Seriously? Universes beyond?

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

They’ve said they’re building a new team to produce Universes Beyond, so it’s not that they’re pulling resources away from traditional D&D projects.

 

 
Sure, they're saying there's a dedicated team. But a dedicated team still means talent, budget, and attention being allocated to UB instead of other projects. Opportunity costs are real.

If the pitch is that UB profits will cross-subsidize original D&D content, I'd sympathize. Except nobody's actually communicating that. Without that reassurance, it looks less like an investment in D&D's future and more like a pivot toward safer, licensed IP.

 That has been done before without ruining anything.

Both Warcraft and Star Wars have crossed over w/DND, and nothing bad happened in relation to them. Heck, Stranger Things, Minecraft and Rick & Morty didn't disrupt anything, despite resources going to them in crossovers w/safe IPs, and that was with LESS resources!

Birthright, Council of Wyrms, or Mystara:Which one do you think needs the resources being allocated here that hasn't been announced at all but is apparently a better use of resources?

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

I'm disappointed too. Profitable? Probably. Creative? Not really. It's the same tired trend we're seeing everywhere in media now: milking existing IP instead of taking risks on original stuff. D&D designers have benefited from this incredible talent for building entire worlds from scratch, and trading that for brand collabs feels like giving up part of what made it special to me in the first place.

And it's not like the original settings are being neglected in favor of bold new ones, either. So far in 5.5e we've had a Ravenloft book, two Forgotten Realms books, a Greyhawk book on the way, an Eberron book, and two more Forgotten Realms books coming. Not to mention that a solid chunk of the 5.5e books we've seen so far just rehash the same options that existed prior to 2024. Now WoW and Star Wars? Nothing new under the sun.

Between recycling old settings, repackaging existing mechanics, and importing external franchises, it doesn't appear that Wizards is interested in greenlighting anything genuinely original. That's what stings the most. It's not just that "Universes Beyond" is the path they've chosen, but that it's happening instead of anything fresh or creative.

 Your entire post is built on two material falsehoods. 

The first mistake you make is lumping D&D Universes Beyond as part of the "same tired trend we're seeing everywhere in media now."  But this is not a new or current trend at all - D&D has been releasing crossovers for the past forty-two years.  You mention both Forgotten Realms and Eberron... both of those settings are younger than crossover products.  Trying to paint this as some kind of new thing (despite the many, many posts on this thread showing it is not) is really an admission that you are unfamiliar with the history of D&D.  The simple reality is that crossovers are an ancient part of the game, and the game has managed to survive and even thrive alongside these crossovers historically. 

Your second point about D&D neglecting making new content is just wrong.  D&D literally just announced a new setting, Death Saves: The Blood War.  This new setting will be helmed by the legendary Mike Mearls and Joe Manganiello and will be an alternate reality where the Blood War was won and the Lady of Pain had to collapse reality and reshape it into a single dying plane to stop total multiplanar destruction.   It was also revealed there will be more products like this, building alternate realities branching off from established D&D content. 

I am personally stoked for the Worlds Beyond.  Even more so for Dark Sun!

It's like Christmas came early this year!

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

I'm really not interested in arguing, folks. I'm disappointed. The morale will not improve if you make one more quote reply...

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

That has been done before without ruining anything.

Both Warcraft and Star Wars have crossed over w/DND, and nothing bad happened in relation to them. Heck, Stranger Things, Minecraft and Rick & Morty didn't disrupt anything, despite resources going to them in crossovers w/safe IPs, and that was with LESS resources!

Birthright, Council of Wyrms, or Mystara:Which one do you think needs the resources being allocated here that hasn't been announced at all but is apparently a better use of resources?

 
I never claimed anything would be "ruined." My point is simpler: the pace of genuinely original content appears to have tapered.

Crossovers may be mechanically airtight for all I know. But they don't spark my interest at all. Compared to revisiting Birthright, Mystara, or Council of Wyrms--settings we've seen before--I'd much prefer seeing something entirely new created.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 Your entire post is built on two material falsehoods. 

The first mistake you make is lumping D&D Universes Beyond as part of the "same tired trend we're seeing everywhere in media now."  But this is not a new or current trend at all - D&D has been releasing crossovers for the past forty-two years.  You mention both Forgotten Realms and Eberron... both of those settings are younger than crossover products.  Trying to paint this as some kind of new thing (despite the many, many posts on this thread showing it is not) is really an admission that you are unfamiliar with the history of D&D.  The simple reality is that crossovers are an ancient part of the game, and the game has managed to survive and even thrive alongside these crossovers historically. 

Your second point about D&D neglecting making new content is just wrong.  D&D literally just announced a new setting, Death Saves: The Blood War.  This new setting will be helmed by the legendary Mike Mearls and Joe Manganiello and will be an alternate reality where the Blood War was won and the Lady of Pain had to collapse reality and reshape it into a single dying plane to stop total multiplanar destruction.   It was also revealed there will be more products like this, building alternate realities branching off from established D&D content. 

 
1) I never claimed crossovers are new. They're just more pervasive now--and that's not even the real issue. In the 2e era, we had crossovers too, but also a veritable flood of experimental settings and mechanics. Many failed, sure. But at least they tried new things and occasionally produced diamonds. The Radiant Citadel is the last example of the kind of original setting I'd like to see more of.

2) Death Saves: The Blood War isn't new IP--it's built on material as old as Greyhawk. The Lady of Pain is a D&D original from decades ago. Repackaging existing lore isn't the same as creating new settings. And the "alternate reality where the Blood War changed everything" bit? The folks at Quill & Cauldron already executed a similar premise four years ago with their Doomed Forgotten Realms series.

 "Make something 1st-party new & original for the sake of something 1st-party new & original"
Is that your concern?

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

I'm really not interested in arguing, folks. I'm disappointed. The morale will not improve if you make one more quote reply...

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

That has been done before without ruining anything.

Both Warcraft and Star Wars have crossed over w/DND, and nothing bad happened in relation to them. Heck, Stranger Things, Minecraft and Rick & Morty didn't disrupt anything, despite resources going to them in crossovers w/safe IPs, and that was with LESS resources!

Birthright, Council of Wyrms, or Mystara:Which one do you think needs the resources being allocated here that hasn't been announced at all but is apparently a better use of resources?

 
I never claimed anything would be "ruined." My point is simpler: the pace of genuinely original content appears to have tapered.

Crossovers may be mechanically airtight for all I know. But they don't spark my interest at all. Compared to revisiting Birthright, Mystara, or Council of Wyrms--settings we've seen before--I'd much prefer seeing something entirely new created.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 Your entire post is built on two material falsehoods. 

The first mistake you make is lumping D&D Universes Beyond as part of the "same tired trend we're seeing everywhere in media now."  But this is not a new or current trend at all - D&D has been releasing crossovers for the past forty-two years.  You mention both Forgotten Realms and Eberron... both of those settings are younger than crossover products.  Trying to paint this as some kind of new thing (despite the many, many posts on this thread showing it is not) is really an admission that you are unfamiliar with the history of D&D.  The simple reality is that crossovers are an ancient part of the game, and the game has managed to survive and even thrive alongside these crossovers historically. 

Your second point about D&D neglecting making new content is just wrong.  D&D literally just announced a new setting, Death Saves: The Blood War.  This new setting will be helmed by the legendary Mike Mearls and Joe Manganiello and will be an alternate reality where the Blood War was won and the Lady of Pain had to collapse reality and reshape it into a single dying plane to stop total multiplanar destruction.   It was also revealed there will be more products like this, building alternate realities branching off from established D&D content. 

 
1) I never claimed crossovers are new. They're just more pervasive now--and that's not even the real issue. In the 2e era, we had crossovers too, but also a veritable flood of experimental settings and mechanics. Many failed, sure. But at least they tried new things and occasionally produced diamonds. The Radiant Citadel is the last example of the kind of original setting I'd like to see more of.

2) Death Saves: The Blood War isn't new IP--it's built on material as old as Greyhawk. The Lady of Pain is a D&D original from decades ago. Repackaging existing lore isn't the same as creating new settings. And the "alternate reality where the Blood War changed everything" bit? The folks at Quill & Cauldron already executed a similar premise four years ago with their Doomed Forgotten Realms series.

 Sure seems like you're interested in arguing on account of how you keep arguing.

You do know there's like a bajillion 5E and 5.5E third party products out there based in original settings, right? I'm not saying it wouldn't be neat to see brand new settings published by WotC, but I'm also not upset when they revisit the classics because there's so many third parties out there making their own settings. There's no rule that you can only buy 5E/5.5E products published by WotC, after all, especially since the books published by WotC aren't sparking your interest.

As several folks have explained multiple times in this thread already, crossovers are nothing new for D&D. They've been around longer than some of the settings that themselves are feeling a little long in the tooth to some folks. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those early crossovers are older than some of the folks who post here on these forums. Crossovers have been around for a long time. And so have folks complaining about the crossovers and claiming they're taking away from more original content. This is one of those "same old song and dance" complaints that come up every so often but never really have merit.

Quote from Gnomarchy >>

I'm really not interested in arguing, folks. I'm disappointed. The morale will not improve if you make one more quote reply...

Quote from MaedraDawnkeeper >>

That has been done before without ruining anything.
Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 Your entire post is built on two material falsehoods. 

The first mistake you make is lumping D&D Universes Beyond as part of the "same tired trend we're seeing everywhere in media now."  But this is not a new or current trend at all - D&D has been releasing crossovers for the past forty-two years.  You mention both Forgotten Realms and Eberron... both of those settings are younger than crossover products.  Trying to paint this as some kind of new thing (despite the many, many posts on this thread showing it is not) is really an admission that you are unfamiliar with the history of D&D.  The simple reality is that crossovers are an ancient part of the game, and the game has managed to survive and even thrive alongside these crossovers historically. 

Your second point about D&D neglecting making new content is just wrong.  D&D literally just announced a new setting, Death Saves: The Blood War.  This new setting will be helmed by the legendary Mike Mearls and Joe Manganiello and will be an alternate reality where the Blood War was won and the Lady of Pain had to collapse reality and reshape it into a single dying plane to stop total multiplanar destruction.   It was also revealed there will be more products like this, building alternate realities branching off from established D&D content. 

 
1) I never claimed crossovers are new. They're just more pervasive now--and that's not even the real issue. In the 2e era, we had crossovers too, but also a veritable flood of experimental settings and mechanics. Many failed, sure. But at least they tried new things and occasionally produced diamonds. The Radiant Citadel is the last example of the kind of original setting I'd like to see more of.

2) Death Saves: The Blood War isn't new IP--it's built on material as old as Greyhawk. The Lady of Pain is a D&D original from decades ago. Repackaging existing lore isn't the same as creating new settings. And the "alternate reality where the Blood War changed everything" bit? The folks at Quill & Cauldron already executed a similar premise four years ago with their Doomed Forgotten Realms series.

 
I get that you do not want to respond, but in case anyone else might read this and think it holds any merit, I want to make sure they know it does not.

Your first post is effectively a concession that you are fearmongering.  You acknowledge that this has been a longstanding part of the game, then discount that reality to conclude “but please, let’s ignore that and focus on this other issue.”

And, of course, you then acknowledge you are wrong about your other issue.  You acknowledge Wizards is making new content, then you present a series of arguments that either ignore critical facts or are internally inconsistent.

First, you cite that Wizards should make more content like Radiant Citadel… and conveniently ignore that Wizards spent the last couple of months explicitly hiring developers from Radiant Citadel, with the strong indication the goal is to let them work on the types of product that made the book successful.

Second, you cite “based on existing content” as a way to disregard new content that doesn’t fit the narrative you are trying to push.  This, of course, is a really, really silly argument in D&D.  Forgotten Realms, for example, is heavily based on Greyhawk - using a lot of the same gods and figures - yet even you acknowledge this is a new setting.  Thus, by your own reasoning, discounting some of the upcoming projects that create new worlds based on old lore, while citing several worlds that did build on existing content as separate planes, is internally inconsistent.

You can choose to selectively look at facts to make you angry.  Or you could see that Wizards both put together a team that seems tailor made to do exactly what you want, and has indicated they are starting a project to attempt to make a lot of new worlds.  

I'm no more angry about the D&D roadmap than I am about the New York Mets' performance--just disappointed (and moreso in the latter). I am genuinely happy for those in this TTRPG community excited about D&D's direction, but I can't share enthusiasm for this roadmap. So could we dial it back a bit?

1) Crossovers aren't new, but I don't recall them dominating official releases like this. Rick and Morty was a bizarre sideshow and Stranger Things was starter set flavor. The "Seasons" roadmap is different. I want to support Icons, but I can't immediately get behind another round of Salvatore et al. when I've hit diminishing returns with Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk after 30+ years.

2) Third-party projects have thrived since OGL 1.0 and the CC license, and I'm glad. But WotC has the resources to explore genres and shape the industry in a way that smaller publishers can't. I thinking of the folks at Monte Cook Games, who push boundaries with intentional mechanical innovation despite a much smaller market share, eg. Numenera, Invisible Sun, Gunslinger Knights. WotC has done WoW, Dark Sun, Star Wars. I'd like to see them try something substantially different with their resources.

3) My position is being mischaracterized. Yes, crossovers existed 30 years ago, but that doesn't invalidate my dismay today. And nowhere did I say D&D is "being ruined." I don't know where that came from, but it puts words in my mouth.

@ApplePaladin We agree on almost all counts. On content allocation, the roadmap speaks for itself: two crossovers plus the Dark Sun reboot means original settings that would excite me won't appear for at least a year.  But yes, outstanding third-party creators and games will surely bridge at least part of the gap.

@Maedra Yes, I'd like WotC to swing big. I have faith that the creatives at WotC can put something spectacular together if given the space.

Edit: Accidentally deleted a bunch of my posts above. You can probably find the content in some of the replies, though.

1) Crossovers aren't new, but I don't recall them dominating official releases like this

"Dominating" is doing a lot of work here. We're getting two (2) of these books out of the following

• 3 first-party settings (Ravenloft, Eberron, and Forgotten Realms) being handled by (imo appropriate) third party studios
• 3 first-party settings (Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Forgotten Realms) being handled by a team of legacy/icon names
• Under that same team a new setting in the form of Death Saves: Blood War
• A first-party published, first-party setting set adventure in the form of Greyhawk: Crown of the Witch Queen
• A first-party published, first-party setting 2-part book set with Dark Sun

That's 10 D&D IPs vs 2 non-D&D IPs

Unless you're going off the literal roadmap image

In which case that's 4 confirmed books (2 for arcana unleashed and 2 for dark sun) plus whatever falls under greyhawk which is at least 1 books, so 5 vs 2. Again, not dominating.

Just because it is dominating your attention, that doesn't it is dominating the release schedule. 

Cause all i see is Darksun but i am not going to claim that is the only thing.