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

[airwalkrr]

World-building is a very rewarding thing and can be a great part of any D&D campaign, but honestly, making world-building a default part of the rules??? That is utter madness. DMs already have so much to do. Now, I am not opposed to a section in the DMG (perhaps a world-building "module" if you will) that helps DMs build their own world. Such tools are invaluable to DMs who want to do just that. But not every DM wants to build his own world. I myself have run the large majority of my campaigns in either Greyhawk or Eberron? Why? Because I find a world with an intriguing background and history and from there it is that much less work to do. I actually have my own fantasy world. But to be honest, it does not begin to compete with the wealth of information that is available on these two published settings. And quite frankly, writing so much detail about my own world would probably be mostly lost on my players. But I can still enjoy a campaign setting-specific book even if I only use a part of it.

 

[Lwaxy]

Great idea, but there are GMs with little time.

I definitely would prefer a setting-less rule set. Sure, we can use the old settings. But no default setting please.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't know if I agree - there are a few things you'd want to include in the PHB that imply a default setting. Like the list of deities for a cleric to choose from. Leaving those for the DM to customize might hinder new gamers.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

World-building is a very rewarding thing and can be a great part of any D&D campaign, but honestly, making world-building a default part of the rules??? That is utter madness.

?! Gygax is rolling over in his grave.

It's sad that so many DMs are beaten down by 30 years of slick published settings that it sounds like heresy for there to be explicit rules for everyone to build their own campaign setting.

 

[Sunseeker]

?! Gygax is rolling over in his grave.

It's sad that so many DMs are beaten down by 30 years of slick published settings that it sounds like heresy for there to be explicit rules for everyone to build their own campaign setting.

I don't really think that's the argument people are making.
A: some people don't have the time, fair enough, people have jobs, lives, children, ect... that take away from when you could sit down and create your world.
B: some people don't have the creativity/skill. Fair enough, not everyone can be a painter nor everyone a mechanic. For some people, building a world from scratch of kitbashing is just beyond their realm of competence.
C: Some of those adventure settings are just durn good! I may not particularly like a vast majority of them, but that doesn't mean others feel the same.

I don't think the books should explicitly say: "You're not doing it right if you don't build you own setting!" I don't think the books should tell me how to run my games at all except for perhaps some general guidelines on how to create plot-hooks, challenge my players and have fun. If the books want to ENCOURAGE people to build their own worlds, that's great! But the default assumption shouldn't be that a DM must build their own worlds.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I don't know if I agree - there are a few things you'd want to include in the PHB that imply a default setting. Like the list of deities for a cleric to choose from. Leaving those for the DM to customize might hinder new gamers.

In the PHB there'd be a representative list of deities: perhaps all the "Greyhawkish core" deities mentioned in 3e PHB plus all the Nerath deities from 4e PHB.

In the DMG, there'd be a big list of other D&D deities to choose from: the Real World deities from Deities & Demigods, the "demi-human" deities, and the monstrous deities.

 

[Sunseeker]

In the PHB there'd be a representative list of deities: perhaps all the "Greyhawkish core" deities mentioned in 3e PHB plus all the Nerath deities from 4e PHB.

In the DMG, there'd be a big list of other D&D deities to choose from: the Real World deities from Deities & Demigods, the "demi-human" deities, and the monstrous deities.

And none of these need to imply a world anyway, their dieties, their power can reasonably extend to multiple worlds, heck universes/realities too.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

If the books want to ENCOURAGE people to build their own worlds, that's great! But the default assumption shouldn't be that a DM must build their own worlds.

If it's not built into the rules, then it won't come to much. There'll just be the usual vague, nice advice.

Some of those adventure settings are just durn good! I may not particularly like a vast majority of them, but that doesn't mean others feel the same.

I understand that people enjoy certain published settings, and are concerned there won't be enough support for them in the future. People are stuck in an either/or way of thinking.

But I am advocating both:
1) That the Gygaxian tradition of worldbuilding be vigorously built into the DMG, so that the next generation of DMs are assumed to have built their own Campaign Settings.
2) And, all the published D&D Worlds be fully supported again, with even the smallest like Pelinore and Council of Wyrms having their own WotC webpage with the complete oeuvre available for download. Only the most popular worlds, like Greyhawk and Eberron would have new 5e books though.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

And none of these need to imply a world anyway, their dieties, their power can reasonably extend to multiple worlds, heck universes/realities too.

Exactly. Everything in the DMG will be like this. All the D&D tropes will be gathered together and presented in a way where DMs are expected to "roll-their-own" patchwork D&D World and name it.

 

[Sunseeker]

If it's not built into the rules, then it won't come to much. There'll just be the usual vague, nice advice.

And it shouldn't. The game shouldn't be telling me, or anyone else that they're wrong for their style of play. The usual vague advice is fine, as people like myself will take it to heart and never buy a setting manual because we choose to only build our own and others won't. That's their right.

I understand that people enjoy certain published settings, and are concerned there won't be enough support for them in the future. People are stuck in an either/or way of thinking.

But I am advocating both:
1) That the Gygaxian tradition of worldbuilding be vigorously built into the DMG, so that the next generation of DMs are assumed to have built their own Campaign Settings.
2) And, all the published D&D Worlds be fully supported again, with even the smallest like Pelinore and Council of Wyrms having their own WotC webpage with the complete oeuvre available for download. Only the most popular worlds, like Greyhawk and Eberron would have new 5e books though.

I don't think 1 or 2 can realistically work. 1 implies too much emphasis on creating your own content, and 2 places an incredibly heavy burden on Wizards to support old content. DMs and players should be encouraged to create, but Wizards also needs room to grow. There's only so much they can ever produce for a given setting before they seriously saturate the market on the subject. Not to mention, they're certainly not going to be given out for free.

Encouraging DMs and players to create will always go a lot further than demanding it or deriding them for not doing so.