D&D 5E Purely Generic Setting?

[halfling rogue]

First, that'd be incredibly limiting. It might work if the module was centered in a single location, but the moment you add travel, you start fleshing out the map. So if you had a single dungeon or a single town, it might work, but unless you aim for the vague "days travel" idea, you end up putting SOMETHING in there.

Second, how generic IS generic? Do we get named NPCs (Mayor Barlin, Aleena the Cleric), do we get named Villians? (Lareth, Bargle) what do we do about churches and cults? (The infamous Temple of Evil Chaos from the Keep, I'd wager). What about backstory? Why is there an ancient temple in the woods? Who is Lord Strahd and why did he invite me to his castle? A module isn't just a map and stat-blocks.

I think my original post was a bit unclear. Taken to the extreme I can see why it sounds silly though. What I'm getting at is an adventure/module that has adaptability built into it. An adventure built with the idea that this module is built to be modified rather than this module is rooted in Forgotten Realms

There's no reason why you can't have a deep and intriguing story with vivid (and named) characters and vivid surroundings and still have blurred edges.

But yes, it would work better with single locations and smaller scales. It is obviously a concept that is limited. But just because something is limited doesn't mean it wouldn't work within those limits.

Third, What generic are we talking about? I guess we could say "Everything in the Holy Trilogy (PH/MM/DMG) is generic, except its not. A generic adventure where a red dragon and his orc minions attack a nearby village doesn't work in Dragonlance (no orcs), Ravenloft (no dragons), Planescape (unless its a village on Carceri), etc, etc. In fact, I wager that nearly any adventure you pitch wouldn't work on at least one published D&D setting, making "any setting" an impossible dream.

Now, I have said before that their might be a goodly market for ICONIC adventures (that is, adventures that hew very close to the cliche: a haunted castle, an orcish dungeon, a drow fortress, or a dragon's mountain lair) that doesn't fits the generic tropes of D&D, but still have some base assumptions about them. THAT I could see.

"Town A" adventures? that seems like a paint by numbers kit. I buy modules to have the heavy lifting done for me.

Again, here's where I think "generic" is an unhelpful term. Although I think "Everything in the Holy Trilogy" is generic. Just because it doesn't work in Dragonlance doesn't mean PHB/MM/DMG is not generic. That only means Dragonlance is specific. An adaptable-friendly module would have to have a basis for it's generic-ness, and I think the PHB/MM/DMG would be a good starting point. In fact, Basic might even be better. An adaptable-friendly module would say this is the "generic" or "basic" foundation and give the DM the freedom to add or subtract as he sees fit. I'm only envisioning (or trying to envision) a module that thinks through this.

You are more at home with my line of thinking with what you call ICONIC adventures, with the base assumptions being derived from Basic or PHB/MM/DMG. That's a lot of what I'm getting at.

And "Town A" adventures (besides being an interesting name for a design studio), being described as a paint by numbers kit actually doesn't sound to shabby. A module where everything is structured and outlined but leaves some areas to be colored by DMs sounds good to me. Such a product would recognize and aid folks who develop their own homebrewed world. Now that I think about it, that would likely be the target audience. Adventure Kits for the Homebrewed World.

 

[GameDoc]

The Dungeon Crawl Classics series by Goodman Games has produced some good generic modules that can be dropped into an existing setting or used as a starting point to begin building your own. I have ones that they did for both 3e and 4e, but they are written with an eye for being adapted to any edition of rules system. I'm kind of looking forward to what they might do for 5e.

 

[DMZ2112]

I think third-party adventures have two viable options. They can go the Goodman Games or Paizo route, and create a setting for their adventures that avoids assumptions beyond the PHB, DMG, and MM. This is a double-edged sword, because your adventures aren't really "generic," and eventually people are going to clamor for a setting book, and while you get to sell that setting book you also have to write it.

On the other hand, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that most homebrew worlds are not all mapped down to the last square kilometer, and naming towns, small rivers, and minor geographical landmarks is expected in the text of a third-party adventure. What third-party adventures without an implied setting ought to avoid is naming major cities, seas, regions, and nations; things that any dungeon master with a homebrew setting is definitely going to rename. These can (and possibly should) instead be /described/ in the text of the adventure, reflecting the intent of the author, so that a dungeon master reading the adventure thinks, "Oh, I recognize this place, that's Orkistan," or, "the Sea of Water," or, "Foozalopolis, City of Plot Devices."

 

[Sunseeker]

I think the last thing you want is a codified "Planet of the Generic Fantasy Stuff". What I feel like you're asking for is a world with no organized map, and almost a choose-your-own-adventure system that would provide a variety of modular, level-flexible, interlocking localized adventures that could be combined as progression demands it, and not require substantial pre-game preparation and organization.

Sort of like those LEGO kits that let you build more than one creation out of them. All the same parts, just arranged in a different combination.

 

[GMMichael]

Generic/iconic may sound easier than it is. The available technology is going to pin it down to a particular time period, the prevalent races and species will further pin down the genre...heck, even the rules used will point toward specific RPGs.

But on the subject, ENworld was discussing a drop-in, settingless adventure lately:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?276304-A-Hero-s-Tale

 

[halfling rogue]

What I feel like you're asking for is a world with no organized map, and almost a choose-your-own-adventure system that would provide a variety of modular, level-flexible, interlocking localized adventures that could be combined as progression demands it, and not require substantial pre-game preparation and organization.

Sort of like those LEGO kits that let you build more than one creation out of them. All the same parts, just arranged in a different combination.

yes. that sounds awesome.

 

[SkidAce]

I think the last thing you want is a codified "Planet of the Generic Fantasy Stuff". What I feel like you're asking for is a world with no organized map, and almost a choose-your-own-adventure system that would provide a variety of modular, level-flexible, interlocking localized adventures that could be combined as progression demands it, and not require substantial pre-game preparation and organization.

Sort of like those LEGO kits that let you build more than one creation out of them. All the same parts, just arranged in a different combination.

Yes, that's the way a lot of homebrews started. Then through adventuring the locations became "stabilized" and locked into place.

Interesting side effect.

As campaigns doing this grew, the levels of the adventures/locations grew in a ring around it (so to speak) or linearly away from it. Of course!!!!!

Everybody knows that danger and dragons be on the edge of the map!

 

[TrippyHippy]

I’m not sure that the term ‘generic setting’ makes strict sense, but I’ve seen plenty of adventures that have unspecified settings.

To me, the major appeal of D&D is world creation as much as it is character creation and development- but it still needs to be driven by good scenarios and stories, regardless.

 

[halfling rogue]

I’m not sure that the term ‘generic setting’ makes strict sense, but I’ve seen plenty of adventures that have unspecified settings.

To me, the major appeal of D&D is world creation as much as it is character creation and development- but it still needs to be driven by good scenarios and stories, regardless.

I agree. I know the stated 3 Pillars of D&D are Interaction, Exploration, and Combat, but for me (and I assume many) I would add what could be assumed as a foundation underneath the Pillars (or if that's too permanent for you, perhaps the Three Flying Buttress' which support the Pillars?) to be Creation, Story, and Shared Adventure.

These are the things that drew me to D&D and have kept me hooked. For me good gameplay is when each of the 3 Pillars lean heavily on these Buttresses.

Character creation alone, outside of any gameplay, has fueled my imagination almost more than anything else in the game. Now that I'm stepping into a DM role, I can add to that the creation of multiple characters and even world building.

Story and creation go hand in hand. Every character I created was a part of a past story now entering a new, yet to be written story. As a DM I can have an even bigger part in the past story and the yet to be written story. I can enjoy these two aspects of the game without the game and without anyone else to play with, but they are only fulfilled when actual gameplay occurs, which is where the Shared Adventure comes into play.

I didn't necessarily begin this to wax philosophical, but there you are. These things, for me at least, are foundational to the D&D experience. The idea for a 'purely generic setting' (though by now I think we would all think of such a phrase as unhelpful) is the offshoot of holding such things as foundational to the game.