D&D 5E Does D&D Next need a Core Setting?

[hbarsquared]

It was many things, but unintrusive was one thing it was not. It forced massive changes to FR, dropped primordials, eladrin, and various other PoL core concepts into Dark Sun... it even shamelessly altered the history/nature/origins of a huge number of classic D&D creatures and concepts. It was anything but unintrusive.

If Nentire Vale / PoL is the default setting for 5e with a similar level of saturation and intrusion into other campaign settings, it's a deal breaker for me.

[MENTION=11697]Shemeska[/MENTION]

I would agree that PoL was (possibly) somewhat forced into FR and DS (although I confess I have not looked through those settings and will have to trust you on that). Eberron was "lucky" in that it was a campaign setting that already fit the mold, to some extent.

But I'm speaking more to the level of saturation in the core books. Reading the PHB or Arcane Power struck me as the right amount of immersion. Later books like the Heroes of... focused in on concepts more specific to the cosmology, and so had far more of a setting fluff to mechanics ratio, but what I would consider fine for those particular books.

At the very least, I considered the entire 4e line (sans campaign settings) to be evocative without feeling forced.

 

[Dausuul]

Meh, I'll see your firbolgs and raise you every single extra planar creature in 2e onward which referenced the Great Wheel AND the Blood War. How's that for intrusive? Every single planar creature gets slotted into a metaplot whether you like it or not.

I'll see your Blood War and raise you a Dawn War. The Blood War only covered the Outer Planes--it left the Inner Planes and the Prime Material alone. The Dawn War sucks in the entire multiverse, including creatures from angels to elementals to giants.

 

[hafrogman]

It's kind of interesting to compare the discussion in this thread to some of the debate raging in the various paladin threads. On one hand, we've got the back and forth about what edition of D&D was more intrusive in it's assumed setting information . . . and then we've got other people arguing about how a game has to have restrictions in order to ensure that the game is D&D and not some other fantasy RPG.

So one could argue, and what the heck, I will . . . that no edition of D&D has been as obtrusive to the rest of the game in terms of assumed setting, background and history as AD&D 1st edition has proven.

Changes to the planes? How about the fact that they exist at all? Core OD&D only listed one other plane (The home of the referee). AD&D introduces the known planes, the framework for the 'great wheel', demons, devils, etc.

The introduction of deities for clerics to worship? That's new.

Monks assume monasteries.

Druids assume a highly organized hierarchy with leveling limits based on rank in that organization.


AD&D is far more intrusive in terms of assumed setting than OD&D or anything that came after. It's so intrusive that we're still arguing about all the things we have left over from it.

 

[Yora]

It's kind of interesting to compare the discussion in this thread to some of the debate raging in the various paladin threads. On one hand, we've got the back and forth about what edition of D&D was more intrusive in it's assumed setting information . . . and then we've got other people arguing about how a game has to have restrictions in order to ensure that the game is D&D and not some other fantasy RPG.

I'd rather have some good fantasy RPG than a bad D&D.

 

[steeldragons]

It's kind of interesting to compare the discussion in this thread to some of the debate raging in the various paladin threads. On one hand, we've got the back and forth about what edition of D&D was more intrusive in it's assumed setting information . . . and then we've got other people arguing about how a game has to have restrictions in order to ensure that the game is D&D and not some other fantasy RPG.

This is a fun (odd, but fun) truthful observation. The fact that they work together...somehow, and I really can't fully express how but they do work in tandem, is one of those colorful oddities that makes D&D...D&D and not some other fantasy RPG.

So one could argue, and what the heck, I will . . .

And i wasn't gonna reply..but what the heck, I will too.

...that no edition of D&D has been as obtrusive to the rest of the game in terms of assumed setting, background and history as AD&D 1st edition has proven.

Well, that's something of a mistaken precept. How can something be intrusive to something that never existed before? AD&D, yes, set the rules. It set the "standard" that, still, all of these years later, many of the hobby are acknowledging as the "birth" of the hobby. It was, quite literally, "writing the proverbial book" on D&D.

Changes to the planes? How about the fact that they exist at all? Core OD&D only listed one other plane (The home of the referee). AD&D introduces the known planes, the framework for the 'great wheel', demons, devils, etc.

Yes. Yes it did. But that didn't exist before. So it wasn't "changing it" it was "introducing it."

The introduction of deities for clerics to worship? That's new.

Uhhhh...no. It's not. In Basic (the red box) D&D, there is ,mention of "deities" and their use "as one explanation for clerical spells" (I'm para-quoting, but it's in there). Things like Thor and Zeus are mentioned, though it is stipulated that such "beliefs" are not supposed to come into play. So deities for clerics was not "new" for AD&D. That was an "elaboration", if you will, in AD&D and reinforced with the introduction of Deities & Demigods.

But, again, it established a "baseline" of the game. It wasn't really "changing" anything...just reinforcing "this is how clerics work/what clerics are supposed to be"...for AD&D.

Monks assume monasteries.

They do, indeed.

Druids assume a highly organized hierarchy with leveling limits based on rank in that organization.

Yes. Again, an elaboration. I belieeeeeve, the AD&D PHB was out before the Basic "Companions" set...so the introduction of the Druid, there, was actually behind the AD&D rules...and attempting to incorporate them in a BD&D way...same with "Mystics" being introduced to have AD&D-style "Monks" in the BECMI game.

AD&D is far more intrusive in terms of assumed setting than OD&D or anything that came after. It's so intrusive that we're still arguing about all the things we have left over from it.

Again, I find this...mistaken. AD&D is the baseline. BECMI and/or OD&D preceded this (or, at least B/X-BE preceded this), yes. But "2e" was AD&D, "3e" was AD&D (minus the "A"), as was 4e and as will be 5e. None of these editions were meant as a continuation of BECMI or OD&D. They are the progression of AD&D...of which AD&D 1e is the progenitor...not "changing" anything that preceded it.

So, no...for establishing the core setting in the first place?! AD&D was not "intrusive."

[EDIT] and just as a somewhat unrelated aside to anyone from WotC watching these threads, If the Great Wheel ain't broke....and it ain't...DON'T "FIX" IT![/EDIT]

Humbly yours (and possibly mistaken with his timeline),
--SD

 

[hafrogman]

Humbly yours (and possibly mistaken with his timeline),
--SD

Just a little. Namely, D&D did exist before AD&D.

D&D (1974) (often called original D&D, OD&D)*
AD&D and Basic D&D (1977).

Basic D&D actually ran concurrently with AD&D. So stuff like deities being in Basic D&D isn't relevant. In fact my red box BD&D doesn't mention deities, despite coming later. I think that was in reaction to the BADD type scares of the 80s. Either way, original D&D didn't have them . . . players tended to add them themselves.

My point was somewhat farcical, to be sure . . . but the original argument holds a little more water than you give it credit for. OD&D had three years of solid history before AD&D came along and added in a LOT of new things. AD&D only set the standard by which other things are judged because people decided it did. It doesn't have precedence, just popular support. *shrug*



* Also note that because we are arguing about core v. settings, I am conveniently ignoring the Greyhawk and Blackmoor setting books which were really expansions to the basic rules in all but name. They have been discounted for humor's sake.

 

[Kaodi]

When you look at the 4E DMG, it is impossible not to notice that Chapter 11 is basically devoted to the default starting setting, and that it had the first "adventure" wholey created. What it conspicuously seems to be missing is the traditional "Example of Play" .

I wonder if the proper way to do things would be to ditch all the explicit setting information, and bake it into a revived example of play and/or starting dungeon. I do not think we necessarily need to go back to the old Monastery Catacombs map (as it made little sense), but I think just having a map of a spacious dungeon level, with sparse notes on what each area is, would be an ample starting place.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Yes.

Eberron.

 

[avin]

Meh, I'll see your firbolgs and raise you every single extra planar creature in 2e onward which referenced the Great Wheel AND the Blood War. How's that for intrusive? Every single planar creature gets slotted into a metaplot whether you like it or not.

It's far from true that every extraplanar 2E creature is related to the Great Wheel and Blood War. Unless you are talking about Planescape books, but that would be a weird comparison, like comparing a normal MM to Dark Sun.

Everything in 4E is related to something else. Random opening MM2, Phase Spider is the result of ancient magical experimentation of Eladrin. Melora created Lycantropes, etc. It's just a matter of checking "Lore" and comparing.

There was no such heavy ties in former editions.

 

[steeldragons]

Just a little. Namely, D&D did exist before AD&D.

D&D (1974) (often called original D&D, OD&D)*
AD&D and Basic D&D (1977).

And, again, just a little.

Basic D&D actually ran concurrently with AD&D. So stuff like deities being in Basic D&D isn't relevant.

In fact, it is. You are posing that AD&D "changed" and was "intrusive" into D&D when they were not, in fact, the same (admittedly, very close) system...though intended to be easily exchanged between the two...to a point, or at least BD&D was supposed to be able to be "ported" into AD&D with minimal guff.

I am posing that AD&D was setting its own standard and rules and fluff (yes, mostly based on EGG's Greyhawk setting) where/when no other existed.

So, the point that AD&D was "intrusive" is really not accurate.

In fact my red box BD&D doesn't mention deities, despite coming later.

I am referencing, and apologies for the confusion, I didn't realize they weren't identical, the 1983 Mentzer-edited version red box. And yes, Deities are presented, albeit peripherally, as I said before, in the DMG of that set. What's in the Moldvay red of '81, I cannot say.

I think that was in reaction to the BADD type scares of the 80s.

I agree. That's why I, at least, assume they are so handwaved.

Either way, original D&D didn't have them . . . players tended to add them themselves.

And, again, D&D is not what 5e is. It is the fifth edition of the AD&D game. Not a continuation of the "basic/O" D&D game.

My point was somewhat farcical, to be sure . . .

OH! Then why am I writing at all? lol. It didn't come off as farcical...to me, anyway. Nary you mind, then.

but the original argument holds a little more water than you give it credit for.

And I, respectfully, don't think it does.

OD&D had three years of solid history before AD&D came along and added in a LOT of new things. AD&D only set the standard by which other things are judged because people decided it did. It doesn't have precedence, just popular support. *shrug*

And still...that is what the popular support has given precedence to. Your assertion that AD&D was "intrusive" as far as setting is concerned, when there WASN'T an established "default" setting before does not mesh with me.

I'd still argue that AD&D has the precendence...since the '81 version post-dates the original AD&D 1e by 3 years...the '83, ya know, more. But you are correct, the original "Basic" was in tandem with 1e...so how does either hold precedence over (or become intrusive) on the other?

* Also note that because we are arguing about core v. settings, I am conveniently ignoring the Greyhawk and Blackmoor setting books which were really expansions to the basic rules in all but name. They have been discounted for humor's sake.

Happily.
--SD