D&D 5E Should 5e have a "default setting" and cosmology?

[Mishihari Lord]

5E really needs a default setting to make the game easy to get into for new players. If you're an experienced player and you want your own setting is trivial to make the needed changes.

 

[TwinBahamut]

1. For new DMs and players.

I've got to wonder... How is a default setting supposed to appeal to new DMs and players? As a whole, people new to the hobby are not going to be idiots or suffer from an deficient imagination. For the most part, tabletop gaming is going to appeal to those who enjoy exercising their imagination, since those who don't wish to do so have much better choices elsewhere. Creating new worlds and game settings is part of the appeal of the game, especially for new DMs.

There is certainly value in discussing what are the needs of settings and providing some sample concepts in the DM's books, and providing inspiring fluff throughout the game, but that is all that is needed. A default setting just gets in the way, and does little to help. Generally, newer players who actually need that level of guidance are better off with adventures and setting books, rather than the scattered and vague information that chokes up the 4E books.

2. For the shared experiences across the hobby.

This is both never going to happen and a goal that makes no sense to me. There are no shared experiences in this hobby. That's part of why we argue all the time. I know I have no almost common ground whatsoever with many posters here. What's more, a default setting certainly isn't going to create such a thing, since it is so easily ignored and tends to be so weakly detailed that it really doesn't work as a foundation for common ground even if it were not ignored.

3. For experienced DMs and players that don't have time to make it all up.

Again, this is what adventures and setting books are for. A default setting in the style of 4E won't really help with this, and it just causes problems for people who prefer to make their own settings.

For all the talk of the importance of story, I keep reading threads that ask for no story in the game. And I don't get that.

There is a big difference between having story in the game and having things like a default setting. The stories I'm interested in are not going to be told by WotC (or any other publisher, most likely), so I'd prefer it if they stop trying to tell me one and instead help me create my own.

 

[Sunseeker]

Again, this is what adventures and setting books are for. A default setting in the style of 4E won't really help with this, and it just causes problems for people who prefer to make their own settings.

There is a big difference between having story in the game and having things like a default setting. The stories I'm interested in are not going to be told by WotC (or any other publisher, most likely), so I'd prefer it if they stop trying to tell me one and instead help me create my own.

I agree. There's no need to integrate the system into the setting. If they want setting-specific core, they can release adventure modules.

 

[am181d]

Guys, you need to stop projecting your own preferences onto those of other people. I have no need for a default setting, but there clearly are people who it will be very helpful for.

If they present a default setting, you can ignore it. If they do NOT include a default setting, the folks who want it won't have it.

D&D is for everyone. The new edition should be *inclusive*, not exclusive.

 

[SteveC]

I think there needs to be something basic that answers questions for spells/items and character features. Beyond that, I'd leave it to the campaign books and be done with it.

My prediction is that the Great Wheel will be back, which I will argue vehemently against.

 

[Sunseeker]

Guys, you need to stop projecting your own preferences onto those of other people. I have no need for a default setting, but there clearly are people who it will be very helpful for.

If they present a default setting, you can ignore it. If they do NOT include a default setting, the folks who want it won't have it.

D&D is for everyone. The new edition should be *inclusive*, not exclusive.

I wonder if people are using "default setting" in the same manner.

I'm picturing a "default setting" in which the core mechanics of the game are based in the setting, such a racial, physical, and class limitations.

If by "default setting" we're just talking about a "base" setting that showcases the mechanics, well that's something else entirely.

 

[soulcatcher78]

Maybe it's an AD&D holdover for me but I prefer little or no default setting information. Cosmology deserves a short chapter as an example of how the planes of existence but limit it to a paragraph per plane listing possible inhabitants and conditions. You know they're going to put out a book on it anyway so why muddy the waters of the PHB or DMG with it?

I remember having players ask "who is this Otiluke guy anyway?" and as iconic as some of those spells have become, I think adding that info just makes it more difficult for some new DMs to make up their own iconic figures.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If they present a default setting, you can ignore it.

Sure, but they can't.

That ties their hands when they release future rules and supplements. If halflings are assumed to be one thing, then nothing can come out that severely contradicts what the core rules assume they are, and nothing can come out that tries to exclude them, because "people will expect them." Suddenly, the Nordic or Aurthurian or Gothic Horror setting needs to somehow find a role for Bilbo Baggins or whatever, even if that contradicts the tone of the setting.

That's a bad predicament.

Those who want a default setting can buy a setting book. Or an adventure with a town in it. Or whatever. There's no need for a core setting. There's a million different ways to help out newbie or time-sensitive DMs. Jamming an expected world into a supposedly modular core rules base isn't a great way to solve the problem, since it hard-codes the setting assumptions into the base rules, making them difficult to remove.

If you didn't want eladrin or dragonborn or tieflings or tricksy halflings as a core race in 4e, you were SOL, because there they were, in places where maybe they didn't need to be (FR or Dark Sun, forex). To avoid that problem in the future, the game needs to be setting agnostic at its base level.

Want to have a setting done for you? Buy a setting book. That's what they're there for.

 

[billd91]

I wonder if people are using "default setting" in the same manner.

I'm picturing a "default setting" in which the core mechanics of the game are based in the setting, such a racial, physical, and class limitations.

If by "default setting" we're just talking about a "base" setting that showcases the mechanics, well that's something else entirely.

For a default setting, I want to see some basic gods, enough to cover any initial domains presented so that clerics have something right away when cracking open the book. I want a sketchy cosmology. And I want them to be introduced with information that these are basic default setting choices. Other specific settings from published to home brewed will vary significantly.

Ultimately, any default or sample information from encounter tables to guidelines for building communities incorporates setting-specific assumptions. So if there are any guidelines in these subject areas, default setting information is present. And should be.

 

[Kynn]

Sure, but they can't.

That ties their hands when they release future rules and supplements. If halflings are assumed to be one thing, then nothing can come out that severely contradicts what the core rules assume they are, and nothing can come out that tries to exclude them, because "people will expect them." Suddenly, the Nordic or Aurthurian or Gothic Horror setting needs to somehow find a role for Bilbo Baggins or whatever, even if that contradicts the tone of the setting.

Are you sure you read the 4e Dark Sun book? Cuz there were a lot of races that were just skipped over or left out in the cold deliberately.

From what we can tell about the 4e DS creative process, the designers didn't include eladrin and dragonborn because they had to but rather because, as game designers, they thought it was a good idea for including the 4th edition version of Dark Sun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Are you sure you read the 4e Dark Sun book? Cuz there were a lot of races that were just skipped over or left out in the cold deliberately.

None from the first PHB. This was pretty obviously intentional: D&D players are going to own the first PHB, and they are going to expect to be able to play with the options therein.

From what we can tell about the 4e DS creative process, the designers didn't include eladrin and dragonborn because they had to but rather because, as game designers, they thought it was a good idea for including the 4th edition version of Dark Sun.

Without trying to read the minds of designers, I can only say that there's a dang good logical reason why you don't want to contradict the book that you require in order to play the game. If you define halflings as one thing, and then go back on that, it's a lot more confusing than if you don't really narrowly define them in the first place, and let people decide on their own what role halflings play in the world.

When you bake world information into your core rules, you introduce pressure to all your supplemental rules to keep that world information the same.

That would be a big problem in a game that's supposed to be modular and flexible.

 

[Oni]

I think I would prefer that instead of a default setting there was an example setting. Something with plenty of reminders that it was just one way of doing things and that changing, removing, and making up new material was not only okay, but encouraged.

 

[boredgremlin]

Sure, but they can't.

That ties their hands when they release future rules and supplements. If halflings are assumed to be one thing, then nothing can come out that severely contradicts what the core rules assume they are, and nothing can come out that tries to exclude them, because "people will expect them." Suddenly, the Nordic or Aurthurian or Gothic Horror setting needs to somehow find a role for Bilbo Baggins or whatever, even if that contradicts the tone of the setting.

That's a bad predicament.

Those who want a default setting can buy a setting book. Or an adventure with a town in it. Or whatever. There's no need for a core setting. There's a million different ways to help out newbie or time-sensitive DMs. Jamming an expected world into a supposedly modular core rules base isn't a great way to solve the problem, since it hard-codes the setting assumptions into the base rules, making them difficult to remove.

If you didn't want eladrin or dragonborn or tieflings or tricksy halflings as a core race in 4e, you were SOL, because there they were, in places where maybe they didn't need to be (FR or Dark Sun, forex). To avoid that problem in the future, the game needs to be setting agnostic at its base level.

Want to have a setting done for you? Buy a setting book. That's what they're there for.

I just have 2 questions.

1. What part of telling players "I dont care if dragonborn are in the core book. I think they are stupid and they dont exist in this world, pick something else..... was difficult exactly?

I've been doing it for years now with no problems.

and 2. What if i dont want to have to shell out another 40$ for an entire setting book just to have a little framework?


I find some of the statements here hilariously contradictory.

I.E.

" if theres a class with fluff in the rulebook, like for instance the knight of corinthian (Which for example is a fighterish class with bonuses to riding because Corinthian is famous for horsemanship and perhaps is even a mongol style civilization) then its just waaaayyy waaaayyyy waaaayyyy too hard for me to find a town like that somewhere in the entirety of my homebrew world. so that just cant be in the rules.

"The concept that I, me, must find a single city with a horse warrior culture somewhere in the entirety of my planet simply boggles my creative ability, handcuffs me in ways that break my enjoyment of the game and most importantly is far too much work to integrate"

Immediately followed by

"I must be free to develop the entire world like i want without having any assumptions whatsoever thrust upon me." Nevermind that the 2nd is absolutely impossible unless you remove all racial abilities and adjustments to scores and just made everyone humans in funny clothes. Whats most funny is the inherent silliness in the argument.

I remember there was a something of pelos in the 3rd addition. PrC for religious characters i think but its been a long time. I remember they squashed undead really good which was the real point.

Anyway i remember there was a good bit of fluff with it. But my world had no god pelos. Oh noooossssee what do i do?

I said the player who wanted it could have it but it was the something or other Sol. Our god of the sun. whew, problem solved.

I also outlawed ninjas. Which if anyone remembers those class books WERE considered core at the end of 3e so was the same as outlawing something in players handbook.

Didnt break my game to take out a specialty asian/western version of asian thieves. We had an asian part of the world. They had rogues. Rogues who spied on people and carried out assinations were called ninjas and belonged to clans.

Players who wanted to be a ninja could take it or leave it. No one really cared.

Its the easiest thing in the world to ignore fluff you dont like. Including it doesnt hurt anyone.

 

[Zaukrie]

I don't know where some of you are playing, but to say there are no shared experiences or stories in this hobby is foreign to me. I talk to people across the county I've never met before, on these very boards, about adventures and worlds and stories we share.

As for "WotC can't ignore it in the future", sure they can, and they have. So I don't get that one either.

It is super easy to ignore a default setting. I do it all the time. It is super hard for someone that has never played before to just jump in and play, without a story behind what they are doing. Why is this different than 40 years ago you ask? I don't know, maybe it is 20 years of video games and board games that have stories in them. That's my theory anyway.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What part of telling players "I dont care if dragonborn are in the core book. I think they are stupid and they dont exist in this world, pick something else..... was difficult exactly?

Read the post more closely. I'm not talking about the problems I personally have in my home game with a baked-in setting. I'm talking about the problems that having a baked-in setting causes in the production of future material.

What if i dont want to have to shell out another 40$ for an entire setting book just to have a little framework?

If that's too much, I'll gladly whip up a quick setting for you for $10. In fact, I'll whip up a basic setting for anyone for $10.

If that's still too much, you can find a lot of great free adventures and material on the internet.

If that's too much time and effort, maybe you'd prefer a random adventure generation table you can roll on?

Point being, it's not hard to get your paws on a cheap quick framework if that's what you want.

What it IS hard to do is to is to liberate the game from embedded assumptions about what lives where and hates who for what reasons.

 

[Sunseeker]

What it IS hard to do is to is to liberate the game from embedded assumptions about what lives where and hates who for what reasons.

Exactly. 100 times exactly THIS.

The problem isn't simply NOT using a specific setting's material. It's extricating the "base" material from the setting. Often because things were balanced around these setting-specific rules. There's absolutely NO reason that core system mechanics and information need to be integrated into a setting. Extra fluff and setting-specific information can be easily added to the base information, it's so, so, soooooooo much hard to remove.

 

[Zaukrie]

Exactly. 100 times exactly THIS.

The problem isn't simply NOT using a specific setting's material. It's extricating the "base" material from the setting. Often because things were balanced around these setting-specific rules. There's absolutely NO reason that core system mechanics and information need to be integrated into a setting. Extra fluff and setting-specific information can be easily added to the base information, it's so, so, soooooooo much hard to remove.

Maybe I don't understand the question, or definition, then. Because the non-setting specific rules are filled with "where things live" and "who hates who" in every edition.

Like, assuming that Genies live in desert climates? Like naming some spells after Mordenkainen? Like saying halflings are shorter than humans? We seem to talking past each other on this. Like that orcs and humans are enemies?

 

[Halivar]

Maybe I don't understand the question, or definition, then. Because the non-setting specific rules are filled with "where things live" and "who hates who" in every edition.

It goes beyond that. Saying that Tieflings come from Bael Turath, and had an empire that spanned the world millenia ago intrudes far more into my campaign setting than the examples you mention.

 

[boredgremlin]

I don't know where some of you are playing, but to say there are no shared experiences or stories in this hobby is foreign to me. I talk to people across the county I've never met before, on these very boards, about adventures and worlds and stories we share.

As for "WotC can't ignore it in the future", sure they can, and they have. So I don't get that one either.

It is super easy to ignore a default setting. I do it all the time. It is super hard for someone that has never played before to just jump in and play, without a story behind what they are doing. Why is this different than 40 years ago you ask? I don't know, maybe it is 20 years of video games and board games that have stories in them. That's my theory anyway.

I dont think it is different then 20 or 40 years ago. I'm sure there were lots of people back then who tried to start and just found the whole thing too much and too overwhelming so never really got into it.

15 years or so ago when i started there were plenty of people i remember playing with who tried to DM at some point and found the amount of work setting everything up to just be too much for their fun so dropped it.

We just dont hear about those people here because..... they stopped gaming 20 years ago. LOL. So we get a disproportionate sample of people who thought it was easy, fun and simple back then just by virtue of only hearing from the people who stuck with it.

 

[Shemeska]

The snark is powerful with this one

I think there should be, even if only in the most superficial way. I really -really- want to see the Great Wheel as a default cosmology for 5e, because it served as the game's default cosmology for three editions of the game, and by having the common terminology and tropes it provides, you have the D&D community by extension sharing a lot of experiences.

That was the case till 4e anyways when they provided a different, incredibly intrusive default cosmology and world design into the mix that retconned its way into every setting. No longer could I talk about eladrin, archons, devas, and other creatures online and be sure that I was even talking about the same thing as other folks. That disconnect is a big problem, and one that I truly want to go away for 5e.

I don't mean that the core book should go into crazy detail on the Great Wheel, but provide just enough surface detail that we're all starting from the same basic definitions. Each campaign setting can then go into details on them and describe differences from the default as it so deigns, rather than the 4e 'hey guess what, FR has a new, new cosmology... again, and its always been this way, again' and 'suddenly feywild and shadow shadow bo badow for Dark Sun'.