D&D 4E Default setting for 4E?
- Thread starter Dykstrav
- Start date
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Can't we make one of those sticky?
The answer stays the same: Greyhawk, the way it's used now: hardly. Enough to base homeworlds on if you're not experienced enough to create something from scratch, but not too much, which would pen you in. GH has been doing this job for quite some time now, and can continue doing it.
And it's doing a great job: It's vanilla enough to act as a base, there's hardly any people who really hate it.
FR might work, but it might chase away those who hate the Realms (yeah, I know, a lot of people hate the Realms because they are prejudiced against FR-Fans, pathetic as that might be, and others just don't know how to use the Realms properly).
Eberron can't work because there's too much weird stuff in there. The basic setting should not have weird stuff in it. That's for other settings. If the base setting is already weird, it would skew the perspective. You'd either force all other settings to use that stuff, or you'd basically have a setting that's "weird and different" because it's not. It's just not using all that crazy stuff that has been declared norm. Plus, Eberron really isn't for everyone.
Designing a brand new setting just for the core rules seems way too much work. They can always design a brand new setting and sell it as a Campaign Setting, but they wouldn't do that if it didn't offer something new, and that means, again, that it's not really suitable as base setting.
Ressurecting an old setting is not a good idea, either: It's unnecessary, many of them are too weird, or are just another vanilla fantasy setting. Why fix what isn't broken? Stick to GH.
OGL settings are right out. They'd probably have to buy those, and that would drive up the game's price - while not improving the game in any significant way.
No setting at all is partly the way. There should be something do base everything on, some defaults to use when you don't want to bother with that sort of thing (like creating your own pantheon when you really don't care what the gods' names are). It should be subtle, but I think the way it is now works fine.
The answer stays the same: Greyhawk, the way it's used now: hardly. Enough to base homeworlds on if you're not experienced enough to create something from scratch, but not too much, which would pen you in. GH has been doing this job for quite some time now, and can continue doing it.
And it's doing a great job: It's vanilla enough to act as a base, there's hardly any people who really hate it.
FR might work, but it might chase away those who hate the Realms (yeah, I know, a lot of people hate the Realms because they are prejudiced against FR-Fans, pathetic as that might be, and others just don't know how to use the Realms properly).
Eberron can't work because there's too much weird stuff in there. The basic setting should not have weird stuff in it. That's for other settings. If the base setting is already weird, it would skew the perspective. You'd either force all other settings to use that stuff, or you'd basically have a setting that's "weird and different" because it's not. It's just not using all that crazy stuff that has been declared norm. Plus, Eberron really isn't for everyone.
Designing a brand new setting just for the core rules seems way too much work. They can always design a brand new setting and sell it as a Campaign Setting, but they wouldn't do that if it didn't offer something new, and that means, again, that it's not really suitable as base setting.
Ressurecting an old setting is not a good idea, either: It's unnecessary, many of them are too weird, or are just another vanilla fantasy setting. Why fix what isn't broken? Stick to GH.
OGL settings are right out. They'd probably have to buy those, and that would drive up the game's price - while not improving the game in any significant way.
No setting at all is partly the way. There should be something do base everything on, some defaults to use when you don't want to bother with that sort of thing (like creating your own pantheon when you really don't care what the gods' names are). It should be subtle, but I think the way it is now works fine.
EyeontheMountain
First Post
No assumed setting got my vote, though I would not be totally against greyhawk.
As a long-time Greyhawk fan I vote Greyhawk, but with the caveat that WotC actually, oh, I don't know...support it.
As it stands right now the defualt setting is a very generic, whitewashed, anemic, pallid, wan, rasping, tottering, clutching, dying version of Greyhawk...but that's just my opinion.
As it stands right now the defualt setting is a very generic, whitewashed, anemic, pallid, wan, rasping, tottering, clutching, dying version of Greyhawk...but that's just my opinion.
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
Sorry for the Greyhawk lovers, but I really hope they don't bother with GH next time around. I don't see the need for it to be even implied in the core rules.
Li Shenron
Legend
The best thing for consummate gamers would probably be "setting-less". In 3rd edition the "core setting" had a limited influence in the core books, basically only deities/priests and spell names. It shouldn't be difficult to remove the latter like in Spell compendium, and to replace specific deities with generic gods of Magic, War, Nature, etc...
However this could lure some new players away from the game, if they pick up a rulebook and find it too mechanical and flavorless (that includes splatbooks).
If they use a default settings, all in all I think Forgotten Realms would be best, because it's generic enough and probably it's the most played setting today.
Greyhawk COULD have been just as good, but eventually how it was handled in 3ed it was completely awful.
However this could lure some new players away from the game, if they pick up a rulebook and find it too mechanical and flavorless (that includes splatbooks).
If they use a default settings, all in all I think Forgotten Realms would be best, because it's generic enough and probably it's the most played setting today.
Greyhawk COULD have been just as good, but eventually how it was handled in 3ed it was completely awful.
Inconsequenti-AL
Breaks Games
I'd like to see Greyhawk included - it's a very default feeling setting to me, which I think is just the right tone for 'core' DnD.
Ideally, I'd like a 15 odd page condensed greyhawk at the back of the PhB - gods, map and some sketchy regional details. Although as a tiny niggle, I'd rather they left otiluke, tenser et al off the spell names.
Keep the book generic and use this bit of an example of how all those generic rules fitted together.
To go with that, I would like to see another book with a more fleshed out Greyhawk setting in it. And some decent starter modules to support it.
IMO, it's just much more friendly to new players. Frankly more experienced players can and will ignore this stuff without much bother?
Partly, I've got this view after seeing my 13 year old cousin move from CCGs to DnD. A short, simple setting would have been just right for him and his friends!
Edit: On reflection, this thing probably belongs in the DMG, rather than the PHB. Also provide a large list of plot ideas!
Ideally, I'd like a 15 odd page condensed greyhawk at the back of the PhB - gods, map and some sketchy regional details. Although as a tiny niggle, I'd rather they left otiluke, tenser et al off the spell names.
Keep the book generic and use this bit of an example of how all those generic rules fitted together.
To go with that, I would like to see another book with a more fleshed out Greyhawk setting in it. And some decent starter modules to support it.
IMO, it's just much more friendly to new players. Frankly more experienced players can and will ignore this stuff without much bother?
Partly, I've got this view after seeing my 13 year old cousin move from CCGs to DnD. A short, simple setting would have been just right for him and his friends!
Edit: On reflection, this thing probably belongs in the DMG, rather than the PHB. Also provide a large list of plot ideas!
Last edited:
Kae'Yoss
First Post
blargney the second said:
"I will play a cleric"
"Do you worship an ideal or a deity"
"A deity!"
"Which one."
"I don't know, what gods are there and what domains do they offer?"
"Hm... I didn't actually bother writing up a pantheon, but the PHB should have some standard gods we can use in a pinch.....no, that was in 3e, in 4e they didn't bother."
Things similar to this will happen if there's not even a default setting.
Note that I'm no GH lover: The Realms cover all my vanilla D&D fantasy needs. But standard stuff - all crunch, with only minimal flavour - is a boon for new Dungeon Masters who don't want to bother with some small details. Maybe the gods won't play too big a part in their homebrew, but having a quick pantheon so players have someone to worship and clerics some good collections of domains is very useful. In a homebrew I played in, that was the case, and the DM was happy to have that list of deities available in the core rules.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
