Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 7223062" data-attributes="member: 7635">I've gone rounds on this topic before, so I'll sum up my points. I believe Wizards of the Coast, when creating or adapting a setting from its past, should attempt to invalidate a little as possible as far as choices in from the PHB/DMG/MM. A setting like Ravenloft, Greyhawk, or Dark Sun should FLAVOR the rule-set, not replace it. While there can be additions (psionics/mystic, warforged and kender) alterations (such as new subraces and fluff to cover Dark Sun elves, dwarves, and halflings) and a few removals (gnomes replaced by muls) or even some retooled options (paladins can double for knights of Solomnia) the core of game should not change radically. A setting should EXPAND the game, not limit it. It should take it new places and possibilities, not be slave to old cannon or narrow genre emulation. The 3e versions of Ravenloft (by Arthaus), Dragonlance (by Weiss), and the 4e Dark Sun all showed that settings can adapt to new options and yet remain true to the spirit of the world. Any setting that cannot absorb dragonborn, warlocks, sorcerers, monks, or tieflings should seriously be considered as unworthy of adaptation. Now, the following is true only of Dungeons & Dragons (TM) branded settings; third party settings are fair game, as are licensed settings. Put another way, Dark Sun should attempt to present D&D tropes in a S&S light, whereas a Conan-branded 5e-compatible setting OR a setting like Primeval Thule has a lot more latitude to remove, re-write, or whatever. Likewise, this is mostly for the consideration of Publication. An individual DM can, as always, adapt the setting and ban, remove, or change anything he doesn't like. WotC's default setting should be as inclusive as possible and individual DMs can decide how "pure" they want their version to be. It should be spelled out in the beginning of "X" book that the DM is free to tighten or loosen the available options as he so chooses (a "Making X setting your own" - like sidebar).If WotC REALLY wants to deviate from the D&D established tropes, let them make a new compatible game. Gamma World is a good example of something loosely based off D&D that isn't D&D and doesn't need to adhere to D&D's tropes. A setting for D&D is first-and-foremost still D&D, its not a new game which references the PHB combat chapter.Lastly, I just want to define what I mean by "D&D tropes" that D&D settings should adhere to. They are pretty generic, but I think its worth restating. 1.) At least some version of the dwarf, elf, halfling, and human races. Ideally, they should find places for uncommon races (or suitible replacements) even if it requires some reskinning (dragonborn = dray). 2.) Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric classes. Like races, they should attempt to carve out places for the other 8 classes as well through some new subclasses or refluffing. 3.) Magic works like magic. While you can color it differently (such as Defiling or Ravenloft's prohibitions on certain types) magic should still be in the PC's hands and spells like Magic Missile, Cure Wounds, Fireball, or Raise Dead should be assumed. 4.) A world with a variety of monsters, trying to use as many of them as possible (again, changing the fluff as needed; such as Eberron's orcs). 5.) It should connect to the Great Wheel/Multiverse model of 5e. Again this is for WOTC-DESIGNED OFFICIAL D&D SETTINGS ONLY. 3PP, other games WotC wants to make, or what an individual DM wants to do with his/her game adhere to none of this.</blockquote>

Verification