One Thing I Think Could Be Improved From ALL Previous Editions...

[Balesir]

One thing occurs to me that I don't think has been done in any previous edition, but that recently increasingly jars on me:

- There is a 'default game world' hard-coded into the initial rules set.

In AD&D we had, essentially, Greyhawk - and again in 3.X. And kinda in 2e. In 4E we had PoLand. But doing this - especially changing it - causes unnecessary friction and hassle for a DM who wants to design and run his or her own world setting (within the D&D system parameters).

The stuff I'm thinking about primarily comes down to the gods, the cosmology and the alignment system. Maybe also the equipment lists - although standard types of weapons and armour are arguably required for the system/powers themselves.

I would much rather see "Divine Domains", rules for codifying planes of existence, rules for defining deities and suggestions for alignment systems included in the core rules. By all means, give a baseline set of examples in each area, to give everyone a "starter for ten" on their first time out with the new system and to give a baseline for the generic adventures, but please give the generic rules for this stuff from the word 'go!'

 

[Frostmarrow]

I don't mind Greyhawkian/Polish gods as the presentation makes it pretty easy to just change the names of the gods to suit my own campaign but I do agree that a sheet of a pantheon with nameless gods and instructions on how to do it yourself would be appreciated.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Couldn't agree more - would love advice and egs in these areas only. Not one standard codified in.

Domains and ideas for making specialty clerics - not a Core Pantheon.

 

[mmadsen]

There is a 'default game world' hard-coded into the initial rules set.

I don't mind that there's a concrete example as the backdrop for everything in the core books, but certain hard-coded rules based on the idiosyncrasies of that setting are troubling: demi-human level-limits, Vancian magic, spell-casting Rangers, teleporting Eladrin, etc.

Some background elements don't affect how you play the game in your own setting; others require work and a good deal of consensus to excise.

 

[Ahnehnois]

D&D without a setting? Where do I sign up?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I suspect the reason there has always been a "default game world" and probably always will be... is because they know that those of you who are going to use your own pantheons and cosmologies are going to do it anyway... regardless if there is a default world or not. So why hamstring the other 85% of the people who probably will just use the defaults?

The real question comes down to asking why having to change something is a worse proposition than having to create something? You're going to be creating your pantheon and cosmology in either case (except in one case there's a baseline for the other folks who aren't like you.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

D&D without a setting? Where do I sign up?

Right here and and now. It's called "not using some stuff that's in the book."

 

[delericho]

I'm torn. I found the default setting gave some nice context to the rules, especially when I couldn't be bothered coming up with my own setting. And I did like PoL land.

On the other hand, I didn't like that the default setting became so pervasive in the supplements - things like the 3e "Manual of the Planes" lost a huge amount of utility if you didn't use the Great Wheel, for example.

I would definitely construct the Divine classes such that the default assumption was that they didn't have a specific deity. That is, a Paladin is just a paladin, dedicated to some cause - but in the core he doesn't have to declare a deity, nor are his powers customisable according to his deity. As with many other things, add this later (probably in the setting-specific materials).

(This is especially important for the Cleric in the Starter Set. The fewer choices a new player has to make creating a character, the better. Especially when they don't have the context for making the choice - how is the newbie to know whether to choose Pelor or Heironyous? Sure, it's a tiny, tiny choice to make... but it's one more on top of many others. Cut it!)

For the default setting itself... I say keep it, but only in the DMG, only as an example, and keep it nice and bare-bones for the DM to expand. That is, there should never be a 5e equivalent of the "Nentir Vale Gazeteer".

(Incidentally, 2nd Edition did not use Greyhawk as the default setting, and deliberately so. Gygax and all of his works were very much out of favour in those days. The Core Rulebooks had a kind of pseudo-medieval default setting, although this was never explicitly stated. "Forgotten Realms Adventures" stated that FR was the default setting for the edition... but this wasn't really followed up in non-FR books.)

 

[TerraDave]

I agree that the extent of "implied setting" in 3E and 4E should be dialed back. I am ok with the level in 1E and 2E, which could be hardly noticed (except alignment) in play.

But ya, that would be an improvement.

 

[TerraDave]

I suspect the reason there has always been a "default game world" and probably always will be... is because they know that those of you who are going to use your own pantheons and cosmologies are going to do it anyway... regardless if there is a default world or not. So why hamstring the other 85% of the people who probably will just use the defaults?

The real question comes down to asking why having to change something is a worse proposition than having to create something? You're going to be creating your pantheon and cosmology in either case (except in one case there's a baseline for the other folks who aren't like you.)

There was no "default world" in OD&D or basic D&D, and it was much subtler in 1E and 2E (no pantheons in the core books, for example).

EDIT: And honestly...you don't really need one, or at least not a world. To start, you might just need an adventure. (which 4E has sort of figured out).

Now, if someone wants a world and doesn't want to create, then they can buy it.