Core DnD with a concrete setting

[Woas]

Nope. I think what you are getting at is basically what Arcana Unearthed/Evolved has done with the Diamond Throne. And although I love AE very much, I am also a big fan of Homebrewed settings and thus the source of my one major problem I always run into with AE. That is, I want to make my own game world for my group to play in using AE rule book. But all the spells, racial descriptions/motivations, weapon (and materials for weapons), general history, and more are linked to a setting that is now a waste to me.
On the other hand, take Iron Heroes which is even more setting-generic than core D&D is. The game runs smoothly into any setting I make or import myself which is great and works very smoothly. No problems there. And that is how I'd want D&D to be.

 

[Awakened]

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

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?

First of all, not buying it. The world of Planescape and the world of Faerun, for example. Utterly, totally, and completely different. Same goes for Ravenloft, Midnight, etc. IT IS ABSOLUTELY possible to play in a ton of different worlds and still have the "D&D style" that you describe.
The reason I would divorce setting from core rules (which is what the 4e designers are doing, and rightfully so) is to avoid dictating what sort of world we should be playing in. Of course their are assumptions about D&D. It's gonna be psuedomedieval. Magical. Full of wonder. But the game play in different settings will differ. A core setting isn't necessary.
How many of us play in Greyhawk?

 

[Father of Dragons]

It seems to me that some people are underestimating the amount of setting material built into the current (3.5e) D&D rules, including (but not limited to):

• The classes (the existence of Druids, Clerics and Bards in particular say a lot about the world);
• The races (another biggie);
• The languages;
• The magic system in general (particularly the whole idea of clerical vs. arcane spells);
• The specific spells;
• The skill list;
• The equipment list (weapons and armor made out of steel, no gunpowder weapons by default, etc.)
• The prices;
• The general technology level;
• The cosmology (like the fact there are gods and demons and angels, etc.);
• The particular monsters (D&D -- the universe with more different highly intelligent species than you count on your fingers and toes – that's a huge setting detail).

Yes you can house-rule all or any of these, but if you are trying to create a home-brew setting I fail to see how additional setting material will make it all that more difficult to house rule that too.

 

[painandgreed]

No.

First, it doesn't add anything to the game. While they state that Greyhawk is the default setting, that does nothing but give us a few gods.

Two, it makes it even harder to use a different setting, especially a homebrew, for reasons of player confusion.

 

[The Human Target]

I plan on answering every post later tonight.

Thanks for all the feedback so far and please keep it coming.

 

[charlesatan]

I think one thing to bear in mind is that D&D is "fantasy" so some of these concerns aren't that hard to adjust. I expect the technology/equipment level is more or less the same for most D&D settings and you can use that as a baseline (i.e. you just add stuff such as firearms, etc.). If you want to convert it into something like Shadowrun, yes, that's going to be hard but not impossible but then again, when I hear D&D, I don't think "Shadowrun" either (perhaps with d20 modern?). Monsters, on the other hand, seem to be one of the most modular things in D&D. Simply don't use them if they don't fit your setting and use those that do. Already have orcs in the game? Feel free to ditch the hobgoblins.

The skill list and languages seem to me another easy modification. Just add or remove those that aren't necessary although I expect a lot of the skills in the PHB barring specific Knowledge skills will still be useful.

Races in 3.5 aren't so much of a big deal so add/remove as you see fit. Perhaps that's also why they're removing the Gnome in the initial 4E release. =)

The classes are there because well, it is D&D fantasy. The only time some of the PHB classes shouldn't be there is due to something like Dark Sun or something but it's not nigh impossible to incorporate them into the setting.

Something can be worked out with the cosmology such as what Monte Cook did with Ptolous. Some work? Yes. But not impossible. And you can't expect WotC to predict every kind of campaign people will be running so every choice they make is a choice a portion of gamers won't make.

It seems to me that some people are underestimating the amount of setting material built into the current (3.5e) D&D rules, including (but not limited to):

• The classes (the existence of Druids, Clerics and Bards in particular say a lot about the world);
• The races (another biggie);
• The languages;
• The magic system in general (particularly the whole idea of clerical vs. arcane spells);
• The specific spells;
• The skill list;
• The equipment list (weapons and armor made out of steel, no gunpowder weapons by default, etc.)
• The prices;
• The general technology level;
• The cosmology (like the fact there are gods and demons and angels, etc.);
• The particular monsters (D&D -- the universe with more different highly intelligent species than you count on your fingers and toes – that's a huge setting detail).

Yes you can house-rule all or any of these, but if you are trying to create a home-brew setting I fail to see how additional setting material will make it all that more difficult to house rule that too.

 

[Father of Dragons]

I think one thing to bear in mind is that D&D is "fantasy" so some of these concerns aren't that hard to adjust. I expect the technology/equipment level is more or less the same for most D&D settings and you can use that as a baseline (i.e. you just add stuff such as firearms, etc.). If you want to convert it into something like Shadowrun, yes, that's going to be hard but not impossible but then again, when I hear D&D, I don't think "Shadowrun" either (perhaps with d20 modern?). Monsters, on the other hand, seem to be one of the most modular things in D&D. Simply don't use them if they don't fit your setting and use those that do. Already have orcs in the game? Feel free to ditch the hobgoblins.

The skill list and languages seem to me another easy modification. Just add or remove those that aren't necessary although I expect a lot of the skills in the PHB barring specific Knowledge skills will still be useful.

Races in 3.5 aren't so much of a big deal so add/remove as you see fit. Perhaps that's also why they're removing the Gnome in the initial 4E release. =)

The classes are there because well, it is D&D fantasy. The only time some of the PHB classes shouldn't be there is due to something like Dark Sun or something but it's not nigh impossible to incorporate them into the setting.

Something can be worked out with the cosmology such as what Monte Cook did with Ptolous. Some work? Yes. But not impossible. And you can't expect WotC to predict every kind of campaign people will be running so every choice they make is a choice a portion of gamers won't make.

And at which point you've discarded or changed so many things, that getting rid of the rest of a default setting wouldn't be that much extra work ... Understand, I always make my own settings, (that being one of the pleasures of GM'ing for me) so a default setting would be something for me to cut out too. But as I see it, so much of the rules are already so setting specific that adding setting fluff isn't going to be the issue. I am currently running three games (all of them, alas, infrequently) and only one is using D&D 3.5 -- the other two are using True20 because the D&D rules were too intertwined with D&D setting assumptions.

 

[charlesatan]

But as I see it, so much of the rules are already so setting specific that adding setting fluff isn't going to be the issue. I am currently running three games (all of them, alas, infrequently) and only one is using D&D 3.5 -- the other two are using True20 because the D&D rules were too intertwined with D&D setting assumptions.

Which I think is the strength of other, more generic game systems like True20 or even something like GURPS.

But the thing is, D&D wouldn't be D&D if it was too generic. Right now it's probably walking the line between "specific, distinct and unique world" and "bland fantasy" (which the game itself is partly responsible for).

 

[jdrakeh]

I would prefer NO setting. D&D is an excellent rule system for fantasy. Add a great setting and it becomes a great game. That said, implied settings aren't great, they're half-assed. And adding a half-assed setting can turn an excellent system into a less than stellar game.

 

[The Human Target]

No.

Thanks for asking.

Well I was attempting to start a conversation.

But thanks for posting.