Alzrius
The EN World kitten
So while I was reading the thread about Planescape lore, it occurred to me that there's a more fundamental discussion going on there than about whether or not people like elements of a certain setting. Rather, it's a question of whether people see D&D as having an intrinsic setting or not.
To put it another way, there are people who play D&D-as-toolbox, and those who play D&D-as-setting.
D&D-as-toolbox is the game giving you the mechanics you need to run the game, and nothing else. You have the rules for making characters, running combat and leveling up, stats for monsters and treasures, and really that's all there is to it. Some elements, such as the nature of classes, spells, monsters, etc. might make an implication about the sort of game that the rules are best geared towards, but this is, at most, very vague. No part of the rules defines the setting for you, it's something you make up yourself. Take it for what you will that this is how D&D was originally created.
D&D-as-setting is the game giving you not just the rules, but the setup for the game world itself. This can range from having a single campaign world that's lightly fleshed out, to having a grand meta-setting that unifies all of the other settings; at whatever degree you take it, this is the option that gives you a set of pre-made locations to adventure in, a world history, NPCs to interact with, and elements that set the stage for you.
Some people prefer to keep their game purely D&D-as-toolbox. They're fine with creating their own game world and see any existing imposition of story or setting as an intrusion that's trying to make them play someone else's way. By contrast, others prefer D&D-as-setting, whether for a single campaign world or as a set of interlinked campaign worlds, enjoying having a rich tapestry of materials already made for them that they can immediately start using, rather than having to go through the process of building it themselves.
Which do you prefer?
To put it another way, there are people who play D&D-as-toolbox, and those who play D&D-as-setting.
D&D-as-toolbox is the game giving you the mechanics you need to run the game, and nothing else. You have the rules for making characters, running combat and leveling up, stats for monsters and treasures, and really that's all there is to it. Some elements, such as the nature of classes, spells, monsters, etc. might make an implication about the sort of game that the rules are best geared towards, but this is, at most, very vague. No part of the rules defines the setting for you, it's something you make up yourself. Take it for what you will that this is how D&D was originally created.
D&D-as-setting is the game giving you not just the rules, but the setup for the game world itself. This can range from having a single campaign world that's lightly fleshed out, to having a grand meta-setting that unifies all of the other settings; at whatever degree you take it, this is the option that gives you a set of pre-made locations to adventure in, a world history, NPCs to interact with, and elements that set the stage for you.
Some people prefer to keep their game purely D&D-as-toolbox. They're fine with creating their own game world and see any existing imposition of story or setting as an intrusion that's trying to make them play someone else's way. By contrast, others prefer D&D-as-setting, whether for a single campaign world or as a set of interlinked campaign worlds, enjoying having a rich tapestry of materials already made for them that they can immediately start using, rather than having to go through the process of building it themselves.
Which do you prefer?
