What should the default setting be for 4th edition?

[jdrakeh]

Elves, Dwarves, and so on are staple in a very large part of fantasy, and they're staple in all the big "role models" D&D has. Thus, it's reasonable to include those choices.

Well, the fact is, those races aren't a staple in a very large part of fantasy as a genre, just in the most accessible fiction of that genre (most notably Professor Tolkien's work). Even amongst D&D's listed sources of inspiration (per the AD&D 1e DMG), these demi-human racea are only present in roughly half of them.

Assuming the presence of demi-humans by default sets the stage for a very specific kind of fantasy, while ignoring others. Now, it's true that players can ignore the default assumption concerning demi-humans, but in doing so, you're houseruling the game to do something other than what it is designed to do by default.

You need rules for spellcasting. The class system needs a set way to use magic. You can't just say "this guys do magic, figure out how". D&D's way sure is exotic, but using mana would be just another assumption. There'd be people wanting another way for magic to work no matter what. Note that D&D has more than one way to work magic (wizards' way and sorcerers' way) right in the core rules, to adapt the rules to your liking, and more are in optional rules, both from Wizards and from third parties.

I'm not saying that you don't need rules for magic but that, as they appear in the PHB, the D&D spell casting rules aren't very flexible and cleave very closely to specific assumptions about magic (even the core class variations introduce very little deviation from these default assumptions). Again, yes, you can change it up -- but that's not how magic is implemented by default.

Alignment: One of the easiest things to edit out actually. Ignore alignment for characters, ignore alignment based effects for the most part.

Oh, I agree wholehearetdly, but the fact that you can ignore it doesn't change the fact that the game defaults to worlds of black and white morality. Indeed, the very fact you must/i] ignore alignment to get away from that black and white morality highlights my point about default assumptions very well

That's not exactly true. All clerics are casters - it's in their class description. There surely isn't anything that says you can't make a priest using the expert class (choose class skills appropriate to this, like knowledge (religion, the planes, history), diplomacy, perform (oratory)).

Again, while it's true that you can introduce non-spell casting priests, they're not what the game defaults to.

And that's the point -- the game defaults to a certain number of setting assumptions (i.e., automatically assumes certain things to be true of all settings designed for use with it). Defaults can certainly be changed, added to, or ignored -- but that doesn't alter the reality that, by design, these are the assumptions that the game is built around.

I guess the point is that, even without a list of setting-specific deities, D&D already has a great many built-in setting assumptions that don't apply to the whole of fanatsy as a genre. Indeed, contrary to popular belief, the only place that all of these default assumptions appear together is in D&D or fiction based on it. D&D really is its own genre mode.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Actually, by d20 Modern/Future rules, robots are type Construct: sentient constructs, the Biodroid and Bioreplica robots are even PCable at ECL +0, sounds like they're pretty much the same as Warforged to me.

The reverse isn't necessarily true. Just because robots are constructs and golems are constructs doesn't mean that golems are robots. That's like saying bugbears are goblins.

noone says that. It doesn't have to be said. It's self-evident.

True. But why point out that this and that isn't part of the Realms now, if it is irrelevant for the matter at hand what the Realms feature or not?

About those assumptions:

Demi-humans: Elves, Dwarves, and so on are staple in a very large part of fantasy, and they're staple in all the big "role models" D&D has. Thus, it's reasonable to include those choices.

(snip)

Alignment: One of the easiest things to edit out actually. Ignore alignment for characters, ignore alignment based effects for the most part.

Half-orcs were a staple in fantasy? They've been introduced as a core race in 3rd edition, and thus the population of half-orcs in the Realms multiplied...

It's probably easier to edit out a lightning train (or a player race, for that matter) than alignment (because there are spells and class abilities corresponding to it).
(Again, I don't think the lighning train would be included in a PHB with Eberron as an implied setting. The 3rd edition books don't feature a fully fleshed-out setting, and 4th edition could go the same way.)

All I'm saying is: even if warforged and lighning train would be in the Eberron-centered PHB 4.0, that wouldn't imply them popping up in the Realms too. Each setting changes the default to some degree.
Magewrights OTOH would make sense in the Realms and could be included, similar to the way 3rd edition also redefined classes for PCs and NPCs.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Half-orcs were a staple in fantasy? They've been introduced as a core race in 3rd edition, and thus the population of half-orcs in the Realms multiplied...

Demihuman races are a staple, that's what I said. Not half-orcs in particular. That's why there's more than one race for players to choose from.

(Again, I don't think the lighning train would be included in a PHB with Eberron as an implied setting. The 3rd edition books don't feature a fully fleshed-out setting, and 4th edition could go the same way.)

Than why using Eberron if you're going to stip it bare, anyway? What use will it be?

All I'm saying is: even if warforged and lighning train would be in the Eberron-centered PHB 4.0, that wouldn't imply them popping up in the Realms too. Each setting changes the default to some degree.

It would set a precedence: D&D works are supposed to have warforged in it. Right now I count two D&D/d20 Fantasy settings with sentient constructs - Eberron's warforged and Dragonstar's soulmechs. They're more than just an exptrapolation on the usual races (half-orcs: there's orcs, pretty nasty critters, and there's humans, able and obviously willing to mate with nearly everything. So there are bound to be human/orc crossbreeds; I do think that they don't belong in the standard race roster), I'd say they fit into much less settings than elves, dwarves - even half-orcs.

Well, the fact is, those races aren't a staple in a very large part of fantasy as a genre, just in the most accessible fiction of that genre (most notably Professor Tolkien's work). Even amongst D&D's listed sources of inspiration (per the AD&D 1e DMG), these demi-human racea are only present in roughly half of them.

Assuming the presence of demi-humans by default sets the stage for a very specific kind of fantasy, while ignoring others.

Not giving use the write-ups severely limits D&D: Now you don't have any rules for those races.

If you want a human-only world, just do away with the others. Look at Rokugan, they've made it (okay, they're the Nagas and the Nezumi, but they're a niche choice and characters of those races are severely limited)

Now, it's true that players can ignore the default assumption concerning demi-humans, but in doing so, you're houseruling the game to do something other than what it is designed to do by default.

So we have to decide which is better:

- assuming more than one race is in, and forcing people to edit them out if they don't want them

or

- assuming there's only humans, and forcing people to make up rules for those races if they do want them.

I'm not saying that you don't need rules for magic but that, as they appear in the PHB, the D&D spell casting rules aren't very flexible and cleave very closely to specific assumptions about magic (even the core class variations introduce very little deviation from these default assumptions). Again, yes, you can change it up -- but that's not how magic is implemented by default.

It's D&D magic. It's something other than the bland magic everyone else seems to be using. I wouldn't miss it for the world. You can still change it (Elements of Magic not only gets rid of the limits of spell preparation, but also gets rid of the limits of spells. More freedom than your avarage mana system)

 

[Jupp]

I voted "No implied setting". But in fact I do not care about the setting as long as it is not Greyhawk. I also liked the "neutrality" of the AD&D 1e/2e core books.

First we could end the timeless discussion about GH as a "core setting". Second, WotC could forget about Greyhawk and give into the hands where the setting could have a second revival. Perhaps Paizo, perhaps someone else that has the power and the knowledge to continue with GH. What WotC has done with Greyhawk in 3E was more or less....nothing. The GH elements in the core books are a joke and certainly not an adequate hommage to a setting that was once so successful. I'd rather see GH removed from the core books than have it continue its shadow life as a non-existing-non-supported core setting that it is at the moment. As long as GH is the core setting for D&D we will probably never see any new book or module that would be worth the name "Greyhawk" on the cover.

 

[Kesh]

I voted for Eberron. I'm of the camp that you can strip out what you don't like, but it's harder to "add on" the optional stuff later. Thus, I'd rather have Eberron as the main setting, and let DMs strip out the stuff they don't want for their own settings, or others.

 

[Faraer]

'No implied setting' isn't possible; even the most transparent ruleset implies things about setting, let alone one as detailed as D&D's. As ever, the designers will try to compromise between making things as flexible as possible and making the books evocative and redolent of 'D&D', because that's part of the game's appeal: it isn't just a set of mechanics for other people's fantasy.

The norms of the Realms and D&D are distant enough that forcing them together would benefit neither (the extent it happened in the 2001 FRCS was bad enough). I don't want the look of Eberron in core books, and it would detract from that setting's uniqueness as with the Realms. Assuming there isn't a detailed World of Greyhawk line, using it as the default setting helps keep it in people's minds, so I'd go for Greyhawk Light again.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Blackmoor was the original DnD setting. Why not bring it back for 4th Edition?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I voted for Eberron. I'm of the camp that you can strip out what you don't like, but it's harder to "add on" the optional stuff later. Thus, I'd rather have Eberron as the main setting, and let DMs strip out the stuff they don't want for their own settings, or others.

I think that the core rules should be free of exotic stuff as the very basic building blocks.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Blackmoor was the original DnD setting. Why not bring it back for 4th Edition?

Known World/Mystara/Blackmoor is my preference. *shrug* But after reading (and participating) in the "Why Dwarves Don't Sell" thread, it is clear some heads might explode to have a setting that clearly accepts sci-fi elements (crashed space ship F.S.S. Beagle, lasers) as the implied setting!

 

[jdrakeh]

Not giving use the write-ups severely limits D&D: Now you don't have any rules for those races.

I never said that they shouldn't provide rules for said races, only that doing so assumes certain setting realities by default.

It's D&D magic.

Exactly. If something is specific enough to be identified as belonging to one game system among thousands, even so far as that people refer to it by proper name (i.e., "D&D magic"), you can't very effectively argue that it makes no specific assumptions

Note that I've never advocated the removal of these things from D&D (as you seem to be suggesting). I've only pointed out (as have some other posters) that the inclusion of these things makes it impossible to have "no implied setting" -- because these things do exactly that (i.e., imply certain setting realities).