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

[slobster]

The more I think about it, the more I think D&D has a core setting, whether it wants it or not.

The moment of realization for me came when I was playing a game of Dresden files (modern urban fantasy) and we came across some goblins. "Oh, weak little enemies we can thrash by the dozens?" one player asked. "Nah, that's D&D."

Not "that's Greyhawk" or "that's Lord of the Rings." D&D was the first to arrive in the tapletop rpg world, so it got to set a lot of conventions that we now take for granted. It would be a monumental task (that others are better at doing) to trace all the sources that inspired this shared setting, but I think it's very real.

Real, but nebulous. There isn't, nor has there ever been, canon for this setting. Different people have subtly (or blatantly) different views on what it includes. It includes orcs and elves and dragons, to be sure. It includes magic missiles and intelligent swords. It includes rust monsters, and iron golems, and endless dungeons, and thousands of other things that I could list, but still wouldn't really encompass the entirety of it because it's a feeling and a tone as much as it is a fictional place. It's deeply personal for a lot of us players because D&D is such a creative, shared experience.

We can argue back and forth about what mechanics we'd like to see in the system, and that is very important. But at the end of the day, a beautifully designed system that turns it's back on all that tradition will be a failure, both by my (admittedly entirely subjective) personal standards and those that the designers have related thus far in their columns and interviews.

TL;DR - D&D already has a default setting of a nebulous sort, and it's a comfortable place to play even if we don't all use the D&D game rules to play there all the time. I hope they keep it around.

 

[Lanefan]

So 4E comes to people's houses now and makes them get permission slips to change things or homebrew? What a load of irrational hooey! DMs have always had the same power in EVERY edition of the game.

To a point. I've never tried kitbashing 4e but from what I gather it's not easy*. 3e was not easy to mess with either, but earlier editions in general were.

* - well, not easy to do well enough to result in a playable game. It's easy to mess with anything if you don't care about the results.

I'm not talking about minor changes - swapping a few deities out for another few, who cares? When I talk about kitbashing I'm getting at modifying big chunks of the rules. In 1e, for example, taking out weapon speed and weapon vs. armour type is a big change the game can withstand; ditto for dropping or harshly reducing XP for treasure. But what happens in 4e, for example, if you try to ditch the powers system and healing surges and put full Vancian back in? Does it work, and what are the knock-on effects?

So, true, nobody's knocking on your door with permission slips, but the system's knocking on the inside cover of your book saying "be careful" far more than it used to.

Lan-"it's non-conforming, but not against the law"-efan

 

[Blackwarder]

I want the core rule books to be only about the rules. I want them to stress that when it come to the world you play in its up to your party and DM to decide where and what it is.

Let's take the cleric section for example, I don't want to have a section in the PHB giving me a list of gods and their themes or domains or spheres I want it to say somthing like "you should ask your DM what gods your cleric could worship" and to have a list of options for a war god justice god and trickery god.

The DMG should use specific gods only as an example and should stress that the DM should decide what happened in his game world and who are the gods in it.

I don't mind if the rule books will use different things from different settings as an example.

I would also like to have small booklets of introduction to each setting, it should be a softcover and thin and should have all the specific setting information need to build a character from the PHB1 in that setting and run advantures in there, it shouldn't be a guide to that setting.

Warder

 

[steeldragons]

Ok, so to the question at had, "Does 5e need a Core setting?"

The answer is <drum roll, please> No...and Yes.

IF, by "Core setting" we are saying some consistent coherent details and fluff that must be adhered to to play the game, then, No.

But if by "Core setting" we are saying the "implied setting" by which the rules of the book are explained, called out in examples, certain "baseline" tropes are included, then Yes.

Do you need to know the "Order of the Shiny Sword" Paladins are from the Kingdom of Shiny, follow this code and are this alignment with XYZ powers at ABC levels and always ride a celestial flying monkey? No.

Does the PHB, in relaying the Paladin class need to touch on code, alignment [as an optional add on], and the default/baseline powers of the class (prefrerably with an explanation of how those powers come about/are fueled) and examples of some character named "Chival Swordshine, Paladin of the Holy Light"? Yes. It should.

If for no other reason than to give thsoe "new players" we're all so worried about getting into the game an idea of what/how a Paladin can look/be/act. Those that have their own ideas/have played or years...no, we don't need this. But the books need to be written not just for those of us who "just need the rules" to get started...but someone who's never played.

The "Elf" listing needs to make certain assumptions of the elf characters, as a default. Not just "Elf: stat, stat, stat." Are they two foot tall floppy-eared bug-eyed Dobbies? Or a race of Legolases? Or four foot tall, three-fingered tribes of wolf-riders seeking out their ancient ancestral "High Ones"? Or otherworldly "fey"/sidhe kingdoms, like Oberon and Titantia from Shakespeare/used in Gargoyles?

Yes, anyone can make elves however they want. But the game,for those with no reference, need certain default/baseline assumptions on which to make the rules....which leads to graspable implications about the race, the culture, the setting in general.

Those who want to change them will, of course...as they should...and I expect sidebars/optional modules explaining (prolly in the DMG more than the PHB) how to go about making "sun elves and night elves and chocolate mousse elves"...ad inf.

But the rules of the game need a baseline of fluff on which to stipulate the rules...which requires/implies a setting, to a degree.

Clerics need gods to pick. Now, I'm not saying the PHB should stipulate a pantheon (though this is easy enough to swap out), but "the god of war, or furniture" as others have stated, need to be there...which implies a polytheistic setting. Examples of clerics in play need them fighting/casting or statements about their 'holy power forcing back the undead creatures of darkness" and all of that. Implies certain things about the setting.

I don't want a "world name", but as examples of play, the names of a town, or culture/kingdom/nation, gods, races, will certainly make for more colorful/imagination invoking fluff than just lines of rules and +'s/-'s attached to everything.

I don't want "cosmology" dictated by the rulebooks. Maybe the occasional example or reference or explanation (probably under spell descriptions and/or Monster Manual entries) of an "Astral Plane" or an "Abyss"/"the Nine Hells", etc...to get the juices flowing.

And yes, a World Builder's Guide for those who want to make their own homebrewed settings is essential (maybe the "World Brewer's Guide" is a better title? hmmm.). But in the PHB/DMG, certain names or examples of places/people/things isn't going to ruin anyone's anything and give those without their own desires/abilities to build settigns SOMEthing to work with to jump into the game.

So, yes, the "Core" needs an Implied Setting. A default/baseline from which to start the game. No, it does not need a "Core Setting" telling us everything about the game world.

All of that...and this entire thread, for that matter, said...they said some time ago, I thought, that FR is going to be the "default setting"...so, as long as they keep the references in an "example/reference/implied" kind of mode in the rulebooks and give us a FR fully fleshed Setting book separately, then that's fine. I won't be playing in the FR...and from the drums of war being sounded at every mention of FR, many others won't either...but they'll have (or have already decided on) their default/baseline on which to frame the rules.

--SD

 

[Herschel]

Would referencing MANY settings in the core book be too much, given this is the edition to unite them all.

Describe basic elves - sidebars for how they are different in other settings.

The description of an important artefact or MI could mention its role in a particular setting.

Use evocative place names from ALL the settings for flavour.

So basically, use the settings as EXAMPLES throughout the core without tying the core to one setting. I certainly am not suggesting to cover all the setting differences and unique rules/situations in the core, just give the odd egs to highlight points (even in side bars) and to add flavour. (Each setting can later be fully detailed).

What better way to add flavour to the core rulebooks that to inc various eg's.

I am the world builder type and would like to see a lot of DM options of how to do things. But I like seeing how they are done in other settings. I think players would like this too. It would certainly add to the readability of the text.

Just a thought that might appeal to a broader base (and a compromise for those that definitely want a core setting vs those that definitely do not)?

I like this idea. Not pages upon pages of stuff, but bits to add in, if wanted.

 

[Herschel]

Double post

 

[Herschel]

But what happens in 4e, for example, if you try to ditch the powers system and healing surges and put full Vancian back in? Does it work, and what are the knock-on effects?

What happens in 1E/2E if you use ascending AC/attack charts? What about giving Wizards at-will attacks. How about adding in minor actions wher the cleric can heal AND attack in a round? How about giving fighters marks/enforcement?

As for 4E without Healing Surges and Powers and add in Vancian, then you have pretty much have a 2E hybrid with skills instead of NWPs.

 

[avin]

Just wanted to come back and weight in how intrusive 4E is, compared to earlier editions.

Compare AD&D2E and 4E entrance for Duergars.

2E says they are a malevolent breed that hates other dwarves, see intruders as invaders, etc.
4E says they were members of a dwarf clan assaulted by mind flayers in underdark who think Moradin abandoned them and now worship Asmodeus.

Firbolgs in 2E are intelligent and have considerable magic powers. They live in remote forest and hills. Distrust civilzated races.

in 4E they are from Feywild, creators and keepers of the Wild Hunt and use to follow Sehanine, Melora or the Raven Queen.

One can like the neutral tone of 2E or the more incisive style of 4E, but I think it's perfectly clear that 4E's cosmology is far more intrusive in ecologies and storylines than former editions.

 

[Hussar]

Meh, I'll see your firbolgs and raise you every single extra planar creature in 2e onward which referenced the Great Wheel AND the Blood War. How's that for intrusive? Every single planar creature gets slotted into a metaplot whether you like it or not.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The Blood War didn't change the nature of the planes or their inhabitants - it just detailed a political relationship between them. I don't think the "intrusiveness" is on anywhere near the same scale.