D&D 5E 5e Core Assumptions vs. Setting Specific Assumptions

[steeldragons]

Since the yugoloth/planescape lore threads have gotten, oooo, a titch tangential...I thought I'd start this up, to see what people like/want as core assumptions in the 5e iteration of Dungeons & Dragons.

I know, the answer for many will be "anything 4e" or "all things Planescape" or "whatever Forgotten Realms say"...and that's all fine and legitimate...but I'm looking for more specific/detailed things.

Do understand, this is all entirely subjective. It's about what you like! Not about what you DON'T like other people saying. See the difference? There are no wrong answers. So, please, don't start arguing with someone's post and how/why you or your preferred settings are right and others preferences are wrong.

Just curious about an array of people's specific preferences.

For example:
1) Kender as a core pc race option doesn't work for me. That's a core assumption for the Dragonlance setting. This goes for pirate/sailor nation of minotaurs, as well.

Halflings, themselves, seem to be on course, as they have them now: hairfoot [if you want barefoot hobbit-esque, or are the playtests calling them "stouts"?] or lightfoot [if you want skinny halflings with shoes]...I don't like them. But I don't see a reason for them not to be in. I go for a combination, myself: fit and trim but no shoes/hairy feet.

1a) DROW as a pc race option out the gate, doesn't work for me. As a pc race option EVER doesn't actually work for me, but I know perfectly well I'm fairly on my own with that. Offering them in some supplemental or as a pc option in Eberron or FR setting book, fine. Not a core 5e assumption though. Which it doesn't seem to be...so that's good for me.

1b) Warforged are an Eberron creation. They belong in the Eberron material/setting book. IF they go into the Monster Manual, their flavor text needs to make clear they are from/for the Eberron setting..."but you can use 'em if you want." I prefer not even that, that they not be a core assumption outside of that setting.

Artificers, also, if I had my way. Your "magic machinery" and "steampunkery" doesn't belong in the default D&D assumptions. Just as firearms and cowboys or ray guns and robots or 20's style gangsters and g-men don't belong in the default of the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy genre-defining game.

1c) Thri-kreen and "muls" are in the same boat as kenders and warforged. They are created as pc's for Dark Sun. They belong, in those materials, not the core books. Thri-kreen listed in the Monster Manual...as monsters (like minotaurs) are fine. Their lore might even have a final sentence saying they are an possible PC race "in the Dark Sun campaign setting", as a line under minotaurs could go for Dragonlance...but their setting specific stats or lore should not be presented in the MM but in the relevant campaign setting material. If you want to use them as such, and don't want to purchase the specific setting material, make it up!

1d-z) Same goes for whatever funky Spelljammer, Planescape, and any other D&D-owned-campaign-setting-that-I'm-forgetting-or-unaware-of specific races are out there (I certainly don't know/can't name them all).

2) The 4e Eladrin. Die in a fire. Call them High [or more accurately "Grey"] elves again/as they always were. Let the "eladrin" go back to being the extraplanar cosmic elf-things that players/games in extraplanar spaces seem to have loved so much. Of all the crazy, cool, silly and outright ridiculous things in 30+ years of D&D, they seem to be my "knee-jerk top of the pet peeve list" thing. Dunnno why. Just are.

3) The DMG needs [and I can't imagine won't have] a planar appendix. It should include the following along with ideas/guidelines of HOW to include them in your campaign:
Option 1) traditional 1e explanation/diagrams
Option 2) 4e style "World Axis" explanation/diagrams, Feywild, Shadowfell
Option 3) "Planescape" introduction [from what little I know of it, start with Sigil, I'd imagine] like "Boot Hill" or "Gamma World" were in the 1e DMG. Planescape as a "meta-setting" that defaults assumptions for all D&D worlds needs to stop. The PS fans can use the PS stuff, have it over reach into all other settings to their hearts' content. The default D&D rulebooks should offer it as an option, along with everything else.
Option 4) Make yer own/Do what you want! With suggestions of how to do that exactly...
and/or Option 5) some basic "heaven-good place/middle/"hell-bad place" setup...

4) The PHB and DMG, both, should offer/explain and describe 4 alignment options: whether you use 9, 5, 3 or no alignments in your game is a table-by-table choice.

5) [As suggested with "artificers" above] What I said about setting-specific races goes for setting-specific classes as well, whatever they are/wherever they're from, they belong in those setting-specific materials.

6) I think the racial list is doing ok...But I would like to see a few human diversity, "sub-races" I guess 5e is calling them. At the bare minimum, following the 2 sub-race per demi-human system they seem to be going with for now: a "barbarian/tribal" sub-race and a "civilized/city-folk" sub-race...dunno what you'd call that..."imperialist" or maybe just "citizen"?...sumthin' like that. With the understanding that a traditional "commoner/artisan/merchant/noble medieval-esque folk" is the default for human pc's but you could choose from these culture-specific possibilities instead.

That's all that's coming to mind at the moment...What're your preferences?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think all lore should be an assumed part of the core rules. That is, there should be no strict division between "core" and "setting" material.

All material is setting material. Period. If you define halflings as kender, or as no kender, as maybe kender, as not existing at all....that's a setting decision. If you say one is "core" and one is "setting," you're presenting a false dichotomy.

The fact is, our own games are subjective experiences, unique encounters with that multifaceted beast that is the D&D experience, each one its own unique instance. Because of that, we have our own unique ideas and expectations about the game -- experiences that any future iteration of the game needs to be able to support.

To someone who has only ever played in Dragonlance, or who loved playing in Dragonlance, kender are and always have been part of the experience of playing D&D. A key part, an important part, a part they loved. So if 5e is going to support that player's game, they're going to need to support kender.

To someone who has ever only played OD&D, though, halflings are pretty blatant Bilbo expies. That is just as important to them, and just as important to be supported.

So to choose one to promote as "core" over the other is nonsense. It's tribal gatekeeping, saying "You can play D&D if you love hobbits, but you have to play Dragonlance-flavor if you love kender, because they aren't part of CORE D&D! Keep them out of MY game!"

Which is silly and divisive.

Folks who play and enjoy kender play and enjoy D&D. They shouldn't feel like they have to only play in one limited pre-approved sandbox. Anyone can play with kender who wants to play with kender, Dragonlance or no. And if it's not for you or anyone in your group, you don't have to pick it. But you also don't get to say that no one else who plays "core" D&D can pick it, or that you have to jump through a specific Dragonlance hoop in order to play what you want.


Kender are D&D. Cannibal halflings are D&D. Cowardly burglar halflings are D&D. Raft-navigating dreadlocked halflings are D&D. Wagon-dwelling gypsy halflings are D&D. Space halflings with obsidian skin are D&D. In an inclusive game, maybe you have them all. In your game, maybe you just cut out kender. In Sara's game, maybe she cuts out everything other than cowardly burglars. You're all playing D&D, and all of those setting-specific halflings are part of D&D, parts that don't NEED to be segregated from the rest of the game. Imagine the world where kender and cannibal exist side-by-side...

That's one of the strengths of embracing it all as D&D, after all. Suddenly, the thing that used to be only in a particular setting can now be in any setting that wants it.

 

[TerraDave]

KM: uhm, no.

For the settings or supplements to add value, they must have things that are not in the first books (lets call these core) that people buy. There is no point unless you get something extra. This includes twist and turns on established races and classes and potentially new races and classes.

In turn, the core books will be of finite length. I realize that in this wikied world that might seem anachronistic, but I think it is a real constraint.

The second practical issue is that a clean core does have value. Most gamers don't need something called a kender or halfling canibals in their game. And when I say most, I mean probably 90+%. Now, it could be that certain kenderesque behavior is so mainstream that it becomes part of the core-concept for halfling, or is at least implied. OK.

One beautiful thing about new editions is that it is a chance to dump all the secondary and superfluous material, and get back to what makes the, for want of a better word, core of the game. It also of course gives the company making D&D the chance to resale all those supplements again, which is an important part of their business model.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I want the core rules to be the main mechanics, a general toolbox that most of the settings books will recognize as a general standard. The players handbook has the primary classes and races that translate into the settings with little to no difficulty. This doesn't mean some more esoteric races and classes couldn't be in the main books, but some of the stranger races/classes should be left for settings or other expansion books.

I personally like the Eberron Artificer enough as a general class to see it included in the core.
Of course I want to see them group the different classes/races into a list of potential rarity within Campaign Setting books.. In FR these races and classes are Common, Infrequent, Exotic, and so forth for Eberron, Dark Sun and others.

Kender are(could be) a variant of Halfling, and with the new subrace system, can be just one more variant in a Dragonlance supplement, ( book or online ) Other exotic races would need more write ups.

And please, by all means include monster examples of all potential races in the MM. Humans, Halflings, Elves, Dwarves, Kender, Muls, Thri-Keen, Shifters, Warforged. At the very least for those who wish to adapt them for PC play until official sources are released this gives them some kind of starting point they can cross reference with previous editions.

 

[Cyberen]

I think the discussion would be clearer if we were talking of core PRODUCTS. I agree with KM views of "everything os D&D" and "every table picks its own" philosophy.
The core books have to be engaging both for players who want to convert their ongoing game, be able to accomodate for a lot of heroic fantasy tropes, and set some kind of default in order to enable playing out of the box, and to set some kind of basic common expectations when someone says "let's play D&D !".
I would go for a dry phb (BECMI style, or playtest style), a dmg giving good advice on various world building paradigms (zooming in or out, for instance) and RANDOM TABLES ! I would kill the actual model of MM : lets put monster stat blocks + very short hooks in the dmg (playtest style, really), and craploads of setting splats organizing/expanding those basic building blocks in a coherent world. I would support this lego paradigm with DDI as a database enabling a DM to organize its editing of the blocks (tayloring the classes/races/feats/spells rosters available to the players, and the bestiary on its side).

 

[GX.Sigma]

The way the playtest does it is fine: it gives examples of how it works in various settings, and implies that doesn't have to be the way it works in your setting.

 

[steeldragons]

The way the playtest does it is fine: it gives examples of how it works in various settings, and implies that doesn't have to be the way it works in your setting.

[emphasis mine]

Why does it "imply"? Why wouldn't it state outright?

 

[GX.Sigma]

[emphasis mine]

Why does it "imply"? Why wouldn't it state outright?

Because it doesn't need to. Or rather, if it does, it only needs to say it once.

 

[Dausuul]

What do you mean by "core assumptions?"

I mean, for example: One of my pet peeves about D&D is the way elves and dwarves get crammed into every freakin' setting. I would prefer that the core material be compatible with a game in which elves and dwarves do not exist. On the other hand, I don't mind* elves and dwarves being presented as races in the Player's Handbook. So long as I, the DM, have the power to strip them out of my campaign with a wave of my hand, it's cool.

On the other hand, easy resurrection is a different case. If the game is built on the assumption that the party has ready access to raise dead starting at level 9, then combat at high levels is likely to become very lethal. This means that if I decree "no resurrection," it's going to drastically change how the game plays at those levels. So I would strongly prefer that raise dead not be assumed to exist, even though the spell itself can remain.

I guess what I'm asking is, does "core assumptions" mean "This thing is in the PHB?" Or does it mean, "The PHB is designed on the expectation that this thing is present and DMs won't strip it out?"

[SIZE=-2]*Well, this isn't exactly true. I kind of do mind, because the continued presence of elves and dwarves keeps on reinforcing the idea that all fantasy has elves and dwarves in it. I've seen several people on these boards claim that elves and dwarves are "standard" in fantasy, when nothing could be farther from the truth--get outside the little bubble of D&D and its descendants, and there's hardly an elf or dwarf to be seen. But this is a different issue from what I, as a DM and player, care about.[/SIZE]

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM: uhm, no.

For the settings or supplements to add value, they must have things that are not in the first books (lets call these core) that people buy.

There is no point unless you get something extra. This includes twist and turns on established races and classes and potentially new races and classes.

There's plenty of room for argument, there. My own view is that D&D already contains these things, as experienced by the millions of games of the thing that have already been run. Kender weren't part of the D&D experience before DL, but they are now, and anyone who defines D&D as "needs kender!" is reasonable to expect that 5e lets them do it without recourse to changing stuff.

In turn, the core books will be of finite length. I realize that in this wikied world that might seem anachronistic, but I think it is a real constraint.

Yes, the books required to play the game will have a finite length. But the necessary rules and the core setting assumptions are very different things.

The second practical issue is that a clean core does have value. Most gamers don't need something called a kender or halfling canibals in their game. And when I say most, I mean probably 90+%. Now, it could be that certain kenderesque behavior is so mainstream that it becomes part of the core-concept for halfling, or is at least implied. OK.

How does the value of a "clean core" compare with the value of 30+ years of existing investment? I am not convinced it is favorably.

One beautiful thing about new editions is that it is a chance to dump all the secondary and superfluous material, and get back to what makes the, for want of a better word, core of the game. It also of course gives the company making D&D the chance to resale all those supplements again, which is an important part of their business model.

The core of the game is a fighter, a wizard, a gish, and a dungeon. Which might actually look a lot like the "basic" model of D&D.

People want the cruft. The cruft is interesting. It adds variety and interesting interactions. It's valuable. Cleanliness isn't such a big selling point when your initial target audience digs the complexity. Lets face it, if we wanted clean, we would've stuck with rock-paper-scissors are a mechanical resolution. Rules are interesting.