Default D&D: Inside Out or Outside In?

[takasi]

When I talk with some of the grognards in our group about the 'way things used to be', they very fondly recall what I like to call the "Mystery of the Absolute Setting." The reason for these whisps of nostalgia generally fall into one of two categories: the search for the Unknown (the mystery) and a single Known World (an Absolute Setting).

Today there are many different campaign settings, but 'back in the day' there was really only one set of popular published canon and it all took place in the known world. Reading the Monster Manual, there were assumptions about the world the creatures lived in. This is still true today in 3E and 4E, but back then there was no legacy. The closest thing you had to 'tradition' and 'roots' was a hodgepodge collection of myths from dozens of real-world and fictional cultures. As adventures were published, names of cities and heroes and backstories were revealed slowly. There was only one assumed world, and it was presented like the inside out method in the DMG.

Like original D&D, the new Points of Light setting is also doing this:

"Start with a small area and build outward. Don't even worry about what the whole world looks like, or even the kingdom. Concentrate first on a single village or town, preferably with a dungeon or other adventure site nearby."

Other settings, like Eberron and the 3rd edition 'Default World' of Greyhawk, have been presented outside in.

"Start with a big picture - [view] a map of an entire continent or portion thereof....you could start with a grand [understanding of] how a number of kingdoms and nations interact..."

By drawing new players and DMs into a default world that is already filled out (like Greyhawk, or even FR or Eberron), you are not presenting D&D as it was originally.

What do you think? Do you like how Paizo's Golarion and Goodman Games Aereth settings were developed? Or do you prefer your settings like Eberron? Is that your opinion as a longtime player? Which do you think is better for a new player or DM?

 

[WayneLigon]

By drawing new players and DMs into a default world that is already filled out (like Greyhawk, or even FR or Eberron), you are not presenting D&D as it was originally.

I can go either way. For a new GM, it's best to start small and work your way out since you don't have a clear-cut idea of what you want the world to be like. I do a little of both. I start small but I will also have a large scale map that gives me some broad ideas of what things are and where they are - much like the Greyhawk map. It's important to me to know where my orc lands are, where the elves are, how close to a coast the campaign area is and what sort of weather they're likely to have, etc. I may not even have names for all of that stuff when I start but at least I have a loosey-goosey idea of where it is so I don't get caught out later with a contradiction.

I would think that the reason D&D didn't start out with all that stuff originally is that no-one ever thought to do it. You have A Town, and you leave it and go into the dungeon, then come back. For a short while not many people gave much thought to the surrounding areas or 'the world'. Once we started world-building, though, we never looked at the 'Absolute Setting' or implied setting of the rulebooks.

 

[kennew142]

I don't know about one assumed world. MOst of the earliest modules gave references to the World of Greyhawk. I can't remember when it was published (I bought my copy sometime in 1980 or so), but I used it back in my earliest days for a campaign world. The known world was a Basic D&D default setting.

I do mostly homebrew campaigns. I have a map for the surrounding area and some idea of what is going on around the world, but I almost never design any part of the world in detail unless it becomes important to the adventures or the backstory - or unless someone asks me about an area.

I am mentoring one of the GMs in our group in creating a homebrew world, and I have essentially advised him to follow the old school of world design. Start with one town and the local adventuring sites and then expand from there. 4e appears to be extemely well suited to this style of design, with its focus on Points of Light. With the exception of changing the default gods (none of us are too fond of them), his campaign will begin with the assumed setting and make changes/expansions as they are needed.

My own campaign has been influenced by this style as well, with lots of civilization near the waterways and coasts, but very dangerous territory surrounding it. As an aside, many players in games over the years have assumed that I have hundred of pages of detail on my campaign world. They are often surprised to find out that most areas have nothing more than a few sentences. My general rule of thumb has always been to design nothing in detail until it was needed. In many cases, the information I have provided the characters is all the information that exists on a particular region.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'd have to see how they WoTC handles Forgotten Realms as a points of light setting.

For example, I hate small towns, hommlets, villages, etc...

But some have pointed out that city states (and cities are one of my favorit type of gaming environments) could easily thrive in such a setting.

I'll see how Waterdeep is handled.

 

[Arnwyn]

What do you think? Do you like how Paizo's Golarion and Goodman Games Aereth settings were developed? Or do you prefer your settings like Eberron? Is that your opinion as a longtime player?

I think there's room for both. Now, with that little PC bit out of the way, my players far prefer "outside in" (ie. big picture first), and I think I prefer that way, too (though I can see the fun of starting small).

I really don't care for how Paizo's Golarion is being developed, because you always get the inevitable questions about the world at large anyways (see the reams of that on Paizo's messageboards). It sure doesn't do it for me, and my players would find it completely unacceptable.

This is from a medium-long player (a little more than 15 years).

Which do you think is better for a new player or DM?

No idea, though I'd be inclined to say: It depends entirely on the players. If they are inquisitive sorts, then outside in. If they are completely new to this whole thing in every which way and don't care about anything other than bashing stuff, then starting small is fine.

Neither method is inherently better than the other for new players/DMs.

 

[Ragnar69]

I think starting small is the better way. I see 2 problems with highly detailed settings:

1) players (especialy in FR) who know the published setting better than you and always try to correct you
2) many players are not that interested in a myriad of details that don't realy affect their chars and all your hard work goes practicaly down the drain