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

[J.Quondam]

I voted "No, with minor assumptions," though I would very specifically exclude NPC-named spells. (Eg, justsaying Tiny Hut, or Freezing Sphere, or Groping Hand is fine.) I think the 5e SRD sits pretty close to a good balance.

(However, I would LOVE to find newer, more neutral class names!)

 

[Malmuria]

I think a point of light setting that provides basically what the starter set/essentials kit provides but not in the FR would be perfect. Similarly, many games include a starting adventure scenario, why not dnd? The lack of a starting adventure exacerbates the fact that, imo, the world and adventure building advice in the dmg is not good.

What other game products do this well? Some:

Return of the Lazy DM actually builds a starting scenario and adventure alongside its advice, so you get the general principles and then examples like in any textbook.

Worlds Without Number has fantastic and comprehensive world building tools and an example setting. If I ever make a new setting this is what I would turn to first. One reviewer wrote

If you look just at the prose Worlds Without Number is not all that more verbose than the Dungeon Master’s Guide of Fifth Edition, but it never stops at the prose and there are always tools and tables to help any GM of any skill level find inspiration or make exactly what they want.

The Black Hack 2e has a lot of great tables (including drop tables) for creating a starting situation (town, mini-hex map, dungeons, npcs). As this reviewer wrote, it's very much a "gm workbook" approach, which I find very helpful. By comparison, the dmg dungeon stocking tables are I think copied from the 1e dmg and are overly mundane for a modern game.

As mentioned, the Rules Cyclopedia has an appendix titled "The D&D Game World" that's a super quick 20 page gazetteer on Mystara, mostly maps.

A big company like Wizard's invest in some digital technology to help with world and adventure building. Or, imagine an interactive map of a points of light setting where you could click to see location information, rumors, npcs.

In terms of the implied setting, one thing I tend to do is extrapolate out various aspects of the core rules to think about what it would be like to be in a fantasy world based on those rules. Mostly, what kind of world pervasive low level magic would produce (or is it pervasive). But probably you are not meant to think about that sort of thing too much, at least in 5e

 

[Thunder Brother]

I think D&D should have a core setting (that's not the Forgotten Realms) and lean into it more than it does with this edition. To me, all the lore presented in books like Volo's and Mordenkainen's is the fluffiest of fluff because it feels divorced from a real setting. The lore in these books is interesting, don't get me wrong, but it's not memorable because it feels detached from any real sense of place.

And don't tell me, "oh, the core setting is the D&D multiverse with Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and everything else altogether", because to me that's just WotC wanting to have its cake and eat it too.

Either have a core setting, and design the system around it, or don't and create a truly neutral rules system. Don't try to have it both ways.

 

[Steampunkette]

I would recommend a different format for 6e rather than DMG, PHB, MM.

Core Rulebook: Baseline game design stuff. This is where the classes are, the DMG stuff is, how to build a character, and some basic races. This should be a weighty tome on the lines of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, and be 100% Setting Agnostic. Oh, sure, named spells or whatever, because it's fun to have those, but not needed.

Monster Manual: Just a mess of generic monsters without a core setting identity. Still have depth to them (Like the upcoming A5e book is setting out to do) but no specific locales or callouts to previous settings.

Player's HandbookS: World-specific races, class-kits, setting fluff, and additional rules. Player-Facing Campaign Settings.

Dungeon Master's GuideS: World-specific systems, lore, setting design, and additional rules. DM-Facing Campaign Settings.

Release the two books for each setting at the same time and available as a Bundle. With or without the Adventure for that season.

So for an -example- release schedule for 2025-2026:

2025
Jan: Core Rulebook, Monster Manual, Old Adventure Set. Probably Greyhawk or Mystara, something presented as setting-agnostic.
Feb: DM's Screen, Digital Bundle Stuff
Mar: Setting Specific Novel, Setting Specific Dice
Apr: Setting Specific Minis
May: Player's Handbook: The Setting for the Year, Dungeon Master's Guide: The Setting for the Year, Setting Specific Adventure part 1.
June: Nada
July: Setting Specific Adventure part 2
August: Setting Specific Digital Bundle
September: Setting Specific Novel
October: Setting Specific Adventure 2 part 1
November: Digital Materials for another setting
December: Setting Specific Adventure 2 part 2

2026
Jan: Digital Bundle related to new setting
Feb: Player's Handbook: The Setting for the Year, Dungeon Master's Guide: The Setting for the Year, Setting Specific Adventure part 1.
Mar: Setting Specific Novel, Setting Specific Dice
Apr: Setting Specific Minis
May: Setting Specific Adventure part 2
June: Nada
July: Setting Specific Digital Bundle
Aug: Setting Specific Adventure 2 part 1
Sep: Digital Materials for next setting
Oct: Setting Agnostic Adventure Bundle
Nov: Setting Specific Adventure 2 part 1
Dec: Player's Handbook: The Setting for Next Year, Dungeon Master's Guide: The Setting for Next Year, Setting Specific Adventure part 1.

Could also swap those Digital Bundles for some setting agnostic material (Draconomicon, Tasha's Guide, Etc)

 

[Neonchameleon]

First, the presence or absence of a default/core/implied setting in the core rulebook is something for new DMs rather than us grognards who are used to previous editions.

Second I'd say the Nentir Vale/PoLand was just about perfect - which is precisely it shouldn't be used again. The lore of the Nerathi, Turathi, and Arkhosian empires and the Dawn War pantheon was significant enough to provide names and setting details - but because it was entirely new for 4e it wasn't large and deep enough to intimidate anyone. If you had the core books when 4e came out you had everything and it was explicitly yours to do what you wanted with.

Using the Nentir Vale again for another edition would take away that freshness. It would just be another setting with some deep lore and where you knew you didn't have all the material. We'd need a new history with a new pantheon to be able to do the same thing anything like as well. Especially as the lore of the Nentir Vale was added to in most of the splatbooks so there's more to it than would reasonably go in a PHB.

 

[Mercurius]

One of the strengths of Pathfinder is the feeling of cohesion that the products have, and this is largely due to Golarion. Similarly with Midgard and Kobold Press, although it is less comparable to D&D in that has far fewer products.

I like what @Minigiant said, but would alter it slightly. Have a core setting that is built from scratch, and then offer alternate settings ala the current publishing schedule. But I think the game would have a more cohesive quality if the rules were embedded within a context, rather than in abstract "D&D Land."

A new core setting would also allow for WotC to adjust the lore in a way that wouldn't freak out "setting diehards" ("That's now how elves are in the Realms!").

But that only works if they offer alternatives, otherwise it becomes a kind of codified One True Wayism. We don't want D&D to be forced into a singular modality of play (well, most of us don't). And furthermore, it should be emphasized in the intro of every rulebook that this is just the default mode - make the game as you want it to be.

 

[Malmuria]

One of the strengths of Pathfinder is the feeling of cohesion that the products have, and this is largely due to Golarion. Similarly with Midgard and Kobold Press, although it is less comparable to D&D in that has far fewer products.

I like what @Minigiant said, but would alter it slightly. Have a core setting that is built from scratch, and then offer alternate settings ala the current publishing schedule. But I think the game would have a more cohesive quality if the rules were embedded within a context, rather than in abstract "D&D Land."

A new core setting would also allow for WotC to adjust the lore in a way that wouldn't freak out "setting diehards" ("That's now how elves are in the Realms!").

But that only works if they offer alternatives, otherwise it becomes a kind of codified One True Wayism. We don't want D&D to be forced into a singular modality of play (well, most of us don't). And furthermore, it should be emphasized in the intro of every rulebook that this is just the default mode - make the game as you want it to be.

Do pathfinder fans get into arguments about Golarion the same way that FR fans argue about canon FR?

 

[the Jester]

I voted "No, but some assumptions fine", but also want to vote, "No, but examples from various settings are cool".

 

[Mercurius]

Do pathfinder fans get into arguments about Golarion the same way that FR fans argue about canon FR?

Ha, no idea. Probably, knowing gamers. But maybe not, as I think Golarion lore has remained consistent from 1E to 2E. Someone with better knowledge might say otherwise.

 

[SehanineMoonbow]

I was going to originally say no, but I settled on undecided, because my feelings are currently mixed.