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.