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

[Shemeska]

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.

I'd give you XP for this, but I can't give you more at this time. But you're very correct on this point IMO. The notion of 'default flavor' in 1e/2e/3e is very different from that in 4e which largely tried to rewrite a gigantic slew of what up to that point had been part of the default lexicon of D&D. I want to see 5e return to that common baseline (with perhaps some very selective additions of new things from 4e).

 

[boredgremlin]

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.

The problem is that your grossly exaggerating those problems. Say you have the "wood elven guards of west-woodydom" they have some specific woodsy powers and a brief description of what they do in west-woodydom on a daily basis.

Then WotC wants to bring out a pirate add-on set in tropical archipeligoes.

Does that mean the elves of woody-dom are doomed? Of course not. They are just specialist guards with terrain benefits at heart.

So WotC puts in a little paragraph in the pirate book that says " the woody-dom elf guard class in this setting instead gets the ability to breath water, sail better and perhaps influence or anticipate the weather. Nothing else changes."

There you go. They were bound by nothing about the fluff.

Or they make some evil elves in a supplement.

They write in "the woody-dom elf guards in this sort of campaign are slavers and wilderness bandits in their society rather then elves who guard the wild borders of their forest from evil. Everything else is the same. "

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.

No the point is that I shouldnt have to. I already paid a lot of money for a large book with a good amount of useless crunch thats just going to be errata'd or altered later anyway.

So why cant they include 20 or 30 pages and a few world maps in the back of the book so i have a quick framework to use and try the game out with so i can see if i even like it before paying more money for a system i might hate?

Its a simple matter of value for my money. The core books should have every single thing I or anyone else might need to get in and play a few adventures without a bunch of extra work or expense.

 

[Sunseeker]

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?

Things that say "so in so came from here" or "such in such hates so-in-so" are things that I can deal with PROVIDED that there aren't mechanical things built into them.

ie: Tieflings are part demonic therefore they get -2 cha. It was silly even when it was first made because they portrayed tieflings as highly cha-based characters based on that exact demonic heritage.

I can hand-wave the fluff to not exist and tell anyone who gets uppity about it to be quiet. But it's more difficult for me to carve out mechanical aspects build around that fluff. I can live with "short races are slower", but even dwarven weapon profeciences are pushing it.

Mechanically I liked 4e because a lot of the races were not very heavily tied to a specific setting. Some were, but they were very light ties as opposed to earlier editions.

Again: fluff I can handle, even if I don't like it. Mechanical issues are where I am concerned.

 

[boredgremlin]

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.

No it doesnt. Because it doesnt say how many millenia.

Like the idea? It was a thousand or two years ago. Everyone who studies a little history knows it.

Hate the idea? It was 5,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago and only a small number of fairly obscure historians know about it. Most of them tieflings.

Hell we could almost have had that sort of empire on earth 10,000 years ago and have no one have a clue about it.

you can look at the various academic debates about when native americans came to North america originally for proof of that. Theres a good bit of evidence of pre-clovis natives and yet how many people in our culture know it?

Or for that matter even know what clovis means in this context without googling it? And its a pretty safe assumption that education is much better and more widespread in America then it is in any D@D land.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem is that your grossly exaggerating those problems.
...
So WotC puts in a little paragraph in the pirate book that says " the woody-dom elf guard class in this setting instead gets the ability to breath water, sail better and perhaps influence or anticipate the weather. Nothing else changes."

There you go. They were bound by nothing about the fluff.

That's a problem, though, because the wood elves are not water-breathing sailors with weather magic. They're wood elves who live in woodydom.

Because I speak a language, I like my words to have meaning and not to just change based on the whims of designers who can't be buggered to simply not tell me how to use elves in my own games.

Especially when they can just save the whole wood elf fluff text for the "Forest of Wood Elves" adventure and not make me work around their own idea of what kind of fun I should have.

You want wood elves in woodydom somewhere? Use them where appropriate. Don't use them where they wouldn't work. Jamming them into every corner of the game is exasperating and limiting and ultimately unnecessary since there are things like adventures and settings out there if you are too new/lazy/time-poor to figure out that there are wood elves in your game.

Its a simple matter of value for my money. The core books should have every single thing I or anyone else might need to get in and play a few adventures without a bunch of extra work or expense.

I don't know what more you need than "MacGuffin is in a place filled with monsters and traps. Go get it." I have played D&D for over a decade without too much variation on that basic theme.

And if you do need more than that, then you can google something, or pay WotC $40, or pay me $10.

In fact, here's a freebie: There is a pie in a room with an orc. The pie is delicious. You are hungry.

Another one: Goblins are attacking farms. They stole Farmer MacGreggor's prize cow. Farmer MacGreggor promised to pay you prize money if you got it back before they ate it.

A third for good measure: There is a red dragon who demands virgin sacrifices every month, and he sits on a heap of treasure looted from the surrounding towns. Go kill it and take its stuff.

If D&D is supposed to be an individual group's game, then WotC shouldn't try and tell everyone the way the world is. Rather, they should give DMs the tools they need to make an adventure quickly, and worry about the world detail later (if at all).

 

[TwinBahamut]

Alright, since some people seem a bit unaware of the extent of how bad this can get, and many did not play 4E...

4E does not use a domain system for clerics. Instead, it just uses the deities presented in the PHB. Every Divine class has access to the Channel Divinity class feature, which lets them do a couple cool things built on the flavor of calling forth their god's divine power. You can acquire new options for this by choosing certain feats. The problem with this is that every Channel Divinity feat is directly based on a PHB deity, with no alternatives provided. There is no "Channel a War God" feat, only things like "Channel Bahamut" or "Channel the Raven Queen". If you don't want to use that pantheon, or even worse you don't want to use a pantheon with 1-to-1 equivalence with that pantheon, then you have a minor rules nightmare. It is annoying, and very restricting.

The more you build the game around a default setting, the more stuff like this happens, to some degree or another.

 

[gyor]

Alright, since some people seem a bit unaware of the extent of how bad this can get, and many did not play 4E...

4E does not use a domain system for clerics. Instead, it just uses the deities presented in the PHB. Every Divine class has access to the Channel Divinity class feature, which lets them do a couple cool things built on the flavor of calling forth their god's divine power. You can acquire new options for this by choosing certain feats. The problem with this is that every Channel Divinity feat is directly based on a PHB deity, with no alternatives provided. There is no "Channel a War God" feat, only things like "Channel Bahamut" or "Channel the Raven Queen". If you don't want to use that pantheon, or even worse you don't want to use a pantheon with 1-to-1 equivalence with that pantheon, then you have a minor rules nightmare. It is annoying, and very restricting.

The more you build the game around a default setting, the more stuff like this happens, to some degree or another.

They fixed this first in divine power with domain feats which act like channel divinity feats, but can be taken by any cd using character and is tied to domains not specific gods and then the latter in essentials with the awesome warpriest cleric subclass who is defined massively by his choice of in subclass domain, from a cd option, to both atwills and other powers and features.

 

[Ratskinner]

They fixed this first in divine power with domain feats which act like channel divinity feats, but can be taken by any cd using character and is tied to domains not specific gods and then the latter in essentials with the awesome warpriest cleric subclass who is defined massively by his choice of in subclass domain, from a cd option, to both atwills and other powers and features.

Which is why it shouldn't have been in there in the first place. I'd rather pay $20-$40 for a book or box containing all the information I'd want about a setting, than $20-$40 for a product telling me how to get a small piece of their default setting out of my game, and 120 pages of stuff I'll never use or didn't want in the first place. Your example is only for Divine characters...heaven (or a wealthy friend) help us if we needed to pick up one for each major character type.

Its far far better (and I would not resent it, even if I never used it) for the DMG to have chapters on quickly building a basic setting, or even how to build a complex one. Especially if those chapter have mechanical insight into what might unbalance the game. If they want a "home" setting for the game, pop them out with the starting adventures. That should really help the time-crunched/inexperienced DM.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I'm going to go with TwinB and KamikazeM here. Give each class/race a sort of default setting - half orcs are big and brutish, elves are snooty and drink wine with their pinky stuck out, that sort of thing. Cosmology should be a grouping of concepts and not much else - 3e's domains cover most of what you need. Unless you really need to define how planes interact, don't bother.

Now, you are going to have to define the cosmology to some degree because you have planar creatures. Demons live here. Devils live there. They're different because they have different goals. But all the specific stuff? No thanks. Don't need it. Don't want it. The Great Wheel is every bit as intrusive as 4e's cosmology and they can both take a long walk off a short pier AFAIC.

 

[Kzach]

I do think there should be a bog-standard, everything makes sense in context with the rules, nothing deviates from the expected, setting as the 'core' D&D setting. I do not, however, think it should be any of the published settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Mystara.

These published and well-known worlds should be deviations from this 'norm', with special 'adventures' books published to spell out those differences. I think this is what they tried to do with the default 4e setting and I'd support their decision to continue using it as it makes good sense to do so.

 

[marleykat]

3e had Greyhawk as the default setting. 4e had "points of light".

In the 2e and 3e days, "the Great Wheel" was the default cosmology with several products referencing it.

Should 5e have a default setting or cosmology?

I personally don't want a default setting or cosmology. I think the rules should avoid mentioning anything other than the bare basics of cosmology. (e.g. The spell "Contact Other Plane" would imply the existence of other planes, but doesn't say what the planes would be.) That would encourage DMs to design any setting or cosmology they want without having feel like they have to shoehorn them into the "official" D&D setting.

What do you think?

I say yes it needs a default setting. I started playing regularly with 2e. I still hold fond memories of Dragonlance. Part of the why 4e never clicked with me is the PoL setting. Half the reason Pathfinder clicks with me is the setting Forgotten Realms like it may be but it's evocative despite that. So yes please give me fun settings especially at start.

 

[The Shadow]

I very much do not want to see a default setting built into the crunch. A bit of fluff to help new people - fine. The 3e default pantheon was a waste of page space for me, but I could see why they did it, and it was easy to ignore. But do not built anything of the sort into feat names or anything else.

(I'm a little torn on spell names. Mordenkainen, Bigby, Otiluke, Tenser - these are part of D&D's history. Arguably they now transcend the Greyhawk setting they originated in. But a little goes a very long way - let's not introduce any more. Though I do have a soft spot in my heart for Abi-Dalzim, it must be said.

I do see the point of a sample setting for beginners. These can really help fire the imagination - by giving examples of what's possible, and even by their flaws! Mystara, for example, has some great stuff in it, but also some dumb stuff that encouraged me at the time to do better. But fluff only, please, and emphasize that it's only an example. It doesn't need to be a $40 book - a booklet that comes in the boxed set will be fine, or if absolutely necessary, a couple dozen pages at the back of the DMG.

I do not ever want to see the Dinner Plate again. (My group's derisive name for the so-called 'Great Wheel'.) I have despised that thing ever since I first saw it in the AD&D DMG at the age of 11, and I've met plenty of people from the same era with the same reaction. I realize this is likely a losing battle, and that they will feel the need to mention it somewhere. But PLEASE, WotC, don't build into the core rules!

I actually rather like the 4e cosmology - one of the few things I thoroughly like about 4e, in fact. I think it's a distinct improvement over anything that came before. But I don't think it should be pushed hard either. The core rules should include only the most minimal of setting assumptions about the planes. It's impossible to have none, of course - if there's an Astral Projection spell in the book, they have to say something about an Astral plane - but I think there should be light touches only, with some options presented in the worldbuilding section of the DMG. Leave the rest for a Manual of the Planes.

 

[Belphanior]

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.

Except they ditched all divine classes, including paladin and cleric. So the expectation you talk about is really kind of not what's going on in 4e DS.

(Yes I know there's a sidebar reminding you that you can Rule 0 this, but the default rule is pretty clear.)

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.

How?

How is "these guys are from Place X" intrusive in a way that "this spell was made by Mage X" not? That's an honest question by the way. They both seem incredibly easy to ignore, to me.



Moving along, I don't see how you can not have a default implied setting. Literally. I don't see how that is even possible.

"Elves are a PC race but orcs are not" is a piece of setting.
"Multiple gods exist" is a piece of setting.
"Wizards are in the game but gunpowder is not" is a piece of setting.

There is simply no way you can write D&D without injecting a setting into the pages. I think some people have become so used to the default Greyhawk style of pre-4e editions that they genuinely see it as something neutral - but it isn't. It's a setting that's just as much as "Points of Light" was, except it was different so you couldn't gloss over it as easily.

 

[Recidivism]

I'd very much prefer if the default setting was kept to a minimum (not sure it's entirely possible to cut it all out).

As Kaodi demonstrated earlier in this thread, provide a pantheon of god archetypes for religion. If not that then I would provide several real-life pantheons: Greek, Norse, Egyptian.

I definitely prefer to use a pantheon in my games that players who aren't steeped in D&D mythos are familiar with. I can have a character in my game make a reference to the wrath of Ares, or the beauty of Aphrodite, and most people immediately understand the comment. No one knows the D&D pantheon(s) unless they've been playing for years, so those comments require explanations, and even then there isn't nearly the richness of a real mythos.

Feats and other powers that don't appear in setting-specific material should probably avoid referencing setting specific features. The god-specific feats are a good example of things I'd rather not see. References to the history of the races are less annoying, but I think it can be kept speculative rather than giving definitive information.

A good way to do this is [ironically] to introduce some sort of character, like Volo in the Forgotten Realms, who provides his interpretation of history or other controversial features. If the Player's Handbook has an introductory sidebar on Tieflings written by <Scholar X> that says that the Tieflings used to have this ancient empire that spanned the globe, well ... He could just be wrong.

Planes and other cosmology should be left out entirely. I've never felt a need to have this in any campaign except as a hinting at greater powers. Providing too much information on this is the quickest and easiest way to take all the mystery and sense of wonder out of it. Specifying that the Eladrin are fey and come from the Feywild was pretty inappropriate to me, as it basically sets up that travel between different planes of reality is trivial.

 

[catsclaw227]

Look guys, there's gotta be somewhere for them to plop sample encounters, the initial 1-3 adventure and some DDI articles. So where should it be?

I've heard that a time-indifferent FR or GH is where they'll do it, but who knows?

BTW, who where the runner-ups in the old 3.5 setting contest?

Maybe we'll be playing 5e in the OotS world!

 

[avin]

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.

High Elves (Eladrin) fit smoothly on DS. I like it.

Dragonborn are Dray, and that's it.

 

[Osgood]

I would rather there was no default setting. Perhaps the base books have the Greek pantheon as an example, or refer to gods in terms of their portfolio/domains (ie. death god, sun god, etc.), and then include several setting options in the DMG. This could be a 2- or 4-page spread for several campaign settings, perhaps with equivalency charts (in Greyhawk the death god is Wee Jas or Nerull, in Eberron use the Blood of Vol, etc.).

 

[Umbran]

Should 5e have a default setting or cosmology?

Yep. Because the best way to teach is by example: "Here's the standard. Here's a variation or two from the standard." This would give folks an idea of how far you can go in various directions, and how much extra work/rules you do (or don't) need to do it.

 

[Halivar]

How is "these guys are from Place X" intrusive in a way that "this spell was made by Mage X" not? That's an honest question by the way. They both seem incredibly easy to ignore, to me.

Saying "this spells was made my mage X" does not in any way affect my campaign setting. Not in the slightest, teensiest bit, unless my setting says mages don't invent spells. In which case, I am ignoring a single word.

In 4E, there were entire sections of text (the entirety of all the fluff included with Dragonborn, Tieflings, and Eladrin, in fact) that I really could not use because of its campaign setting intrusion.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes.

1. For new DMs and players.
2. For the shared experiences across the hobby.
3. For experienced DMs and players that don't have time to make it all up.

This does not impede people from using another setting, not in the least. But it does enable entry to the game for new people, and w/o new people, there is no DND eventually. It does give people who don't want to invent a new world, a world to work with. It does give us a shared experience.

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.

I agree with this fully. My one caveat is that I'm not sure what the best way is to present such a setting.

Should it be in the Core Rulebooks? If so, how? A chapter or chapters detailing the setting, and if so how much detail should be presented? Or should references just be sprinkled throughout the book as a given ("who is this 'Mordenkainen' that made this disjunction spell?")? In that case, should there then be a setting book published separately, a la a campaign setting guide, with clear reference that this is the default campaign assumed?

I think a default setting is a good idea, but how it's presented isn't an afterthought - it's half of the equation.