D&D 5E D&D "Core" Settings

[tuxgeo]

Yeah, I have my own (reserved) mental names for a few of the posters on this board, too. As long as folks don't call me "ToxicEgo" or something else similar, I'm fine with not discussing such characterizations.

I'm also fine with not having a "default" setting; but that was never the main point of this thread, was it? It's about which should be "core," which I take to mean "currently active, and continually supported in further supplements."

 

[Remathilis]

Basically, yep, this. There is no generic answer. There is only ever specific answers. "They are hardy, resistant to poison, good at crafting stuff, and make good fighters" doesn't apply to every dwarf (the Klar, for instance, specifically make very undisciplined fighters -- they're better as barbarians. And the poison resistance can go entire campaigns without ever coming up, making it a pretty useless defining feature).

Logistically, in practice, in terms of "books have a limited amount of space" this might look like picking one particular archetype to present up-front, while making it clear that it's a specific archetype that you choose to use, not an assumed archetype you choose to not use.

What's a dwarf? Well, maybe the PH presents the Neidar as one kind of dwarf, calling it out as specific and particular (referencing the dwarf-wars and the exile status of the clan and maybe even a few proper nouns). It embraces its particularism and it presents the Neidar without worrying about all those other dwarves that it's not really modeling, without trying to say that gold dwarves and hill dwarves are all the same thing. It just says, "There are lots of dwarves. Here's one particular kind of dwarf that's like this. If you don't have anything else in mind, go ahead and use this, lots of folks like it."

Aren't you basically advocating for a default setting (lets call it Nerath) with the DMG mentioning "BTW: you don't have to use Nerath, you can use Eberron, Toril, or Athas if you want. The stats are in XXX. Or make up your own." ?

How is that different then using the Great Wheel as the "limited amount of space" option, as long as the cavaet "The DM might use his own cosmology instead" is mentioned?

And in reality; do we NEED expressed written permission from WotC to change things? Haven't DMs been changing things since the advent of the house-rule? Are we really so gunshy about rules-lawyer player brow-beating us with the Complete Book of Dwarves that we need a WotC shield to us with a "do what thou wilt"?

In 2014, do we still need Rule 0 spelled out?

I'm almost beginning to think the World of Darkness model might be better: create a core book (we'll call it the rules compendium) that has the basics of combat, action resolution, and other generic rules in it and then create a dozen "setting guides" that have specific races, classes, feats, spells, and monsters to go along with the kingdoms, gods and regions." So that the Forgotten Realms PHB has fighters, gold dwarves, moon elves, and etc, while the Dragonlance ones have Silvanesti, kender, wizard of high sorcery, knight of the crown, etc. in it (but no half-orcs or paladins).

 

[DMZ2112]

I'm also fine with not having a "default" setting; but that was never the main point of this thread, was it? It's about which should be "core," which I take to mean "currently active, and continually supported in further supplements."

No, you are totally right. But the OP, [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION], is neck deep in the derail, so I guess it's okay.

I'm kind of surprised there wasn't more response to this post I made; I thought that Mearls quote was really telling. Maybe everyone just remembered it from two years ago? I certainly hadn't.

 

[I'm A Banana]

After 40 years, it is okay to acknowledge that it might have had a few original thoughts.

Sure, and those were mashed into the mash-up, too.

...Imma call you "Kamikaze Microtome" from now on, 'cause bro, you be splittin' them hairs fiiine.

I copped to being a bit of a fundie on this. I think the distinction between "assume that this is what dwarves are" and "here's one example of what dwarves are" can have a pretty huge downstream effect on how the game is presented and what awesome things can come out of it.

How is that different then using the Great Wheel as the "limited amount of space" option, as long as the cavaet "The DM might use his own cosmology instead" is mentioned?

It's different because of the underlying assumptions: a default is opt-out, you have to actively make the choice NOT to use it. An example is opt-in. You actively make the choice if you WANT to use it (or if you just abdicate that choice). On the one hand, you're saying "no" if you don't use the default. On the other, you're only ever really saying "yes," if you want the specific version presented. It informs how people approach the thing in the first place.

In 2014, do we still need Rule 0 spelled out?

Ask anyone who complained in 3e about magic items being "necessary" or people who didn't like 4e's take on D&D icons, or anyone who struggled with 2e's cosmology, or people who didn't like how 1e druids had to fight higher-level druids to advance. The ability to change the rules doesn't absolve the rules from the responsibility of making the best D&D game they can.

It's about which should be "core," which I take to mean "currently active, and continually supported in further supplements."

If I had my druthers, I'd say "all of them." I'm a fan of settings. I'd buy a setting book every year.

Though I might excempt the "other continents of FR" from this requirement. Kara-tur, Maztica, and Al-Quadim are solid settings, but if 5e does an Oriental-style, Mayincatec-style, or Arabic-sytle setting, I'd much rather they do something original and unconnected to FR's baggage.

Personally, I'd be especially fond of a new kind of Al-Quadim. The possibilities of Arabian-style fantasy are crazy rich, and that setting scratched the surface, but was so obscure in 2e that it could've used some more love.

And when each setting comes, I would want them to completely ignore the "default" and be true to themselves first and foremost. So none of this "we have to include elves, since elves are part of D&D!" noise.

 

[DMZ2112]

I think the distinction between "assume that this is what dwarves are" and "here's one example of what dwarves are" can have a pretty huge downstream effect on how the game is presented and what awesome things can come out of it.

I do not see it, but you have convinced me that you do.

 

[Li Shenron]

I want D&D to have a default setting and a default cosmos.

Fine. I don't. Not a big deal if it has, as long as it's not too invasive (Greyhawk in 3e was default but almost irrelevant).

The more you leave the "default" away from the game, the more the game loses it's identity and the more players you have walking away from the game.

I don't think that actually every happened.

D&D used to be identified by it's default setting and flavor.

Flavor is different from setting! I agree D&D is identified by its flavor, and that includes e.g. beholders and illithids, fireballs and polymorph spells, wizards and clerics... But "flavor" is more like an indication, a set of things not all of which are strictly necessary to your own game (certainly if you remove too many, it might start to shift). "Setting" is a stronger set of elements, including the history, geography, religions, important NPC, organizations etc.

Now it's like they are trying to be identified by it's mechanics first.

I think 5e is less mechanics-identifiable than previous 2 editions. Spellcasting rules are the strongest mechanical element that identify the experience of playing in a RPG IMO, and certainly 5e is identified by "prepare spells, then cast them freely with your slots". Beyond that, I don't think 5e is identified by mechanics, since the 'core' is light and most rules are optional. 3e/4e complicate action economy and precise combat movement identified those editions more strongly IMHO.

Some people don't want to build their own world and cosmos, they want to jump right in and play from the get go.

Newcomers or experienced gamers? If you mean newcomers, I've said before that if a book would benefit from a default setting booklet, it is the Starter Set. Experience gamers either already have their favorite settings (in which case they have a much better treatment from a dedicated campaign sourcebook), or if they want any setting from the get go, they can pick any campaign sourcebook from the shelf.

 

[Remathilis]

No, you are totally right. But the OP, @Remathilis, is neck deep in the derail, so I guess it's okay.

Yeah, sorry bout that.

It's different because of the underlying assumptions: a default is opt-out, you have to actively make the choice NOT to use it. An example is opt-in. You actively make the choice if you WANT to use it (or if you just abdicate that choice). On the one hand, you're saying "no" if you don't use the default. On the other, you're only ever really saying "yes," if you want the specific version presented. It informs how people approach the thing in the first place.

Pa-tay-toe. pa-tah-toe.

The only way this works is if you keep the choices limited and consistent. Otherwise, you create a smorgasbord of ideas which has no interconnection between them. You can't use a Greyhawk dwarf, an Eberron elf, a Realms halfling, a Planescape tiefling, etc as examples in the PHB since somebody new can't use those examples interconnected. You still end up saying "This is an example of a dwarf" and most people will look at in the PHB and say that IS the D&D dwarf. You're still creating a default mythology. Even if you say "this is only one example of a dwarf", by virtue of it being printing in the Holy Trinity of Core Books, its going to be the default version.

I get not wanting to be tied down to one concept, like I also get not being browbeat by the "Hammer of Moradin" prestige thingie that appeared in player supplement X you now gotta fix or ditch to fit in your Eberron game. But unless the Core is going to have six different dwarves, elves, fighters, orcs and Heavens, you're still going to end up with DMs, module writers, supplements, and Living X players using the PHB/DMG/MM assumptions, hence the "default" setting.

Personally, I'd rather a kinda generic sheen over everything, and then the DM buy (or create) setting of his choice. Kinda like hamburger helper; the core rules should be a pound of raw hamburger and the DM should pick the spices and sauce he wants to finish it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do not see it, but you have convinced me that you do.

Pa-tay-toe. pa-tah-toe.

The default effect is a real thing -- the difference between opt-in and opt-out is significant in the real world. The only novel thing I'm saying is that it also applies to D&D: what the game makes you opt out of and what the game allows you to opt into has a significant effect on how individual tables play, and also on what kinds of material gets published. Because it applies to D&D, I think D&D's writers should take it into account.

It's fair to dispute the way they should take that into account, or to argue that D&D is exempt from the default effect for some reason, 'cuz that's just you and me on a message board, but if you want to say that there's no real difference between opt-in and opt-out, you're going up against a bit of observable human behavior, and I don't think you can as easily dismiss it as you can my own unique claims.

The only way this works is if you keep the choices limited and consistent. Otherwise, you create a smorgasbord of ideas which has no interconnection between them. You can't use a Greyhawk dwarf, an Eberron elf, a Realms halfling, a Planescape tiefling, etc as examples in the PHB since somebody new can't use those examples interconnected.

What's stopping them?

In this world, the dwarves are materialistic and prone to Gold Fever. The elves have cults of their ancestors that they worship via arts of war or necromancy. The halflings are curious, sociable wanderers. Tieflings are the castoff and outcast people with tainted blood that liquid evil runs through.

There's no contradiction there. Those could all be on the same world, interacting with each other.

You still end up saying "This is an example of a dwarf" and most people will look at in the PHB and say that IS the D&D dwarf. You're still creating a default mythology. Even if you say "this is only one example of a dwarf", by virtue of it being printing in the Holy Trinity of Core Books, its going to be the default version.

So you think it's impossible to write the core books such that the distinction is clear? I've got more confidence in the writing, organization, and design skills of the D&D team and in the intelligence of the audience than that. For instance, simply calling them "Dwarf, Klar" in the title of their entry would imply that there's "Dwarf, (whatever)" out there as well. It's also possible to mention other dwarves without presenting their mechanics up front, and to be specific when talking about them.

I get not wanting to be tied down to one concept, like I also get not being browbeat by the "Hammer of Moradin" prestige thingie that appeared in player supplement X you now gotta fix or ditch to fit in your Eberron game. But unless the Core is going to have six different dwarves, elves, fighters, orcs and Heavens, you're still going to end up with DMs, module writers, supplements, and Living X players using the PHB/DMG/MM assumptions, hence the "default" setting.

There's a difference between "popular" and "default." If you only have one kind of each thing in the books, it will probably be the most popular, because it will have that preferred status, but it need not be the default, because it need not also be presumed default (meaning, designed to be opt-out). Which just means if they wanted to go this route, they should probably choose some of the most popular or iconic specific versions to present first (Like the drow of FR, psionicists like those on Dark Sun, tielfings like those in Planescape).

Personally, I'd rather a kinda generic sheen over everything, and then the DM buy (or create) setting of his choice. Kinda like hamburger helper; the core rules should be a pound of raw hamburger and the DM should pick the spices and sauce he wants to finish it.

"Generic" doesn't exist. It's all actually specific. It's just a matter of if it recognizes that or not.

For example, "Jackalweres are created by Grazz'zt and work with Lamia" isn't generic. It's specific. The game can either recognize that specificity and embrace it, or it can pretend like when you have a Jackalwere that doesn't do that, you're doing some weird homebrew thing.

"Dwarves live underground" isn't generic. It's specific. It doesn't apply to all D&D dwarves. Neidar live in houses on the surface, for instance. The game can either recognize that only specific dwarves live underground and embrace that by describing one particular kind of dwarf that lives underground, or it can pretend that when you have dwarves that don't live underground, you're playing some aberrant off-brand version of dwarf.

You can gain a lot of rich flavor if you embrace the specific. In the racial layout you put above, you've got rules and history and cultures and towns ready to slide right into your homebrew game linked to those specific races. There's deathless and halfling wagons and dragonmarked houses and crafting clans and evil outsiders breeding with mortals...you grab all that along with your specific races. Plunk it right down in your home D&D game! And for the publisher/writer/designer, there's no worry about not meeting the needs of people who, say, really want elves to be magical forest hippies, because that's not the intent with the elves you put in this book. It's not a bad execution, it's just perhaps what the magical forest hippie elf fan is looking for. Which means that you can publish a book with that kind of elf and meet that need, without having to imply that using this other kind of elf is some kind of DM homebrew manuever.

Which is just to say that there's a lot of value in recognizing and owning that specificity. It's not just about avoiding getting "tied down." It's also about unlocking the variety that is inherent in D&D thanks in part to its 40 year history and millions of players, and letting it be true to itself.

 

[Umbran]

In 2014, do we still need Rule 0 spelled out?

Yep. For two reasons:

1) New players come along all the time. That there were previous editions that spelled it out in the past is completely irrelevant to them.

2) Old players can get their heads stuck in a rut, and can use occasional reminders.

 

[DMZ2112]

The default effect is a real thing -- the difference between opt-in and opt-out is significant in the real world. The only novel thing I'm saying is that it also applies to D&D: what the game makes you opt out of and what the game allows you to opt into has a significant effect on how individual tables play, and also on what kinds of material gets published. Because it applies to D&D, I think D&D's writers should take it into account.

It's fair to dispute the way they should take that into account, or to argue that D&D is exempt from the default effect for some reason, 'cuz that's just you and me on a message board, but if you want to say that there's no real difference between opt-in and opt-out, you're going up against a bit of observable human behavior, and I don't think you can as easily dismiss it as you can my own unique claims.

I'm 100% with you in terms of content, KM, but when it comes to rhetoric I'm just not convinced the opt-in/opt-out effect applies in this scenario. I think [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] is right: if you detail a race in a roleplaying book, it is the default. If you want to call it "the most popular," instead, that's fine -- then it's the default by default.

But I want to be clear that this is not the argument I am having with you. We are all 100% in agreement that whether we include the language, "this is THE dwarf, you may have different dwarves," or the language, "this is A dwarf, you may have different dwarves," we end up with most dwarf players playing the dwarf in the book. Maybe that majority is slightly larger in the former case because of the opt-in/opt-out effect -- I don't know. It doesn't matter.

My position is that I /believe in/ the idea of a default D&D, and think such a thing should be reflected in the text. If my goal were simply to /have/ a default, I would be just as happy with your suggested language, because to my eye there is no functional difference.