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

[doctorbadwolf]

Why on earth are you so defensive about this?

On this, I literally have no idea what you’re on about.

Correcting a misunderstanding isn’t defensive.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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’ve done no such thing. I’ve corrected what implied setting means in relation to rpg rules.

For some reason, you’ve made it into a drawn out argument over semantics, repeatedly refusing to just read my answer as written, or clarify your question with an understanding of the common terms I am using.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

OK, then you're using a very different definition of the word setting then I am. Because to me, that's not at all a setting. Those are just rules and the things that go with the rules, not a setting. Settings require flavor and specific lore.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OK, then you're using a very different definition of the word setting then I am. Because to me, that's not at all a setting. Those are just rules and the things that go with the rules, not a setting. Settings require flavor and specific lore.

It’s what the term “implied setting” means in TTRPG discussions.

In 20 years discussing games online I have never before seen anyone have a problem with this usage.

And like…a lot of what you insist are just rules are in fact both rules and worldbuilding lore.



Beyond that, and back to the point at which this exchange began, D&D 5e implies setting in the text of races, classes, backgrounds, and even some scattered feats, not to mention magic items, what is and isn’t listed as adventuring gear, weapons, and armor, etc, not to mention stuff that is pure flavor text.

That’s what I’m talking about. Stuff like how a subclass might have enough built in theme that it implies the existence of related organizations, and the like. Tying magic to a cosmology implies a cosmology, obviously. The goal, for me, would be to increase the “flavor” of player options.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I dont know about system, but give me a Thundarr the Barbarian RPG.

 

[Faolyn]

I dont know about system, but give me a Thundarr the Barbarian RPG.

Have you tried Fate Accelerated Masters of Umdaar?

 

[Minigiant]

Beyond that, and back to the point at which this exchange began, D&D 5e implies setting in the text of races, classes, backgrounds, and even some scattered feats, not to mention magic items, what is and isn’t listed as adventuring gear, weapons, and armor, etc, not to mention stuff that is pure flavor text.

That’s what I’m talking about. Stuff like how a subclass might have enough built in theme that it implies the existence of related organizations, and the like. Tying magic to a cosmology implies a cosmology, obviously. The goal, for me, would be to increase the “flavor” of player options.

An nonOGL 5e would of course require accepting and supporting tropes that the OGL and D&D ignored or doesn't create pathways for.

Such as nonhumaniod races and no spellcasting science and magical classes. Or even a base assumption of firearms and non-racial languages.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

An nonOGL 5e would of course require accepting and supporting tropes that the OGL and D&D ignored or doesn't create pathways for.

Such as nonhumaniod races and no spellcasting science and magical classes. Or even a base assumption of firearms and non-racial languages.

It wouldn’t require that, but it would benefit from it, sure. But DnD’s tropes and themes are much too generic to worry about the overlap.

 

[Aldarc]

I dont know about system, but give me a Thundarr the Barbarian RPG.

Barbarians of the Ruined Earth

 

[DarkCrisis]

Barbarians of the Ruined Earth

Nice! Grabbed a copy . Looks awesome. Thank you!