D&D (2024) Should There Be a Core Setting?

[R_J_K75]

Dripping hints if different settings in a core book is OK, I guess, especially since there's such a wealth of material over the years. But these should be examples of how to make a setting and customize ideas, not nailing in any kind of default.

This is exactly how I feel. Id prefer generic examples, ideas, etc but tying the core books to a setting to me seems limiting and may give the impression to new players that they need to buy in and play in that setting. OTOH I understand that there needs to be some catering to new players to give them guidance on how to develop adventures and campaigns.

 

[Ath-kethin]

tying the core books to a setting to me seems limiting and may give the impression to new players that they need to buy in and play in that setting.

It might seem limiting to us, but of course to a publisher who needs to sell books it's just the keys to the kingdom. Giving players the impression they need to buy more books/products is exactly how you sell more books and products.

It's the same with miniatures: implying that you need additional toys to play the game works great as a marketing strategy when, conveniently, you have a toy line to sell for that very purpose.

None of this is evil. It's just business, and a business needs to think that way to thrive. But the fact that I understand it doesn't mean I like it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I dont recall there being any mention of a core setting in the 1E or 2E core books besides named spells, but its been over 20 years since Ive read any of those and I could be mistaken. But I think it could be done. Just my opinion and its what I would want if I had my choice.

While a setting may not be explicitly mentioned, there are always setting implications. For example, the cleric class implies that there is some sort of deity or deities that invest divine power in chosen agents, and these deities oppose undead. Alignment implies that law and chaos and/or good and evil are tangible cosmic forces, and the paladin’s code of conduct implies a great deal about what is good and lawful. The names of different levels of classes carry a lot of setting implications, like the how the druid hierarchy works. The equipment lists imply the setting’s general level of technology. But yeah, no explicit default setting.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Alignment implies that law and chaos and/or good and evil are tangible cosmic forces, and the paladin’s code of conduct implies a great deal about what is good and lawful.

Alignment is dead, I'm sure this won't be an issue in our hypothetical 6e.

The names of different levels of classes carry a lot of setting implications, like the how the druid hierarchy works.

And this hasn't been a thing since 2nd.

The equipment lists imply the setting’s general level of technology. But yeah, no explicit default setting.

I would like to see tech levels (and perhaps magic levels) included in equipment lists.

 

[Charlaquin]

Alignment is dead, I'm sure this won't be an issue in our hypothetical 6e.

And this hasn't been a thing since 2nd.

Yes, I was responding to a claim that 1e and 2e didn’t have default settings.

 

[tetrasodium]

While a setting may not be explicitly mentioned, there are always setting implications. For example, the cleric class implies that there is some sort of deity or deities that invest divine power in chosen agents, and these deities oppose undead. Alignment implies that law and chaos and/or good and evil are tangible cosmic forces, and the paladin’s code of conduct implies a great deal about what is good and lawful. The names of different levels of classes carry a lot of setting implications, like the how the druid hierarchy works. The equipment lists imply the setting’s general level of technology. But yeah, no explicit default setting.

There are clerics in eberron where existence of the gods is explicitly unprovable by design. Darksun may not have clerics, but they do have elemental priests & whatever a gm decides to allow but what you are talking about (especially the underlined bits) Both of those settings take a wildly different spin on alignment than the one from FR & Greyhawk you are referencing. I'm not sure about undead in darksun, but it's quite te rabbit hole in eberron & I'm not even sure where to start on it because of the deity thing. We haven't even gotten into the role played by the SKs & The Draconic Prophecy vrs "deities that invest divine power in chosen agents either". And then there is Ravenloft & The Dark Powers...

All of your post is pretty much exemplifying how the core 5e books & core rules are FR First Last & Only. 5e's approach denies all of those other settings the tools they need to feel like the game fits the setting.

 

[Charlaquin]

There are clerics in eberron where existence of the gods is explicitly unprovable by design. Darksun may not have clerics, but they do have elemental priests & whatever a gm decides to allow but what you are talking about (especially the underlined bits) Both of those settings take a wildly different spin on alignment than the one from FR & Greyhawk you are referencing.

I'm not sure about undead in darksun, but it's quite te rabbit hole in eberron & I'm not even sure where to start on it because of the deity thing. We haven't even gotten into the role played by the SKs & The Draconic Prophecy vrs "deities that invest divine power in chosen agents either". And then there is Ravenloft & The Dark Powers...

So you’re saying those settings take a different approach from the default presentation? I agree. My argument was only that 1e and 2e did indeed have implied default settings.

All of your post is pretty much exemplifying how the core 5e books & core rules are FR First Last & Only. 5e's approach denies all of those other settings the tools they need to feel like the game fits the setting.

I was talking about 1e and 2e.

 

[Marc_C]

If it's Greyhawk (because of named artifacts, named spells and other iconic Gaxyan stuff) then yes. Otherwise no. Just publish separate setting books.

 

[Scribe]

6e should have a core setting.
That core 6e setting should be designed from scratch.
Official settings and playstyles should be the 6e core setting with modifications and name changes.

I agree with this, but it will sell less because people want things to continue. 5e rebounded in part by saying 'we are still the same thing you had in 3e!' in terms of the setting.

I 100% agree that a new setting needs to happen to detach from all the things Wizards seems to want to leave behind, but I do believe it will sell less.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I dont recall there being any mention of a core setting in the 1E or 2E core books besides named spells, but its been over 20 years since Ive read any of those and I could be mistaken. But I think it could be done. Just my opinion and its what I would want if I had my choice.

There were plenty of implied setting elements in the DMG and MM. D&D is not generic fantasy and it never has been.