D&D 5E What should be the 5E default setting?

Steely_Dan · Sep 28, 2012

I would prefer no default setting, like pre-3rd Ed; 3rd Ed's default Greyhawk was half-ass, IMO, rather do a setting justice.

But of course, if any setting is default, it should be Greyhawk (and Planescape, to a degree), so much of the built in lore relates.

JeffB · Sep 28, 2012

GameDoc said:
2e had no default setting..

Yep.

So did OD&D. So did Holmes Basic. So did Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X...it wasn't until X1 and the MEntzer sets that the Known World/Mystara became more than an example. Heck even AD&D had no default setting either as it was written.

This was not an issue in the previous to 3E versions of the game, and there is no reason a new edition has to have a setting tied to it, cosmology/pantheon or not. They can simply put a column at the end of a generic Deity of X summary with examples Sun gods of mythology or D&D (Pelor, Lathander, etc), Gods of Strife/Tyranny (Hextor, Bane, Set), etc etc.

Same goes for the actual cosmology..put up a page or so explanation in the DMG of each cosmology as examples..i.e The Great Wheel, 4E, Ancient Egypt, etc.

:mild conspiracy theory:

The real issue lies in IP. And I'm sure WOTC has come to realize the IP is the money maker, not the rules (Hello OSR & PF). So they are contemplating spoonfeeding us "Story elements"(Like cosmology/settings as well as the class writeups, and monster fluff we have seen in the playtest) as a (the) big selling point. Things that make D&D different that can also be protected (legally)

To which I say, "No Thank You".

am181d · Sep 28, 2012

What has Wizards said?

1. They're putting the lion share of their effort into developing the realms.
2. They're already thinking ahead (and designing) to other settings, but we likely won't see these for a long time.
3. For monsters, they will likely include instructions for how to handle them in multiple ways. (e.g. Minotaurs are unique creatures, but you can use them as a playable RACE like this)
4. They will set up races so you can easily decide which are and aren't a part of your campaign.

That sounds to me like Forgotten Realms is the default setting, with out-of-the-box support for home brew campaigns, and supplementary material for other campaign settings over time.

Salamandyr · Sep 28, 2012

Personally, I would prefer they go to no default setting, and especially no default gods. I would like a return to the default assumption that the DM creates his own worlds.

As fun as the creative writing is surrounding many of their current monsters, I don't need a book telling me that "Hill Giants are desccended from the youngest of the Giant Gods, and blah-di-blah blah". I need "Hill Giants are big and stupid and have 8 hit dice".

Steely_Dan · Sep 28, 2012

Salamandyr said:
I don't need a book telling me that "Hill Giants are desccended from the youngest of the Giant Gods, and blah-di-blah blah". I need "Hill Giants are big and stupid and have 8 hit dice".

I like some of that, like ogres and trolls worship the deity Vaprak the Destroyer.

I love that they have brought back racial gods (Maglubiyet, Hruggek, etc).

bogmad · Sep 28, 2012

I want no default setting, but it's not going to bother me if they put in the actual names of different gods or whatnot. One of my first D&D memories is flipping through the AD&D Dieties and Demigods book. Was that setting specific? I didn't see it as such; it was just a bunch of cool gods you could use or not use in your campaign, some based in mythology, some made up for D&D. Just because something is specific and uses proper nouns, there's no need to get all worked up about how "they're forcing me into a default setting!"

Consonant Dude · Sep 28, 2012

I'm torn on the choices.

On one hand, Greyhawk and Planescape have historically been tied to the setting assumptions prevalent in the game. Unfortunately, it suffered in its execution. Its original inclusion in the game had more to do with archiving the adventures of game contributors than providing a game-ready setting for customers. It's full of "winks" and former PCs with lame names and back stories. As a setting it is fairly bland. As time went by, TSR and WotC's attempts to develop it were half-hearted. Making it a poor choice. It also suffers from being mostly beloved by nostalgics and a lot of those aren't likely to switch system to come back for a new iteration anyway.

Forgotten Realms is an interesting case. Grey Box is a marvel of ready-to-play setting design. It got an open-ended nature that it mixed with a strong flavor. At that point in time in history however, TSR was just discovering how much money there was in novels and products related to their settings' IP (the Dragonlance experiment) and they seized the opportunity. Today, the Realms are an incredibly rich and detailed world with a lot of history behind it. This is unneeded baggage for a lot of people. Going back to Grey Box and starting from scratch would kind of defeat the purpose of using the Realms. You can't pretend all these novels and successful setting products never existed when they were (and still are) so popular.

Other past settings come with their own baggage and without the advantages of these two. Settings like Dark Sun and Ravenloft have their fans but are regarded as too weird or exotic by the majority.

Where does that leave us? To the creation of a new default setting. When 5th edition is released in 2013, it will mark more than a decade without having seen a new official DnD setting (Eberron, 2002). I've left minor settings and spinoffs such as Kara-Tur and Lankhmar but take a look:

70s-80s - Greyhawk (difficult to pinpoint a starting point as an official setting)
1984 - Dragonlance
1987 - Mystara (Gazetteers)
1987 - Forgotten Realms
1989 - Spelljammer
1990 - Ravenloft
1991 - Dark Sun
1992 - Al Quadim
1994 - Planescape
1995 - Birthright
2002 - Eberron

In 2013, we will have seen only one new official setting in the last 18 years when previously, we would easily see a major new one every couple of years.

I don't know if the new edition needs a default setting. Maybe as another poster said, the lack of a default setting may leave WotC more freedom to produce settings. But I do think this franchise is in dire need of new settings sooner than later.

And if they decide a default setting is needed, I'd rather they try something new without baggage.

bogmad · Sep 28, 2012

4th editions Nentir Vale, with its whole Bael Turath/ Arkhosia history is pretty arguably a new settinig. Especially if you add things like the Conquest of Nerath board game.

GreyICE · Sep 28, 2012

Guh.

Forgotten Realms being the default setting is... not good. The Realms are their most famous setting, because the realms lends itself to books very easily. Books can have the sort of dramatic, spanning plotlines the Realms needs, while also focusing on the main characters lets you push aside what the "big names" are doing in the Realms. In a way the realms runs into the issue of 'good campaign settings and good novels are two very different things.' (as DM of the Rings points out in a hysterical manner, LotR is a very bad D&D campaign)

Eberron is a tad too... I dunno. Steampunk/high fantasy mashup to really be what drives their marketing. It's a really good setting, but it's not what people think of when they think D&D, so they have to go to another setting for their default.

I love PoL/4E cosmology, but it's not a defined setting, and they said some of their strongest feedback was that players want much more defined settings. That means it's out practically by default.

Dark Sun is a 'kick you in the teeth' setting that hates people, forgives nothing, steals all your magic items, and spits in your face. I love it. It's not for new players. Ravenloft is this taken to 12 - dear gods, most adventures in Ravenloft are "GET OUT OF RAVENLOFT!"

I say reboot Greyhawk, fix up a lot of the problems with it that Living Greyhawk and all the other nonsense that was done to the setting over the years, and make it a neutral, interesting setting with some defined places, some defined countries, and some defined powers. I hope they do what they did with Exalted - define some things, and specifically DON'T define certain things. Like:

"Here are five countries. These are details on three of them. Lots and lots and lots of detail. Here are two countries. Here are some very vague facts about them. Everything else about those two is left for you, the DM, to decide."

It's hard, but that's seriously my best thoughts on the approach they should take.

As for cosmology, do a mashup. Great Wheel, Points of Light, let people pick what they want to run with.

Consonant Dude · Sep 28, 2012

bogmad said:
4th editions Nentir Vale, with its whole Bael Turath/ Arkhosia history is pretty arguably a new settinig. Especially if you add things like the Conquest of Nerath board game.

I don't know where to put the line exactly on what is or is not a setting. But the work WotC put into presenting Nenthir Vale as a setting pales in comparison to efforts that weren't even worth being listed on my timeline.

The Points of Light philosophy is one bit other than rituals which I particularly appreciated from the 4th edition. It's a worthwhile experiment that may still have its place. But I still think it is time for WotC to put some real effort and thought into setting material, something they have neglected since acquiring the DnD franchise. They've half-assed it when it comes to honoring the legacy of old settings and failed to put much effort into new ones.