D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Worlds of D&D

[Plaguescarred]

Worlds of D&D
Wandering Monsters
By James Wyatt

Each campaign setting presents a different world-building challenge, and the multiverse has brought them all together in the past. James explores the multiverse and gives us a glimpse into a potential future, then asks you questions about what you think.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I think the core rules of D&D should focus on a multiverse such as Spelljammer/Planescape. I have used planar travel in past campaigns while playing in the Forgotten Realms, Planescape and Ravenloft settings - i think its really cool and put an even bigger sense of grandeur in the D&D world as ''there is something else out there''. I use hill and mountain dwarves IMC (gold and shield in FR) and think all dwarves of a given subrace should be identical rulewise and only differenciated by their different culture like James presented it.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think the multiverse is only one manner to begin world building for a D&D campaign. I agree there should be a starting point and everything that follows an extrapolation, the building blocks of creation, leading to the final location of highest detail. The customary setting of the board for the moment the game actually begins. But I would steer as far from generic examples as I could. Of course use traditional D&D designs from every era, but make them specific and evocative, something that speaks to a larger, fully connected setting where your examples hold ongoing context. This isn't to sell settings, or not just sell settings really, but to showcase world creation rules as a toolbox for the DM to select from. Not all campaigns need the D&D multiverse, but I expect most will have some take on it.

So, "I think the rules should discuss the multiverse, but consistently draw examples from multiple, specific settings."

 

[Mercurius]

Hmm...the timing of this makes me wonder if Mr. Wyatt reads this forum as there have been a couple threads, such as one started by yours truly, about settings for D&D Next.

Anyhow, I like it. It seems they looked at the vast wealth of settings over the decades and said, "Let's make use of this and not just throw it away." Its also a way to incorporate and acknowledge "lesser" (in popularity and legacy) settings into 5E, without having to give them full treatments.

It also adds some flavor to the core rulebooks simply by discussing different worlds. I'm reminded of the stories of Lord Dunsany, who evoked a sense of wonder and mystery simply through the names of fantastical places. "shield dwarves of Faerûn" is a bit more interesting than "D&D hill dwarves." It also provides pointers on how to differentiate your own setting from the core rules, how to fluff it up.

I also like the idea of providing a deep interconnectedness between all D&D worlds, published and homebrew. Individual DMs can make of it what they want, but it gives everyone the sense that we're all playing D&D, all in the same multiverse, which actually legitimizes our own individual styles and takes on things.

 

[delericho]

I'm very glad that they're recognising that so many DMs will homebrew - ever since the announcement of 5e I've been a little wary of the emphasis placed on Forgotten Realms.

I really don't see why they feel the need to lock down any single form for the cosmology - honestly, why do they need to decide whether there is one prime Material Plane or many? After all, pretty much every DM is going to make their own decision anyway, if only be default. So, unless they're planning crossover products (and, please, no!), then why do they need an answer?

I would also much rather see subraces disappear, except for extreme outliers such as the drow (who are really distinct enough to be considered a separate race). There's no real reason they can't model differences in a rather more as hoc manner, by offering alternate racial features, racial feats, or racial prestige classes (or the relevant 5e equivalents).

 

[delericho]

Hmm...the timing of this makes me wonder if Mr. Wyatt reads this forum as there have been a couple threads, such as one started by yours truly, about settings for D&D Next.

That did indeed cross my mind.

 

[God]

This makes me happy:

"All these worlds share characteristics, but each world is set apart by its own history and cultures, distinctive monsters and races, fantastic geography, ancient dungeons, and scheming villains. Some races have unusual traits in different worlds ... Some worlds feature races unknown in other worlds ... Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should always check with your DM about any variant, additional, or prohibited classes, races, and other character options, or any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."

The "everything and the kitchen sink" approach WotC took in late 3E and 4E, as well as the entitled "my special snowflake must be allowed in your campaign" mentality overtaking the Paizo boards right now both drive me absolutely crazy. Guess what, kids, there are no kitsune or kender on Athas. The halflings ate them.

 

[steeldragons]

This makes me happy:

"All these worlds share characteristics, but each world is set apart by its own history and cultures, distinctive monsters and races, fantastic geography, ancient dungeons, and scheming villains. Some races have unusual traits in different worlds ... Some worlds feature races unknown in other worlds ... Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should always check with your DM about any variant, additional, or prohibited classes, races, and other character options, or any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."

[Black emphasis by [MENTION=4038]God[/MENTION] , but just as well for me. Red emphasis mine.]

And me as well. This makes me VERY happy. Whether I have any interest in incorporating or using any sort of multiverse or planes-traveling in my adventures...THIS has been a statement waited and looked for since the beginning of the 5e material.

Love it!

The "everything and the kitchen sink" approach WotC took in late 3E and 4E, as well as the entitled "my special snowflake must be allowed in your campaign" mentality overtaking the Paizo boards right now both drive me absolutely crazy. Guess what, kids, there are no kitsune or kender on Athas. The halflings ate them.

This is really two statements. To be fair, the "everything but the kitchen sink" was alive and well, and in some cases desired, at many tables [I'm sure] in 1 and 2e. I know every new book or supplement that came out [since, as we all know, there was no internet back then. We were just hammering out PCs on our stone tablets ] in the late 1e/early2e era, I must have heard at least one player say "I wanna be this/that/the other."

As for the dreaded and lamentable SSS ["Special Snowflake Syndrome". It is a medical condition! Lookit up. ] That, I'll grant, IME was more of a 2e, with the class-specific "kits" splat books and race books and setting books, onward thing. But it kinda began with 1e UA and allowing, ya know, drow and svirf PCs...OH if we knew then... [Thanks Salvatore! DYING IN A FIRE IS TOO GOOD FOR YA, DRIZZ'T!]. If it is now infecting Paizo, that is very unfortunate to hear.

But I would be cautious to not conflate the "kitchen sink" and the "special snowflake." One is, potentially, good free-range fun fer the whole family [i.e. "table"]. The other is evil incarnate.

 

[DMZ2112]

Hmm...the timing of this makes me wonder if Mr. Wyatt reads this forum

I can't speak for Wyatt specifically, but the team in general pays attention.

Guess what, kids, there are no kitsune or kender on Athas. The halflings ate them.

Joke's on you; Athasian halflings actually /are/ kender. Where is your lack of gods now?

--

Pretty early on, we agreed that the core rules for D&D Next had to acknowledge the existence of all the worlds of D&D—not just the Forgotten Realms we’ve been talking a lot about, but also Greyhawk, Eberron, Krynn, Athas, Mystara, Ravenloft—and, most importantly, the thousands and thousands of worlds created by DMs for their own games. So we’re writing from that perspective,

Can you guys hear me cheering from where you are?

I just need to say that this paragraph literally makes me weak in the knees:

As a mountain dwarf, you have keen senses, deep intuition, and a mastery of armor made from the metals mined in the mountains. You’re probably on the tall side (for a dwarf), and tend toward lighter coloration. The shield dwarves of northern Faerûn, as well as the ruling Hylar clan and the noble Daewar clan of Ansalon, are mountain dwarves.

You can't just do that, Wyatt; you can't just talk about Toril and Krynn like they're parts of the same region. I had things to get done today.

Also, this unified subrace idea is great. And not at all because it implies that all mountain dwarves came from the same place originally. No, sir. That is not a thing /at all/. There is nothing to see here; carry on.

 

[Alzrius]

Quite frankly, I'm thrilled at the notion of more attention being given to the classic worlds of D&D, particularly as part of one large meta-setting. I'm glad to see that option is the frontrunner in the poll.

Insofar as the subraces question goes, I do like the idea of subraces (for demihumans), but I'm iffy on the question of the same subraces across myriad worlds, or having each world have distinct subraces. I could go either way there.