quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu


Beat you to it by two days :p

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

I’m underwhelmed! Magic has much better settings, IMO; Zendikar feels long overdue, Innistrad would be more of a crowd pleaser, and I’m dying for Mirrodin or Tarkir.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

Yet, they can't put together an amazing fully fleshed out Campaigns Guide for the Forgotten Realms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

Yet, they can't put together an amazing fully fleshed out Campaigns Guide for the Forgotten Realms.

---

They could. They are explicitly choosing not to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighOne


Popularity isn't the issue. It's that many people see Dark Sun as "problematic" these days due to its inclusion of slavery and other politically incorrect setting elements. Go to any D&D forum hipper and younger than this one and you'll find hundreds of posts about how to bowdlerize Dark Sun for modern audiences. The consensus seems to be that it cannot be done. Remove the "offensive" elements, and there's nothing left.

---

Bah. Lolthite drow keep slaves, have a highly sexist society, and even kill their own family members -- but WotC can't go back to that particular well often enough.

And Dark Sun's defining characteristics had nothing to do with slavery and such: it was the environment, and psionics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighOne

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighOne

Popularity isn't the issue. It's that many people see Dark Sun as "problematic" these days due to its inclusion of slavery and other politically incorrect setting elements. Go to any D&D forum hipper and younger than this one and you'll find hundreds of posts about how to bowdlerize Dark Sun for modern audiences. The consensus seems to be that it cannot be done. Remove the "offensive" elements, and there's nothing left.

---

Bah. Lolthite drow keep slaves, have a highly sexist society, and even kill their own family members -- but WotC can't go back to that particular well often enough.

---

Because it's a matriarchy. It's okay to depict slavery and sexism in art when women are the perpetrators and not the primary victims.

Silly? Absolutely. Stupid? Unbelievably so. But those are the current rules we live by in our oh-so enlightened society.

---

You sure you’re still talking about the Realms here, and not just vaguely grinding a political axe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

Yet, they can't put together an amazing fully fleshed out Campaigns Guide for the Forgotten Realms.

---

They could. They are explicitly choosing not to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TKU

I'm kinda surprised that Dominaria and Tarkir haven't gotten books yet. But then again, the most interesting periods to explore for Dominaria fans are probably in the distant past, and Tarkir was the unfortunate victim of it's history being rewritten by timetravel. WotC doesn't really do content for stuff outside of the current timeframe unfortunately. Still, Strixhaven is barely a setting and doesn't really have a lot going for it, IMO. Not sure why it got a book-is this just going to be the policy going forward for MTG sets?

If so, getting some FR stuff might be more likely in the upcoming set.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

So, just saw this come up and kinda makes me both happy and also equally sad. Magic: The Gathering’s Strixhaven setting comes to D&D in a new campaign book.

Like, with ALL the Magic: the Gathering info in terms of D&D stuff out - two FULL campaign books, half a dozen Planeshift articles, & FR crossovers - it REALLY makes me want to do a full 20 level campaign where they portal-jump through all the areas in search of a Mcguffin that stops Phyrexia somehow. Yet, they can't put together an amazing fully fleshed out Campaigns Guide for the Forgotten Realms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Krashos

I downloaded MtG: Arena on my phone and desktop. Lots of fun - but it is a time chewer. Currently saving gold for the release of the FR expansion in July.

-- George Krashos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighOne

That's the case so far. But I think the success of the other campaign setting books (Eberron, Wildemount, etc.) might be enough to convince Wizards to publish a Forgotten Realms campaign setting book. For one thing, they have the formula down now, which they didn't when the SCAG (an unfortunate mess of a book by 5E standards) was released.

Back when 5E lacked campaign setting books altogether (2014-2018), it wasn't too surprising that 5E lacked a FRCS. After all, Wizards had said they were doing things differently this time around, and one of those differences seemed to be not publishing campaign settings. But now that there are, what, six or seven of them? the FRCS is conspicuous by its absence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gyor

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diffan

So, just saw this come up and kinda makes me both happy and also equally sad. Magic: The Gathering’s Strixhaven setting comes to D&D in a new campaign book.

Like, with ALL the Magic: the Gathering info in terms of D&D stuff out - two FULL campaign books, half a dozen Planeshift articles, & FR crossovers - it REALLY makes me want to do a full 20 level campaign where they portal-jump through all the areas in search of a Mcguffin that stops Phyrexia somehow. Yet, they can't put together an amazing fully fleshed out Campaigns Guide for the Forgotten Realms.

---

I think tomorrow that changes and they will announce a Faerun Campaign Setting Book. Perhaps Ellywick Tumblestrum's Guide to Faerun or Drizzt's Faerunian Handbook. Below the reasons why.

1. They are spending a ton on Forgotten Realms art for AFR MtG set and they will wish to reuse alot of it just like they reused MtG card art in the MtG D&D setting books.

2. The new art Lorendrow, Aevendrow, and Udadrow in last months Dragon+ Magazine. New novels will get a cover art, they don't get abunch of extra art. That art has to be for some other book that explores the new Drow, like say a Faerun Campaign Setting Book

3. The only setting the lore in the Draconic UAs fits, outside of Fizban, is the Forgotten Realms, and Fizban can be explained if he is a Planeswalker in the AFR set.

4. The Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft were embroiled in scandal last year and while I found .out of it absurd, Ray Winninger took it seriously, and I believe he set into motion a pair of setting books for Ravenloft and The Forgotten Realms designed to address the critics and update certain elements of settings, such as changes to the Vistani. The new Drow are apart of this. We have already have Ravenloft's book, I think James Wyatt's book yet unannounced is FR book where these issues get addressed.

5. They straight up said the Forgotten Realms is their most popular setting, which is why the first D&D MtG set is an FR set, why the D&D movie and TV show are going to be set there, and why the major video games (BG3 & DA) this year are set there, etc..., so not doing a campaign setting book for the setting that is most profitable is leaving money on the table.

6. James Wyatt has become the setting guy beyond anyone else, so it's likely his book is a setting book. His UAs were the Draconic ones and AFR has a strong Dragon tribal theme to it. He was also part of the MtG world building team so he likely helped work on AFR.

7. Forgotten Realms fans have been begging for this book for years now, how long can they ignore there the fans of their biggest IP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Krashos

The Realms is too big and with the Spellpague/Sundering too undetailed to do a 5E Campaign Setting book. The scope is massive, and WotC are simply ill-equipped to write anything like that. Moreover, writing such a definitive FR book limits their ability to pick and choose what generic D&D elements they want to play with. I've said it before and I'll say it again: not happening. Period.

-- George Krashos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Krashos

The Realms is too big and with the Spellpague/Sundering too undetailed to do a 5E Campaign Setting book. The scope is massive, and WotC are simply ill-equipped to write anything like that. Moreover, writing such a definitive FR book limits their ability to pick and choose what generic D&D elements they want to play with. I've said it before and I'll say it again: not happening. Period.

-- George Krashos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Krashos

The Realms is too big and with the Spellpague/Sundering too undetailed to do a 5E Campaign Setting book. The scope is massive, and WotC are simply ill-equipped to write anything like that. Moreover, writing such a definitive FR book limits their ability to pick and choose what generic D&D elements they want to play with. I've said it before and I'll say it again: not happening. Period.

-- George Krashos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Also, a lot of what they have been doing for settings, of late, is stuff that's already done. They're not building anything, they're presenting something that's already been built.

WotC is no longer building worlds. And with the timejump and the rampant changes to the setting, then rolling back some of those changes, they would have to rebuild the world in order to present it. Even if it wasn't for their reluctance to limit themselves in any way, I don't see the current design crew being willing to take on the challenge.

And I'm not being negative when I say they're not willing to take on that challenge. Some people like building new worlds or fleshing out existing parts of existing ones. Some people like digging through the minutiae of existing lore to find previously unnoticed connections. Some like telling stories. Some like building magic stuff. Some like creating NPCs. And some just want to make adventures. It's not good or bad, it's just that we all have our preferred focus.

I won't say the current focus is right for the Realms, but obviously someone at WotC thinks it's the correct course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Also, a lot of what they have been doing for settings, of late, is stuff that's already done. They're not building anything, they're presenting something that's already been built.

WotC is no longer building worlds. And with the timejump and the rampant changes to the setting, then rolling back some of those changes, they would have to rebuild the world in order to present it. Even if it wasn't for their reluctance to limit themselves in any way, I don't see the current design crew being willing to take on the challenge.

And I'm not being negative when I say they're not willing to take on that challenge. Some people like building new worlds or fleshing out existing parts of existing ones. Some people like digging through the minutiae of existing lore to find previously unnoticed connections. Some like telling stories. Some like building magic stuff. Some like creating NPCs. And some just want to make adventures. It's not good or bad, it's just that we all have our preferred focus.

I won't say the current focus is right for the Realms, but obviously someone at WotC thinks it's the correct course.

---

I think this is a salient point about the Realms, but I do want to say that there's been a good amount of new worldbuilding put out by WotC; the bulk of the setting material in the new Ravenloft book is new stuff (between fresh Domains and some pretty radical reinventions of old ones), and while Exandria, Ravnica, Theros, and Strixhaven are all adapted, the first is a brand new setting made for D&D, while the other three are still the creation of Wizards of the Coast and new to D&D; I don't think their origins cheapen them as new campaign settings. There's plenty of worldbuilding coming out of WotC writers, regardless of what this particular forum seems to think.

Worth noting for the contrast is Eberron, which stuck to a largely-unmodified port over of the previous core lore of the setting, with expanding into new lore saved for DM's Guild products made by the setting's creator (and thus /technically/ not being WotC official).

What all this makes me think is that WotC is not reluctant to make new material, but sees introducing new settings or shaking up other old ones as a safer gamble than than the riskier bet of engaging more deeply with the Realms. It feels like unnecessary risk to me; touching the MASSIVE history risks scaring away the new players that 5e explicitly exists to cater to, while defining what the post-Second Sundering world looks like beyond the tiniest glimpses of one tiny sliver (the Sword Coast) risks another backlash from the established fans like 4e had.

Why engage with that incredibly delicate balancing act when you have a number of old D&D worlds that would balk less at major changes and a backlog of [checks notes] ~15 relevant Magic planes you could bring over?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

I think this is a salient point about the Realms, but I do want to say that there's been a good amount of new worldbuilding put out by WotC; the bulk of the setting material in the new Ravenloft book is new stuff (between fresh Domains and some pretty radical reinventions of old ones), and while Exandria, Ravnica, Theros, and Strixhaven are all adapted, the first is a brand new setting made for D&D, while the other three are still the creation of Wizards of the Coast and new to D&D; I don't think their origins cheapen them as new campaign settings. There's plenty of worldbuilding coming out of WotC writers, regardless of what this particular forum seems to think.

Worth noting for the contrast is Eberron, which stuck to a largely-unmodified port over of the previous core lore of the setting, with expanding into new lore saved for DM's Guild products made by the setting's creator (and thus /technically/ not being WotC official).

---

quote:

---

touching the MASSIVE history risks scaring away the new players that 5e explicitly exists to cater to,

---

quote:

---

while defining what the post-Second Sundering world looks like beyond the tiniest glimpses of one tiny sliver (the Sword Coast) risks another backlash from the established fans like 4e had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

I think this is a salient point about the Realms, but I do want to say that there's been a good amount of new worldbuilding put out by WotC; the bulk of the setting material in the new Ravenloft book is new stuff (between fresh Domains and some pretty radical reinventions of old ones), and while Exandria, Ravnica, Theros, and Strixhaven are all adapted, the first is a brand new setting made for D&D, while the other three are still the creation of Wizards of the Coast and new to D&D; I don't think their origins cheapen them as new campaign settings. There's plenty of worldbuilding coming out of WotC writers, regardless of what this particular forum seems to think.

---

quote:

---

What all this makes me think is that WotC is not reluctant to make new material, but sees introducing new settings or shaking up other old ones as a safer gamble than than the riskier bet of engaging more deeply with the Realms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

Paizo is building settings, though. Yes, they're doing the Adventure Paths, but they're also continuing to put out new setting material for both Golarion (Pathfinder) and Near Space (Starfinder).

And unless they've changed since I was reading them, the Adventure Paths generally have a sizable amount of setting material, too.

All of that doesn't compare to the amount of setting material TSR/WotC used to give us... But the amount of worldbuilding WotC is doing right now doesn't compare to what Paizo is doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irennan

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

I think this is a salient point about the Realms, but I do want to say that there's been a good amount of new worldbuilding put out by WotC; the bulk of the setting material in the new Ravenloft book is new stuff (between fresh Domains and some pretty radical reinventions of old ones), and while Exandria, Ravnica, Theros, and Strixhaven are all adapted, the first is a brand new setting made for D&D, while the other three are still the creation of Wizards of the Coast and new to D&D; I don't think their origins cheapen them as new campaign settings. There's plenty of worldbuilding coming out of WotC writers, regardless of what this particular forum seems to think.

Worth noting for the contrast is Eberron, which stuck to a largely-unmodified port over of the previous core lore of the setting, with expanding into new lore saved for DM's Guild products made by the setting's creator (and thus /technically/ not being WotC official).

---

Exandria wasn't created by the D&D team, though (like, at all? Unless you count having D&D races and some D&D gods created 40+ years ago as WotC contributing to the creation). And the Magic settings were created by the Magic team, not the D&D team (who merely converted them). It doesn't mean that the Magic settings are cheapened as CS, but it does indeed mean that it's not new worldbuilding being made.

I give you Ravenloft, but it's very little new content compared to the lifespan of 5e. All of this kinda confirms Wooly's hypothesis, tbh, until WotC starts putting out worldbuilding that is actually new.

quote:

---

touching the MASSIVE history risks scaring away the new players that 5e explicitly exists to cater to,

---

I'll be honest, this point always seemed rather condescending towards new players, as if they could never stomach anything deeper than a puddle. Fans of tons of video game franchises (Dark Souls anyone?) or novel series, where there's even a trend about searching for the smallest hidden bit of lore, prove the contrary. I joined shortly before 5e was announced, and seeing people throw this around made me roll my eyes to no end.

Complexity or vastity aren't a problem, if the designer and writers can handle it. How does a writer ease the reader in when writing a novel about a fantasy world full of unknown concepts, factions and stuff?

Infodump&telling? Shit writing that drives away readers (even though some readers can stomach this, but it's usually the enjoyment of the subject that leads them to keep reading through the BS writing).

Choosing the right scenes for the first arc of the plot in order to convey both the character and the core elements of the setting (which, in turn are both created like that because they are necessary to the story). Basically, choosing what NOT to show to deliver the feeling and understanding that you want to deliver (Hemingway's iceberg, but applied to screenwriting)? That's the right thing to do. You can then let the evolution of the conflict bring those elements to their consequences and build on them in the 2nd and 3rd arc without having to even tell anything or add scenes that are there just to "show the world", and while providing a full picture. All of this is possible since the elements were chosen because they were necessary to the evolution of the story to being with.

All of that is hard to pull off, yes, and requires ungodly amounts of work. Sourcebook designers have an easier time, though, because they can tell. I mean, sourcebooks do basically nothing but infodumping on people. All designers have to do is choosing how to present the setting. For each region/history/faction, they need to choose what to say (and especially what NOT to say) to convey the feeling and theme of that region, and that can be done without having it become overbearing.

It won't be the mountains of details that lore fans want, but it will be a good book that won't "scare" anyone.

TL; DR: the problem isn't that new players are scared of complexity, but that people at WotC don't see working on presenting it right as a worthwhile thing to do, apparently. Also because this requires you to know the inside out of what you're writing (how can you choose the most poignant elements to deliver X theme, otherwise?), and WotC staffers probably can't be bothered with that.

quote:

---

while defining what the post-Second Sundering world looks like beyond the tiniest glimpses of one tiny sliver (the Sword Coast) risks another backlash from the established fans like 4e had.

---

On this I can agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keftiu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Also, a lot of what they have been doing for settings, of late, is stuff that's already done. They're not building anything, they're presenting something that's already been built.

WotC is no longer building worlds. And with the timejump and the rampant changes to the setting, then rolling back some of those changes, they would have to rebuild the world in order to present it. Even if it wasn't for their reluctance to limit themselves in any way, I don't see the current design crew being willing to take on the challenge.

And I'm not being negative when I say they're not willing to take on that challenge. Some people like building new worlds or fleshing out existing parts of existing ones. Some people like digging through the minutiae of existing lore to find previously unnoticed connections. Some like telling stories. Some like building magic stuff. Some like creating NPCs. And some just want to make adventures. It's not good or bad, it's just that we all have our preferred focus.

I won't say the current focus is right for the Realms, but obviously someone at WotC thinks it's the correct course.

---

I think this is a salient point about the Realms, but I do want to say that there's been a good amount of new worldbuilding put out by WotC; the bulk of the setting material in the new Ravenloft book is new stuff (between fresh Domains and some pretty radical reinventions of old ones), and while Exandria, Ravnica, Theros, and Strixhaven are all adapted, the first is a brand new setting made for D&D, while the other three are still the creation of Wizards of the Coast and new to D&D; I don't think their origins cheapen them as new campaign settings. There's plenty of worldbuilding coming out of WotC writers, regardless of what this particular forum seems to think.

Worth noting for the contrast is Eberron, which stuck to a largely-unmodified port over of the previous core lore of the setting, with expanding into new lore saved for DM's Guild products made by the setting's creator (and thus /technically/ not being WotC official).

What all this makes me think is that WotC is not reluctant to make new material, but sees introducing new settings or shaking up other old ones as a safer gamble than than the riskier bet of engaging more deeply with the Realms. It feels like unnecessary risk to me; touching the MASSIVE history risks scaring away the new players that 5e explicitly exists to cater to, while defining what the post-Second Sundering world looks like beyond the tiniest glimpses of one tiny sliver (the Sword Coast) risks another backlash from the established fans like 4e had.

Why engage with that incredibly delicate balancing act when you have a number of old D&D worlds that would balk less at major changes and a backlog of [checks notes] ~15 relevant Magic planes you could bring over?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gyor


There is major over lap between the D&D team and the MtG team in the forms of Ari Levich and James Wyatt, both of which were on the World Building teams for MtG and are now apart of the D&D team. Wyatt also likely worked on the up coming AFR world building team and helped with the Strixhaven: Cirriculum of Chaos book, although Amanda Hammon is the lead designer for it (Wyatt being lead designer for another book).

And Strixhaven: School of Mages and Strixhaven: Cirriculum of Chaos is brand new, it shares development time, its the first setting to be designed as both MtG set and D&D setting at the same time, S: SoM literally just released in April and is the current Premiere set. You can see the D&D influences on the set.

And I believe they are planning a Feywild setting, the Domains of Delight, the Witchlight book being akin to Curse of Strahd coming before Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mimir

I'm of the opinion that it might be a good thing we're not getting a 5e FR Set.

---