This is already choosing a setting. Eg is the storm god associated with war? Wrath? Leadership? Life-granting rainfall? Is the god of the sun a friend or enemy (as might be the case for desert dwellers)? Etc
D&D (2024) Should There Be a Core Setting?
R_J_K75
Legend
No its not. Like I said let the players/DM figure that out unless people need the core books to cover every little detail.
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
I went with No, but minor assumptions is fine. As others have said their is an implied core setting due to the nature of the rules, races and class presentation. The implied setting is fine, but beyond that I think the core rules should be toolbox guide to create unique settings and stories
The game is going to have some base assumptions on genre, which could be described as a "setting," which IMO is the only type of core setting they should use. To create a new setting as core is to immediately shoehorn new DMs into that setting, rather than encouraging them to make their own. This was a huge complaint with the Starter Set of 5E, with everyone crying that "Forgotten Realms is the core setting!" The worst thing that happened to Greyhawk was becoming the "core setting" of 3E, because everything unique about the setting was ignored, generating the feeling that Greyhawk is just "vanilla." While I'm not a fan, Nentir Vale/Points of Light of 4E was a unique setting designed to go with the edition, lacking any existing baggage, which I think is the only other acceptable option for me.
If the core rules give a sun domain with healing magic, or a storm domain that is distinct from a rulership domain, or a dark domain that is associated with Undead, then they are establishing setting.
Likewise if they give paladins of vengeance or "the green" but not (say) liberation or domination.
R_J_K75
Legend
OK then.
Who voiced this complaint? The new players and GMs? Did this complaint affect sales of that set?
Ath-kethin
Elder Thing
No, you're right, there wasn't any. Aside from named spells, which only imply that sometimes spells are known to be associated with a specific caster. Maybe that caster invented the spell, maybe that caster just used it a lot. It's flavorful but non-distinct.
Dripping hints if different settings in a core book is OK, I guess, especially since there's such a wealth of material over the years. But these should be examples of how to make a setting and customize ideas, not nailing in any kind of default.
I'd like to be able to vote "No, but some descriptions of specific settings and their races/monsters cultures are okay." Except I can't in good conscience do that because then we wind up with 5e's "core books are generic [as long as generic is almost exclusively FR and basically never contradicts FR without considering the needs of settings that differ from FR]". So far we have to settings thst needed some amount of new/different system mechanics to fit the themes that need to run them as if they are basically FR with a coat of paint
Last edited:
Ruin Explorer
Legend
If you're going to have a core setting, 4E is the right way to do it.
5E's approach is messier and less compelling, and I'd rather have no core setting than that.
From WotC's perspective I'm pretty sure they think a core setting is important to the success of the IP so will continue to have one in any 6E, though I could see a custom one rather than the FR - albeit I think retaining the FR is more likely.
5E's approach is messier and less compelling, and I'd rather have no core setting than that.
From WotC's perspective I'm pretty sure they think a core setting is important to the success of the IP so will continue to have one in any 6E, though I could see a custom one rather than the FR - albeit I think retaining the FR is more likely.
