D&D 5E Does D&D Next need a Core Setting?

[Ratskinner]

I don't think so, at least not as a separate book/box to buy. Assuming they sell adventures, they might have a sketchy setting penciled in for those to take place in.

However, we know that they will need to keep us buying additional splat...so who knows what model they might choose?

 

[Hussar]

I have no problems with a default world to be honest. No, it doesn't have to take up pages of text - two, three pages was enough to give me Mystara after all and that's including a full page sized map. A general, fairly generic fantasy world where you can say, "Ok, here's the bare bones of a world you can use as a template to create your own worlds." is invaluable in core rules, which do have to accommodate that new player as well.

I've never really understood the negative reactions we get from having flavour in the core books. I mean, 1e had the Racial Relations table. It flat out told you that race X and race Y don't like each other. Yet, that's apparently okay, but, a paragraph saying where Tieflings come from is too intrusive? Really?

Every bit of flavour you include in the game will go some distance towards creating a core world anyway. You might as well start with one and then at least you have some level of coherence.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I have no problems with a default world to be honest. No, it doesn't have to take up pages of text - two, three pages was enough to give me Mystara after all and that's including a full page sized map. A general, fairly generic fantasy world where you can say, "Ok, here's the bare bones of a world you can use as a template to create your own worlds." is invaluable in core rules, which do have to accommodate that new player as well.

I've never really understood the negative reactions we get from having flavour in the core books. I mean, 1e had the Racial Relations table. It flat out told you that race X and race Y don't like each other. Yet, that's apparently okay, but, a paragraph saying where Tieflings come from is too intrusive? Really?

Every bit of flavour you include in the game will go some distance towards creating a core world anyway. You might as well start with one and then at least you have some level of coherence.

This. A handful of pages, useful as example or to build upon.

Some implied setting is practically unavoidable. 1e actually had a lot, Greyhawk, of course. I hadn't realized just how much, until I set out to compare the main three 1e core books, with OSRIC.

 

[Leatherhead]

It should be playable right out of the box, so to speak.

If that means a setting of sorts, then OK. If that means a bunch of sidebars with multiple choice flavor options for the stock picks, then OK.

Perhaps it is something the DMG should go over.

 

[Raith5]

I dont see the point of an explicit or assumed setting. I quite like POL assumption and the 4th ed planar context. I find them relatively unobtrusive and useful in principle and practice. But I really do not like the idea of re conceiving worlds like Greyhawk and FR with POL in mind and shoehorning them to fit within the POL setting. For this reason I like the fact there are different worlds in which D&D can take place and I think D&DN should avoid an explicit setting.

The practical implication of this is is that the section on Clerics should list various domains, eg sun, death, war etc and not specific deities.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

It certainly is possible for the game to run without an assumed setting, though because clerics serve gods, it becomes a little difficult.

I would totally be okay if the books were 100% setting neutral and lacked an assumed setting if a campaign setting book was out on day one. Or even a campaign setting builder book. Some people just want to play without making up their own worlds, others want one from scratch. Both are essentially polar opposites. They have to try to make both parties happy somehow. Perhaps if they put just the building blocks in the core three, and then make a small book that builds off those building blocks (could be in the DMG too) to make a "Core" setting.

 

[The Shadow]

I have no problems with a default world to be honest. No, it doesn't have to take up pages of text - two, three pages was enough to give me Mystara after all and that's including a full page sized map. A general, fairly generic fantasy world where you can say, "Ok, here's the bare bones of a world you can use as a template to create your own worlds." is invaluable in core rules, which do have to accommodate that new player as well.

I generally strongly dislike the rules pushing setting on me, as I've mentioned elsewhere.

But I think including an *example* brief setting to give the idea of how to go about things could be a great idea. "Here's Generi-world. In this world, tieflings come from X, a bunch of centuries ago, and had this epic conflict with the dragonborn."

I've never really understood the negative reactions we get from having flavour in the core books. I mean, 1e had the Racial Relations table. It flat out told you that race X and race Y don't like each other. Yet, that's apparently okay, but, a paragraph saying where Tieflings come from is too intrusive? Really?

Grrrr. The Racial Relations table is exactly the sort of thing I *don't* want to ever see. It was definitely not 'okay' in my book.

 

[delericho]

I don't think the game needs a core setting, and I don't think that baking in a heavy setting would be beneficial - far more people will not use the setting than will use it (whatever it is), so the more setting-stuff that's embedded into the rules, the more work the game is making for DMs.

However, I think a very light default setting is definitely a good thing for the game. Because it makes the game playable right out of the box, because it gives the designers something to hang examples off of, and because it is much easier to write flavourful materials when you've got some setting in mind than when you're working with Generic Lands of Generica.

IMO, 4e's concept of the "Points of Light" was actually about right, at least in the core. The one big thing I didn't like was the way they lifted a mix of gods from the different settings (IMO, should have been all-new deities for an all-new setting). And I also felt that as the edition went on, they took a bad wrong turn by making PoL-land ever more detailed - for me, a lot of the strength of the concept was that it gave DMs room to take it in whatever direction they wished; every time they locked something down, they reduced the scope for that.

So, my recommendation for 5e would be to build in a very light default setting, probably being a 'reset' Points of Light world, and to strongly resist the temptation to further detail that world.

 

[delericho]

It certainly is possible for the game to run without an assumed setting, though because clerics serve gods, it becomes a little difficult.

Actually, the game doesn't even need to make that assumption, and might perhaps be better off by not doing so.

The game could just as easily present the domains and instructing PC Clerics to just pick two (or whatever). Then, in setting books, present the rule that Clerics of that setting must pick a god, and select the domains from the subset provided by that god.

(That said, I've also been thinking for quite some time that the current 'generic' Cleric doesn't really work as a catch-all class. I'm inclined to think that the war-priest, sacred exorcist, and mystic priest are sufficiently distinct archetypes that they should probably not be a single class - they're at least as different as the Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin, for example.)

Perhaps if they put just the building blocks in the core three, and then make a small book that builds off those building blocks (could be in the DMG too) to make a "Core" setting.

I think there is an argument for doing an optional "Fourth Core Rulebook", presenting a default setting in a bit more detail. 3e had this in the form of a Greyhawk Gazeteer (although IIRC it wasn't a very good product... that said, no reason they couldn't do the same thing, but better).

Indeed, White Wolf have had success in this area with their new World of Darkness, where they have a Core Rulebook, and then hang the various sub-games off that.

 

[Yora]

I think the core rulebooks need a few generic assumptions of the world everything takes place in, especially for new players and DMs. I think 3rd Edition did it really quite well. The only reference to Greyhawk where the deities, and I think those that were listed were actually a good sample of what deities in any D&D setting could be like.
However, there were almost no references to people and places from the Greyhawk setting in the core books, and if there were, you could also read it as "some person" in "some place". I didn't know anything about Greyhawk and still don't, and I think 3rd Edition handled it quite well.