Xeviat
Hero
I'm down with that feeling too. Race descriptions would be the hardest thing to do without a setting, though. Even the PHB assumes things about the world in the race section.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
D&D 4E D&D Fluff Wars: 4e vs 5e
I'm down with that feeling too. Race descriptions would be the hardest thing to do without a setting, though. Even the PHB assumes things about the world in the race section.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MechaTarrasque
Hero
I think that since the end of 3.5, WotC has focused its efforts on producing products that appeal to new and casual/busy with the real world players/DM's. Once that became a priority, the idea of setting neutral died, and it isn't coming back until more people are playing D&D than Call of Duty. It is a safe assumption that new and casual DM's either don't have the time or ability to homebrew, so putting everything in a setting works better for them. That setting doesn't have to be FR, though.
[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] I believe 3e did it. 2e did it – it encouraged to create your own world and you perfectly can build your own cosmology, but all published settings ended up using Spelljammer and Planescape.
5e does not, however, having set the default setting as FR. [MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] I think the core 4 races are generic enough to be in any setting. The other races can be presented as plug-and-play – like it, use it; don’t like it, don’t use it. [MENTION=6801226]MechaTarrasque[/MENTION] that’s why published settings should exist. They should be separate from the core rules, however.
5e does not, however, having set the default setting as FR. [MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] I think the core 4 races are generic enough to be in any setting. The other races can be presented as plug-and-play – like it, use it; don’t like it, don’t use it. [MENTION=6801226]MechaTarrasque[/MENTION] that’s why published settings should exist. They should be separate from the core rules, however.
Last edited:
MechaTarrasque
Hero
That completely defeats the convenience argument: you have widget A and slots B-G, and you have to get another book to figure out which slot to stick widget A into....that is a fine plan if the customer you are most interested in catering to is interested in playing with slots. If your preferred customer only cares about the fastest way to get widget A into a working slot, then you only mention slot B in the book everyone is supposed to have, and the less preferred customer is left to his/her own self to figure out the fun of slots C-G.
Paizo believes their preferred customers like to play with slots (thus the core books are setting neutral). WotC believes their preferred customers don't (thus they picked a setting). You also might notice that neither company went "all in" on their strategy: Paizo produces Golorian-specific content for people who want a set up world, and WotC goes out of its way to say "feel free to homebrew" and gives advise on how to modify the content for their other settings.
For what it is worth, WotC might be wrong, and "a bird in the hand" might be right. But until they think so, I don't think there is much hope for setting neutral D&D stuff.
MechaTarrasque
Hero
Sorry, dupe post
Last edited:
Parmandur
Book-Friend
5E is pretty Setting neutral, or at least as setting neutral as any previous book. Pathfinder core still assumes certain things about Elves, Vancian casting, divinity, etc. that are hardly setting neutral: GURPS or FATE are setting neutral, D&D/Pathfinder never have been strictly speaking.
MechaTarrasque
Hero
That is a more stringent definition of setting neutral than I think Igwilly was going for. On a scale of 1 to 10 (where 10 is the most neutral), I think this is more of a 3 or 4: no named setting, no maps, no cosmology, no default pantheon, etc., but the Tolkien races are assumed, there are spells, standard classes, ect. still stand.
The Human Target
Adventurer
4e generally has much better fluff.
Not necessarily because any specific component is better, but because 4e asked the question "Is this bit of fluff actually interesting and useful in play?"
That's a great question.
Not necessarily because any specific component is better, but because 4e asked the question "Is this bit of fluff actually interesting and useful in play?"
That's a great question.
Imaro
Legend
That's a subjective question...
