D&D 5E Obligation to give new players a "Core" game?

[Azurewraith]

I think it will be fine if anything going off "core" could be better as it helps show that dnd can be anything. Just make sure to let them know its not your typical high fantasy setting.

As fore rules id try and stick as core as possible with little to no house rules just to help it flow for those with rough ideas

 

[Celtavian]

I don't think you need to, especially if your players are newbies. If they don't have any preconceived notions about the game or what a D&D game world should be like, they are more likely to go with what you're making and actually appreciate the interesting creation. New players will likely feel a greater sense of wonder in an unusual world regardless of the cultural basis you are using. If you were DMing veteran D&D players, I'd poll their likes and dislikes. For new players I'd just make the place as interesting as possible. They'll have fun as long as you make it fun.

 

[Lanefan]

One question: you'll maybe start them off in the desert but will you do anything to stop them going somewhere else if they-in-character decide to do so, pmce they learn that "somewhere else" is out there?

Maybe after one or two desert adventures the players (either in or out of character) decide they want to go up north where there's snow and cold and Vikings and bash around there for a while. Do you let 'em? (relevant if one or more of your players have their hearts set on playing a character from a non-desert culture e.g. a Celt or Norse or whatever, and eventually tries to get the party to its homeland)

Another option might be to start them off in a more generic setting but have the story draw them out to the desert as it goes along.

Lan-"you've got 20 potential players out there? Who'd have known..."-efan

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So I came into this thread expecting to see a sci-fi setting with goth cat-people, and all ready to give my opinion against that as someone's first D&D experience.

But the campaign you actually described doesn't sound very far off at all. It's just a strongly themed D&D game based on a different cultural milieu.

Also, nearly everyone is familiar with Arabian Nights. Pitch the setting to them that way, and they shouldn't have a problem.

That.

The only two things I would recommend is that, first, you let them know that most D&D games start with a baseline more like the Lord of the Rings or <insert whatever other reference they'll get>. Secondly, make sure they know ahead of time what the class and race options and such are. Tell them up front how your world differs from the Basic Rules pdf, or the PHB, or whatever they have. And stick to it! You've got an interesting theme there, so if there aren't elves, then just say no to elf PCs. New players probably aren't coming into it with assumptions that if it's in the book they get to use it, so give them the assumptions you want them to have for your game. They'll enjoy this game more, and will hopefully get a great introductory experience of how much more fun it is if you let the DM run his world how he plans it. It's so much easier to express your campaign vision when no one has enough experience to try convince you to accommodate their out of genre canine cyborg ninja.

(Despite how this sounds, I don't actually have problems with my own players insisting on expressing themselves outside of the campaign parameters--but the idea bugs me enough that I figured it's nice to train new players not to be that guy/girl.)

 

[Quickleaf]

How "original" should you be when presenting the game to primarily new players? Will the game suffer if you go "too" original for first timers?

First off, it's fantastic you may be introducing that many new people to D&D! Woot!

I say you should totally go for it Even non-tabletop gamers can recognize names like Sinbad, Aladdin, Scheherazade, The Prince of Persia, and Assassin's Creed.

Like with any group of new gamers I wouldn't overwhelm them with cultural, economic, and socio-political aspects. Ease them in. Focus on the ADVENTURE! You will have a great time, I'm certain.

 

[S'mon]

The GM should run what excites them - personally for me that tends to be Northern European Fantasy, but you definitely shouldn't be bound to that. A variant setting is fine, especially as this one is still clearly a D&D setting AFAICT.

Edit: Do minimise deviations from the PHB, and let them know what these are. Eg you might ban
some races (eg Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes) and say that others (Tieflings, Dragonborn) are
relatively common. I would tend to avoid making it humans-only if possible.

 

[Minigiant]

You don't have to do core.

But as a favor to possible future DMs or yourself in a new campaign with them, explain what the core experience is.

I once had a player who only played a themed, human or ogre only game before and he had issues adjusting to "normal core" play. Normal sized doors. High AC granting armor, nonhumanoids that were no just animals or giant animals.

 

[Bayonet]

I don't think you should go with 'Core', but you should definitely go with 'Simple'. I think some prospective players, who are possibly strangers to each other, would be hesitant to jump right into a complex, open-world roleplaying type of game.

Something that's a bit more railroaded or 'enclosed' would probably get the players into the game faster. THEN, in later sessions, start opening up the world, level of freedom, etc.

Thematically, I think anything you want would be fine, and your player might see it as the 'logical' D&D setting anyway. Maybe you and others see Tolkien as the default setting for fantasy adventure, but others, who grew up reading Howard and Bradbury, might see weird desert adventures and jungle islands as the 'normal'!

Write a tight, fun little adventure, provide a few pre-gen characters for newbies, and have a great time!

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Obligated to provide core? no.
Obligated to inform that it's not Core? yes.
It avoids a lot of "but my rulebook says..."

This. Very much this. The baseline of knowledge of the new players is going to be the PHB. Deviation from that can be jarring, disconcerting and disappointing if that is what they've got in their heads. However, if informed/warned ahead of time, they won't be expecting that baseline and everything should go quite smoothly.

Other than that, as long as you have player buy-in and you're excited about it, anything goes!

 

[Dausuul]

TL;DR - Does a GM have an obligation to provide a "generic" campaign setting to first-time players?

TL;DR answer: Heck no. The idea that D&D should focus on a "standard" experience is one that WotC pushed (gently, but consistently) throughout 3E and 4E. Thankfully, they dropped it in 5E, and it should now die a well-deserved death.

Your obligation is to deliver an awesome game, within the limits of your ability to do so. To do that, you should focus on stuff that gets you excited and inspires your creativity. In the process, you will teach your new players that they shouldn't expect every D&D game to be run strictly by the book with elvesndwarvesnhalflings. There's plenty of material in the PHB to illustrate what traditional D&D looks like, for anyone who wants to know.

What I do suggest is to be very clear up front that yours is not a by-the-book game, and put together a document outlining what the campaign setting will be like (a few paragraphs). Anyone who isn't interested can opt out. Those who are excited to try out your setting--which sounds fantastic and I wish I could play in it!--can stay. I bet you'll find more people in the latter category than the former.