Default setting: should we really have one?

Li Shenron · Jan 13, 2012

The main reason which comes to my mind for having a default setting already mentioned in the corebooks, is that it would make the game somewhat more attractive to a newcomer to D&D.

I note however that in 3.0 the default setting "Greyhawk" was after all one of the most generic setting possible, and it was effectively scarcely relevant in the core books, besides cleric's religions. I don't think that the game suffered for not having more than this minimal setting flavor in the PHB, and also in many of its supplements.

I rather see more cons than pros in having a default setting, unless the setting is indeed "mildly flavored" like Greyhawk.

What could be additional reasons for really having a default setting? Isn't the "feel" of D&D already delivered by the most traditional classes, races, spells that are anyway part of nearly every setting?

BrockBallingdark · Jan 13, 2012

Granted most vet DM have their preferred campaigns or home-brewed settings but for a new edition, I would think they are approaching new players to D&D. So a new DM would need a default setting to assist him with what's in the world, so he can focus on learning the rules, etc.

Brock

trancejeremy · Jan 13, 2012

I actually always found Greyhawk to be a little confusing. At least when I was a kid and tried to make sense out of the Greyhawk Gazetteer.

You had all these groups of people with funny names. The Flannaese in particular who seemed to like to migrate a lot.

Now as an adult I realize what he was doing - sort of mimicking how REH created the world of Conan - but where REH when with names that are very recognizable to real world analogs, EGG went with with more confusing stuff.

I actually think the Known World/Mystara is far more easier to grasp, since they sort of followed the Conan example and use real world analogs for a lot of stuff with similar names.

Ulrick · Jan 13, 2012

No. D&D should not have a default setting--perhaps a vague region (kind of like Nentir Vale for 4e) for DMs who are too busy to create their own.

But definitely Forgotten Realms should not be used. Kill that world for crying out loud.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jan 13, 2012

Li Shenron said:
The main reason which comes to my mind for having a default setting already mentioned in the corebooks, is that it would make the game somewhat more attractive to a newcomer to D&D.

I note however that in 3.0 the default setting "Greyhawk" was after all one of the most generic setting possible, and it was effectively scarcely relevant in the core books, besides cleric's religions. I don't think that the game suffered for not having more than this minimal setting flavor in the PHB, and also in many of its supplements.

I rather see more cons than pros in having a default setting, unless the setting is indeed "mildly flavored" like Greyhawk.

What could be additional reasons for really having a default setting? Isn't the "feel" of D&D already delivered by the most traditional classes, races, spells that are anyway part of nearly every setting?

Yes. The starter set, core rulebook, or whatever it is we except players to start the game with should have a default setting so that you can play it out of the box _and_ that the DM has something to base new adventures on.

IMO it should be a relatively "generic" fantasy setting that evokes fantasy books and folklore. I think Greyhawk in 3E was pretty good for that, though I think the Points of LIght setting was even better, as it included the Feywild, which I always thought was something missing in the other settings, evoking many European myths and folklore.

The Human Target · Jan 13, 2012

Yes.

Its better for new DMs.

The flavor text of D&D even without a default setting is already pretty full of specifics.

It would probably be a draw to new players.

Gort · Jan 14, 2012

Can you imagine the outcry if D&D wasn't playable with the three core books, and you instead needed to buy a campaign sourcebook as well? The grogs would have a field day with that.

Tallifer · Jan 14, 2012

I am no fanatic of the Forgotten Realms, but since most players seem determined to support it, play it in organized games and read its pulp fiction; therefore I say let it be the normative setting around which the rules are built. Let other settings define themselves by their differences from the Realms.

Four years of Points of Light have actually meant that I have no clue about the new realms. (I only play with house groups.) The weird thing is: nothing in the Nentir Vale was distinctive enough that it could not have simply been rolled into the generic slop that was (and probably still is) the Realms. One thing for sure: I am well confused by the three different pantheons of Nentir, Realms and Eberron.

Of course, I personally would prefer Eberron to be the default setting.

Keldryn · Jan 14, 2012

Yes, the core rules should absolutely have a default setting. The setting gives everything in the game a context within the fiction.

The default setting should be loosely-defined, so that the DM can make it his own. It should also be archetypal medievalish fantasy, such that it feels familiar enough to anyone who has read a few fantasy novels.

There are a lot of things that I don't like about 4e, but the way they constructed the new default setting for the game was just about perfect.

It's fantastic for new DMs, but it's also great for any group with new players. Settings like Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms are pretty standard medieval fantasy, but they carry a lot of baggage and have had a wealth of lore published about them over the years. A setting like the Nentir Vale is a lot easier for new players to digest. It's also a lot easier for experienced players who don't have an interest in studying the history and customs of imaginary worlds.

I love Eberron as a setting, but it turns enough of the usual tropes upside-down that it's not the most approachable setting for new players. The Nentir Vale is pretty generic, but it's easy to get everyone on the same page without lengthy exposition and player handouts.

howandwhy99 · Jan 14, 2012

Yes, Yes, Yes.

And it should be Homebrew.

The default setting really should be all of the stuff that has been in D&D for ages and all the other stuff up until yesterday. The default world in a DMG is really about enabling DMs to create their own world and inspiring all players to want to add their own bits, but in order to do this I believe we must have examples. D&D is a smorgasbord kitchen sink, because it was a vanilla setting that "said Yes" to everything. There's no need to name this world. Have the DMs and players name it. Give them the tools to easily craft a pick up and play setting with relatively little preparation. That will be our homebrew kitchen sink D&D with exploder dogs core rulebook world.

We need a setting so 1st time DMs with 1st time players can read the manual, sit down, make PCs, and play in it.

I don't believe this should be a "complete" setting. That whole idea kinda boggles my head. I don't believe there is such a thing anyways, but "killing them with detail" or "killing them with canon" is just as likely to stall the game as any other core or starting level -high complexity- for 1st timers.

Keep it simple. Make it useful. Convince us we want those example elements in our game too.