Spelljammer (1989): it's a very different setting, and well suited to very high level play. I suspect there's only room for one between Spelljammer and Planescape, and Planescape would win out, but who knows.
I disagree that there would be some kind of design space competition between Planescape and Spelljammer. They're very different settings, and exist simultaneously in the D&D cosmology.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There is so much negativity around the SCAG that this next season of Adventurer's League isn't allowing it for character creation.
Really? Pray tell, what's so wrong about SCAG? (honerst question - I don't feel any of the PC options printed in it particularly broken, but it's not unlikely I missed something)
Compare the SCAG to any other D&D 5e setting book, including the M:tG ones. It is formatted strangely, the information inside is scattered nonsensically, the player options in the book are mostly terribly designed (the exceptions to this are reprinted in Xanathar'), and the "gazetteer" section pales in comparison to SKT's, Wildemount's, Eberron's, or Theros's. It doesn't give any support to DMs for creating adventures/campaigns there, no guidance to players for characters that could exist there, it is terribly short, and is overall a bad book.
Just compare it to any of the other setting books and you can see why it is a bad book.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Way to make me excited... Honestly, would it be so hard to please many fans by making "So-and-so's guide to the Material Plane" with a chapter or so for each classic setting? (Greyhawk, my favorite, Dragonlance, Mystara, Dark Sun deserves its own book though). The MTG books are honestly just underwhelming and I frankly wish Wizards would focus on D&D settings, not porting over MTG settings for the cash. I don't know if anyone agrees with me on this, but I dislike the FR and the fact that they keep focusing on it.
All the settings? I would loathe that, there wouldn’t be enough lore, also MtG is an ok addition to DnD as a lot of fans like both groups and a lot less work needs to be done to produce these books - it’s just there is a strong vocal minority who screams against everything like SCAG, Theros, Mordenkainen, and it is impossible to please those people. Look at the hate Rise of Skywalker got - that disney got for it - and yes, Rise was a bad film, but so too would Collin Tereverrow’s version have been. It’s impossible to make something big suit everybody, so I fully support D&D and WOTC in whatever they do. The unfortunate thing is - they listen too much to the minority. That’s why the mystic died, that’s why they did a reprint of Tyranny of Dragons - they listen to the tiny, vocal community.
That is making a lot of jumping to conclusions, assumptions, multiple logical fallacies, and warping of the events that happened.
First, the groups who don't want these specific things are different groups of people, not the same group. Don't group them together.
Second, I have never heard anyone complain about the existence of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes. Those who aren't interested should just not buy it. I and many others have complained about the SCAG because it is truly a bad book (badly designed subclasses and races, not great lore and overall information, overpriced for its size and content, etc), but that's neither here nor there. Those complaining about Theros have a few different reasons for it, the main group not wanting Magic: the Gathering settings, and the other main one not liking the bastardization of greek mythology contained therein.
I'm not the only one who has complained about the lore changes of MToF. Maybe not so much in these forums--I'm still pretty new to these forums, so if there were gripes about it when it first came out, I did not see them, and so it may seem like I am the only one here with complaints about it. But in other forums and sites, I'm definitely not the only one (whether we're a minority or not, I can't say). While maybe a couple of tweaks and inconsistencies are to be expected, elf and drow lore has been fairly consistent throughout most of the editions. MToF completely flipped it on its head, even changing things the SCAG said--which, now that I've had more time to think about, goes back to my earlier point of 5e changing things even within the same edition. But I've already gone into all that, so I'll stop. I admittedly did fall into the buyer's trap, as I think many people do.
Speaking of the SCAG, my main beef with it is that it's too sparse in detail, and narrow in scope, focusing on the Sword Coast, and just giving a couple of paragraphs to most things. I don't hate it, but it would be nice to have a full campaign setting guide. the 3.0 one, for example, was great.
(Btw, i quoted you, but it's not directed solely at you :) ).
Actually on the Mordy note, my current game I had to split the table for logistics (which is good, instead of a 7 person game, I have two four people games). Because the original core players were invested in the adventure they're playing through, I'm basically playing the same adventure for both, keeping two sets of notes. Prior to the split, there's a sort of "in game coach" I created an NPC who has planar travels as part of his backstory. He plays with the inconsistencies as the parties' paths diverse in the sandbox (one player is playing the same character in both groups using two different sheets he's having a ball and has even developed his own in jokes). I like the fact that there's a "I'm wrong? Well, maybe I am, if you say so, here." element to Mordenkanian.
As far as the hard core lore adherents out there. I mean I really appreciate the passion project videos on YouTube for what they are, but I think sometimes there's efforts where it's just too convoluted and you need to walk away from any sense of internal consistency.
I think stable lore is just too much to ask. Look to Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel and DC, G.i. Joe, the Transformers, King Arthur, classical mythology. Even those whose bloat was managed by an internal continuity editor (I believe D&D under TSR had such a position, I think under Wizards, at least in 5e, any consideration of continuity is on the overall D&D team, so there's one vector of consequences) had consistency and continuity issues. Part of it is a big role in the product is the creative, and creatives will only accept so many strictures. So if you want good writers you got to negotiate taking liberties with the foundation. Otherwise, you wind up with a mechanical process or iterative approach and you hit a stagnation problem).
I'm still delving into old TSR press about Forgotten Realms to see if I'm right, but when the original boxed set came out, I remember it being written intentionally vague. You get an overview of an area, maybe mention of some key personalities and then "rumors" which offered adventuring opportunities and mysteries that begged to be explored. I want to think the original design team of FR didn't intend every one of those rumors to be answered by an official supplement, novel, or adventure. That was a call by someone on the business side who knew fan consumer habits too well. So now we have what we have.
As I said in my--admittedly long--post, 5e isn't the only one with inconsistencies. It's a big world, and evolves. To use the original boxed set example, at that time, it was new, and not as fleshed out, but became more so later on. I don't think anyone expects constant consistency across the board, That wasn't really my put--though there are those who take up the task of trying to piece the inconsistencies together and make sense of them. But there is a difference between inconsistencies and blatant changes with no discernable explanation. Some inconsistencies are to be expected, but that isn't the same as what I was referring to.
Spelljammer (1989): it's a very different setting, and well suited to very high level play. I suspect there's only room for one between Spelljammer and Planescape, and Planescape would win out, but who knows.
I disagree that there would be some kind of design space competition between Planescape and Spelljammer. They're very different settings, and exist simultaneously in the D&D cosmology.
It's not an issue of design space, it's an issue of market space. The basic issue is that you want to maximize the number of people who find at least one of your products appealing, so they should have very distinct marketing hooks, and the likely markets for Planescape and Spelljammer have a lot of overlap.
I'm not the only one who has complained about the lore changes of MToF. Maybe not so much in these forums--I'm still pretty new to these forums, so if there were gripes about it when it first came out, I did not see them, and so it may seem like I am the only one here with complaints about it. But in other forums and sites, I'm definitely not the only one (whether we're a minority or not, I can't say). While maybe a couple of tweaks and inconsistencies are to be expected, elf and drow lore has been fairly consistent throughout most of the editions. MToF completely flipped it on its head, even changing things the SCAG said--which, now that I've had more time to think about, goes back to my earlier point of 5e changing things even within the same edition. But I've already gone into all that, so I'll stop. I admittedly did fall into the buyer's trap, as I think many people do.
Speaking of the SCAG, my main beef with it is that it's too sparse in detail, and narrow in scope, focusing on the Sword Coast, and just giving a couple of paragraphs to most things. I don't hate it, but it would be nice to have a full campaign setting guide. the 3.0 one, for example, was great.
(Btw, i quoted you, but it's not directed solely at you :) ).
(I understand, that's fine.)
And I understand that. I personally have no opinion in the changes in the lore, as this is my first edition of D&D ever. I think if they were to change the lore again in 6e, I would dislike that, but I don't know because I haven't experienced that. I was merely using you disliking the lore changes to prove my point in my post. You weren't complaining about the existence of Mordenkainen's, merely that the lore was inconsistent with previous editions. Am I correct?
I don't hate the SCAG, I have used it on multiple occasions, but compared to the other campaign setting books, and versions of it from previous editions, it is severely lacking in multiple ways (the unbalanced subclasses and races just add onto the disappointment in the book).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spelljammer (1989): it's a very different setting, and well suited to very high level play. I suspect there's only room for one between Spelljammer and Planescape, and Planescape would win out, but who knows.
I disagree that there would be some kind of design space competition between Planescape and Spelljammer. They're very different settings, and exist simultaneously in the D&D cosmology.
It's not an issue of design space, it's an issue of market space. The basic issue is that you want to maximize the number of people who find at least one of your products appealing, so they should have very distinct marketing hooks, and the likely markets for Planescape and Spelljammer have a lot of overlap.
Do you have any evidence to support that? Also, the likely markets of people who would buy a Ravnica and Theros book overlap, but that didn't stop WotC from making both of the books. There's enough differences between the two settings and content they could put in them that I don't think they'd have a problem with marketing them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Do you have any evidence to support that? Also, the likely markets of people who would buy a Ravnica and Theros book overlap, but that didn't stop WotC from making both of the books. There's enough differences between the two settings and content they could put in them that I don't think they'd have a problem with marketing them.
Ravnica and Theros were released two years apart. It's not that the settings are identical, it's that they both fill a somewhat broad niche of planehopping campaigns, so they're more similar than, say, either one to Dragonlance or Dark Sun.
Do you have any evidence to support that? Also, the likely markets of people who would buy a Ravnica and Theros book overlap, but that didn't stop WotC from making both of the books. There's enough differences between the two settings and content they could put in them that I don't think they'd have a problem with marketing them.
Ravnica and Theros were released two years apart. It's not that the settings are identical, it's that they both fill a somewhat broad niche of planehopping campaigns, so they're more similar than, say, either one to Dragonlance or Dark Sun.
And Planescape and Spelljammer books would undoubtedly be released years apart as well. They're not identical, but they are both transitive settings, where you can get from one "world" to another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
And Planescape and Spelljammer books would undoubtedly be released years apart as well.
And this thread is about three new setting books that they are currently working on. There's no reason both might not be released eventually, just not likely as part of the same wave.
And Planescape and Spelljammer books would undoubtedly be released years apart as well.
And this thread is about three new setting books that they are currently working on. There's no reason both might not be released eventually, just not likely as part of the same wave.
I'm not exactly sure what the timeframe for working on a book is, but I think it is fairly long. I wouldn't be surprised if the are outlining one book while polishing another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Speaking of the SCAG, my main beef with it is that it's too sparse in detail, and narrow in scope, focusing on the Sword Coast, and just giving a couple of paragraphs to most things. I don't hate it, but it would be nice to have a full campaign setting guide. the 3.0 one, for example, was great.
Agreed. You can say whatever you like about 3rd edition as a whole but Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for 3rd edition was one of the best RPG books I have ever had in my hands. Best Role Playing Supplement Origin Award well deserved.
And Planescape and Spelljammer books would undoubtedly be released years apart as well.
And this thread is about three new setting books that they are currently working on. There's no reason both might not be released eventually, just not likely as part of the same wave.
I'm not exactly sure what the timeframe for working on a book is, but I think it is fairly long. I wouldn't be surprised if the are outlining one book while polishing another.
Well, as someone who listened to the panel, we're talking about three "classic" campaign settings, presumably as hardcovers, with releases planned for the 2021-2022 timeframe. There is also MtG for D&D related content in that area too. I'm not super familiar with the workings of Spelljammer and Planescape beyond the basics. But I always thought Spellammer was for travel among worlds mostly within the prime material plane (with the possibility of spell jamming beyond on it, but the bulk of ships traveled among prime material worlds) and Planescape being travel among the planes, with the planescape mechanisms enabling travel among prime material worlds too, but the bulk of the travel was interplanar.
That said, I could see both as possibilities for the 2021-2022 range, inferring that by giving those world transit infrastructures to D&D, audiences would have incentive to peak more at the MtG books in that pipeline as well as give a boost to the appeal of the "anthology" books that were also proposed. I'm not betting on it either way, but I wouldn't exclude both because they "open" the game setting possibilities. They do it differently.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
And Planescape and Spelljammer books would undoubtedly be released years apart as well.
And this thread is about three new setting books that they are currently working on. There's no reason both might not be released eventually, just not likely as part of the same wave.
They never said how long they've been working on them or when they decided to make them. If they started working on a year ago, it could come out in March 2021. If they just started working on one, that could come out in March 2022. That would be a big enough time difference to sell both of them if them being sold with close release dates actually is an issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Greyhawk could be one, but I see it being a poor marketing choice. Forgotten Realms already exists as a the de facto (current) high fantasy kitchen sink, and is very popular. They've got an alternative, lesser known high fantasy kitchen sink using the popularity of Critical Role (being that it was Mercer's design anyway), so there's no reason to introduce a third and ensure fewer sales of either the new product, or previous products. Birth Right and Dragonlance fall in here too, even though there's distinct differences.
Ravenloft seems plausible, but I'm not entirely sure I see that either. We know of announced changes regarding the Vistani, but I suspect this will be in reprints, digital updates and in a sequel product to Curse of Strahd, possibly. Ravenloft is its own setting, but its origin was Strahd, and D&D barely supports running the setting properly. Maybe if it was designed with a level cap around 7 in mind.
My guess is we'll see Planescape, but not Spelljammer (and if Spelljammer not Planescape). We'll see Darksun. We'll see another unique setting that offers something that the other settings do not. For instance, I could see a fleshed out comedic setting being plausible, something modeled after Discworld.
One argument for Spelljammer is Baldur's Gate 3; sure, presumably the adventure itself is in Baldur's Gate, but the opening cinematic is set on board a Nautiloid...
One argument for Spelljammer is Baldur's Gate 3; sure, presumably the adventure itself is in Baldur's Gate, but the opening cinematic is set on board a Nautiloid...
True, but a Nautiloid that plane shifts, no phlogiston sailing was witnessed. So it could still be an either/both pipeline. I'm actually thinking it might well be Planescape and Spelljammer, plus Dark Sun as one of the "see, many new worlds are now open (and you might rather be in the Lower Planes than here). Those + the MtG books would make say March 2021-2022 the "year of Many Worlds of D&D".
Re: the Vistani, Curse of Strahd is getting the "Revamped" boxed set (which seems to be lessons learned from Beedle and Grimm editions at a slightly more accessible price point). I wouldn't be surprised if the reworked Vistani didn't simply show up there along with a few other modifications to the adventure's text. Perhaps a fleshed out booklet of "Further play in the Shadowfell/Ravensloft ... I'm actually intentionally fuzzy on the distinction for now)" added on to all the other add ons in the box. A demibook for a demiplane.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
There is so much negativity around the SCAG that this next season of Adventurer's League isn't allowing it for character creation.
Really? Pray tell, what's so wrong about SCAG? (honerst question - I don't feel any of the PC options printed in it particularly broken, but it's not unlikely I missed something)
Not sure to be honest....I like most of SCAG save a few subclasses (PDK, Undying Warlock,Battlerager) which honestly are just terrible. There are some really good options though! Like bladesinger, swashbuckler, and the blade cantrips.
Honestly I don't really understand why SCAG wasn't allowed. One of the biggest gripes from the community is WotC is terrible with transparency with these changes.
There is some speculation that the SCAG isn't being allowed because the subclasses (and maybe subraces) are being fixed and updated for a proper Forgotten Realms Setting Campaign book, like Bladesinger is getting in Tasha's Guide to Everything.
The issue with the SCAG was a mix of mechanics and that it wasn't what was needed, we needed a Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Guide, instead we got a regional guide to the Swordcoast, and crumbs for the rest of the Realms. Its not even the most detailed book on the Swordcoast, in someways Storm Kings Thunder does it better.
Word is even WotC doesn't like the SCAG, so this hypothetical book FRCG, likely one of the 3 Classic Settings, will fix that, help merge MtG & D&D and more.
There is so much negativity around the SCAG that this next season of Adventurer's League isn't allowing it for character creation.
Really? Pray tell, what's so wrong about SCAG? (honerst question - I don't feel any of the PC options printed in it particularly broken, but it's not unlikely I missed something)
SCAG just feels very vanilla and boring. You get a couple paragraphs about different places, some stuff on the gods, and overall its just eh. The subclasses were the best part of it, but the book in whole suffers when compared to very well done books like Ebberon or Wildemounte.
True, E: RftLW and EGtW were excellent books, and the SCAG just doesn't meet that bench mark, BUT its really only a regional guide and was created early so its deeply flawed.
Actually, it kind of did (looking at you, MToF). While not the case with every single product, it seems like several products are changing the lore with no real plausible explanation. It is indeed true that a cataclysm or major event marked the shift to the new edition, and I was happy when 5e first came out, as it had restored a lot of what 4e had taken away, but now it seems like they're just throwing things in whenever they want, regardless of established lore.
Can you give us a more precise example of a lore change that bothered you ?
For me, honestly, although I can understand being really immersed in a setting, it is really like the RAW. If I want something to be different because it makes a better story, or creates better roleplaying for my table, the latter win 100% of the time.
Also, and this actually might go in the pet peeves thread, we are discussing a lot about the negative impact of the rule lawyers, but there also can be negative impacts of the setting lawyers. I'm not saying that you are one of those, but I've heard a number of times around tables things like: "but Elminster would not behave this way" or "dark elves are not present in this area of the world". ;)
In any case, the lore is often not that clear, things have changed over the editions, and in some case I think the authors are allowed some creative license even if it is because they do not know the lore as well as some fans. After all, they bring in creativity and adventures that most people want to play...
Possible tl;dr: MToF is the first one that jumps to mind, particularly with elf and drow lore (changed pretty much everything about it, keeping only one or two things), which I've gone in depth about before, though most likely elsewhere. I realize it was meant to be a sort of "setting neutral" work, but it took a lot from FR, but then got rid of it. Yes, it's the "unreliable narrator", but you would think someone such as Mordy, who travels between planes, wouldn't be so unreliable as to totally change lore that has been present through the previous editions. There is a difference between unreliable narrator and lazy writing.
Again, I'm not saying every single product is guilty of it, but it just seems like there is a lot of disregard (from WotC, I'm not talking about what players do) for the setting. I'm aware that 5e isn't the only edition with inconsistencies or changes--you can find some in every edition. It's a big world, with a lot to keep track of. I guess it just feels like they've stopped caring (though to be fair, it started feeling like that in 4e, too). To me, a D&D setting is like any work of fiction. Sure, it's a game world, so it's not entirely the same as a book series written by a single author, and it's designed so that people can play in it. But, if an author has built up a world, you, as the reader, learn, and thus expect, that world to function a certain way. You learn the history and "lore" of that world. Then, all of a sudden, the author goes, "just kidding! It's actually this!" with no plausible explanation for the sudden change. Might leave you feeling a little blindsided. That's kind of how it's been feeling to me.
I'm not saying 5e is horrible--indeed, it's probably the most popular edition so far, and if you've come to D&D in 5e, you're probably not going to care or notice the changes as much, unless you start sifting through older material. I'm also not trying to dictate what people do at their own table. I'm referring specifically to published material, not what gamers use or don't use. Bad analogy, perhaps, but it's like the difference between the official story and fanfiction. Write that fanfiction however you want (please note I am not saying home games should be compared to fanfiction. Like I said, I know it's a bad analogy, I'm just providing an example of the difference).
To me, if you're going to have an established setting, whether that's Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, etc, those settings are going to have a certain "flavor", a certain history, rules (and I don't mean mechanics), lore, etc. This does not mean the settings can't evolve--far from it. But, imho, at least, if you're going to have a setting for D&D, you should be true to that setting. Others may disagree with me, but those are my thoughts. Otherwise, D&D should just be a pamphlet with some basic rules, a couple monsters to fight, and some species to play.
I'm not saying directors or artists--anyone working at WotC/Hasbro--shouldn't bring new ideas to the table. And you're right, they may not know as much even as some fans (and there are fans who know far more than I ever will). But basic checks and looking stuff up shouldn't be too hard, either (and in some cases, they could even look to established lore as a starting point. The example that comes to mind for this is the statement they made about drow and orcs earlier this year. At least for the Forgotten Realms setting, you have the Eilistraeens--and now the Vhaeraunites, as they're allied--and the Ondothi, orcs who follow Eldath. It's not the sole solution, but it could be a starting point. Eilistraee was a big part of earlier editions. Now that she is back in 5e--one of the things I am happy about--my hope is they will utilize her and her followers more. This is going to make me sound like a hypocrite, but I do hope they ignore MToF, as the lore changes in there for the drow aren't going to help their diversity mission). Then, if they want to change it, provide a plausible explanation for doing so. Again, I'm not trying to dictate what players do at their own table. You want to put drow in a region where they aren't usually found? Be my guest. I'm referring solely to official material (by this I mean material published for a given setting). Think even of homebrew worlds--you make a world, you design it, and thus give it a history, people, etc. You then build your game within that, perhaps building the world as you go and explore it, but still maintaining and taking care of it. Your players will doubtless help shape it too, as the PCs go on their adventures, but they're exploring your world, interacting with the people, places, perhaps even the gods, that are part of that homebrew world.
I'm aware that many others are likely going to disagree with me, and maybe I am hanging on too hard. Maybe I am a "lore purist", at least as far as official settings go, not what people do at their table. I came into the Realms in 2005, starting off as a casual fan, reading some of the novels. But the more I explored, the more invested I became. Maybe I need to be like others and stop caring, or walk away entirely. But I can't---not yet. Because I do care about the setting. Do I like everything about? No, of course not, but it's been a part of my life for a number of years, even managing to stick around through 4e. So...we'll see.
Anyway, sorry for the speel. I know most probably don't see it this way.
I admit, while they did some cool things like unifying the Demihuman Pantheons, they messed up alot of lore, the Shadar Kai section was just a mess (except the mechanics), it made no sense and made a huge unusable hash out of the lore.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I disagree that there would be some kind of design space competition between Planescape and Spelljammer. They're very different settings, and exist simultaneously in the D&D cosmology.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Compare the SCAG to any other D&D 5e setting book, including the M:tG ones. It is formatted strangely, the information inside is scattered nonsensically, the player options in the book are mostly terribly designed (the exceptions to this are reprinted in Xanathar'), and the "gazetteer" section pales in comparison to SKT's, Wildemount's, Eberron's, or Theros's. It doesn't give any support to DMs for creating adventures/campaigns there, no guidance to players for characters that could exist there, it is terribly short, and is overall a bad book.
Just compare it to any of the other setting books and you can see why it is a bad book.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'm not the only one who has complained about the lore changes of MToF. Maybe not so much in these forums--I'm still pretty new to these forums, so if there were gripes about it when it first came out, I did not see them, and so it may seem like I am the only one here with complaints about it. But in other forums and sites, I'm definitely not the only one (whether we're a minority or not, I can't say). While maybe a couple of tweaks and inconsistencies are to be expected, elf and drow lore has been fairly consistent throughout most of the editions. MToF completely flipped it on its head, even changing things the SCAG said--which, now that I've had more time to think about, goes back to my earlier point of 5e changing things even within the same edition. But I've already gone into all that, so I'll stop. I admittedly did fall into the buyer's trap, as I think many people do.
Speaking of the SCAG, my main beef with it is that it's too sparse in detail, and narrow in scope, focusing on the Sword Coast, and just giving a couple of paragraphs to most things. I don't hate it, but it would be nice to have a full campaign setting guide. the 3.0 one, for example, was great.
(Btw, i quoted you, but it's not directed solely at you :) ).
As I said in my--admittedly long--post, 5e isn't the only one with inconsistencies. It's a big world, and evolves. To use the original boxed set example, at that time, it was new, and not as fleshed out, but became more so later on. I don't think anyone expects constant consistency across the board, That wasn't really my put--though there are those who take up the task of trying to piece the inconsistencies together and make sense of them. But there is a difference between inconsistencies and blatant changes with no discernable explanation. Some inconsistencies are to be expected, but that isn't the same as what I was referring to.
It's not an issue of design space, it's an issue of market space. The basic issue is that you want to maximize the number of people who find at least one of your products appealing, so they should have very distinct marketing hooks, and the likely markets for Planescape and Spelljammer have a lot of overlap.
(I understand, that's fine.)
And I understand that. I personally have no opinion in the changes in the lore, as this is my first edition of D&D ever. I think if they were to change the lore again in 6e, I would dislike that, but I don't know because I haven't experienced that. I was merely using you disliking the lore changes to prove my point in my post. You weren't complaining about the existence of Mordenkainen's, merely that the lore was inconsistent with previous editions. Am I correct?
I don't hate the SCAG, I have used it on multiple occasions, but compared to the other campaign setting books, and versions of it from previous editions, it is severely lacking in multiple ways (the unbalanced subclasses and races just add onto the disappointment in the book).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Do you have any evidence to support that? Also, the likely markets of people who would buy a Ravnica and Theros book overlap, but that didn't stop WotC from making both of the books. There's enough differences between the two settings and content they could put in them that I don't think they'd have a problem with marketing them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Ravnica and Theros were released two years apart. It's not that the settings are identical, it's that they both fill a somewhat broad niche of planehopping campaigns, so they're more similar than, say, either one to Dragonlance or Dark Sun.
And Planescape and Spelljammer books would undoubtedly be released years apart as well. They're not identical, but they are both transitive settings, where you can get from one "world" to another.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And this thread is about three new setting books that they are currently working on. There's no reason both might not be released eventually, just not likely as part of the same wave.
I'm not exactly sure what the timeframe for working on a book is, but I think it is fairly long. I wouldn't be surprised if the are outlining one book while polishing another.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Agreed. You can say whatever you like about 3rd edition as a whole but Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for 3rd edition was one of the best RPG books I have ever had in my hands. Best Role Playing Supplement Origin Award well deserved.
Well, as someone who listened to the panel, we're talking about three "classic" campaign settings, presumably as hardcovers, with releases planned for the 2021-2022 timeframe. There is also MtG for D&D related content in that area too. I'm not super familiar with the workings of Spelljammer and Planescape beyond the basics. But I always thought Spellammer was for travel among worlds mostly within the prime material plane (with the possibility of spell jamming beyond on it, but the bulk of ships traveled among prime material worlds) and Planescape being travel among the planes, with the planescape mechanisms enabling travel among prime material worlds too, but the bulk of the travel was interplanar.
That said, I could see both as possibilities for the 2021-2022 range, inferring that by giving those world transit infrastructures to D&D, audiences would have incentive to peak more at the MtG books in that pipeline as well as give a boost to the appeal of the "anthology" books that were also proposed. I'm not betting on it either way, but I wouldn't exclude both because they "open" the game setting possibilities. They do it differently.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
They never said how long they've been working on them or when they decided to make them. If they started working on a year ago, it could come out in March 2021. If they just started working on one, that could come out in March 2022. That would be a big enough time difference to sell both of them if them being sold with close release dates actually is an issue.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Greyhawk could be one, but I see it being a poor marketing choice. Forgotten Realms already exists as a the de facto (current) high fantasy kitchen sink, and is very popular. They've got an alternative, lesser known high fantasy kitchen sink using the popularity of Critical Role (being that it was Mercer's design anyway), so there's no reason to introduce a third and ensure fewer sales of either the new product, or previous products. Birth Right and Dragonlance fall in here too, even though there's distinct differences.
Ravenloft seems plausible, but I'm not entirely sure I see that either. We know of announced changes regarding the Vistani, but I suspect this will be in reprints, digital updates and in a sequel product to Curse of Strahd, possibly. Ravenloft is its own setting, but its origin was Strahd, and D&D barely supports running the setting properly. Maybe if it was designed with a level cap around 7 in mind.
My guess is we'll see Planescape, but not Spelljammer (and if Spelljammer not Planescape). We'll see Darksun. We'll see another unique setting that offers something that the other settings do not. For instance, I could see a fleshed out comedic setting being plausible, something modeled after Discworld.
One argument for Spelljammer is Baldur's Gate 3; sure, presumably the adventure itself is in Baldur's Gate, but the opening cinematic is set on board a Nautiloid...
True, but a Nautiloid that plane shifts, no phlogiston sailing was witnessed. So it could still be an either/both pipeline. I'm actually thinking it might well be Planescape and Spelljammer, plus Dark Sun as one of the "see, many new worlds are now open (and you might rather be in the Lower Planes than here). Those + the MtG books would make say March 2021-2022 the "year of Many Worlds of D&D".
Re: the Vistani, Curse of Strahd is getting the "Revamped" boxed set (which seems to be lessons learned from Beedle and Grimm editions at a slightly more accessible price point). I wouldn't be surprised if the reworked Vistani didn't simply show up there along with a few other modifications to the adventure's text. Perhaps a fleshed out booklet of "Further play in the Shadowfell/Ravensloft ... I'm actually intentionally fuzzy on the distinction for now)" added on to all the other add ons in the box. A demibook for a demiplane.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I would love to see Dragonlance purely for the nostalgia of it.
There is some speculation that the SCAG isn't being allowed because the subclasses (and maybe subraces) are being fixed and updated for a proper Forgotten Realms Setting Campaign book, like Bladesinger is getting in Tasha's Guide to Everything.
The issue with the SCAG was a mix of mechanics and that it wasn't what was needed, we needed a Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting Guide, instead we got a regional guide to the Swordcoast, and crumbs for the rest of the Realms. Its not even the most detailed book on the Swordcoast, in someways Storm Kings Thunder does it better.
Word is even WotC doesn't like the SCAG, so this hypothetical book FRCG, likely one of the 3 Classic Settings, will fix that, help merge MtG & D&D and more.
True, E: RftLW and EGtW were excellent books, and the SCAG just doesn't meet that bench mark, BUT its really only a regional guide and was created early so its deeply flawed.
I admit, while they did some cool things like unifying the Demihuman Pantheons, they messed up alot of lore, the Shadar Kai section was just a mess (except the mechanics), it made no sense and made a huge unusable hash out of the lore.