• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 4E Default setting for 4E?

What should the default setting for 4E be?

  • Greyhawk

    Votes: 180 33.8%
  • Forgotten Realms

    Votes: 57 10.7%
  • Eberron

    Votes: 36 6.8%
  • A brand-new setting designed specifically for 4E

    Votes: 55 10.3%
  • Ressurect a discontinued setting or use a third-party OGL setting

    Votes: 18 3.4%
  • There shouldn't be an assumed default setting for 4E

    Votes: 187 35.1%

Stone Dog

Adventurer
I love Eberron. It is my favourite setting next to planescape (which says more about me than I'd like I suppose) and I don't want to play anything else for D&D. It should NOT be the core setting. It makes too many different assumtions and exceptions to the rules to be in the main book. The lions share of D&D follows the basic core rules and I still believe that Greyhawk should be the assumed setting.

It is classic and traditional and any setting for a game as old as D&D should have touches of both the old and the new. The tip of Greyhawk's iceberg should be hinted at in the core rules just as it is in 3.x, but it should get its own book at least. maybe not a whole line, but a setting book just like FR or Eberron.

As much as I love the new stuff... I would hate for the old ways and lores of the game to fall by the wayside just for the sake of progress.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kae'Yoss

First Post
jollyninja said:
in the core, let the cleric's go without gods, I always liked the option they presented of not having one. just have it written as cleric's get two domains, player choice with the allignment based ones requiring that you be that alignment. no pantheon required, saves a few pages of text space for more feats or better rule descriptions. in the fr, greyhawk, ebberon, Enter random setting book here, it can be written that clerics are more confined, needing a god to fuel their power. It adds flavor in fact. leave flavor out of the core.

That would limit the cleric. If you don't lose a word about pantheons, deities, and clerics as their chief followers, you take away from the archetype. Note that 3e already says that you can have a cleric that doesn't worship a deity, but some ideals. But the option of the deity's champion should always remain there. And for that, a sample pantheon is really useful. Why not just use any pantheon, say, the one they're using now (which is now officially called "D&D Pantheon" - in the core rules, it's just an abbridged version of greyhawks deity roll call, but some of the deities introduced in additional books are new additions, not before seen in any GH book.)

I want more options and fewer presets. In my opinion this is more easily accomplished without a core setting and allows the writers more creative freedom for the generic suppliments. Knight protector of the great kingdom, eye of grummsh and all the other greyhawk specific prc's never get used in my games and have stopped me from wanting to buy any of the "generic" Wotc suppliments for about three years now. it's not generic if it's 35% greyhawk content.

Now come on, those can very easily ported to whatever deity or nation you happen to have in your campaign: Knight Protector of Generia, Fist of Tyranny, Ravager of Slaughterman The God Of Slaughter, whatever.

The Eye of Gruumsh is more racial than GH specific. This one is actually more or less tied to Gruumsh, with the missing eye thing and all, but even then you'd only have to swap out some flavour and you'd have your generic Orc Berserker of the Bleeding Eyeball Tribe.

For greyhawk, come out with

Well, that's the problem: They don't want to come out with Greyhawk anything. They have one traditional fantasy setting, and that's the Forgotten Realms. They won't start competing with their own product (look what it did to TSR in 2e). And GH could never beat the FR in popularity. The tons of novels that are written for the Realms and those that are still to be written make it their favourite franchise for vanilla fantasy needs.

So they will let GreyHawk do its job: Being the default setting that is snuck in to provide some premade flavour that is easily discarded, but useful if you just need something, and perfectly usable piecemeal or wholesale.

The default setting failed as a concept in my opinion but I hope they do not drop Greyhawk entirely.

As I said: Greyhawk's only right to exist seems to be as the default campaign. They won't do books for two vanilla fantasy settings. If they go beyond the current two settings, they'll do something that's different from both of them.
 

Kae'Yoss

First Post
Stone Dog said:
I love Eberron. It is my favourite setting next to planescape (which says more about me than I'd like I suppose) and I don't want to play anything else for D&D. It should NOT be the core setting.

See? Eberron-lovers and Eberron-haters agree on this. It can't be anything than the true course!

As much as I love the new stuff... I would hate for the old ways and lores of the game to fall by the wayside just for the sake of progress.

Exactly, especially since the traditional stuff is one of D&D's strengths. If people just want progress, they won't bother with D&D, they'll just go get WoW.

There may be some who think that they want all the new stuff, but as a book to play with around a table, but making that the only option would mean losing those who want the old stuff, too. And looking at the latest "how old are you guys" poll, I think Wizards won't go and alienate the older generations...
 

grimwell

First Post
No default setting information in the PHB. None. Not GH, nothing.

In the DMG there should be chapters on how to design a home brew world, pantheons, and PrC's -- with an example or two from WotC settings that will receive 4E support -- including contextual information as to why the setting element, pantheon, or PrC fit into that setting. The DMG should teach even a novice GM how to create...

The lack of a 'default' setting would actually give WotC the ability to sell more product... 'primers' for a campaign that tell players about the setting and give a few details, more splatbooks... all that jazz. Whatever you don't put into the default books can become a stand alone book on its own.
 

bastrak

First Post
Talmun said:
As a long-time Greyhawk fan I vote Greyhawk, but with the caveat that WotC actually, oh, I don't know...support it.

As it stands right now the defualt setting is a very generic, whitewashed, anemic, pallid, wan, rasping, tottering, clutching, dying version of Greyhawk...but that's just my opinion. :D

My view too.
 

blargney the second

blargney the minute's son
grimwell said:
No default setting information in the PHB. None. Not GH, nothing.

In the DMG there should be chapters on how to design a home brew world, pantheons, and PrC's -- with an example or two from WotC settings that will receive 4E support -- including contextual information as to why the setting element, pantheon, or PrC fit into that setting. The DMG should teach even a novice GM how to create...

The lack of a 'default' setting would actually give WotC the ability to sell more product... 'primers' for a campaign that tell players about the setting and give a few details, more splatbooks... all that jazz. Whatever you don't put into the default books can become a stand alone book on its own.
QFT
 

Aaron L

Hero
Greyhawk and D&D are one and the same. All of the assumptions of D&D are the very core of the setting. I dont see any need to try to seperate them. Keep Greyhawk as the basic default setting.


I like the Realms and Eberron a whole lot. But they arent pure all out everything and everything D&D like Greyhawk is.
 


The Human Target

Adventurer
grimwell said:
No default setting information in the PHB. None. Not GH, nothing.

In the DMG there should be chapters on how to design a home brew world, pantheons, and PrC's -- with an example or two from WotC settings that will receive 4E support -- including contextual information as to why the setting element, pantheon, or PrC fit into that setting. The DMG should teach even a novice GM how to create...

The lack of a 'default' setting would actually give WotC the ability to sell more product... 'primers' for a campaign that tell players about the setting and give a few details, more splatbooks... all that jazz. Whatever you don't put into the default books can become a stand alone book on its own.

I agree with this pretty much.

If they had to go with a setting, I'd say either make a brand new one to reflect the new rules.

No GreyHawk. It's so vanilla it makes me ill.
 

Gez

First Post
Voted "no implied setting," but my vote would actually be a tie between that and Greyhawk.

You know, like what they did for most other editions of D&D (everything except the Basic/Expert/etc. boxes that used the Known World of Mystara instead).
 

Remove ads

Top