D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[Corinnguard]

Settings in D&D have always been defined by mechanics.

The question is by how much and which aspect of the setting gets defined by the mechanics. AFAIK, magic use in 3e D&D was one aspect that got defined by the mechanics. Not sure if it is the same story in 5e. For instance, back in 3e, the casting of certain types of spells were heightened, diminished or didn't work at all depending on which of Eberron's moons was waxing or waning, or which plane you were visiting in Planescape.

 

[mamba]

Heck, look at all the hoops they had to jump through to bring Dragonlance into 5e. Practically had to rewrite every single element of the setting from the ground up. Clerics from races other than humans??? You never saw that in Dragonlance because the rules didn't permit it. Magic Users that weren't humans or elves? Impossible. A Dwarven wizard in the Tower of High Sorcery?

They took Dragonlance canon out behind the barn and put a gun in its ear.

eh, they took the irrelevant parts and changed them

The history of Krynn is still the same, the map is still the same, the war is still taking place.

They shaved the mustaches off the knights and expanded the membership in the Towers of High Sorcery to include spell casters other than Wizards that were added since.

The setting is the same, but allowing for the changes since 2e. Nothing of relevance was lost.

 

[Remathilis]

Heck, look at all the hoops they had to jump through to bring Dragonlance into 5e. Practically had to rewrite every single element of the setting from the ground up. Clerics from races other than humans??? You never saw that in Dragonlance because the rules didn't permit it. Magic Users that weren't humans or elves? Impossible. A Dwarven wizard in the Tower of High Sorcery?

They took Dragonlance canon out behind the barn and put a gun in its ear.

You know, as I get older, I find myself less and less tolerant of continuity. In everything. Comics, TV, video games and ttprg settings. I hold that if you are doing something interesting and holding to the spirit, the small details don't matter.

I was never a Dragonlance fan, so my knowledge was casual and via osmosis. Things like knights with mustaches I thought was a joke when I first heard it, not some deep seated lore element. For me, who the Eff cares? That's not what makes the Knights of Solomnia interesting. An ancient order of knights in decline because of past failures is interesting. Facial hair is not.

Life is too short to concern yourself with the details of canon. When Doctor Who recently included Richard E Grant's face amongst the Doctors (he played a short lived version of the 9th Doctor right before the reboot was announced) I didn't scream how the Shalka Doctor is not canon nor did I wonder how he fits in the timeline. I went "oh, that's a deep cut Easter egg" and moved on.

So no, none of the stuff you mentioned was enough to put a gun to Dragonlance's ear. If Dragonlance's identity is so fragile we need to rely on the racial composition of it's priesthood and the facial hair of its knights to differentiate it, then maybe it wasn't as unique as it seemed.

 

[Maxperson]

The assumption of the rules is that the setting is independent of the rules. And that is achieved by assuming player characters are exceptional and what they can do (and what they look like) does not reflect the rest of the population.

With regard to class, yes. Racial abilities are shared by the entire race. PCs and NPCs are no different in that regard.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, quite possibly. I haven't really thought about it that much, so, it's entirely possible. To be honest, I couldn't tell you anything about Eberron, it's completely passed me by. So, I'll take your word for it.

But, a 2024 setting, just like Eberron, would actually make sense. The idea that settings are built system agnostic is a point I strongly disagree with. Every single thing about Greyhawk is DIRECTLY taken straight from the mechanics. The mechanics defined the setting to such a huge degree. Same as Forgotten Realms. Settings are very, very much not system agnostic.

Heck, look at all the hoops they had to jump through to bring Dragonlance into 5e. Practically had to rewrite every single element of the setting from the ground up. Clerics from races other than humans??? You never saw that in Dragonlance because the rules didn't permit it. Magic Users that weren't humans or elves? Impossible. A Dwarven wizard in the Tower of High Sorcery?

They took Dragonlance canon out behind the barn and put a gun in its ear.

So tell me again how mechanics don't form settings. Or, maybe you could explain to me why the Circle of Eight are all human. Name three dwarven archmages in the Greyhawk boxed set. Take a look at all the hoops they had to jump through to make a Conan setting for D&D. They had to break rules all over the place. Name me three elven High Priests from the Greybox set for Forgotten Realms.

Settings in D&D have always been defined by mechanics.

As far as I can tell only setting specific mechanics like defiling/preserving are tied to setting. You say Greyhawk is tied to mechanics, but are forced to limit looking for dwarven wizards to the old boxed set in order for that to seem true. I can just as easily and correctly just use 5e and have a platoon of dwarven wizards overrun a town. Same with any setting that doesn't forbid these things as part of the setting itself, which Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc. do not.

The mechanics tied to settings would be the Birthright blood abilities, Dragonmarks in Eberron, just about every race and class in Dark Sun, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

The question is by how much and which aspect of the setting gets defined by the mechanics. AFAIK, magic use in 3e D&D was one aspect that got defined by the mechanics. Not sure if it is the same story in 5e. For instance, back in 3e, the casting of certain types of spells were heightened, diminished or didn't work at all depending on which of Eberron's moons was waxing or waning, or which plane you were visiting in Planescape.

Yes, but those are instances of the setting defining new mechanics, not the core mechanics defining the setting.

 

[Maxperson]

An ancient order of knights in decline because of past failures is interesting. Facial hair is not.

 

[Hussar]

eh, they took the irrelevant parts and changed them

ROTFLMAO.

OMG, for all the hoopla about the importance of canon, it sure doesn't seem to matter very much does it?

Or, is it canon only matters if I personally care about the canon being changed?

 

[Hussar]

You know, as I get older, I find myself less and less tolerant of continuity. In everything. Comics, TV, video games and ttprg settings. I hold that if you are doing something interesting and holding to the spirit, the small details don't matter.

I was never a Dragonlance fan, so my knowledge was casual and via osmosis. Things like knights with mustaches I thought was a joke when I first heard it, not some deep seated lore element. For me, who the Eff cares? That's not what makes the Knights of Solomnia interesting. An ancient order of knights in decline because of past failures is interesting. Facial hair is not.

Life is too short to concern yourself with the details of canon. When Doctor Who recently included Richard E Grant's face amongst the Doctors (he played a short lived version of the 9th Doctor right before the reboot was announced) I didn't scream how the Shalka Doctor is not canon nor did I wonder how he fits in the timeline. I went "oh, that's a deep cut Easter egg" and moved on.

So no, none of the stuff you mentioned was enough to put a gun to Dragonlance's ear. If Dragonlance's identity is so fragile we need to rely on the racial composition of it's priesthood and the facial hair of its knights to differentiate it, then maybe it wasn't as unique as it seemed.

Oh, hey, you and I have talked enough times on these boards. I totally agree with you. Canon? Couldn't care less.

But, it's hilarious to watch those folks who get all bent out of shape about canon suddenly start whistling at the clouds.

However, all that aside, I'd point out the path of the argument. The argument was that settings have never been defined by the mechanics. That settings were always mechanically neutral. My point was that the changes they had to make to make Dragonlance work in 5e D&D proves that this is 100% false.

 

[Hussar]

As far as I can tell only setting specific mechanics like defiling/preserving are tied to setting. You say Greyhawk is tied to mechanics, but are forced to limit looking for dwarven wizards to the old boxed set in order for that to seem true. I can just as easily and correctly just use 5e and have a platoon of dwarven wizards overrun a town. Same with any setting that doesn't forbid these things as part of the setting itself, which Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc. do not.

The mechanics tied to settings would be the Birthright blood abilities, Dragonmarks in Eberron, just about every race and class in Dark Sun, etc.

Sigh.

They didn't have dwarven wizards, elven high clerics or halfling... well just about anything... because they didn't HAVE to ban them in the setting. The game itself did that. Adding in a platoon of dwarven wizards to Greyhawk would be a major rewrite of the setting. Dwarves never had wizards. They did not exist. There's a very good reason that there is not a single named spell in AD&D that isn't named for a human. Because only humans could be magic users of any significant power.

An elven high priest of Correlon? Doesn't exist in Greyhawk OR Forgotten Realms until 2e rolls along and they start rewriting the setting. Had to blow up the entire setting (the first time) in order to shoehorn the new mechanics in.

Alright, answer me this. Why is there a major Realm Shaking Event every time there is a new edition? Why ONLY when there is a new edition? Why do we never get RSE's in the middle of an edition?