their main world, they only want to focus on settings they have releases for, and they struggle to get even modest successes from these shows anyway.
 

That and players get really worked up if they can't do whatever they want.
I feel like a lot of you are being held hostage by your players.
It's generally easier to just destroy whatever sense of cohesion or backstory the DM had for their world that would result in a potential option being taken off the table than it is to convince an intractable player that even the notion of less options isn't somehow bad or wrong (especially if they weren't planning on using that option).
Unless your players are very unusual, they don't have a long list of DMs to choose from. If they won't meet you halfway, I don't know that you need to play with them.

Their desire to play a sea elf blood hunter with material from six different third party books and PDFs that they then customize further is not a guaranteed human right.
 

I think the most specific setting that still allows for a wide array of character options is the Star Wars universe. It's cinematic origin makes it easier for people to create something using the same codes, but it's a remarkable exploit nonetheless.
I think the exact opposite is happening. I can't play my half-dragon possessed by a dead serial killer who's best known for his bitchin' muscle car in Star Wars.

Instead, pretty much everyone who sits down to play a Star Wars game knows what's in the setting and has a lot of buy-in for it. It's a broad setting, but it's not an infinite one.

Those same players can sit down and figure out an interesting Eberron concept or a concept that would work in Blue Rose or a concept that fits into Freeport just fine.

I don't know that capitulating to problem player behavior before play even starts is going to make for a positive experience the rest of the campaign.
 



I can understand FR is the favorite, and other settings need a lot of special work, for example art design and psionic powers for Dark Sun. I guess Dragonlance is in the phase "pre-production".

I wonder if Hasbro wants to wait until the end of the five-year deal with Paramount to renegotiate and asking other lines to be linceced with other producers (Disney, Warner and Netflix).
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
I feel like a lot of you are being held hostage by your players.
Not at all. I just got tired of "it's my right to do anything" mentality and sidestepped the issue by having players submit concepts that I choose from. I don't think it's something special about me. I have run for a broad swathe of players and it seems nearly universal at this point. If you tell a group of players that something, anything, is off the table, some will inevitably laser focus on that and complain until they're blue in the face.
Unless your players are very unusual, they don't have a long list of DMs to choose from. If they won't meet you halfway, I don't know that you need to play with them.
I don't get to play without them and they don't get to play without me. Everyone should be willing to meet halfway on some things.
Their desire to play a sea elf blood hunter with material from six different third party books and PDFs that they then customize further is not a guaranteed human right.
Oh, I agree. But try telling them that.
 

Not at all. I just got tired of "it's my right to do anything" mentality and sidestepped the issue by having players submit concepts that I choose from. I don't think it's something special about me. I have run for a broad swathe of players and it seems nearly universal at this point. If you tell a group of players that something, anything, is off the table, some will inevitably laser focus on that and complain until they're blue in the face.
Have a conversation with those "some." If they genuinely insist on that level of entitlement, it sounds like it's time for them to be DM for a few campaigns.
I don't get to play without them and they don't get to play without me. Everyone should be willing to meet halfway on some things.
It doesn't sound like they're meeting you halfway.
 

Oh I've got nothing wrong with generic fantasyland. But if that's what I need, I'll probably pick something up like FR or Greyhawk instead. No offense to Mercer, but Tal'Dorei is both kind of boring and too familiar for big fans for me to want to use.
Mercer never set out to create a new and innovative setting. He just knocked off a fairly generic homebrew so he and his actor chums could show off their skills.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top