D&D 5E Should the "core" world be centered around the classic races?

[Savage Wombat]

I'm mostly hoping for a race of people who are in the core instead of gnomes, who skip guards and get to the fun, who cast fighter spells, who shout hands back on while martial mind control force moving everyone everywhere so they can deliver continuous damage on a miss...all while spontaneously manifesting various Schrodinger content in the game (gorges et al)...but maybe only once per scene...just cause. That would be so good.

I think I might start a (few) thread(s) to advocate for that.

You need to be more careful with your tone - people might think you're being sarcastic.

 

[Sunseeker]

To be honest, I didn't feel like Dragonborn and Tieflings felt like the "norm" any more than Orcs did. They seemed to mostly be off by themselves and usually made up a single member of more traditional member groupings.

To better prashe your question, should be "core" world be centered around the traditional or "classic" Tolkein-esque races? I'm not really sure. I think it depends on what sort of "core world" they develop. If they favor a low-magic, human-heavy world, then yes. If they favor a somewhat more exotic, high-magic setting, then no.

But this is one of the reasons I dislike games the scale of D&D having a "core setting" upon which all assumptions about the rules are based. The rules and the setting should be as separate as possible, with setting-specific books introducing setting-specific rules, spells, races and the assumptions about them.

Frankly, D&D isn't a "setting-specific RPG" and I think it is lessened when the game assumes certain things are true about the game as a whole based on a specific setting.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'd rather we didn't have a "core world" at all. I realize that they seem stuck on the idea that its necessary, but really...I just don't see the need. I'm perfectly fine, and in fact happier, with the idea of example worlds, that go with rules modules for various races, etc. "Worlds that include Tieflings blah blah blah" or even better yet "If you include Tieflings in your game, they might be <option1Text> as they are in the Forgotten Realms or <option2Text> or even simply <option3Text>. As with anything else, you could also leave the origins of the race shrouded in mystery to discover during play."

 

[Li Shenron]

The rules and the setting should be as separate as possible, with setting-specific books introducing setting-specific rules, spells, races and the assumptions about them.

Indeed this could also be my bottom line as well.

I understand that there is always some sort of "implied setting" already in the fact that you have spellcasters (implying there is magic in the world), what spells exist and how they work, what equipment exists and what doesn't (e.g. mixing armors from different ages, no gunpowder), and what monsters are in the MM. But magic and equipment are basically what set the game into "medieval-inspired fantasy with magic" which is still pretty generic! Not as generic as GURPS, but still generic enough for me to not "feel" like the setting is really defined. And monsters are always DM's call... there were monsters in the 3e MM that I never used simply because I disliked them, or didn't feel strong enough in concept to me, thus even if in the first MM they simply don't exist in any of my games; this to me means that the MM does not have the same power to "frame the setting" as much as instead the PHB has, since it's pretty different for me as DM to ban or change PC material compared to simply ignore some monsters.

Campaign settings on the other hand serve exactly the purpose of defining what is and what isn't in the fantasy world. Thus the best IMHO would always be for the core to be as generic as possible: keeping the most traditional classes, races and monsters because the vast majority of settings and homebrews use them anyway. They can go easier with monsters and put some oddballs or novelties in the MM exactly because the DM can always skip any of them with no effort, unlike PHB material.

This is actually not a very big issue in 4e.

Primal Power and Psionic Power cannot be used with PHB2 and 3 respectively. Arcane Power and Divine Power reference classes found only in post-PHB 1 books, but have plenty of material useable with PHB 1 classes too.

Otherwise, most game elements are very self-contained and can be used as they stand. It is not a system that demands a lot of cross-referencing to make mecanical sense of things. And there is very little introduction of resolution subsystems. (The only two I can think of are the vehicle rules in Adventurer's Vault, and Martial Practices in one of the Martial Power books.)

About cross-referencing, it's a double-edge sword because on one hand this can reward people who own multiple books, and gives a feeling that subsystems are part of an "organic" system rather than separate, non-interacting mechanics. But on the other hand it annoys those who don't own the needed book.

This is why I have the feeling that cross-referencing works somewhat better in the context of campaign settings books, at least if they are not too many. For instance if a campaign setting is made up of 5-10 books only (or at least that's the backbone line) it is quite probable that while the majority of gamers will still only own the 1st book (which is published first thus doesn't reference anything except core rules of the D&D edition), there might be also more fans buying all books than fans buying only half of them, since they are overall not too many.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd rather we didn't have a "core world" at all. I realize that they seem stuck on the idea that its necessary, but really...I just don't see the need.

Yeah, usually the argument in favor of having a "default setting" is that it helps beginners DM who would otherwise have no clue about where to set the adventures.

First of all, this is not true IMXP. When I started DMing I had no setting books, and I went straight to homebrewing because I actually believed that that was what DMing is about! I found a large map on the web, printed it, and told the players "you live here" while pointing a finger at a town on the map, and that's how we started. As far as I know, none of the other DM I've gamed with started with a defined setting, but rather just focused on adventures, and only think later, after the first bunch of adventures, what kind of world do the players really live in.

Maybe this is old-school, maybe in modern gaming you are supposed to present the whole world concept and layout before starting your adventures. That's fine, and it's indeed a huge job for beginners DM, but actually to the point that I would not recommend a beginner DM to even try! I'd tell them, first try your hands at running the game and focus on actions and challenges, then think about world building or managing a published setting.

Anyway, experienced DMs already know how to homebrew or already have an existing setting in mind, and the CORE books are not targetted at beginners DMs! The BASIC product is!

Thus if they want a "sample setting", rather than waste space in the PHB/DMG/MM (and still not be able to put much about the setting there), I think it'd be better to include it in the BASIC D&D GAME book.

 

[pemerton]

should be "core" world be centered around the traditional or "classic" Tolkein-esque races? I'm not really sure. I think it depends on what sort of "core world" they develop. If they favor a low-magic, human-heavy world, then yes. If they favor a somewhat more exotic, high-magic setting, then no.

To me this is somewhat backwards.

Tolkien is higher magic than REH Conan, and is more likely to have elves, dwarves, hobbits etc with their own kingdoms and cultures and languages and histories. Whereas I think REH is more likely to have tieflings, carnivorous apes, and probably warforged as well (they're pretty pulpy with a hint of gothic horror), as deviant or "fallen" examples of humans (and no distinct culture or language).

 

[chaochou]

I'm mostly hoping for a race of people who are in the core instead of gnomes, who skip guards and get to the fun, who cast fighter spells, who shout hands back on while martial mind control force moving everyone everywhere so they can deliver continuous damage on a miss...all while spontaneously manifesting various Schrodinger content in the game (gorges et al)...but maybe only once per scene...just cause. That would be so good.

I think I might start a (few) thread(s) to advocate for that.

~chuckles~

 

[Wiseblood]

I don't think it should be centered around the classic races. I do think it should be centered around important races of the world. What makes them important? Usually it's military might or eldritch secrets. This is where dwarves and elves come in and possibly some others like orcs. What do the fringe races like tieflings have to offer? Unusual parentage? Fashionable protrusions? Outsider status? Unless your world revolves around that aspect they really are just a footnote. They would make better additions in later books.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yeah, usually the argument in favor of having a "default setting" is that it helps beginners DM who would otherwise have no clue about where to set the adventures.

First of all, this is not true IMXP. When I started DMing I had no setting books, and I went straight to homebrewing because I actually believed that that was what DMing is about! I found a large map on the web, printed it, and told the players "you live here" while pointing a finger at a town on the map, and that's how we started. As far as I know, none of the other DM I've gamed with started with a defined setting, but rather just focused on adventures, and only think later, after the first bunch of adventures, what kind of world do the players really live in.

Maybe this is old-school, maybe in modern gaming you are supposed to present the whole world concept and layout before starting your adventures. That's fine, and it's indeed a huge job for beginners DM, but actually to the point that I would not recommend a beginner DM to even try! I'd tell them, first try your hands at running the game and focus on actions and challenges, then think about world building or managing a published setting.

That's very similar to my experiences. In spite of (or perhaps just to spite) my personal ambitions, my best games and campaigns have always been the ones that start with a simple little premise and just accumulate more detail as play and plot develop. Its actually not too far from the suggested method FATE has for starting a game.

 

[Ratskinner]

Tolkien is higher magic than REH Conan, and is more likely to have elves, dwarves, hobbits etc with their own kingdoms and cultures and languages and histories. Whereas I think REH is more likely to have tieflings, carnivorous apes, and probably warforged as well (they're pretty pulpy with a hint of gothic horror), as deviant or "fallen" examples of humans (and no distinct culture or language).

I dunno, they're both fairly "low" magic, but with very different flavors, IMO. Tolkien is far more "mythological" or "fairy tale", though, including more quasi-supernatural elements as a de-facto element of reality. The strange thing to me is that I know several guys who seem to think of them as very similar or even the same...thus the D&Dism of playing Conan in a Tolkienesque world, I guess.