D&D General What Would You Base A non-OGL 5e-alike Game On? (+)

[doctorbadwolf]

What on earth are you talking about?


Yes, it is irrelevant because my question was whether or not this hypothetical non-OGL 5e-alike was going to have a setting in or be generic. I never even said that having, or not having, an inherent setting was good or bad. I merely said that saying that magic that revolved around tarot cards or clockwork or things like that implied an inherent setting, not a generic rule set.

You see awfully defensive about it for some reason.


Really? So, tell me about the inherent setting that's in D&D, in depth. What's the world's name? What are the countries' names, and what are their relationships with each other? Who are the gods of this inherent setting, and what are their religions like? Who are the warlock patrons, and how do they and the various religions get along? What's the tech level? How much magic is there, in this inherent setting, and how well is it integrated into everyday life? What do the various class archetypes mean in the setting? How do the various races get along?

Because I guarantee that your answer to those questions is going to be very different than anyone else's answers, even just using the PHB, DMG, and MM, with the only thing they have in common is "sorta but not entirely medieval fantasy." And those differences will only get more and more different when other books are brought in. And that shows that the setting is not implied.

So you’re just ignoring 99% of what I’ve already said. Wonderful.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Perhaps the issue here is that you are translating “implied” to mean “default” or “assumed”, and assuming that “setting” means “a specific published setting”?

To clarify, implied is simply being used to refer to an implication. “Y+X implies Y”.

Setting here means “an element or elements of worldbuilding, lore, or other information that tell us how the world works”.

Since you seem to have missed it the first time, @Faolyn

 

[Aldarc]

That a given person ignores something does not indicate that said thing is not implied.

And those game rules imply elements of setting. If it tells us part of how the world works, it implies setting.

First, that means that any system with magic has an implied setting. How magic works is absolutely part of a setting.

Second, D&D spells, annd Spellcasting, are very specific. Tasha’s Hideous Laughter implies the existence (past or present) or an arcanist named Tasha, and further implies that spells can be created or invented, and thus sometimes get named after someone.

The mechanics of banishment, certain warlock patron abilities, even the text of Divine Sense and Detect Evil and Good, imply that beings come from other planes of existence, and that their nature is tied to the planes and to ideas of Good and Evil in some way.

Perhaps the issue here is that you are translating “implied” to mean “default” or “assumed”, and assuming that “setting” means “a specific published setting”?

To clarify, implied is simply being used to refer to an implication. “Y+X implies Y”.

Setting here means “an element or elements of worldbuilding, lore, or other information that tell us how the world works”.

My point is admittedly out of the scope of creating a "non-OGL-5e alike game," but this is a problem I have sometimes had when homebrewing worlds with D&D's assumptions, particularly about magic. The mere existence of super high magic of D&D or even what some spells can do creates certain assumptions about settings. Back in the 3e days, this was honestly the biggest reason why I began gravitating to other systems with different magic systems: e.g., True 20. True 20, for example, had a Powers/Arcana system that made it easier to curate the magic of a game world.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My point is admittedly out of the scope of creating a "non-OGL-5e alike game," but this is a problem I have sometimes had when homebrewing worlds with D&D's assumptions, particularly about magic. The mere existence of super high magic of D&D or even what some spells can do creates certain assumptions about settings. Back in the 3e days, this was honestly the biggest reason why I began gravitating to other systems with different magic systems: e.g., True 20. True 20, for example, had a Powers/Arcana system that made it easier to curate the magic of a game world.

Absolutely. In my own game, you’ve got 12 magic skills, and you can invent or learn spells that simplify complex magical skill uses. Eg, training in fireball so that it is no longer an improvised move.

It really helps, and can translate to other thematic setups easily.

 

[Faolyn]

Since you seem to have missed it the first time, @Faolyn

Sure. OK. So what is the implied world of 5e, and what is the implied world of your ideas? Because in my mind, "here's a generic way that magic works" doesn't assume any setting or worldbuilding, whereas "magic works with the tarot, constellations, and other such things" does.

Why on earth are you so defensive about this?

 

[jmartkdr2]

If I could get the license, a semi-popular fantasy anime or jrpg. Genshin would be aiming to high, maybe something like Granblue Fantasy (which was big enough a game to get an anime adapptation.) There's a lot of options, and if you build it right you could even make it easy to switch licenses or make different lines compatable.

 

[DMZ2112]

Why on earth are you so defensive about this?

Please don't resort to gaslighting. @doctorbadwolf might be frustrated, but I think that would be understandable for either of you when you are talking past each other so completely. Maybe it's time to just let this one go before someone actually does start taking it personally.

 

[Faolyn]

Please don't resort to gaslighting. @doctorbadwolf might be frustrated, but I think that would be understandable for either of you when you are talking past each other so completely. Maybe it's time to just let this one go before someone actually does start taking it personally.

I'm not gaslighting. I am genuinely confused about why my question of "will this 5e-alike be generic or have a built-in setting" has created such a push-back from them.

Because--to reiterate--I never said that either approach was bad or good. Doctorbadwolf is acting (or at least seems to me to be acting) like I had gone out of my way to insult their ideas.

 

[DMZ2112]

I'm not gaslighting. I am genuinely confused about why my question of "will this 5e-alike be generic or have a built-in setting" has created such a push-back from them.

Because--to reiterate--I never said that either approach was bad or good. Doctorbadwolf is acting (or at least seems to me to be acting) like I had gone out of my way to insult their ideas.

I'm sure you didn't intend to, I'm just pointing out that accusing the opposition of unwarranted personal investment is escalatory and asking you not to do it, because I was enjoying this thread.

I am not picking up on anyone being defensive. You both just seem frustrated that the other isn't listening. What either of you does with that information is up to you, but I posit that consensus or compromise seem unlikely at this stage.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure. OK. So what is the implied world of 5e, and what is the implied world of your ideas? Because in my mind, "here's a generic way that magic works" doesn't assume any setting or worldbuilding, whereas "magic works with the tarot, constellations, and other such things" does.

Why on earth are you so defensive about this?

You…are still…

Okay, I will try again.

The term “implied setting” does not refer to a specific published or fully realized setting. It means that the mechanics and rules of the game imply things that then create worldbuilding (ie setting) assumptions.

Or in other words;

The rules of D&D imply that certain things exist in a D&D setting, not the D&D setting.


For a concrete example, the fact that the Summon XYZ spell describe different temperaments of the things they summon imolies both that, in any D&D world that isn’t being houseruled to not include normal core elements, those creatures are part of the “world”, and that they have those temperaments reliably enough that you can count on being able to summon one of that temperament.

Another example that is perhaps more subtle is how magic works. There are schools of magic and not all casters can access all of them, with degrees of access in between.

D&D objectively has an implied setting. This is only remotely controversial if you insist on using the term different from everyone else.