D&D (2024) Should There Be a Core Setting?

[Vaalingrade]

So before I give my own opinion on 6E, I have to ask... does 5E even have a Core Setting?

My gut instinct would say "Yes, and it's Forgotten Realms." But it's not really.

FR is just the one that REALLY try to sell you. But there's still a generic semi-setting there like how a lot of people are openly racist against teiflings, druids are too dumb to wear metal and there is special power to be had in taking a paladin oath then noping out of it.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I voted "no, but some descriptions of specific settings and their races/monsters cultures are okay." For the mainline books, that's what I would be happy with. HOWEVER:

My demand for 6e: an SRD that is ONLY rules content. Outline the ability stats and proficiency bonus, explain how ability checks, attack rolls and damage, and saving throws work (or whatever their equivalent would be in 6e), and a list of skills that is as setting-agnostic as possible. I'm wondering if that SRD should even include character classes or if there should only be advice on how to build your own classes. Maybe if classes in 6e are more modular then a template class could be included in the SRD.

This SRD wouldn't replace a hypothetical PHB+MM+DMG (or a single core rulebook if they make the decision to condense the core system into one book, in which case I would be infinitely grateful). Rather, this would be a designer or homebrewer's resource: a clear outline of how the game system works with as little fluff attached as possible, for use to design one's own settings within the D&D mechanics without being bound by D&D's thematic stereotypes or being confused by any potential ambiguity between crunch and fluff.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

That's the point of the core setting though. It's supposed to be solid enough to inspire you and guide you without ever completely restricting you.

Isn't that the definition of genre, not setting? Or is this thread just using those words interchangeably to mean each other?

 

[Malmuria]

I voted "no, but some descriptions of specific settings and their races/monsters cultures are okay." For the mainline books, that's what I would be happy with. HOWEVER:

My demand for 6e: an SRD that is ONLY rules content. Outline the ability stats and proficiency bonus, explain how ability checks, attack rolls and damage, and saving throws work (or whatever their equivalent would be in 6e), a list that is as setting-agnostic as possible. I'm wondering if that SRD should even include character classes or if there should only be advice on how to build your own classes. Maybe if classes in 6e are more modular then a template class could be included in the SRD.

This SRD wouldn't replace a hypothetical PHB+MM+DMG (or a single core rulebook if they make the decision to condense the core system into one book, in which case I would be infinitely grateful). Rather, this would be a designer or homebrewer's resource: a clear outline of how the game system works with as little fluff attached as possible, for use to design one's own settings within the D&D mechanics without being bound by D&D's thematic stereotypes or being confused by any potential ambiguity between crunch and fluff.

Something like this but official would be really helpful. I can't fathom why they included guidelines in the dmg that the designers themselves don't use.

5e monster manual on a business card

Lately I’ve been doing statistical analysis on D&D 5e monsters to see how they’re built, and I’ve learned some interesting things: the DMG monster-creation guidelines don&#821…

blogofholding.com

 

[cbwjm]

I'm undecided. I don't specifically think DnD needs a core setting, 2e was pretty light on setting information in the core rulebooks, other than named spells and magical items it may as well have been setting agnostic as I don't think it called out any setting around at the time. However, having a core setting as an example I think could be useful to serve as inspiration, even if only minor information is revealed in the core books, it doesn't have to do a deep dive into the information on the setting but being able to give a list of gods as examples, maybe a faction and patrons (assuming these would be part of the main rules) would be useful and they may as well belong to a specific setting.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

Isn't that the definition of genre, not setting? Or is this thread just using those words interchangeably to mean each other?

The setting is more specific, it includes assumptions about the... setting the game is assumed to take place in (pre- individual table customization) that do not necessarily match the wider "genre" (the 5e PHB presents a wildly different setting than Game of Thrones, or Mistborn, or even Lord of the Rings).

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The setting is more specific, it includes assumptions about the... setting the game is assumed to take place in (pre- individual table customization) that do not necessarily match the wider "genre" (the 5e PHB presents a wildly different setting than Game of Thrones, or Mistborn, or even Lord of the Rings).

Yeah, I disagree with this.

Genre can be very narrowly defined; Game of Thrones, and Lord of the Rings, may be in the same broader genre of "fantasy," but they aren't of the same more narrow fantasy categories... Game of Thrones can also be described as a "fantasy drama" while Lord of the Rings is more "heroic fantasy."

Dungeons and Dragons can also more narrowly defined as heroic fantasy. One could even say that the "established" settings share an even more narrow genre, being "Pre-Industrial, near-Medieval Heroic Fantasy."

Here's a line from the DMG:

This book, the Player's Handbook, and the Monster Manual present the default assumptions for how the worlds of D&D work. Among the established settings of D&D, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara don't stray very far from those assumptions. Settings such as Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Planescape venture further away from that baseline. As you create your own world, it's up to you to decide where on the spectrum you want your world to fall.

And here's another one;

Empires rise and fall, leaving few places that have not been touched by imperial grandeur or decay. War, time, and natural forces eventually claim the mortal world, leaving it rich with places of adventure and mystery. Ancient civilizations and their knowledge survive in legends, magic items, and their ruins. Chaos and evil often follow an empire's collapse.

Those above 4 lines don't really define a setting, they define a genre of fantasy. It's not setting specific as it can be applied to innumerable works of fantasy fiction. It can be applied to Tekumel even! This is not setting specific in any measurable way.

 

[Malmuria]

One thing implicit in the phb and mm (and spelled out in the dmg), are aspects of a particular cosmology. I almost wonder if that's too much already for a points of light setting. On the other hand, extraplanar beings have a history with dnd going back to near the beginning (esp, things like githyanki, etc).

 

[Faolyn]

This SRD wouldn't replace a hypothetical PHB+MM+DMG (or a single core rulebook if they make the decision to condense the core system into one book, in which case I would be infinitely grateful).

Sadly, I doubt they could cover all three in a single book unless they serious trimmed down the number of monsters that were available in it, while still having enough for a full game. For instance, maybe only have one type of dragon (probably with different breath weapons and a list of options so it could stand in for all the different types of dragon). Which, yeah, they could do if they were also planning on going back to the multiple full monster books.

 

[Hex08]

I chose "No, but some minor assumptions are fine". While I started playing earlier, AD&D 2e is where my fondest memories lie and the rules then were pretty setting agnostic except for things like spell names so that's kind of my preference. Also, the game has had many settings that have been published over the years and while I haven't played D&D since 3.5 and so am not aware of the current state of most settings it seems to me that the only way to accommodate Wizards publishing more than one is to keep the core rules setting agnostic.