D&D 5E The Un-Setting: the Default Core World in 5e

[Dungeonosophy]

The Un-Setting: Every Fifth Edition DM makes-your-own Campaign World

In D&D Next, the default core world ought to be the Un-Setting.

From the very start, the DMG ought to explictly say that each DM is supposed to make their own world. This should be simply part of the game, as much as character generation.



Explicit directions/guidance:
Clear steps for world-building, as clear as PHB's step for character generation.
Start with adventure-based, gradual building of the setting.
The 5e published modules are supposed to be slapped together on your own wilderness map. Connect dungeons as you go--not ahead of time.
How to make an overland map to connect dungeons. Different cartographic styles from various D&D settings, including earlier iterations.



Later:
How to name a Campaign Setting:
Uses published setting names as examples.
How to make a logo. Shows history of published setting logos.


Two word names:

First Name Element:
Colors: "grey", "black", "red", "blue", "golden", "silver" etc.
Other adjective, usually mysterious: "forgotten", "dark", "savage", "hollow", "known", "unknown", "mystery", "hidden", "secret"
Monster: "dragon", "ghost"


Second Name Element:
Animal: "hawk", "wolf", "eagle", etc.
Geographic: "realms", "moor", "coast", "world", "isles"
Celestial: "sun", "moon", "star", etc.
Arms and Armor: "steel", "lance", "knife" "sword", "axe", "helm", "shield" etc.
Other: "walk", "way", "guard", "watch"


Names like "X of X":
"Council of Wyrms", etc. ("Flight of Dragons", "World of Dungeons", "Dance of Swords")


One word names with two syllables, which already have a meaning: "birthright", "homeward", "underworld", "overlord".


Planet names:
"Earth"-like names: Oerth, Uerth, Aerth, Yarth, Nerath
Other names: Toril, Abeir, Mystara, Aebrynis, Athas


Exotic names, especially for culture-specific worlds:
Mesoamerican: Maztica, etc.
East Asian: Kara-Tur, etc. (give list of Japanese and Chinese name elements)
Middle Eastern: Al-Qadim, etc. (list of relevant Arabic and Persian words)
Only touch on briefly here. More examples in Culture Books.



Also:
The Random Method for world creation:
Randomly roll Campaign Setting name. If roll existing published setting name, roll again.
Randomly roll all aspects of the world. Number of continents. See Spelljammer world-building.


How and when to write a Campaign Setting Book:

After have adventured in a string of dungeons for awhile, start to build the wider world.

Explicit sharing of how WotC organizes chapters in Setting Books (past and present).





At WotC website:

• How to mimic published settings. How to make it look professional, or at least an evocative amateur look.
• D&D Fonts for download. If WotC doesn't own font, then WotC designers make similar fonts for amateur use. (Like how WotC approved certain alternate Campaign Setting logos for each world's official fansites)
• Logo-maker flash utility.
• How to draw like Erol Otus and other D&D illustrators.

For those who base their world on published D&D Worlds:

• How to make a published D&D World your own.
• Every self-respecting DM or Gaming Group should have their own name on top of logo: "So-and-So's Forgotten Realms" or "Such-and-such Gaming Group's World of Greyhawk".
• Each of these is an alternate timeline of the published world. Other DMs' settings can be reached through the World Serpent Inn.

Article from: https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/make-your-own-campaign-setting

 

[Living Legend]

I agree that all of this material would be great to stick in the DMG to help DM's make their own worlds (great idea), but I do not agree that world creation should be default.

DM's, especially of games that are just released, have a lot of work to do outside of the table. Requiring them to build a world, whether they enjoy that task, is just adding one more barrier to play for them. Even a basic setting like 4e provided does a lot of work for the DM. Statting out a complete town with NPC's is a lot of work, so most DM's won't do it, but it's a great resource to have. And a basic setting in the DMG can very easily be modified to suit whatever the DM wants, giving him the opportunity to just work on the world building part they enjoy (say kobold civilization planning) as opposed to the parts they might find more tedious (creating a pantheon or historical basis for the current setting).

I loved Fallcrest, gave me a great base to build off of, but didn't provide so much detail that is stifled my creativity.

 

[Mercurius]

I like this idea although still think they should publish settings, but then I'm a big proponent of publishing setting material as a kind of "loss leader" to secondarily drive sales through strengthening the community and brand. Take Golarion, for instance. I would imagine that Paizo makes a lot more on Adventure Paths than they do on setting books, but the setting books support sales of the APs by giving them a setting context. WotC seemed to lose sight of this with 4E.

 

[SKyOdin]

I certainly like the idea of the DMG focusing more on building settings, but I don't think the stuff you are suggesting are the most important qualities to focus on. Stuff like setting names are a pretty minor thing. I think your suggestions read too much like an attempt to have other people name their setting along the lines of an existing one as well.

In my book, the most difficult thing by far is making a setting that has a "hook", a reason for why the players want to play in it. No matter how many named locations, or how detailed the map, a setting is unplayable without a hook. I know, since I have stumbled down that path and created settings that couldn't actually sustain a D&D campaign.

I think previous DMGs have made a lot of effort to talk about these kinds of issues, but I suppose there is always room for improvement. However, there is also the problem that different DMs and groups have different styles and tastes, so advice that is useful for some people might not help others. I don't think I am experienced enough at setting design to give good advice myself.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree and disagree. The DMG should give pointers on how to create a good, interactive game with a homebrew or pre-printed campaign/adventure. However, more complex rules on world creation I think would be better suited to their own guide.

I agree that I do not want to see 5e be very heavily invested in a specific setting, I want the majority(at least in core) of monsters, races, powers and feats to be setting-neutral. I do however want to see 5e develop a "primary" setting upon which they focus their efforts on growing and developing, perhaps develop a new setting every year or so and rinse and repeat.

In any case, world-building is great, but it's a really, really hard task to do well, and I don't think it should be the default for every game. Every DM should be encouraged to go their own way, be it putting their own spin on pre-printed material or creating their own world, but I feel that if a DM and group doesn't want to run a homebrew campaign, they shouldn't have to. But again, I feel that in-depth world-creation guidelines(there is NO way I want to see "rules" on this subject) would, to be in any way useful, have to be incredibly intensive and ideally presented in their own book.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I like this idea although still think they should publish settings, but then I'm a big proponent of publishing setting material as a kind of "loss leader" to secondarily drive sales through strengthening the community and brand.

Besides the homebrew Un-World being the default core setting, I would have WotC make a webpage devoted to each existing D&D World. This page would contain PDF downloads of all the materials ever published for that world, and a link to the official amateur-site.

When every 5e DM has their own world, it will be a default practice to kit-bash the published worlds. Of course, many are already doing that. But I would make it an explicit, expected practice to take adventures and sourcebooks from various D&D Worlds and slap them together to make-your-own setting as you go.

 

[Sunseeker]

When every 5e DM has their own world, it will be a default practice to kit-bash the published worlds. Of course, many are already doing that. But I would make it an explicit, expected practice to buy adventures and sourcebook from various D&D Worlds and slap them together to make-your-own setting as you go.

Bleh. I already avoid buying adventure/setting books on the grounds that I rarely like the settings, but to be expected to buy the books and then go through all the work to kitbash them to the degree that I'm creating my own world? Bleh. I'll just stick to creating things from scratch.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I certainly like the idea of the DMG focusing more on building settings, but I don't think the stuff you are suggesting are the most important qualities to focus on. Stuff like setting names are a pretty minor thing.

My perspective is that names are important things.

In my book, the most difficult thing by far is making a setting that has a "hook", a reason for why the players want to play in it.

I agree. I'd base the world-building guidelines on how Gygax and Arneson built their Campaign Settings. They started with a hook--an adventure in a dungeon.

Then, with a village as their temporary base, the party goes to another dungeon, another dungeon, then more dungeons, then overland wilderness trips to other dungeons, and a visit to a big city. Then design the local kingdom, then sketch out the continent, and world map.

Designing the whole world ahead of time would be another option. But for the default world-building method in the DMG, I'd go with adventure-hook-based "design-as-you-go" method.

 

[grimslade]

Dungeoncraft was mentioned and also the The Campaign Cookbook. Naming a campaign is a last step, though. I think every DMG published for AD&D has had guidelines for this, I don't see how 5e would be any different. An elaborate world building splat would be great, but the page space in the DMG should be limited and tightly edited.

 

[Frostmarrow]

This whole idea makes me think of Risk Legacy. I think Legacy heralds a new movement in gaming. (You buy the game and as you play it you put stickers and write on the board, you rip cards to shreds, and introduce new cards from included sealed decks).
I can't even begin to imagine what WoTC could do to D&D with this approach.