The default campaign world - new article

[2WS-Steve]

Okay...

First off, I think people worried that this is going to impact FR or Eberron need to cut back on caffeine. The article says "default setting" in so many words. Multiple times.

FR is not the default setting. Eberron is not the default setting.

The default setting is the land that includes the deities in the Player's Handbook. The default setting is the world in which non-campaign-specific modules are set.

Just like, you know, it was in 3E.

...

The default setting in 3E listed no cities, no place names, no kingdoms, not even any terrain. For all we know it already was a points of light setting!

If that's the way it's going to be in 4e then why bother mentioning it at all since it will have zero impact on the text? I assumed that if they were actually making an effort to point out this new concept, then it would play a bigger role or at least get reflected in one of the books where they actually do have cities, kingdoms, and terrain.

 

[WhatGravitas]

It makes more sense for a starting campaign, because it can be open, undefined, and expanded upon as the players learn about the game, with the setting growing as the player's knowledge and familiarity grow with it.

Yup. Another advantage: Well, I've known two D&D beginners, who played with me, and they were... let's say baffled, as I unleashed FR or Eberron on'em. These worlds are full of D&Disms, that are hard to swallow, if you're just coming from a bunch of fantasy books.

The new "default world" sounds a lot more like sword-and-sorcery, middle-ages-inspired fantasy or dark fantasy, which, at least in my perception, are more archetypical in books (even the Hobbit and LotR gets that vibe with their long and dangerous journeys).

That way, a new DM and a fresh group (imagine a bunch of friends just wanting to try that new game) is less confused and possibly turned off by the very specific genre "D&D".

Cheers, LT.

 

[Samnell]

In such a world, adventurers are aberrant. Commoners view them as brave at best, and insane at worst. But such a world is rife with the possibility for adventure, and no true hero will ever lack for a villain to vanquish or a quest to pursue.

This sounds like a large step back into the world where adventurers exist in some weird bubble and society is incapable of adjusting to them...even though there must have been adventurers for as long as there's been civilization.

Well, it's exactly the opposite of the way my tastes have ran these last few years.

 

[hong]

The default setting in 3E listed no cities, no place names, no kingdoms, not even any terrain. For all we know it already was a points of light setting!

If that's the way it's going to be in 4e then why bother mentioning it at all since it will have zero impact on the text? I assumed that if they were actually making an effort to point out this new concept, then it would play a bigger role or at least get reflected in one of the books where they actually do have cities, kingdoms, and terrain.

Well, they also stated that Greyhawk was the assumed default setting for 3E, and Greyhawk is really too populated and settled for that kind of thing. (Civil wars and Iuz et al don't change that.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If that's the way it's going to be in 4e then why bother mentioning it at all since it will have zero impact on the text? I assumed that if they were actually making an effort to point out this new concept, then it would play a bigger role or at least get reflected in one of the books where they actually do have cities, kingdoms, and terrain.

I suspect these assumptions will show up in the MM fluff text.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The default setting in 3E listed no cities, no place names, no kingdoms, not even any terrain. For all we know it already was a points of light setting!

If that's the way it's going to be in 4e then why bother mentioning it at all since it will have zero impact on the text? I assumed that if they were actually making an effort to point out this new concept, then it would play a bigger role or at least get reflected in one of the books where they actually do have cities, kingdoms, and terrain.

Why assume it's going to be the same way it was? Maybe the 4E core books will have more "default setting" flavor text than the 3E ones did. And maybe it won't show up much in the core books, but will have a big impact on how "generic" adventures are built. (In fact, I'd bet money that we'll see it impact generic adventures.) Maybe it's just clarifying something that wasn't made clear in prior editions.

There's all sorts of options, and all sorts of middle ground, between "The change is meaningless" and "the change is going to impact pre-existing settings."

 

[hong]

Why assume it's going to be the same way it was? Maybe the 4E core books will have more "default setting" flavor text than the 3E ones did. And maybe it won't show up much in the core books, but will have a big impact on how "generic" adventures are built. (In fact, I'd bet money that we'll see it impact generic adventures.) Maybe it's just clarifying something that wasn't made clear in prior editions.

There's all sorts of options, and all sorts of middle ground, between "The change is meaningless" and "the change is going to impact pre-existing settings."

That could imply quite a big change to the way generic adventures are structured, though. At the moment, it's usually town-plus-dungeon, with the former serving as a convenient home base for forays to the latter. If it's to be a truly "points-of-light" world, then there shouldn't be lots of towns conveniently located where PCs can do R&R.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I like this setting! For all the people shouting "MMORPG", Wizards goes and makes the Wilderlands of High Fantasy core. Good on them!

 

[Maggan]

D&D in the Warhammer Fantasy world.

That's what I was thinking as well. But I don't need D&D to play like that, I've got WFRP already.

That said, someone said it reminded him of the Known World, and for me, that fits the atmospehere I got out of the BECM sets. So I like it.

/M

 

[Mouseferatu]

That could imply quite a big change to the way generic adventures are structured, though. At the moment, it's usually town-plus-dungeon, with the former serving as a convenient home base for forays to the latter. If it's to be a truly "points-of-light" world, then there shouldn't be lots of towns conveniently located where PCs can do R&R.

My guess is there will still be a number of dungeons near convenient towns, but those towns will be small, poor, and unable to provide much in the way of help or equipment. On the other hand, there's now at least more room for adventures that don't have a convenient R&R spot (as you point out), as well as for others set in large cities or city-states far from any other civilized power, and thus able to do as they please.

What this default setting does accomplish, more than anything else (I think), is help explain why the villagers who are suffering the presence of the beasts from the Dungeon of Dastardly Nastiness just sit and wait until adventurers show up (or put out a call for adventurers), rather than asking for help from the king or their local lord.