Core DnD with a concrete setting

[jdrakeh]

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.

That was what I was getting at earlier. As it stands, the Greyhawk examples don't specifically limit the rules to just Greyhawk. If one were to include ONLY setting-specific rules in the core, D&D would cease to be D&D and become "World of X, The RPG" -- which would greatly limit its utility and, thus, its target audience and consumer base.

 

[SSquirrel]

Varianor>Yay someone else from Monte's boards I see the spells as helping to satisfy the genre elements more than the setting. The fact that wizards can throw fireballs and turn people into things just tells me the sort of magic available in the world. Knowing more about the world, (a big map in the back, lots of area specific interplay between iconic characters (ie setting a chase example thru Waterdeep or Greyhawk City and detailing some of the places they run past) is more the setting.

Then again I know a number of people completely incapable of even imagining some game's rules w/o their implied setting. I can't remember my favorite example right now, but it seems to come up annually on an old BBS I'm on

 

[RFisher]

For me, D&D occupies that middle ground. It's not wholly generic, but neither does it tell you much about the game world. You create your own world within the assumptions set forth in the game. Typically bending or breaking a few assumptions as well.

I'd like it to stay that way.

 

[Father of Dragons]

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.

Except the setting material is already in there, it's just that the setting is D&D, which is widely admitted to be its own genre of fantasy. Look at any of the books that adapt an existing fantasy universe to D20, such as The Black Company Campaign Setting, The Wheel of Time Roleplaying Game or A Game of Thrones - D20 based Open Gaming RPG -- they've all had to spend considerable amount of time rewriting most aspects of the system to get anywhere near the flavor they need. That's because there is already simply enormous amounts of setting material embedded in D&D as written. I didn't really see this myself until I watched my daughter try to port a setting I had written to D&D 3.5 rules, and we realized that she'd have to throw out about 75% to 90% of D&D 3.5 to make it work (we ended up using True20).

Or compare D&D 3.5 to an actual generic system like GURPS or a mostly generic system like True20 -- the difference is large.

What D&D up until now has really had is a hidden setting where the rules dictate an enormous amount of how the setting works, but not how it is presented (and often, the presentation is strongly at odds with the how things work, which is why you get settings that combine high level characters, powerful magic and tons of intelligent monsters with castles and classic feudalism -- but that's another subject). What I think the OP was arguing is that since so much setting material is embedded in the system anyway, you might as well an optional setting presentation (which would be entirely fluff, since the rules are already really setting specific) so the the game is usable right out of the box without needing additional setting material or writing. (Mind you, I have seen games that have spent so little effort on setting presentation that they are very close to doing that now.)

 

[RFisher]

you might as well an optional setting presentation (which would be entirely fluff, since the rules are already really setting specific) so the the game is usable right out of the box without needing additional setting material or writing.

I can count the number of times I've found that kind of setting material necessary to play (or even providing hardly any of the setting questions I most need to answered) on my collection of Academy award trophies. (^_^)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

D&D is the original roleplaying game. It was never developed to support just one setting. EVERYONE who obtained the D&D rules was expected to form their own setting, and then support it with their own rules. Greyhawk and Blackmoor were the first campaign settings for D&D - but they were SUPPLEMENTS. By and large you were STILL expected to do what YOU wanted to do with the rules (even if, on occasion, it had been suggested to the contrary).

In 3E it was recognized that it was beneficial to have SOME additional, specific information on deities, even while the rules were still NOT being written with the intent to accomodate a specific setting. Greyhawk was chosen as the source for those examples. I think that was a mistake as the setting WotC had then made the flagship for the game was Forgotten Realms, making those examples vastly less useful than they could have been.

Anyway, the core of D&D is the rules. The setting is STILL your own affair, and while deity examples are still going to be needed I'm sure, it would be CONSTRICTING to write the Core Rules to conform with a specific setting, however generalized.

 

[crazy_cat]

Anyway, the core of D&D is the rules. The setting is STILL your own affair, and while deity examples are still going to be needed I'm sure, it would be CONSTRICTING to write the Core Rules to conform with a specific setting, however generalized.

QFT.