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

[slobster]

Oh, I dunno- the 4e cosmology is really the core setting more than the Vale itself, and you certainly can't deny that the cosmology got shoved down every 4e setting's throat pretty hard core.

Actually Eberron got off fairly easy. The planar cosmology emerged pretty much intact, with only a few things (feywild sort of used synonymously with an existing plane, for example) changing, and those were pretty easy to accept or ignore, as you liked. The rest of the world was wide and crazy enough to accept dragonborn alongside the giant psychic egyptian egg monuments and other such madness that already existed.

Other settings got Nentir Vale colostomies of various magnitudes though, from what I hear. I dunno, I don't follow them as much.

 

[Zaukrie]

Fluff, by definition, creates a default setting. It creates ecology, names, places, all kinds of things.

 

[Eridanis]

The tone of the conversation is starting to get a little testy. Let's keep it polite, please.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't know, but had Greyhawk been the default setting for 4e I would have given it more of a chance on it's prime, rather than now out of goodwill in the context of this new edition.

Of course they need to make it very explicit that the DM may change things to suit his/her setting or that other settings may and will override a good chunk of what is written, but a default asumption makes it actually easier to jump in.

For inclusiveness sake I suggest Next doesn't have a core setting by default, but two, Greyhawk and Points of Light, that way the game is playable out of the box wihotut havign to invest more time in getting a functional world to working order -and doesn't alienates neither pre 4e nor 4e fanbases. The pressence of two settings also makes it obvious things will change between settings, and makes it easier for homebrewers that want nothing contaminating their precious creations -all stuff setting centric is already clealy labeled for convenience sake- you just say "ignore everything labeled as setting reliant and change it with this."

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Does it need a setting? In short, yes.

It doesn't have to be all that much, but it needs to be something. A small nation, a city or town, and a few interesting places in and around them to plop down a dungeon, run a default adventure or two. Clerics still need a few "generic" deities to choose from so that their associated abilities can be defined without needing to build/buy a boxed-set world to bolt on around them. Spells need to fuel some creative speculation about who first created the spell and why [Bigby, Rary, Tenser, Mordenkainen served that purpose). At least some of the "default" monsters in the MM need to be serviceable as demonstrating how and why monsters fit into a game setting. A few NPC's and organizations can serve to exemplify the many and sundry purposes that they fulfill in an adventure and a game setting. Even a brief adventure that can be used to gather an initial group of PC's together.

This doesn't have to be BEGINNER stuff so much as providing the ability to run a game without the DM needing to first create an entire setting (or LEARN HOW to create a setting) in order to get started playing with the new set of rules. As long as it is made EXCEPTIONALLY clear that that would be the purpose such a setting is serving.

 

[Caster]

I think it absolutely does need a default setting but not in the expected manner. Somewhere upthread someone suggested adding a 4th core book to the traditional trio of PH, DMG, MM. Call it the Campaign Book (CB.) This is a brilliant idea.

I play 4th Ed and I enjoyed it but it's approach to world-building was COMPLETELY 100% Bass-frakking-ackwards. They created all the parallel planes (ups/ downs/ sideways) and god/creatures what-have-you's. Real, CREATION-LEVEL stuff that binds the whole fluff together and then, almost as an aside told us that the actual playing surface of the game was essentially up to us to come up with or at best was plug-and-play. Just snap whatever old setting you want in the middle of this great cosmological donut we've left you. Too bad everything else about the game is built around you using our assumptions about how the whole shebang fits together.

This is much worse than giving us no setting at all or just the bare bones of the Nentir Vale. Either of those I could work with.

That off my chest, my suggestion would be to keep the core rules as fluff light as possible without sacrificing any important aspects of the mechanics. Just keep it vague. Even Cleric Domains can be generalized as God of War, Grain, Furniture, whatever. I can name them if and when needed. Wizard spells? Fireball & Magic Missile work just fine. Themes and Backgrounds? Blacksmith, soldier, scholar are acceptable, right?

Then, SIMULTANEOUSLY, with the publication of the Three, put out your first (of many!) CB's. Gods, Devils, History, Cosmology, Setting specific Themes, Traits, & Backgrounds, Unique Creatures, Named Spells, Magic items. Get crazy. And then get more crazy and actually SUPPORT these settings, Now, THAT's some OLDE SCHOOL Product Support right there.

Soon(ish) after release a Campaign Builder's Guide for DM's that like to homebrew to their hearts content. Full of rules and advice on tweaking the Core to create all kinds of D&D-esque settings and adventure types.

Settings ARE important. At least equal to mechanics. In literature we learn that setting defines themes. Westerns are good for telling certain types of stories better than Detective, War, or Horror stories are. Game of Thrones isn't the kind of world ideal for Dungeon Crawling. Don't make it have to support those kinds of adventures if you can help it.

Just my thoughts. As always, your milage may vary.

Dave

 

[Hussar]

In 4th edition, yes. That's why so many people didn't like it. In every other version of D&D someone could run Greyhawk with just the core rulebooks, without having to modify any races or monsters.

That's because Greyhawk was the default setting in every other edition (barring B/X) and it invaded and pervaded every single element of the game. It's just that it did so from the beginning, so, people have internalized it as "D&D" rather than Greyhawk. I mean, races, class explanations, cosmology, spell names, prestige classes, etc. All ganked straight from Greyhawk and later additions to the setting.

4e is no more or less guilty of this than any other edition. It's just that it chose a different baseline setting rather than simply regurgitating the same old stuff that we've been running on the treadmill for thirty years.

 

[Herschel]

Of course they need to make it very explicit that the DM may change things to suit his/her setting ....

So 4E comes to people's houses now and makes them get permission slips to change things or homebrew? What a load of irrational hooey! DMs have always had the same power in EVERY edition of the game.

 

[Hussar]

So 4E comes to people's houses now and makes them get permission slips to change things or homebrew? What a load of irrational hooey! DMs have always had the same power in EVERY edition of the game.

Isn't it funny. One of the biggest criticisms of 3e for years was how DM's were being disempowered and held hostage to player entitlement. Wasn't true then and it certainly isn't true now.

If you need to rulebook to tell your players that your campaign is yours, there are much larger issues at your table.

And, just in case people missed it:

What makes the D&D game unique is the Dungeon Master. The DM is a person who takes on the role of lead storyteller and game referee. The DM creatues adventures for the characters and narrates the action for the players. The DM makes D&D infinitely flexible.

The Dungeon Master has several functions in the game.

Adventure Builder...
Narrator...
Monster Controller...
Referee: When it's not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story....

Looks a lot like Rule 0 to me. I dunno though. It isn't called out in giant bold letters, so, maybe it's just easy to miss.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Would referencing MANY settings in the core book be too much, given this is the edition to unite them all.

Describe basic elves - sidebars for how they are different in other settings.

The description of an important artefact or MI could mention its role in a particular setting.

Use evocative place names from ALL the settings for flavour.

So basically, use the settings as EXAMPLES throughout the core without tying the core to one setting. I certainly am not suggesting to cover all the setting differences and unique rules/situations in the core, just give the odd egs to highlight points (even in side bars) and to add flavour. (Each setting can later be fully detailed).

What better way to add flavour to the core rulebooks that to inc various eg's.

I am the world builder type and would like to see a lot of DM options of how to do things. But I like seeing how they are done in other settings. I think players would like this too. It would certainly add to the readability of the text.

Just a thought that might appeal to a broader base (and a compromise for those that definitely want a core setting vs those that definitely do not)?