Default setting: should we really have one?

[Mercurius]

Yes, I think so, both as a default but also as an example. I would even think they should take it a step further than in prior editions and dedicate 30-40 pages of the DMG to setting description, complete with maps and a detailed region.

I would also argue that 5E needs at least one fully supported setting--preferably a new one, not Greyhawk or Eberron or the Realms rehashed--with ongoing products ala Pathfinder's Golarion. A supported setting is probably a bit of a loss leader; it might do no better than break even sales-wise, but what it does do is anchor the game around a living world and create a vibe and community that brings the game to life. This was something missing in 4E; I had hoped that they were going to start to rectify this with the Nentir Vale Gazetteer but that product was cancelled.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There are a number of advantages to not having a default setting.

It encourages creativity. If you have to choose or create a world, you're thinking. Thinking is good.

It encourages people to buy non-core products if they want a setting, increasing the financial viability of setting-specific products.

It prevents the assumptions of any given setting from making their way into the core rulebooks, pushing D&D in a more universal direction.

Greyhawk wasn't bad, but I wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't in my rulebooks.

 

[enrious]

Take this from a Pathfinder DM and reformed Forgotten Realms lover - stick with the Points of Light concept.

It's much, much, much, much easier to get into if you're new.

Use generic gods and you're golden.

 

[foolish_mortals]

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?

the whole is just a relic of developing the game out of minatures wargamming. Take Pendragon, it was developed out of the story of King Artur. We're stuck bolting a setting onto a generic game system. That's allright as long as the generic game is fun and worth playing.

Greyhawk was okay, it spawned the best modules ever for dnd. Forgotten realms survives, probably cause its better than GHawk.

foolish_mortals

 

[Knightfall]

Take this from a Pathfinder DM and reformed Forgotten Realms lover - stick with the Points of Light concept.

It's much, much, much, much easier to get into if you're new.

Use generic gods and you're golden.

The problem with using the PoL setting is that it isn't as generic as it once was. It has become more codified since the release of the Conquest of Nerath board game.

The game's board is basically a map of the setting. It's even available online for free for DMs to use: Conquest of Nerath map (very big file).

And the Nerathi Legends DDI articles show the setting in more and more detail with each article released.

And if the PoL setting remains the core, it will continue to be detailed bit by bit. It's inevitable. How soon until WotC releases a campaign setting book for Nerath? It was already considered. (And, I kind of wish it had been released.)

And I like several of the new 4E gods -- the Raven Queen in particular.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

(Just quoting this one because it is the most succint, but could have quoted many others...)

My question is in fact: is it really playable only with a setting?

When I started DMing (3.0) all the setting info I gave to the players was a map of Neverwinter Nights neighborhoods from FR's "The North", just because I had found that old book freely available on WotC website. I gave them the map and said "you are here". Nothing else...

I think the game is completely playable with no setting info. What is really needed is an adventure, but you don't really need to tell them about world geography or history or important NPCs for that first adventure or three. After that, YES! if you want to have continuity between adventures.

I also note that all of you refer to new D&D players/DMs. I think WotC should have a Box set for them, and such box should indeed be playable, well... "out of the box" with maps, minis, dice, rules redux (e.g. first 5 levels) and then indeed it can have a small booklet with info on a chosen setting. Then make it cost max 50 bucks, and you can market it to RPG beginners.

But the corebooks? You normally need to buy 3 corebooks to start, that's maybe 100 bucks at least for the DM (players don't need as much setting info in their book as the DM anyway). Most buyers of the complete corebooks set are not beginners, maybe they are beginner DMs but have been players in other editions or games, either way they are most likely capable of starting off with either a homebrew or setting material from older books they already own. To non-beginners, a default setting doesn't make that huge difference unless it's new and happens to be pretty good (like PoI).

Most DMs will switch to their favourite setting or homebrew anyway, and having a default will force them to remove or edit some of the core material.

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.

That's exactly what I mean. The traditional classes, races, monsters of D&D already paint some generic setting. If it's smorgarsbrod/vanilla and not "complete", then default setting = no setting. In fact you suggest not to even give it a name.

 

[Tallifer]

I think some people misunderstand what we mean by a default setting.

We do not mean that you need to buy a Campaign Guide to play the game.

We do not mean that everything published is about that setting.

What is meant is this: the gods for clerics and paladins in the Players' Handbook would be from Forgotten Realms, not just another unsupported pantheon tacked onto the core rules.

The planar cosmology in the Dungeon Master's Guide would be the same as the Forgotten Realms. (I am still confused as to which planes like the Feywild apply to Nentir and which apply to the Realms.)

The fluff for the races and classes would be consistent with the Forgotten Realms.

In the first three books, iconic characters, sample NPCs and monsters and miscellaneous fluff would mesh with the Realms.

The Points of Light philosophy could still apply to parts of the Realms: surely there are wild places to allow dungeon master creativity.

At the same time, I would insist that there be a good chapter in the Dungeon Master's Guide for suggestions on how to create your own campaign world. I remember fondly the beautiful Campaign Law book for Rolemaster in the mid 1980s.

 

[Pour]

T And I like several of the new 4E gods -- the Raven Queen in particular.

Put me down for the Raven Queen, and add Torog the King That Crawls while you're at it. There hasn't been a god that metal since.... since....

 

[Li Shenron]

Tallifer, I think I had the same understanding.

By "default" I meant a setting referenced in the core books, and perhaps in the early supplements.

This was done in 3ed in a mild way, and in 4ed in a stronger way.

I don't think that in 3ed not having that strong reference in the core to Greyhawk had resulted in newcomers feeling lost or staying away from the game.

But after all, I think that we could have even less references. In 3ed the setting-specific material was only (1) deities, (2) spell names, (3) planes... what else? The only planes mentioned were actually the Plane of Shadow, the Astral Plane and the Ethereal Plane, and of course the outer planes but perhaps not that much in detail. All those are quite generic planes that are almost always present in every setting, but it should be possible to have e.g. shadow-based transportation spells without writing detailed explanations that mention which plane is used.

So the only tricky part to eliminate every setting references from is deities.