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

[howandwhy99]

I've said it before, homebrew. There's some big, long post on this back in January that has all my points in it.

Regarding The Points of Light method it could work, but I would try and keep it from being the only kind of campaign setting one could create. Make something new and keep the previous stuff the product already being bought, but with 5e rules.

What do you think of the "Known World" again? Like in the B/X books before it became Mystara and received a bunch of detail. Perhaps that's simply the name of the DMG standard homebrew as it's "What we know of the world" as both players and characters.

What do you think of 32-page published Campaign Settings again? (or maybe bundle this stuff in with a module?)

EDIT: I disagree this thing can be setting neutral. Let's say setting suggestive options. It's medieval magical, fantasy, high fantasy, and swords & sorcery. D&D isn't everything.

 

[Gold Roger]

To me this is really multiple questions.

And considering my love for worldbuilding and homebrewing they are very important to me.

First, there's always going to be implied setting. Every racial stat, every background, every bit of game economics, every cleric domain is implied setting. Monster statblocks and the presentation of PC races are propably the biggest factor in how intrusive the implied setting is.

This is something 4th edition got wrong, imo. The PC races assumed an awful lot about the setting played and it doesn't help that a fair bit of these intrusions departed quite a bit from traditional D&D (which existing settings and homebrews had already taken into consideration). Likewise monster stats and presentation assumed an awful lot about the world. Heavily defined monster types are and example, as are the knowledge tables.


The other question (or the other one I'm going to tackle, since I don't want to write a book here) is that of an example setting for the Core game. I think such a setting is needed, as not everyone wants to homebrew or buy a campaign setting. In the case of starters, they might not even be able to do so.

The main weight the example or Core Setting should have to shoulder is providing for a backdrop of starter sets and adventure modules, as well as for gameplay and game examples in the core books (artifacts, Deities for clerics, etc.).


The Core setting should be open ended, adaptable and, this is very important to me, completely divided from the implied setting.

Both 3.X (especially in later products) and 4th edition failed that last part.

As long as this divide is clear, I wouldn't mind a continuation of the Nenthir Vale or Greyhawk as "core setting". Fearun however, I think is to filled out and carries to much baggage to serve well in this function.

 

[Zaukrie]

It needs a context to be played within, if you want new gamers to really embrace it. A light story as core makes sense for that context. I have never understood why anyone thinks that just because the rules say this is how it is in one world, or even version of a world, that they cannot change it for their world. My version of FR is only sort of like the "official"version.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[the Jester]

I really don't want a default setting in the rules. With (f'rinstance) deities and spheres, I'd like to see a big list of examples that includes gods from multiple settings and a good system for ensuring that custom-written deities balance well, but there ain't no Bane, Pholtus or Silver Flame in my campaign.

 

[eamon]

If you had to explain Rugby you might start by saying it's like American Football but [...]. If you had to describe a Galaxy Tab you might say it's like an iPad but [...].

My point?

Explanation by example is a very natural technique. It's much harder to get across an idea from a purely abstract basis.

5e should have an implied setting. It doesn't need to include a bunch of extraneous detail, but if things like choice of deity matter, it should have a list of deities and their descriptions. Similarly, if affiliation to an organization matters (say, through use of a theme or background), they should be mentioned.

The setting doesn't need to be in the foreground; but its mere presence will help clarify how different parts of the game are interrelated so that customization is easier. The impact of choice of deity on a cleric's power list in contrast to say, a wizard's power list could be abstractly defined, but it's likely to be misunderstood or at best just boring. Better to just give an example and let people change it as they wish. As an added bonus, if you just don't care too much about some part of the setting (very likely), you implicitly get to copy the default setting, rather than needing to specify something yourself.

I do think that things like the Nentir Vale don't need to be so explicitly fleshed out - it's enough to mention the default setting when directly relevant to the material at hand. The setting would then be a tool merely to help the game designers keep the game consistent, and the players (including DM) would normally only read about the setting indirectly.

 

[Li Shenron]

I was wondering if D&D Next actually needs a core setting such as Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or can it remain generic so as to be applied to any setting rather than have specific assumptions?

I liked the idea of the Points of Light thing when initially mooted, but found it did not work as well in practice and so I'm equally concerned that a generic treatment this time around might not have enough inherent direction. On the other hand, I really don't want the style of Forgotten Realms stamped all over everything with all the confused baggage that it carries. Perhaps 3e did this idea well in that while Greyhawk was the "core setting", it really was in the background and didn't intrude itself upon the books (aside from the core deities) unless you were looking for it.

And so, I'm not too sure what I want or if anything actually needs to be there. Any ideas?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I don't think it needs a default setting. As you said, in 3e the Greyhawk setting served only the purpose of bringing in some ready-made deities, and spell names. So little, that in fact D&D could have done without.

For me the best setting to start RPGing is your imagination. Really, it doesn't take that much creativity to come up with the name of one city or kingdom and a couple of villains to start your first campaign.

But for those who don't even have the time for that, the Basic boxed game will be a better purchase than the PHB/DMG/MM, so there in such box I would put a small, maybe 10-oages pamphlet with one chosen setting, maybe even a randomly selected one, or alternatively 3 samples settings even more slimmed down.

 

[Sir Robilar]

I wish they would free themselves from the baggage of a single setting and clearly communicate that there are many settings, or "worlds" as I would prefer.

"In the many worlds of D&D, god come in all facets. In Greyhawk, Boccob the Uncaring oversees all magic, whereas in the Forgotten Realms, Mystra lovingly cares for her Weave..."

 

[triqui]

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.

A default setting make things much better for game design and adventure design. Pathfinder is great partially because of Golarion.

D&D does not have that luxury though. Whatever world they take as "default", somebody is going to complain.

 

[Dausuul]

Historically, the function of the core setting has been to provide the following elements:

• A pantheon of gods.
• Monster "ecology" material.
• A starting town.
• Spell names.
• The Hand and Eye of Vecna*.

[SIZE=-2]*I was going to say "artifacts," but to all intents and purposes, the only artifacts in the game are the Hand and Eye. Each edition includes a few other throwaways because the designers feel like Vecna shouldn't be allowed to hog all the artifacts. Nobody cares.[/SIZE]

The pantheons can be relegated to sidebars or subchapters. Just as 3E presented a list of domains, and then gave us a list of Greyhawk gods and the domains connected to them, D&DN can present the gods of the major settings in abbreviated form.

Monster ecology is an interesting question. Late 3.5E tried to do something where each monster entry presented different "ecology" material for each major setting (Eberron, FR, et cetera). It's a nice idea, but maybe going too far. I think it's okay to default to Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk for most monsters, and call out the cases where there's a big important difference, like orcs in Eberron.

The starting town both can and should be setting-agnostic. 4E and BD&D had the right idea here, with Fallcrest and Threshold respectively: Small, isolated, self-contained towns with handy dungeons nearby. Other than exotic settings like Dark Sun and Planescape, you can drop them in pretty much anywhere and they're fine. Of course, Threshold eventually grew into the sprawling chaos of Mystara, but as originally presented it was just The Starting Town.

Spell names don't really need a lot of setting background, and in fact I think it's better if they aren't presented with any. It's more fun, as a player, to try to imagine the sort of wizard who would come up with Mordenkainen's various utility and meta-spells, and compare it to Melf's destructive streak and Bigby with his hand fetish.

As for the Hand and Eye of Vecna, Vecna scoffs at your petty setting constraints. The Hand and Eye can show up in any setting they damn well please.

 

[hbarsquared]

I have to say, I'm definitely still in the "implied setting" camp.

And I think PoL of 4E got it pretty much exactly right. I never considered it obtrusive, I felt there was plenty of text throughout the PHB and DMG about making the world your own, and it spurred my own imagination.

I think the reason why it became more prevalent in later books was the clamor from the fanbase for more info on this new generic setting. Not really a bad thing, I think.

It's interesting how this thread and this one seem to be addressing the same issue from different andles.

I think the flavor should be there and present in the core books, but the mechanical restrictions should be left out.