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

[billd91]

This thread continues to conflate the idea of a sample setting with a default one and it is driving me crazy!

I would propose the following nomenclature to make it clear which one you *actually* want when you say you want a default setting:

Sample setting - like the Known World in the Expert Set. It provides a map, some details about countries, maybe a pantheon, a sample cosmology, etc., but none of this is baked into the actual races/classes/themes.

Default setting - like 4e. Specific details about the world are already there in channel divinity feats, race descriptions, class power names, paragon paths, etc.

I *think* a lot of you people saying "5e MUST HAVE A DEFAULT SETTING" actually only want a sample setting. But I can't tell for sure.

Frankly, I don't see a practical difference. If you use the same sample setting in all of your materials (which I strongly recommend), it is the default setting.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There should be at least three sample settings developed concurrently with the initial rules. These should be as different as possible, and contain mutually exclusive element. Unless one of them turns out to be completely non-viable, they should all have setting material released at or shortly after launch (i.e. within the first year, with teaser material earlier, if it takes that long.)

The core rules should use examples liberally from these settings, without favoring one or the other.




Reasons:

• Designers and developers are human too. If they don't need to consciously support mutiple settings every day, setting assumptions will creep into their rules. These will cause trouble immediately for homebrew fans (a large chunk of people) and later for the WotC itself.
• With less than three settings, you won't get enough differences in enough places. Ideally, you'd have far more than that, but practical limits means that it has got to be no more than 4-6 setting concepts, and a subset of those more fully developed. Practically, this means you might get 4 viable ones, but 3 is more likely.
• This teaches new players right from the beginning how to distinguish between rule elements and setting elements.
• From object-oriented software development, a hard won truth--a thing is not guaranteed resuable until you have reused it. Meaning, if you want people to swap out this kind of wood elf for another kind of wood elf, you don't know that you have achieved that until you actually do the swap. This means you need two types of wood elves to test it.

All of the above goes double for cosmology. The number of people who think that the Great Wheel doesn't cause trouble for some of us is truly staggering. By all means, use the Great Wheel in one of those defaults. Then use two other, substantially different cosmologies in the other defaults.

Edit: And before someone even tries to tell me this is too much work, my answer is that if "professional game company" is going to have any meaning, this kind of work is right up there with good proofreading, testing the rules, etc. Yes it is work. It's the same difference you expect when a business pays a software company $250,000 for a custom solution, versus hiring a the CTO's nephew to write an Access app in 12 weeks. In any case, the thing will pay for itself simply in the increased playtesting capabilities, and should be done for that reason, even if none of the above stuff applied.

 

[IanB]

Frankly, I don't see a practical difference. If you use the same sample setting in all of your materials (which I strongly recommend), it is the default setting.

You don't see a difference between 3e domains (generic) with some suggested sample gods, and 4e's Channel Divinity feats (specific, with no generic alternative)?

 

[Serendipity]

Throw in a small, largely generic region (like Nentir Vale or Thunder Rift) in a single chapter in the DMG where the assumptions of the ruleset hold true, that you can drop into an existing setting or build a new one around, with lots of sidebars as to how you can shift things around if you don't like the initial setup.
No muss, no fuss.

 

[rounser]

Thunder Rift, seriously, as both default and sample setting. It's built for this purpose, even down to "Temple of Law" type stuff in the towns for theological unobtrusiveness. And it's small enough to provide that common experience thing.

 

[boredgremlin]

This thread continues to conflate the idea of a sample setting with a default one and it is driving me crazy!

I would propose the following nomenclature to make it clear which one you *actually* want when you say you want a default setting:

Sample setting - like the Known World in the Expert Set. It provides a map, some details about countries, maybe a pantheon, a sample cosmology, etc., but none of this is baked into the actual races/classes/themes.

Default setting - like 4e. Specific details about the world are already there in channel divinity feats, race descriptions, class power names, paragon paths, etc.

I *think* a lot of you people saying "5e MUST HAVE A DEFAULT SETTING" actually only want a sample setting. But I can't tell for sure.

Either works for me. I would prefer the first with slightly more detail then there was in that though since a lot of that game did have setting crunch in the mechanics from what i recall

 

[billd91]

You don't see a difference between 3e domains (generic) with some suggested sample gods, and 4e's Channel Divinity feats (specific, with no generic alternative)?

That's a failure of the feat design, not the difference between sample and default worlds. Greyhawk was the default world for 3e. That was the terminology generally used at the time.

 

[TwinBahamut]

There should be at least three sample settings developed concurrently with the initial rules. These should be as different as possible, and contain mutually exclusive element. Unless one of them turns out to be completely non-viable, they should all have setting material released at or shortly after launch (i.e. within the first year, with teaser material earlier, if it takes that long.)

The core rules should use examples liberally from these settings, without favoring one or the other.

This is undoubtably the best way to do things. I know that D20 Modern made an attempt at this by providing several example settings like Urban Arcana, Shadow Chasers, Genetech, and Agents of PSI (I think these were them...). It helps establish the main rules as setting-independent, introduces to new players a wide variety of inspiration and a clear idea of how far you can push the main rules, and creates room for a lot of fun crunch that doesn't have to be appropriate for every setting (like Psionic, Magic, and Moreau rules in D20 Modern).

I would love for the 5E rules to give a traditional setting, a low-magic humans-only setting, and a totally crazy setting with flying continents, robots, and airships.

 

[JohnSnow]

I would love for the 5E rules to give a traditional setting, a low-magic humans-only setting, and a totally crazy setting with flying continents, robots, and airships.

So, like, for example, you could include The Forgotten Realms, Sanctuary, and Eberron?

 

[IanB]

That's a failure of the feat design, not the difference between sample and default worlds. Greyhawk was the default world for 3e. That was the terminology generally used at the time.

Sure, except people are talking back and forth past each other using 'default setting' and meaning different things all over this thread. Clarity is important.