D&D Setting Tolerances

[jdrakeh]

I voted yes to everything except "no divine classes".

Hmmm. . . that's the same one that I opted out on. A world where people believe in absolutely nothing divine (be it a principle, force of nature, god, or other such thing) simply seems too bleak. I think that such beliefs and the representation of believers in the world is a vital component of compelling fantasy, for me.

 

[Cadfan]

I selected "all of the above."

For the record though, if I got the feeling that the reason there were no divine classes was because of some sort of wacky DM hobby horse, I might run from the game screaming. It isn't setting that drives me crazy, its DM attitude. And sometimes setting is an indicator of DM attitude.

"Fewer than average humanoid races" is another one. I'm all for tight, coherent settings. But if the DM's next move is to try to get me to read page after page of his amateur encyclopedia of his campaign setting, its run-away-screaming time again.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Hmmm. . . that's the same one that I opted out on. A world where people believe in absolutely nothing divine (be it a principle, force of nature, god, or other such thing) simply seems too bleak. I think that such beliefs and the representation of believers in the world is a vital component of compelling fantasy, for me.

Just because there aren't any classes with divine power doesn't mean that there wouldn't be beliefs. It would be that the 'powers that be' don't allow mortals to wield power associated or derived from them.

 

[jdrakeh]

It would be that the 'powers that be' don't allow mortals to wield power associated or derived from them.

It would, however, mean that there would be no profession in the world dedicated to the expression of said beliefs, as the mechanic of 'classes' reflects a setting's common professions in D&D. While such beliefs may ostensibly exist in a setting, if they don't benefit from the standardized D&D mechanical representation for such things, is that existence of any consequence? I would argue that the only possible answer to this question is "no"

[Note: Incidentally, this is what I was referring to when I said "I think that such beliefs and the representation of believers in the world is a vital component of compelling fantasy, for me. Without the classes, the representation of believers is notably lacking.]

As with the human-centric bit I mention earlier, it's one thing for a product to say "X things exist this way in the world!" and another thing to support that claim. D&D has a long history of claiming X and then uitterly faling to provide mechanics for it (or, in the case of claimed demi-human obscurity, actually printing a metric ton of material to the contrary). This has, similarly, been one of my long-standing complaints with D&D setting design.

Saying that belief systems or believers exist in a setting but completely failing to apportion them any kind of mechanical representation isn't much different than omitting such things from a setting entirely, in my experience (YMMV, of course).

 

[Tervin]

When I started creating my new homebrew I decided a few things:

1. No alignment.
2. None of the usual races apart from human. Instead I designed an undead race, an insectoid race with a hivemind, a weird doppelgangery race and a fey race.
3. No conventional gods. One very unconventional god that is extremely present in the world - and no other divine power.

I changed my mind on number 2, as I realised that my potential players would want a chance to try out the core races with 4E. (Also, much of my dislike of the 1-3E races is actually not there with 4E.)

In other words, your description doesn't sound that weird to me. I wouldn't mind dropping the divine bit altogether if it came with an interesting backstory. In general I find that many D&D worlds use gods in an unimaginative way. Temples and cults tend to be for only one god, instead of for a whole pantheon. One god seems to always have one cult supporting it, seldom several that disagree with each other. Also, when did you last hear of a god that people mistakenly seee as several different ones? I mean, any decent trickster god would at least like to cause a bit of confusion.

 

[Psion]

Well, lets just say while I could live with most of those things in other games, it's not the sort of game I would look for if I get in the mood to play "D&D".

 

[Spatula]

It would, however, mean that there would be no profession in the world dedicated to the expression of said beliefs, as the mechanic of 'classes' reflects a setting's common professions in D&D.

But that's not the case, and certainly not in 4e where the classes are very specifically concerned with combat abilities. Is blacksmith a common profession in your D&D worlds? After all, there has never been a blacksmith class. A world without divine classes is simply a world without people directly wielding the power of the gods in a fight. Of course there would still be beliefs and professions related to beliefs - just as there are in the real world. Such beliefs simply become a roleplaying aspect rather than something you can swing at an orc.

 

[racoffin]

Well, lets just say while I could live with most of those things in other games, it's not the sort of game I would look for if I get in the mood to play "D&D".

Pretty much this.

I'd have to select "none of the above" if it were an option.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

but that's not the case, and certainly not in 4e where the classes are very specifically concerned with combat abilities. Is blacksmith a common profession in your d&d worlds? After all, there has never been a blacksmith class. A world without divine classes is simply a world without people directly wielding the power of the gods in a fight. Of course there would still be beliefs and professions related to beliefs - just as there are in the real world. Such beliefs simply become a roleplaying aspect rather than something you can swing at an orc.

qft.

 

[GreatLemur]

Not only would all of those options be acceptable to me--not only would they be, in fact, preferrable--but I actually wouldn't really want to play with people who'd object to any of 'em. I mean, I can understand people saying "It's not D&D without elves and clerics", fine, but "I'm not playing without elves and clerics" is a great, big, blazing warning sign.