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.

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.

 

[vecna00]

See, I get that you don't see it, but a lot of other people do. That's not an argument for you being wrong, we all have opinions, likes, and dislikes, but perhaps you could consider that something that a lot of people are excited about might not be a case of a lot of people being wrong, but rather a lot of people not sharing your specific taste in that thing.

Here's my takeaway on that one: No one's stopping you from doing that at your table. At least I'm not, I don't campaign shame. But I know that I don't want that in an official release.

 

[darjr]

No, but they care about selling books. How does shunting two different genres, watering both down, into a 256 page book sell more units than doing more focused books focused on one genre instead?

It's like suggesting that WotC should just put Athas into the Ravenloft book, because the world is dark, too.

Like Planescape, yet another setting that could be a domain of dread. I wonder if this was ever considered back then?

 

[Fenris-77]

Here's my takeaway on that one: No one's stopping you from doing that at your table. At least I'm not, I don't campaign shame. But I know that I don't want that in an official release.

I do, at least in part because I don't think we'll get both separately. Lots of YMMV about the whole idea, of course. I can definitely see why some fans of Planescape would want a full source book just on Sigil, for example. I don't, but that doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't. For my part, I already own pretty much the whole run of Planescape, so I have no need for massive lore dumps, but I'm also not really the target audience. That would be newer players who have maybe heard of Planescape.

 

[vecna00]

I do, at least in part because I don't think we'll get both separately. Lots of YMMV about the whole idea, of course. I can definitely see why some fans of Planescape would want a full source book just on Sigil, for example. I don't, but that doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't. For my part, I already own pretty much the whole run of Planescape, so I have no need for massive lore dumps, but I'm also not really the target audience. That would be newer players who have maybe heard of Planescape.

I can understand that.

I'm a huge fan of not needing a ton of new lore. I won't be upset if we get it, but I don't need it. I mostly need updated mechanics for the factions, races, maybe some new subclasses, if there are any new ideas for planar mechanics, and if the Positive and Negative Energy planes still exist!

 

[vecna00]

Like Planescape, yet another setting that could be a domain of dread. I wonder if this was ever considered back then?

As in "an outer planar being or area was pulled in by the Mists?" I'm sure it's been thought of. Hell, I think there was a domain run by demons. That might just be a fever dream though, I'm not as knowledgeable about Ravenloft.

I also may have misunderstood your question, as it is past my bedtime and I work overnights.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't think you're watering much of anything down. Spelljammer, taken generally, is a natural extension of Planescape - you're just adding exploration via ship to what's already there in the idea of the doors. We all have our differences in taste of course.

Considering 5E does everything it can to skip over the journey and practically just bamf the PCs to their destination as quickly and easily as possible, it’ll likely be Planescape as their version of travel shares that ethos.

 

[teitan]

People coming up with all these lore reasons the two settings can't merge like WotC gives a damn about the lore

Like I’ve posted before, they don’t. They care about the trademark and that will keep them separate as well as the indications from Perkins and Crawford. It’s bad business to merge them into on IP. They have two possibly lucrative IP and Hasbro will want them to be distinct and separate to be able to milk them.

 

[teitan]

I don't think you're watering much of anything down. Spelljammer, taken generally, is a natural extension of Planescape - you're just adding exploration via ship to what's already there in the idea of the doors. We all have our differences in taste of course.

You’re watering down Spelljammer. It isn’t even a natural extension because nothing about SJ was plane hopping. It was all material plane.

 

[Parmandur]

See, I get that you don't see it, but a lot of other people do. That's not an argument for you being wrong, we all have opinions, likes, and dislikes, but perhaps you could consider that something that a lot of people are excited about might not be a case of a lot of people being wrong, but rather a lot of people not sharing your specific taste in that thing.

I absolutely have no problem if you fo that at your table, heck, I'd really enjoy it. I'm discussing what WotC would likely do, and it ain't that.

 

[Parmandur]

I do, at least in part because I don't think we'll get both separately. Lots of YMMV about the whole idea, of course. I can definitely see why some fans of Planescape would want a full source book just on Sigil, for example. I don't, but that doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't. For my part, I already own pretty much the whole run of Planescape, so I have no need for massive lore dumps, but I'm also not really the target audience. That would be newer players who have maybe heard of Planescape.

Now, see, the bolded is the part that I really disagree with, I suppose. I fully expect that by the end of 5E we will see both as standalone products. The D&D team likes.to joke about "Spelljammer Confirned," but they've also said that part of the joke is to make people talk about it and drum up demand. They want to do both, as distinct things, and the way things are going I see it happening.

In ter.s of what any Planescape.prodicr.woild look like, it's going to be largely a Sigil Gazateer, based on other campaign products.