Titansgrave and why 5E needs a setting (or two) (and another take on a suggested product lineup)

[Jeff Albertson]

Gods are less appealing.

Than what?

 

[Parmandur]

Pretty sure I wouldn't have bought a completely flavorless D&D, and Wizards seems to think people in general like fluff. So they make what sells.

 

[Staffan]

Regarding Titansgrave, they sure picked up the pace in Chapter 3.

 

[iserith]

Regarding Titansgrave, they sure picked up the pace in Chapter 3.

I could have done without some of the shopping scenes and some things the GM does isn't my cup of tea, but I felt like this episode was a little more true to the theme and tone suggested by the campaign setting.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Please remove gods from D&D. Freedom of choice is the essence of past iterations of the Cleric.

1e Advanced D&D has a picture of a Christian priest with a crucifix to represent the Cleric class, and mentions gods as an other suggestion. The rules persistently encourage the DM to do whatever makes most sense in the chosen setting, and a nontheistic philosophical Cleric is a common choice. A Cleric who is a ‘White Wizard’ without any reference to a spiritual tradition, is also a common choice in D&D experience. Settings without gods have Clerics without gods. Deities & Demigods was a nonauthoritative splatbook that requires the DM who want it to opt in. There is no setting canon in 1e.

The core rules of Basic D&D insist religion stay off-camera.

Healers work well in D&D without gods.

Help the players choose the kind of healer that makes sense in the setting of their choice.

If someone is such a militant atheist they cant accept the existence of gods in a fictional setting, I really don't know what to say. It takes virtually no effort to strip gods out of the cleric class and make it the white wizard you want. Rename channel divinity "arcane tradition" or whatever. There's not even the arcane/divine divide in magic - spells are just spells now. Saying no gods in core is reductionist in the types of stories you can tell however. Next you'll have people complaining about raise dead/undead/demons/devils/etc because they don't have an afterlife in their world.

The weave is barely a thing in D&D. If you have particular and unique way magic is powered, you were probably going to need to write up a campaign document anyways. In my 4E Darksun game, Athas is a interstellar failed colony that was strip mined of its resources before the population evacuated. One ark ship malfunctioned during takeoff and its inhabitants devolved into the current state. The magic is actually just nanites responding to those able to control into them. Spells are just programming commands handed down through the various traditions. The elemental priests are manipulating terraforming nanites to shape the environment. Defilers hack the system and send it into overdrive, causing the nanites to consume the nearby environment to replenish. I allowed one "divine" class, the Avenger, which had to be pureblood humans (the descendants of the ships officers), but the "god" turned out to be the barely functioning ship AI trying to carry out its last directives. Despite the difference in the fluff, none of this required significantly different rules.

I do agree that there needs to be a non-divine healer. You somewhat have that in the bard, but unfortunately the warlord was shouted out of existence by those with incredibly limited imaginations and only concrete thought processes. I hope it returns, as it would also let you tell a wider variety of stories in more varied worlds.

 

[Inconnunom]

If someone is such a militant atheist they cant accept the existence of gods in a fictional setting, I really don't know what to say.

While I agree with everything you say, I do think that "militant" is a bit extreme. Combative, contentious, and antonistic are accurate descriptors, but he isn't murdering anyone. Generally when people are calling themselves or others "militant", things begin to devolve into a flame war, and this is not the best venue for that kind of dialogue.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D used to be about world building.

Trying to coerce players to use a specific setting is the opposite of D&D.

It is wrong for the D&D community to pressure players into using gods.

There is no need to make players harmonize their setting with a requirement to have gods. There is no AI that people mistook for a god. There is no patron who behaves like a god. There are no gods in the first place.

 

[tyrlaan]

D&D used to be about world building.

Trying to coerce players to use a specific setting is the opposite of D&D.

It is wrong for the D&D community to pressure players into using gods.

There is no need to make players harmonize their setting with a requirement to have gods. There is no AI that people mistook for a god. There is no patron who behaves like a god. There are no gods in the first place.

Hey Yaarel, could I ask you to start a separate thread regarding this topic? I think what you want to discuss is far off topic from the original post.

 

[Yaarel]

The purpose of the upcoming Fantasy Adventure Game Engine product is to be setting neutral, and to allow Game Masters to create their own settings. Moreover, the purpose of the thread is to discuss what other D&D settings should look like.

Issues concerning what other settings should be like, are pertinent. Including whether it is necessary to force players to have gods in their setting.

In any case, notice I have not commented on this topic for a few days, until other gamers quoted me in discussion, requiring a response from me. Heh, as you are doing inadvertently.

Enjoy whatever setting you and your gaming buddies enjoy at your table!

 

[Yaarel]

I personally would advocate for a two-pronged approach: Some kind of resuscitation of classic settings, but also the development and ongoing support of a new world to explore.

Along the same lines of separate settings, I would be happier, if the 5e *core* rules are as setting neutral as possible. So they can inform any kind of setting that the players want, whether Forgotten Realms, some new official setting, or any setting of their choosing.

The current Players Handbook has mainly Forgotten Realms flavor baked into its mechanics. It would be better if this book was called the ‘Forgotten Realms Player Handbook’ - and suitable for any setting tweak that resembles Forgotten Realms. There would be no need to call this a ‘core’ book because it is necessary to deeply rewrite this Players Handbook for a setting that is less like Forgotten Realms.

The future Players Handbook for the Dark Sun setting, would be called the ‘Dark Sun Players Handbook’, with mechanics flavored in ways that are appropriate for that setting.

And so on.

Meanwhile, it is convenient to consult setting-neutral *core* rules, for any setting - while opting into any flavor that players intentionally want.