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

[delericho]

There was no "default world" in ... basic D&D

BECMI D&D introduced part of Mystara (Karameikos) in the Expert set. There was nothing in the Basic set, and I don't recall anything of significance in the Companion set. (We never used 'M' or 'I'.)

I have no idea what, if anything, B/X did.

 

[TerraDave]

It was introduced in the expert set, and I think in the Isle of Dread, not the actual rules booklet. It was barely sketched out, and only really developed later.

But it was not in the basic set(s). Though, again to get back to one of my points, the Keep was actually enough "setting" for hours of play.

 

[Balesir]

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?

This was why I said "examples" would be fine to use as a starter/default. The problem comes when several of the character powers/spells/whatever are tied into those "defaults". Examples would be 4E Channel Divinity powers keyed (only) to the "default" gods and no "divine domain" rules until "Divine Power", the AD&D/2e/3.X spells and monsters keyed specifically to the "default" cosmology (ghosts, Astral Spell, Etherealness and so on).

In other words, there's nothing wrong with presenting a "default example" - as long as the rules themselves don't hang off it.

(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.)

Not in gods, I agree - but there is still the ties to the core cosmology (Etherealness, Astrall Spell) and the Greyhawk spellcasters (Bigby's this, Nystul's that, Tenser's the other). Not to mention all theose alignment affecting spells...

 

[delericho]

Not in gods, I agree - but there is still the ties to the core cosmology (Etherealness, Astrall Spell) and the Greyhawk spellcasters (Bigby's this, Nystul's that, Tenser's the other). Not to mention all theose alignment affecting spells...

Ah, I see.

I can certainly see removing the "named" spells. However, I'm not sure that removing the ethereal/astral spells is a viable proposition. That said, I don't think those are necessarily tied to the setting necessarily - the concept of something being ethereal makes sense without assuming an "Ethereal Plane", for instance.

Likewise, if we're going after something like the alignment spells as being setting specific, then surely so too is the choice of races, the monsters, and...

IOW, you kind of have to have some embedded setting stuff, just to have the game make sense!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

No setting is better than one setting. With one setting, the tendency for the writers to embed setting material in what should be generic mechanics is not entirely avoidable. Moreover, the fans then read setting fluff into the mechanics--sometimes inconsistently.

However, two or three settings are better than no setting--especially if the settings are somewhat incompatible with each other. This keeps the setting materials mostly out of the generic mechanics (though nothing is ever perfect) and makes it clear to the fans that Setting Thing X is just that--setting material, not a rule.

Nor should those multiple settings be fully explored in the core rules. They should rather be source material that you can buy separately, but is somewhat developed as the core is developed, and from those settings you pull your (mutually incompatible) examples.

So yeah, having some good examples instead of an embedded setting is a good thing. But it is mainly a symptom of the important thing, which is proper division of setting and rules.

 

[Greg K]

I wrote in two other threads that I would prefer any default setting information in the core books to be stuck in an appendix as an example of world building and sample setting to be used or not used by individual groups.

I, personally, don't want spells named after individual wizards nor do I want feats named after either monsters (e.g., Pathfinder's Gorgon's Fist and Medusa's feats) or deities (looking at 4e channel divinity feats) in core or generic books.

While I love the old TSR settings, default info about Greyhawk was more subtle in the 1e books and, therefore, only mildly annoying. The exception being the 1e Unearthed Arcana Barbarian's descriptions of the various Greyhawk "barbarian" peoples. It was done more as an aside type of example and I found that acceptable.

I found 3e more annoying with the default pantheon and dungeon punk and the annoyance escalated with many of the supplements. 4e just took it over the top.

 

[Nagol]

Ah, I see.

I can certainly see removing the "named" spells. However, I'm not sure that removing the ethereal/astral spells is a viable proposition. That said, I don't think those are necessarily tied to the setting necessarily - the concept of something being ethereal makes sense without assuming an "Ethereal Plane", for instance.

Likewise, if we're going after something like the alignment spells as being setting specific, then surely so too is the choice of races, the monsters, and...

IOW, you kind of have to have some embedded setting stuff, just to have the game make sense!

Pretty much this.

There are "toolkit" style games that don't offer this, but the workload to build it out from first principles is daunting.

It is much easier for the GM/group to have the game provide a common point of understanding. These races are player options. This is how magic works. These archtypes represent types of adventurers.

I think where games get overboard is where they tie backstory/history into the game: "Reptilefolk are decendants of an empire overthrown by the younger races in ancient times." or "Horned folk bear the remnants of an ancient pact with dark powers."

 

[vagabundo]

Noooo. One thing I hated about 2e was the clerics were so bland. I do think they should put more into the DMG about customising the rules for you own cosmos.

 

[Balesir]

Ah, I see.

I can certainly see removing the "named" spells. However, I'm not sure that removing the ethereal/astral spells is a viable proposition. That said, I don't think those are necessarily tied to the setting necessarily - the concept of something being ethereal makes sense without assuming an "Ethereal Plane", for instance.

Likewise, if we're going after something like the alignment spells as being setting specific, then surely so too is the choice of races, the monsters, and...

IOW, you kind of have to have some embedded setting stuff, just to have the game make sense!

As CJ said just after this, better than one example setting would be two, because it keeps them as examples.

I certainly have no problem with including example world data - as long as it doesn't get baked into the rules. Taking monsters, for example - 4E does pretty much what I'm asking for. The design guidelines for monsters are right there in the DMG (OK, they were later revised, but hopefully the playtesting approach with 5E will help avoid that). The MM is, essentially, just an extensive collection of ready-made examples; that is exactly what I want to see.

As GregK says, the real issues are with things like Channel Divinity feats and cleric Domains (or lack of them). And the cosmology. And alignment baked into spells.

 

[The Human Target]

I would much prefer the exact opposite.

An explicit ingrained setting that was then heavily expanded upon over the years.

Rather than having a generic default setting that didn't get much love, and then having heaps of other mildly different settings that we only get a few books for.