Core DnD with a concrete setting

[The Human Target]

With all the 4E talk, I figured this was a good time to bring up a pet subject of mine.

Would you, or would you not, like the core DnD books to have an outright stated and supported campaign setting?

In my mind, its impossible for DnD (or any RPG) to be "vanilla fantasy". I've read a lot of fantasy novels, and played in a lot of fantasy games. Very few of them that aren't intentionally based on DnD bear a close resemblance at all to the game or hows its played.

And at the end of the day, DnD very much has its own style. And I think everybody is fine with that.

So should the core three DnD books, and most of its supplements, have an implied setting? Be it the Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, Planescape, or something entirely new.

 

[Crymson]

You are right; D&D is not vanilla fantasy. As for the implied setting, for me it would be enough to say things like "Thor is the god of thunder in the Dungeons & Dragons world".

 

[The Human Target]

You are right; D&D is not vanilla fantasy. As for the implied setting, for me it would be enough to say things like "Thor is the god of thunder in the Dungeons & Dragons world".

I'm talking taking the idea a bit further than that. 3E has its generic Greyhawkian gods, but they're cast adrift in a sea of fluff-lessness.

I'd like to see a world/continent map, gods and major organizations, maybe a paragraph blurb about major locations and settlements.

Then the setting can be expanded with supplemental guidebooks and more importantly adventures. Imagine a new generation of classics like The Vault of the Drow or Keep on the Borderlands, that all takes place in the same shared world.

I don't think the idea could hurt DnD at all, and may in fact help it. People wanting to use the base rules in a homebrew of previously published game world could still do so.

I look at World of Warcraft and similar games, and it just strikes me that there isn't anything wrong with having shared experiences in a game world. If anything, it helps bring a sense of comradery to the game.

 

[Aeric]

I've always thought it was weird that D&D was the only (that I know of, at least) RPG that was genre-specific but not setting-specific. Other generic games are 100% generic--GURPS, HERO, Savage Worlds, etc. And other genre-specific games are set in specific worlds with rules designed to support the idiosyncracies of those worlds.

I would love to see "The Greyhawk Roleplaying Game" set up as most other RPG books are. The first half of the book would be devoted to players, with rules on character creation, skills, magic, combat, and equipment, as well as basic information about the world and its inhabitants. The second half of the book would be for gamemasters, and would include stats on monsters and magic items, as well as tips for running adventures in Greyhawk. There might even be an introductory adventure as well, if there's room.

Yeah, that would be cool, wouldn't it?

 

[S'mon]

A sample setting in the book like Known World/Mystara for Classic D&D's Rules Cyclopedia would be good. The game should not be tied tightly to one setting though and DMG should have notes on setting creation.

 

[crazy_cat]

The game should not be tied tightly to one setting though and DMG should have notes on setting creation.

Agreed. But I don't think the core 3 books need to contain or be tied to a specific setting. The core 3 books are the rules - the setting(s) fluff should be provided in a seperate book(s)

 

[The Human Target]

Agreed. But I don't think the core 3 books need to contain or be tied to a specific setting. The core 3 books are the rules - the setting(s) fluff should be provided in a seperate book(s)

Yes, the core books are rules- rules tied to a very specific style of game and a very specific kind of world.

So specific that you might as well add a fourth core setting book, or throw setting material into the other three core books.

GURPS, Mutants and Masterminds, True20, Savage Worlds, even D20 Modern all have rules designed to simulate a wide variety of play styles and setting worlds tied together by only the most generic rules set.

DnD doesn't do that at all. It pretty much tells your from the word go what kind of world and game you're going to be playing.

My question is why not make it official and have a core setting?

Other than it being different, what reasons exist to not do it?

 

[charlesatan]

My question is why not make it official and have a core setting?

Other than it being different, what reasons exist to not do it?

Because D&D has had several popular settings not limited to Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, as well as Greyhawk?

Also, it's a wait-and-see what they'll do with the setting dilemma. They mentioned that Greyhawk has its kingdoms and they want the 4E norm to be more like the PCs being "light in the darkness" and not much traveling between regular folk (the PCs will be traveling in comparison).

 

[The Human Target]

Because D&D has had several popular settings not limited to Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, as well as Greyhawk?

Also, it's a wait-and-see what they'll do with the setting dilemma. They mentioned that Greyhawk has its kingdoms and they want the 4E norm to be more like the PCs being "light in the darkness" and not much traveling between regular folk (the PCs will be traveling in comparison).

And those settings are by and large both incredibly similar and fairly different at the same time. Ravenloft requires huge amounts of additional information, as well as adjustment to basically all the classes and races. Greyhawk and the Realms are for all intents and purposes identical. Dragonlance has a few odd duck ideas (kender, steel as the base form of currency) but again its pretty much identical to the others.

I'm not talking so much fourth edition as DnD past and future.

 

[crazy_cat]

Yes, the core books are rules- rules tied to a very specific style of game and a very specific kind of world.

So specific that you might as well add a fourth core setting book, or throw setting material into the other three core books.

GURPS, Mutants and Masterminds, True20, Savage Worlds, even D20 Modern all have rules designed to simulate a wide variety of play styles and setting worlds tied together by only the most generic rules set.

DnD doesn't do that at all. It pretty much tells your from the word go what kind of world and game you're going to be playing.

My question is why not make it official and have a core setting?

Other than it being different, what reasons exist to not do it?

My emphasis added - I find that statement rather presumptious and limiting really. The rules provide a framework of how the game world works - and a set of standardised assumptions for playing a game in a fantasy world with spells, multiple sentient races, monsters, and magic items (and thats before you start house ruling things to suit the game you're planning to play)

Everything else is fluff and at the DMs and players discretion, limited only by their imaginations

Using the same rulebooks as everybody else I can have a world where Dwarves are isolationist communists, elves are Lawful to the point of being seen as fascist opressors by other races, and the Drow are the elven resistance - with Humans being pawns in all of this confusion. All of which takes place on a flat world where you can fall off the edge if you get too close.

My question - why have a core setting? Why not keep it seperate from the rules? That way you can sell more books, and those of us who don't want it don't have to buy it.