Is D&D a setting or a toolbox?

[Quickleaf]

I'd say D&D is not quite a toolbox and not quite a setting. It's a genre game.

If I joined in with a group of players in their 30's, some with a lot of experience, and was riffing with one of the players in-character about how are PCs knew each other, I might reference our previous failed venture to the Caverns of Tsojancth or the Tomb of Horrors & expect the DM to say "yes, and..." Likewise if I decide to play a bard, I can expect and look forward to certain jokes about the D&D archetype "bard."

To me, that stuff is the defining feature of D&D. So maybe it's a very limited toolbox that lets you create D&D genre games in a loosely implied setting?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Ideally? It would be close to 100% toolbox.

As to what's been published, it varies. The d20 system is a toolbox, and 3e is the toolboxiest iteration of D&D, but it still has a lot of setting in it. It would be nice to see the toolbox mentality expanded upon.

 

[Hussar]

On the other hand, one table that you can ignore and have no other impact upon the game hardly seems "baked in" to me. That sounds more "tacked on". YMMV.

Sort of. That table is also spread out into racial descriptions, monster descriptions (kobolds hate gnomes, for example), supplements and get baked into the later descriptions of religions (Gruumsh vs Corelon) for various races.

So, no, it's not really tacked on. It's deeply embedded into the game. We get module after module and setting after setting where dwarves and elves don't get along. Where orcs hate elves. So on and so forth.

 

[teitan]

Compare that to a game like Mutants and Masterminds which has NO implied setting (it has a sample setting but there's a severe difference), only the assumption that your characters are super-powered somethings. I'm not going to suggest that an implied setting is bad though because I can tell you from experience; picking up M&M can be daunting because you have to invent all those world assumptions from whole cloth. Are super heroes common, how do they get their powers, what options should be available to the players. You cannot hand the book to a player and say "Make a 150 point character and show up for the game on Friday."

But D&D is not a toolbox. Not by any means.

You most certainly can! Much like the comics themselves I think a supers rpg works best when you do just that and fly by the seat of your pants. When first ed m&m came out I did just that and said to my players "go gonzo" and made it up as I went along and sometimes mid session.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

D&D has a strong implied setting, and that's what makes it awesome to me. Other games do generic fantasy better, D&D does D&D fantasy, which is not generic at all. That said, I believe that 2E helped a lot in demonstrating that D&D fantasy can also come in various flavors, from classic Realms to Dark Sun, Planescape and other weird stuff. I still believe, though, that a huge part of the "this is not D&D" feeling that some people manifested towards 4E is related to a "implied setting matters" attitude more than other significant changes to the flow of the game. So, can't say I agree with the toolbox crowd. If D&D is a toolbox, there are better ones out there; D&D fails terribly when pushed beyond its self-imposed limitations.

Cheers,

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

D&D sits in the middle of the spectrum. It comes equipped with a setting, but that setting is sparsely detailed because making things up is part of the game. It also comes with tools and guidance for further altering the game. Diverse settings, which more dramatically alter the game, are sold as optional expansions. But even if you never buy another product, never alter the rules, and never write your own setting, the game is still complete.

 

[Sunseeker]

Toolbox with an underlying pseudo-medieval fantasy theme. It's not that it's completely devoid of settings, no the problem is that D&D has so many settings, and the ability to be so many more, that beyond it's underlying themes and tones, I think it's impossible for D&D to be as "big" as it is now while being entirely framed around a single setting.

 

[howandwhy99]

In this light only I'd say what you are referring to as D&D is a toolbox of setting materials.

The problem is marketing a toolbox of game material meant to grow and not all be used isn't profitable. So traditional iconic elements become a kind of canon to sell as a brand for release in other formats.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It is both, and neither as the same time...

 

[sheadunne]

I think D&D is a setting that provides tools to adapt it (at least in some of the editions). D&D elves are distinctly D&D elves. You can certainly adapt them, but that's not the default. When I play a D&D Wizard, it is distinctly a D&D Wizard. Even if I play in a D&D setting like Greyhawk, Eberron, the Realms, Ravenloft, Planescape, spelljammer, I'm still playing in D&D. They are campaign settings not game settings. If D&D were a toolbox, it would need to include blank races and classes without any mechanics or fluff. Once you add those components to a core game, they are the setting. I would say that each edition of D&D has its own setting, at least between 1e/2e, 3e, and 4e. When I think about D&D I do so in terms of a novel, not a game, or rather in terms of an author not a game. No matter how good the author is, all the books have a sameness to them.