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.