D&D 5E From Corporate Setting to "Un-Setting" (waiting for a Sixth Edition homebrew culture)

[Dungeonosophy]

While for strictly short-term economic reasons, it makes sense to focus on a single world for WotC's corporate Organized Play, this doesn't really embody the full potential for cultivating a renaissance of do-it-yourself creativity and kit-bashing in the next generation of D&D gamers. Sure we can 'always' do this on our own, but I'd like to see this formally instilled into the game itself.

1) I propose that for Fifth Edition (or at least by Sixth Edition), that nearly all D&D adventures be written in such a way that all proper names (people, places, gods) are expected to be replaced by the Dungeon Master, with only a default name printed in parentheses in the text. To help the fledgling DM, there could be a table of names to choose from.

2) That each published adventure have a little appendix in the back adapting the adventure to each of WotC's published worlds (Dragonlance, Mystara, and so forth). With fitting proper names, geographical placement(s), and monster replacements (drow > Mystara shadowelf).

3) That it be an 'expected' default that the DM makes up a world as they go along...in a similar way that Gygax and Arneson did. See, for example, my "Worldbuilding as you go" article. This 'on the fly' worldbuilding would be an integral part of the game, with step-by-step, simple methods which recreate what the pioneers actually did.

4) That it be an 'expected' default that the published worlds will at least be re-conceived by each DM (or gaming group) as "So-and-so's World of Greyhawk" or "So-and-so's Forgotten Realms".

5) That in the case of published worlds (Eberron, Birthright, and so forth) that the concept of each DM's campaign is a distinct alternate timeline of the "corporate owned" WotC timeline be explicitly embedded into the game.

6) That it be an 'expected' default that the DM make their own homebrew world out of a stitched-together patchwork of whatever adventures they happen to buy or write. There'd be a tradition for honoring and reconciling whatever elements ended up in the mix.

7) That there be a random 'Campaign Setting name generator' in the DMG which 'reverse engineers' the names of all the published settings. Like this:
First Name Element:

• Colors: "grey", "black", "red", "blue", "golden", "silver" etc.
• Other adjective, usually mysterious: "forgotten", "birth", "dark", "savage", "hollow", "known", "unknown", "oath", "mystery", "hidden", "secret"
• Monster: "dragon", "ghost"

Second Name Element:

• Animal: "hawk", "wolf", "eagle", etc.
• Geographic: "realms", "moor", "coast", "world","isles"
• Celestial: "sun", "moon", "star", etc.
• Arms and Armor: "steel", "lance", "knife""sword", "axe", "helm", "shield" etc.
• Other: "walk", "way", "guard", "right", "watch", "bound"

Planet names:
"Earth"-like names: Oerth, Uerth, Aerth, Yarth, Nerath, Urt (the original name of Mystara in BECMI box era)
And so: Eorth, Yirth, Naorth, Ourt, Oorth, Aardh, Yort...

Other names: Toril, Abeir, Mystara, Aebrynis, Athas, Krynn
And so: Aestara, Torthas, Mynneir, Kyril...and many other syllable options.

And at higher levels, a cosmology generator, with all the existing published cosmologies as examples to mix and match by choice, or at random.

8) That one of the goals of the DMG (and online enhancements) is for, once the characters are approaching 20th level, for the gaming group to produce a nigh-professional-quality Campaign Setting book PDF which portrays the patchwork world which they created by their actions. With its own logo and graphic style. The published WotC setting guides and logos would be broken down and 'reverse engineered' to show how to make your own.

9) That WotC support this homebrew concept with a dedicated website (similar to the WotC-designated amateur websites for each of the published worlds), perhaps called "The World Serpent Inn".

Instead of a "core setting" there would be an “Un-Setting” with the published settings (FR, GH, DL, ...) explictly offered as examples for reverse engineering, and as parts for mix-and-matching.

This wouldn't mean more prep time for DMs. The usual homebrew world would be slapped together quickly, but organically (though actual play), in D&D gonzo style. For more see, my “D&DNext Un-Setting” article.

What do you think, ENWorlders?

Mod Note: Removed formatting so this was legible on the black forum skin. Hope you don't mind. ~Umbran

 

[MortalPlague]

2) That each published adventure have a little appendix in the back adapting the adventure to each of WotC's published worlds (Dragonlance, Mystara, and so forth). With fitting proper names, geographical placement(s), and monster replacements (drow > Mystara shadowelf).

Here you might run into problems. An appropriate 'Forgotten Realms' adventure would have a vastly different tone than a 'Dark Sun' adventure. It's not as simple as filing off the serial numbers.

3) That it be an 'expected' default that the DM makes up a world as they go along...in a similar way that Gygax and Arneson did. See, for example, my "Worldbuilding as you go" article. This 'on the fly' worldbuilding would be an integral part of the game, with step-by-step, simple methods which recreate what Gygax and Arneson actually did.

While I love to Homebrew, not everybody does. This puts added pressure on the DM who is already expected to run the game and create encounters and adventures.

7) That there be a random 'Campaign Setting name generator' in the DMG which 'reverse engineers' the names of all the published settings. Like this...

Do we really need this in the DMG? If you're creative enough to homebrew a setting, hopefully you're creative enough to come up with a name for it.

8) That one of the goals of the DMG (and online enhancements) is for, once the characters are approaching 20th level, for the gaming group to produce a nigh-professional-quality Campaign Setting book in PDF form which portrays the patchwork world which they created by their actions. With its own logo and graphic style. The published WotC setting guides and logos would be broken down and 'reverse engineered' to show how to make your own.

I really don't see a lot of groups having much interest in this sort of 'codified' log of their adventures...

What do you think, ENWorlders?

I like the sentiment, that D&D would encourage more homebrew, but I think it's a needless crusade. I think that people who are going to homebrew are already doing so, while people who like the campaign settings are invested in them. Wizards could do more to suggest that DMs can homebrew or deviate from the published materials, but I think it would make things much more complicated to have it as the expected default.

 

[MerricB]

I ______ your _______. I _______ it should be __________ at first _________.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

#1 I'm not a fan of because generic stuff is boring. I don't want (fill in the name here), I want the Town of Herpderp, and all the unique things that Herpderp offers, because I can (fill in the name here) myself. I want Baldur's Gate and the Free City and Sigil, those places are unique and special and interesting. (Proper Noun) cannot be as interesting as that.

#2 sounds like it has some of the same problems. FR Drow != Eberron Drow != Mystara Shadow Elves. These aren't just noun-swaps, they're different creatures with different plots and different stories associated with them. Those stories are interesting in part because they're specific to those creatures.

#3 rules out some awesome setting ideas like Eberron's magitech or Dark Sun's stone-age-ecological-disaster motif or Dragonlance's big world-shaking war or Planescape's philosophical multiverse. Build as you go is solid advice for a home game with no upfront ideas, but it definitely gives up a lot to get there.

#4 & #5 seem pretty much just like a formalization of what is occurring, but I'm not sure it's necessary, since EVERY D&D game element used by a particular group is a unique version of that game element. I'm not even sure it'd be possible to do it any other way. When WotC has TRIED to do it other ways ("everyone, the Spellplague happened, now you use it!"), it hasn't often gone well for them.

#7 seems....kinda pointless? I mean, why does the game I play on Sundays need a name at all, let alone one randomly generated from existing syllables?

#8 seems like not a thing I would want from the game, or from my gaming groups. We're here to pretend to be magical elves, not to make an Official Campaign. They're not really the same thing. Because of that #9 seems unnecessary.

I mean, I'm generally on board with the concept of flexible adventures and WotC letting people publish whatever, but I'm not sure this specific iteration of it you have in mind appeals to me. Generic Nouns and made-to-be-e-published? Doesn't sounds great to me.

But I'm just some jerk on the internet, what do I know?

 

[Shiroiken]

While for strictly short-term economic reasons, it makes sense to focus on a single world for WotC's corporate Organized Play, this doesn't really embody the full potential for cultivating a renaissance of do-it-yourself creativity and kit-bashing in the next generation of D&D gamers. Sure we can 'always' do this on our own, but I'd like to see this formally instilled into the game itself.

It already is. There is no default setting for 5th. You are free (and encouraged) to make your own world as you see fit. Every edition has allowed (and encouraged) this, even if every edition except OD&D and 2E had a default option. Why do you feel it's not?

1) I propose that for Fifth Edition (or at least by Sixth Edition), that nearly all D&D adventures be written in such a way that all proper names (people, places, gods) are expected to be replaced by the Dungeon Master, with only a default name printed in parentheses in the text. To help the fledgling DM, there could be a table of names to choose from.

No. Setting specific adventure AND generic setting adventures should be supplied. They should be clearly labeled if they are setting specific (so you don't buy one you can't readily use), but otherwise both should be supported. I actually want to see more setting specific adventures myself, because they can be used to expand information on the setting (Murder in Baldur's Gate is a great example).

2) That each published adventure have a little appendix in the back adapting the adventure to each of WotC's published worlds (Dragonlance, Mystara, and so forth). With fitting proper names, geographical placement(s), and monster replacements (drow > Mystara shadowelf).

For none setting specific adventures, I think this is a good idea. They did it in the past, but I think that was in 2E.

3) That it be an 'expected' default that the DM makes up a world as they go along...in a similar way that Gygax and Arneson did. See, for example, my "

Worldbuilding as you go" article. This 'on the fly' worldbuilding would be an integral part of the game, with step-by-step, simple methods which recreate what Gygax and Arneson actually did.

Why? Because the founders did? There's nothing wrong with this playstyle, but to insist that others follow it is foolish. Some people can't run adventures on the fly, so they can't be expected to make up entire worlds as they go.

4) That it be an 'expected' default that the published worlds will at least be re-conceived by each DM (or gaming group) as "So-and-so's World of Greyhawk" or "So-and-so's Forgotten Realms".

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this already is the case. Obviously the events of each group's campaign has no effect on any others. I still refer to games as "Joe's Realms Game" or "Dave's Dark Sun Game." There are no Setting Police that break up your game for making changes, especially in expanded setting where some information contradicts itself (Greyhawk has made me want to tear my hair out sometimes).

5) That in the case of published worlds (Eberron, Birthright, and so forth) that the concept of each DM's campaign is a distinct alternate timeline of the "corporate owned" WotC timeline be explicitly embedded into the game.

Umm. See #4. Maybe you should clarify your point better, because #4 & 5 look the same to me...

6) That it be an 'expected' default that the DM make their own homebrew world out of a stitched-together patchwork of whatever adventures they happen to buy or write. There'd be a tradition for honoring and reconciling whatever elements ended up in the mix.

It IS the default that the DM will make up their own world, but it's not expected for it to be a patchwork quilt. It may work for some, but not for others. Why should that be the expected default?

7) That there be

a random 'Campaign Setting name generator' in the DMG which 'reverse engineers' the names of all the published settings. Like this:

*snip*

And at higher levels, a cosmology generator, with all the existing published cosmologies as examples to mix and match by choice, or at random.

Kinda of a waste of space IMO, but whatever. It's not that different than random charts for character Backgrounds.

8) That one of the goals of the DMG (and online enhancements) is for, once the characters are approaching 20th level, for the gaming group to produce a nigh-professional-quality Campaign Setting book PDF which portrays the patchwork world which they created by their actions. With its own logo and graphic style. The published WotC setting guides and logos would be broken down and 'reverse engineered' to show how to make your own.

Umm... you can sure do that work, but I'm definatly not. For one, I don't normally play to 20th level. I have a campaign concept in mind, and when completed, the story is done. Level 4 or level 40, it's all the same to me.

9) That WotC support this homebrew concept with a dedicated website (similar to the WotC-designated amateur websites for each of the published worlds), perhaps called "The World Serpent Inn".

Instead of a "core setting" there would be an “Un-Setting” with the published settings (FR, GH, DL, ...) explictly offered as examples for reverse engineering, and as parts for mix-and-matching.

This wouldn't mean more prep time for DMs. The usual homebrew world would be slapped together quickly, but organically (though actual play), in D&D gonzo style. For more see, my “D&DNext Un-Setting” article.

What do you think, ENWorlders?

I think that supporting homebrew worlds is a good idea. I completely disagree with just about everything else.

 

[Henry]

I can't tell if you're being serious or tongue-in-cheek, DnDPhilmont, because your post reads to me like it goes from "reasonable preference" at the beginning to "over the top" by the end. Random campaign name generators and help for making your own PDFs? I believe personally that for those who would want to do that, they'll play with doing it, but I can't help but believe that the majority of players both new and old have no desire to home-publish their campaigns.

In the current entertainment climate, it's hard enough to encourage people to sit down for a 3 or 4 hour game session, much less amateur publish something, which takes an even higher investment of time. I think those for whom this is fun will find a way, and they'll probably follow existing examples for their own. For the majority i cant help but think it would be a waste of page count for them (as it would be for myself and my group).

 

[Obryn]

No, this is not something I'd want. I can already make any adventure generic I please.

 

[Starfox]

I feel this is a non-issue. I feel it is actually easier to move a scenario from a setting I know that form a generic setting.

Let me exemplify. If I have a Forgotten Realms scenario, I know a lot of the assumptions behind it (wast swathes of wilderness, magic is big and impressive, a few iconic heroes/villains the setting revolves around). Knowing that this is what the scenario is based upon, I know what to look for. If my setting is heavily populated and lacks much wilderness, I can be on the lookout for that and eliminate it from the scenario to make it fit my world.

Fitting in a generic scenario is often harder, as the author might have similar ideas about the generic setting it was written for, but I don't know these basic assumptions so I have to look for them more carefully.

(This is not a post about what the FR "really" is - if you disagree with my characterization of the FR, just replace it with your own.)

 

[Starfox]

If what the OP is saying is that he wants to run a more narrativist game, a game where the GM and players together expand the world and the players' input on world creation is greater than it can be in a pre-constructed world, I feel a lot of sympathy for that. But to make such a world, I think you have to mostly make the adventures yourself anyway. Publishing a setting as to make it narrativist is pretty much a doomed effort.

There was a game that tried to do this - Over the Edge - the setting was created by the GM and players in the designers house campaign. It was in a contemporary setting, set on an island. Robin Laws wrote a book for it. Anyway, this was a setting created by player-GM cooperation, and it had a lot of crazy details as a result. But when published, it was just as confining as any other setting - after all it was the players in the original campaign that had been involved in creating the setting, not those who played the finished product. As one reviewer wrote (quoted from memory) - "this is not a setting for a narrative campaign, this is the record of a narrative campaign". It had already been played through, and what was published was the result of the game, not the setting. The setting for a narrative game is by necessity a blank paper.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

1) I propose that for Fifth Edition (or at least by Sixth Edition), that nearly all D&D adventures be written in such a way that all proper names (people, places, gods) are expected to be replaced by the Dungeon Master, with only a default name printed in parentheses in the text. To help the fledgling DM, there could be a table of names to choose from.

2) That each published adventure have a little appendix in the back adapting the adventure to each of WotC's published worlds (Dragonlance, Mystara, and so forth). With fitting proper names, geographical placement(s), and monster replacements (drow > Mystara shadowelf).

This wasn't uncommon all the way back to 1E with various adventures, particularly ones in Dungeon, doing pretty much exactly this. I'm surprised that some people are objecting to it like it isn't already a thing that's happened. Obviously, more extreme settings won't work for this, but it fairly easy to devise an adventure that would work in the FR, Greyhawk, Eberron (outside of Sharn or the like), Dragonlance and other places which have "medieval fantasy" areas.

Not so sure about the rest, but I think WotC would be smart to support an even-more-accessible version of something like Obsidian Portal. Having something like that fully-integrated with D&D online tools would make adventure generation pretty astonishingly easy.