Core DnD with a concrete setting

[Arkhandus]

Yes, I would like it to have a definitive, obvious, supported core setting that is used as the context in which material is described.

And that setting should be Greyhawk, dagnabbit.

Granted, I wouldn't be averse to a revival of Mystara/The Known World as a core setting, either. Never got to see any of that since I started with 2E.

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer it generic actually.

I'd like the DMG to give guidelines about creating a world, a pantheon, a cosmology and so on, but just guidelines.

Having one specific setting as core doesn't satisfy me very much. If I like that setting a lot, then the core books certainly don't have nearly enough material to run good games set in it. If I don't like it, then it's wasted space for me that could have more useful information or simply lower the page count.

The PHB basically has only deities information which were setting-specific, so it' very close to being setting-generic. But I'd get rid of the deities as well, and link to the DMG for instructions about how to quickly create a sample pantheon if the DM is not using one from a published setting.

 

[Asmor]

I think the PHB had it right. There are some necessary assumptions in the core rules (for example, Barbarians imply the existence savage and primitive humanoids in relatively close proximity to the default, more civilized humanoids; Druids imply the existence of a Druidic society), but by and large these shreds of setting are implied, not explicit. Gods are really the exception, not the rule, and I think that's as it should be. We all have expectations of what a midieval-level village should basically be like, for example, so it's not necessary to provide example villages. Similarly, we all know what a plains, a swamp, a waterfall, et. al. are like. On the other hand, many people have limited exposure to pantheons (even, I would wager, classic Earth pantheons like the Greek, Norse and Egyptian... Most people are ill-read buffoons), and would have a bit more trouble coming up with something like that. Additionally, that's one of the few setting details which are actually vital to some characters, including Clerics.

I think it might have been better, however, to provide a few simple sample pantheons in the DMG, and have the cleric class tell people to either ask their DM for a pantheon or make up a god on their own.

 

[Phlebas]

My vote is for generic - keep it simple and flexible for house settings and bought settings alike. I wasn't even sure about the gods in the 3.5E PHB, but i guess they only took up 2 pages and did provide a good example of a Pantheon in action but i would have preferred to see a more generic "How to create a Pantheon" section. Unless you want to double the size (& £'s) of the core books*, you'd have to accept this level of detail about everything - ie too little to use without development, and enough to cause confusion if you buy / write an alternative.

*Eberron is a good example of a setting done in great detail -and even the ECS alone wouldn't have fitted into Core books without adding a lot of pages let alone RoE , 5 nations and the best bits of all the other stuff.

 

[GreatLemur]

I've got no interest in a default D&D setting. I'd just ignore it, anyway. I suppose it could be of use to some complete RPG newbs who aren't ready to make their own worlds or buy separately-published ones... But, even so, it doesn't seem like something worth devoting a lot of page space to.

 

[TerraDave]

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

Would you, like the core DnD books to have an outright stated and supported campaign setting?

No.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Nope. They have an implied setting already. That's enough.

 

[Kaladhan]

No implied setting is the best way to please to all the fans. I think 3E should have put the FR gods instead of Greyhawk, since FR at least had support.

 

[Umbran]

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

Not. I am a long-time homebrewer. Any time a game has a stated and supported setting as an integral part of the core rules, the fluff of that world invades the crunch of the game, making extraction and conversion to a different world more difficult.

So, please, keep the default setting weak or unspecified.

 

[Greg K]

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?.

No for the very reasons stated by Umbran, crazy cat, and Li Shenron