Core DnD with a concrete setting

[The Human Target]

My emphasis added - I find that statement rather presumptuous and limiting really. The rules provide a framework of how the game world works - and a set of standardized 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 oppressors 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.

So should we totally remove any fluff from the game, if the game is so modular and everyone is using it to either play homebrews or published campaign settings? Should the races have any descriptions at all? Should the races even be in the book? Should DnD morph into a baci framework that people can use to build anything from a four color superhero game to a gritty urban cop drama?

My question - why have a core setting? Why not keep it separate 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.

This thread asks basically the same question you are. I myself haven't made up my mind yet.

 

[The Human Target]

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.

I'd be fine with any core setting really.

Okay, almost anything.

No Middle Earth-ish world, for me.

 

[Rhun]

I'd prefer no setting. And any "setting" type material should be generic enough to be included in any campaign setting, homebrewed or otherwise.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Not really.

I mean, even attempts to describe an "implied setting" tend to fall flat for me. Certainly, the rules-as-is determine a certain setting, but not to the extent some people claim. For example, the Iron Heroes system Campaign chapter. Mike Mearls spends a lot of time in that chapter describing how, in the implied setting of Iron Heroes, gods are distant and unknowable, magic is unreliable and secret, and the like. I took the (unmodified) Iron Heroes system and used it to run a homebrew setting where large magical cacademies have incredible political power, a Paladin might meet his patron god face-to-face, and the characters literaly ran into a demigod in a shop in the third session. All I had to do was tell the players "ignore the Campaign Chapter".

Besides, it is easy enough to adjust existing rule-mechanics to fit a homebrew setting, so "implied setting" is easily ignorable. This is especialy true with the inevitable march of new rule supplements.

As such, I consider a "core" campaign setting to be a waste of space in the DMG and a waste of my money, and feel the same about the "implied setting" and "core story" concepts that float around game designers and the EN World boards every so often.

A sample town and some sample NPCs, on the other hand, would be some useful tools to put in the DMG for DMs who want to start up a quick game. But nothing that can't be easily put in some random blank spot on a generic fantasy map.

 

[The Human Target]

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.

This is very much the direction I'm coming from.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

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

Absolutely not.

The core books should avoid as much setting-specific material as possible.


Dungeons and Dragons is a set of rules to play in a fantasy setting, where there is clearly no real-world analog to simulate. People want to play because they've grown to love the genre based on countless cultural, literary, and cinematic sources.

As no two people are alike, the books should be as generic as possible. The fluff should be worded so as to allow each DM to create a world based on their own ideas... or if so inclined, buy a pre-made one off the shelf.


As for built-in assumptions in the RAW, D&D is a medly of multiple influences. Tolkien, Leiber, Vance, Moorcock, etc., they're all in there somewhere. Gygax/Arneson were inspired by these folks and their setting-like assumptions were built into the game. Some of the mechanics are so ingrained into the foundation (e.g. Vancian Magic) that any campaign built with D&D rules must include them, or be ready for extensive rework.

Just because the rules include halflings, does the PHB/MM/DMG have to be built in a Middle Earth setting? Of course not. We can pick and choose what we include; the rest we rewrite or discard.

It seems obvious to me that the core set should avoid force-feeding a specific setting on us at all costs.

 

[Odhanan]

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?

I would not like D&D to have an outright stated setting, no.

I think it would be a HUGE mistake to do so. Too many RPGs out there have settings of their own. What it does is frame them in the imagination of their users. One of the great strengths of D&D is to be vanilla fantasy in its own style, implying that anyone with a bit of imagination can come up with his own setting and play his creation with his friends. Destroying that would be destroying part of the D&D experience, to me.

After we can debate whether D&D is too entrenched in its own style to be really considered "vanilla fantasy". But that's another debate altogether.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think a default setting in the core with a moderate amount of fluff would be a good idea because it would make the game more accessible to new players.

If you're an experienced RPG player it's really easy to swap out settings. If you're new then having to choose/make up a setting is one more thing that might you say "this is too hard, let's play monopoly"

 

[Umbran]

It seems to me that some people are underestimating the amount of setting material built into the current (3.5e) D&D rules

Not in the least. I am saying that having a concrete setting would tend to dramatically increase the amount of setting material built into the rules, and thus make the rules less flexible. There are some default setting assumptions in the rules, yes, but they allow for a broad enough palate to be useful.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Exactly. We tend to think of swapping out say, the Deities chapter of the PH, but having fireball, dimension door, cure light wounds, and attacks of opportunity are also implied setting elements. Tinkering with those can also change the default assumptions. (I know a DM who moves fireball to L4 along with lightning bolt. Shrug. I don't do it that way.) They just have the appearance of being rules, which they are, but they also define the feel of the game, hence the implied setting.

For my tastes, the Deities chapter can be left out. The PH can keep the common racial names - I will still make up my own. Beyond that, there aren't too many implied setting elements I would get rid of. Although note that the next edition will not have the current set of iconics.