Mechanics of Revived Settings; your thoughts?

Remathilis · Apr 8, 2018

cbwjm said:
I think that's rather restrictive for the designers if they are required to include every class or every race, or even just the common ones, in every setting they put out. They shouldn't have to do away with a great theme for a setting just to fit every option in the PHB into the setting.

But that's the restriction that the game itself puts on them; they are designing for Dungeons & Dragons (TM) not Generic Fantasy Simulator RPG. They are restricted to trying to make each setting still reflect the core game as much as possible; the era of each setting having its own character creation rules died with TSR. Settings should be compatible with the D&D game and assumptions, even when they change or break them.

And honestly, I don't see the problem; 3e Ravenloft found places for all race classes and races (though half-orc was refluffed) and 3e Dragonlance found similar space for all the classes and most of the races (again, giving substitute or new races to replace those unavailable). 3e and 4e Dark Sun did the exact same; all the classes are mentioned, and most races are covered (and new races cover the ones that aren't). At this point, there is no official setting that has been printed since 2000 that didn't allow all the 3e phb classes, and the 5e phb only added 1 class and 2 races to that list.

Either way, I expect that when WotC does do another setting, it will use the 3e model and find space for all the PHB classes and most, if not all, races. They may cheat a few in (kender subrace for halfling, calling half-orcs calibans or dragonborn dray) and give more than a few the "these are rare, check with your DM" treatment, but I'm certain that they will be there. It's in WotCs best interests to do so.

Parmandur · Apr 9, 2018

Remathilis said:
But that's the restriction that the game itself puts on them; they are designing for Dungeons & Dragons (TM) not Generic Fantasy Simulator RPG. They are restricted to trying to make each setting still reflect the core game as much as possible; the era of each setting having its own character creation rules died with TSR. Settings should be compatible with the D&D game and assumptions, even when they change or break them.

And honestly, I don't see the problem; 3e Ravenloft found places for all race classes and races (though half-orc was refluffed) and 3e Dragonlance found similar space for all the classes and most of the races (again, giving substitute or new races to replace those unavailable). 3e and 4e Dark Sun did the exact same; all the classes are mentioned, and most races are covered (and new races cover the ones that aren't). At this point, there is no official setting that has been printed since 2000 that didn't allow all the 3e phb classes, and the 5e phb only added 1 class and 2 races to that list.

Either way, I expect that when WotC does do another setting, it will use the 3e model and find space for all the PHB classes and most, if not all, races. They may cheat a few in (kender subrace for halfling, calling half-orcs calibans or dragonborn dray) and give more than a few the "these are rare, check with your DM" treatment, but I'm certain that they will be there. It's in WotCs best interests to do so.

This. Also, they have been reluctant to expand options, probably for precisely this reason: makes it easier to Port the "core package."

Paul Farquhar · Apr 10, 2018

Remathilis said:
But that's the restriction that the game itself puts on them; they are designing for Dungeons & Dragons (TM) not Generic Fantasy Simulator RPG. They are restricted to trying to make each setting still reflect the core game as much as possible; the era of each setting having its own character creation rules died with TSR. Settings should be compatible with the D&D game and assumptions, even when they change or break them.

And honestly, I don't see the problem; 3e Ravenloft found places for all race classes and races (though half-orc was refluffed) and 3e Dragonlance found similar space for all the classes and most of the races (again, giving substitute or new races to replace those unavailable). 3e and 4e Dark Sun did the exact same; all the classes are mentioned, and most races are covered (and new races cover the ones that aren't). At this point, there is no official setting that has been printed since 2000 that didn't allow all the 3e phb classes, and the 5e phb only added 1 class and 2 races to that list.

Either way, I expect that when WotC does do another setting, it will use the 3e model and find space for all the PHB classes and most, if not all, races. They may cheat a few in (kender subrace for halfling, calling half-orcs calibans or dragonborn dray) and give more than a few the "these are rare, check with your DM" treatment, but I'm certain that they will be there. It's in WotCs best interests to do so.

Given that they have not done any campaign settings for 5e yet, it's impossible to say what they are, or are not doing.

Nor is it possible to say what "restrictions" the core game puts on them, because the sample size is one. Which parts of the game are "core" and which are not? IMO they really don't even need to stick to fantasy. If you look in the DMG, even things like core attributes are up for grabs - they suggest two others - and there are basic rules for gunpowder and SF weapons. That's in a "core" rulebook.

If their idea of a "campaign setting" is just a list of countries, kingdoms and histories in a pseudo-medieval setting, they can keep it - I'm not interested. If it's Metamorphis Alpha 5e, then I'm pre-ordering immediately. Pathfinder did it successfully, D&D can do it too.

Consider Spelljammer. You can argue that every race is in Spelljammer, and you would be correct. However, every race does not exist on every world in the Spelljammer universe. There isn't much point in seeking out new life and new civilisations if every world has the same life and civilisations! Having different races is one of the key requirements to making a campaign setting distinct.

Coroc · Apr 10, 2018

[MENTION=6906155]Paul Farquhar[/MENTION] I think [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] does not differ between fluff aka examples of commonly used or rarely used ingredients for D&D: (tiefling race, sci fi laserweapon) and real mechanics: attributes rolls etc.

Also in the Core books there is several material stated explicitely as being optional, even Gnome race for PCs.
Also there is a heavy recommendation to change every rule that you and/or your Players do not like in your homebrew.
Apart from organized play there is no need at all for any fluff rule (liek playable race) to apply in a given setting, only if you make mechanical differences in your homebrew then it becomes important to communicate These and be aware of how they might afflict game Balance.

There are numerous other examples where These Basics apply even if you stay true to the core rules.
e.g.
-druid summoning (any animal? No, the DM has the last word),
-Magic items (not needed for Balance, would [MENTION=6906155]Paul Farquhar[/MENTION] insist at least 1 of each Magic item exists in any given game world?),
-Magicians spells, ok a wizard may Chose 2 spells per Level, but is it granted somewhere he finds scrolls for all other spells he desires to inscribe them for a complete spellbook?
-Is it also the plight of Wizrads to include every Monster in the Monster Manual into every game world? that might become difficult, with water dwellers on Athas.

etc. etc. It is a question of interpreting the philosophy and intent in a way but i still feel better without "everything goes must apply to all worlds"

There might be a good game idea to have some PC who is not regular appear in another world, heck, maybe a whole Group of "Aliens" but that is just one idea for a campaign and not the Standard imho.

Remathilis · Apr 10, 2018

Paul Farquhar said:
Given that they have not done any campaign settings for 5e yet, it's impossible to say what they are, or are not doing.

Nor is it possible to say what "restrictions" the core game puts on them, because the sample size is one. Which parts of the game are "core" and which are not? IMO they really don't even need to stick to fantasy. If you look in the DMG, even things like core attributes are up for grabs - they suggest two others - and there are basic rules for gunpowder and SF weapons. That's in a "core" rulebook.

They are working on a campaign setting, it's called the D&D multiverse. I imagine Tome of Foes is going to give you a lot more info on it.

That said, we can reasonably infer what WotC might do based on previous 3e and 4e updates to earlier settings, which have nearly all erred on the side of inclusion. I don't see why that trend would reverse itself now.

Paul Farquhar said:
If their idea of a "campaign setting" is just a list of countries, kingdoms and histories in a pseudo-medieval setting, they can keep it - I'm not interested. If it's Metamorphis Alpha 5e, then I'm pre-ordering immediately. Pathfinder did it successfully, D&D can do it too.

You're conflating D&D with the d20 system. D&D is a vaguely pseudo-medieval fantasy game, d20 is a rules set that can accommodate a variety of games and genres. You can't play costumed superheroes with D&D, you can with d20. D20 has supported scifi, fantasy, spycraft, horror, superheroes and more; D&D supports D&D.

I get where the confusion lies; in the past the term D&D was used whenever TSR wanted to make a game that was compatible. Which is why settings like Masque of the Red Death was labeled D&D despite being set on 1890s Earth. Luckily, we can not defirenciate between the world of D&D and the mechanics of it.

The only question is; should Dark Sun be D&D or just d20?

Paul Farquhar said:
Consider Spelljammer. You can argue that every race is in Spelljammer, and you would be correct. However, every race does not exist on every world in the Spelljammer universe. There isn't much point in seeking out new life and new civilisations if every world has the same life and civilisations! Having different races is one of the key requirements to making a campaign setting distinct.

Not every setting needs to be a reinvention of the wheel, lest you think Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms are the same setting. Nor does new life invalidate the old; the kender of Krynn and the warforged of Eberron are unique to those settings (and nobody is suggesting they become core and on every world).

My point is simple; if you are looking for WotC to justify banning paladins in Dark Sun or warlocks in Dragonlance, I think your going to be disappointed. I think the desire to sell Player's Handbooks will override setting purity.

lowkey13 · Apr 10, 2018

*Deleted by user*

Remathilis · Apr 10, 2018

lowkey13 said:
The multiverse is not a setting. Sure, you can adventure in the multiverse, or go between settings. Some people enjoy the whole "planescape" or "spelljammer" settings; but when people discuss settings, by and large they are discussing particular settings within the multiverse.

Jeremy Crawford diagrees with you.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/558363349549711360?s=19

lowkey13 said:
I disagree. Saying that 3e and 4e updates are the base is, at best, misleading, given that 5e has arguably ignored the 4e updates, and has been unclear on what (if anything) was incorporated from 3e. It's more of a "greatest hits" from OSR-3e, with a few sprinkles of 4e.

I would be less shocked if they used an early 80s GH than, say, anything after that. But maybe they won't. Who knows? That said, I don't think we can reasonably infer this.

I'm not convinced you've read 5e. It most certainly it built in the bones of 3e and incorporates elements of 4e in it (tieflings, dragonborn and warlocks being the obvious ones). Large amounts of 5e have direct lineage from 3e and 4e.

lowkey13 said:
Again, no. This makes no sense to me.

The d20 system wasn't TSR, at all. The d20 system was made by WoTC. Period. TSR would often use semi-compatible systems (such as Gamma World or Boot Hill) and have conversions. But TSR never had the d20 system. And this also has nothing to do with the DMG, which isn't the D20 system.

TSR is dead, and so is it's business practices. WotC has owned and run D&D for 18 years now and will do for the foreseeable future. I think what WotC has done is far more important than what TSR did.

You want a Metamophisis Alpha? That it's going to be a d20 game, not a D&D setting.

lowkey13 said:
I appreciated your point of view, but reasonable people might disagree. If every setting has the same "stuff" (classes, races, etc.), then it's nothing more than different countries in the Forgotten Realms. The genius in most settings is the way that they play against (and subvert) core rules and expectations. People like DL, Eberron, DS, and (to a much lesser extent) GH for the ways in which they are not FR and not "core" D&D.

Forgotten Realms uses all the core classes in the PHB.
Greyhawk uses all the core classes in the PHB.
Dragonlance uses all the core classes in the PHB.
Eberron uses all the core classes in the PHB.
Ravenloft uses all the core classes in the PHB.

By your logic, Forgotten Realms = Greyhawk = Dragonlance = Eberron = Ravenloft.

Nevermind that each could have unique subclasses, different places in society, or even minor tweaks. Nevermind that they can all fit in the setting with only minor adjustments. Nevermind the fact the DM can still remove them from his version of the setting. If you allow all the core classes in the PHB, you're playing Forgotten Realms.

lowkey13 said:
Variations are good. Every setting doesn't have to re-invent the wheel, but I would certainly want each setting to reflect what is different about it.

Variations are good. You can achieve variations without banning large chunks of the PHB. Cutting isn't the only way to make a setting. If you want to run your home game on Faerun using only human fighters, you're welcome to. But the official d settings published should attempt to use as much of the PHB options as they can.

lowkey13 · Apr 10, 2018

*Deleted by user*

Paul Farquhar · Apr 10, 2018

As [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] says, D20 was specifically a 3rd edition thing. It didn't exist before, and is no longer supported by WotC. Thus, Metamorphosis Alpha, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Dark Sun etc where not "D20" (although D20 versions may have been made), and anything produced by WotC henceforth is also not D20. So far as WotC are concerned D20 is dead.

Personally, I don't care what they call it, I just want something - anything - that doesn't have ******* elves and pseudo-medievalism. But from a commercial perspective, putting D&D 5e on the packaging makes the most sense.