D&D Setting Tolerances

[Cryptos]

I just got done expressing why I feel like the average - or the vast majority - of D&D worlds don't "do it" for me, in another thread. I have tried to remain loyal to the game and give various editions a shot. It's the first RPG I was ever introduced to, back in the red box days. I'm not sure if it's brand loyalty, nostalgia, interest in some concepts and not others, or a combination of that makes me keep trying.

I've spent several months working on ideas for more or less standard D&D settings... but I fizzle out. I think I just can't get into many of the core assumptions of D&D.

Anyway, I think that the conceits used in almost every D&D setting are a big part of what put me off. So I'm curious as to what thresholds and tolerances D&D players have to shake things up for the traditional medieval fantasy impaired.

Would you play in a world with:

* No alignment system.

* No proof of the existence of gods.

* No divine classes at all.

* An unconventional race selection.

* Significantly fewer intelligent civilized humanoid races.

* All of the above?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Sure, if it was a sufficiently interesting setting and/or a DM I liked.

That said, some of those aspects do already exist in various settings. Dark Sun had no gods, and clerics got their power from the elements. Eberron has no proof of gods, and any god can have a worshiper of any alignment*. And both have some pretty unconventional races. Dawnforge has no true gods per se (though that's just because it's early enough in the world's history that they haven't exactly "congealed" yet).

*(In fact, even 4E core says that once someone's ordained as a cleric, an alignment change won't strip them of their powers.)

So yeah, there's precedent for most of this. I'd prefer that the divine classes exist but be tweaked to fit, rather than gotten rid of, but even a complete removal wouldn't necessarily keep me from playing.

 

[Gilladian]

Yes, I'd play in a world with any/most or even all of the things you mention. The things that make a game DnD aren't in that list. Except maybe alignment, which I can take or leave.

DnD for me is more around the idea of FANTASY medieval, with levels and classes, with some loose interpretation of historical eras but no intention of being sociologically or historically accurate.

I likes me some elves and dwarves, but they can be distant reminders in the setting, not present at every turn. But there had best be SOMETHING fantastical - either magic or fey or whatever, or it isn't DnD. And there have to be dragons (old, mystic, fearsome, and not living around the corner disguised as some old drunk and producing half-breeds every few years).

I prefer low fantasy, which DnD only does reasonably well at lower to mid levels; that's why I like homebrew, not FR or other worlds where things are more "standard".

I play DnD because I can make it do what I want, and I know the rules, and so do my buddies; if another game came along that did the things I want better, and was easy to learn, I could probably be lured away...

 

[Walknot]

When you write "conceits" did you intend "concepts" or what you said? If you did intend "conceits" then what do you mean by that? just curious...

 

[Cryptos]

When you write "conceits" did you intend "concepts" or what you said? If you did intend "conceits" then what do you mean by that? just curious...

Core assumptions, basically, more along these definitions of the word:

2.something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea: He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours. 3.imagination; fancy. 4.a fancy; whim; fanciful notion. 5.an elaborate, fanciful metaphor, esp. of a strained or far-fetched nature.

 

[Walknot]

Thanks for explaining, that makes sense. Can see what you mean by "conceits" now.

When everyome in the group can accept the setting, then you can play together. Otherwise where is the flow? Suspension of disbelief, en masse, followed by active creation of illusion and detail - just what the doctor ordered.

 

[Remathilis]

Like Der Fladermaus, I've run Eberron with no proof of Gods and alignment being guidelines rather than actual rules. However, once you remove Divine PCs and Core Races, it stops being D&D and starts into some realm of "other fantasy RPG" for me.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yes. My D&D games for the past three or four years have used most of those concepts and my next one will probably use all of them. It'll still be D&D, too.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I like 1, 2 and 3 and have no problem with 4 and 5. The world I'm currently working on has no real gods, just powerful beings (10th-20th level) that are worshipped as such. I dislike alignment and the arcane/divine split.

That said, our opinions are irrelevant, what matters are those of your players. Big FR fans are they? That place is lousy with gods.

 

[Cryptos]

This is really interesting. 42 votes in, 69% of respondents saying they would accept a campaign with all of the above. I'd be willing to bet that many other features that have appeared in various popular settings would poll much lower (eg, magic trains or legendary NPCs more powerful and/or influential than the PCs would likely ever become.) It seems there would be a market for this kind of alternative setting. Why, then, doesn't anyone attempt it commercially?

I guess I'm not as much of an oddball as I was feeling I was, and I'll probably keep D&D open as a gaming option in future groups.