D&D 5E What conceits are necessary for 5E world design?

[Halivar]

For those that have run 5E games: what fundamental conceits are necessary (or maybe even just more synergistic) for world-building in 5th Edition? I had trouble fitting a lot of my campaign ideas into 4E because the rules (at its release) ruled out certain tropes I'd gotten used to in 3E, such as mid-level teleportation and flying.

I don't use published settings or adventures, so I wanted to start designing a game world for 5E so I can hit the ground running with it, but I'm not sure what concepts and conceits are going to run counter to the game as it was intended to be played.

Here are some things I'd like to do without houseruling or adjusting encounters to compensate:
- Magic is low access, but powerful and marvelous; not pervasive.
- No magic Walmarts whatsoever; random curio shops may have "plot items". In general, if you want something magical, you have to make it or do something dangerous to acquire it.
- "Classic" dungeon crawl support (3E and 4E just don't "feel" the same; can't explain it).

That's all I can think of right now. Can 5E support this kind of play? What other world-building conceits do the rules encourage?

 

[TerraDave]

4E took work to make certain ideas fit. Nothing was explicitly optional on the one hand, and yes, certain adventure styles--like the big dungeon or fun-house dungeon--took more work. Ritual/spell options were lacking. (In my case I did create some new rituals and items and made other changes in particular situations, e.g. only being able to short rest in some areas of Baba Yaga's hut).

5E seems to try very hard to accommodate a wider range of play styles. The DM should be able to dial the magic up or down, use big mega-dungeons or never use dungeons, have explicit gods or just a "force" that grants cleric spells (or no clerics, given the other sources of magic healing), etc.

Here is hoping, at least.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

The primary difference I have found with building a setting/campaign for D&D Next is that the bounded accuracy aspect helps to create a more believable balance of power in the world. The reason the local dragon doesn't rain fire down on the human village no longer feels contrived...the dragon has to worry about a 100 militia a bit and has to weigh whether raiding the village is worth suffering some arrow wounds.

On the flip side, the town guard can still feel like they have authority when the PCs are higher level and the orcs threatening to invade are a credible threat even at higher levels.

I know for some folks this is a negative, but for me its a great big positive.

 

[Shiroiken]

Here are some things I'd like to do without houseruling or adjusting encounters to compensate:
- Magic is low access, but powerful and marvelous; not pervasive.
- No magic Walmarts whatsoever; random curio shops may have "plot items". In general, if you want something magical, you have to make it or do something dangerous to acquire it.
- "Classic" dungeon crawl support (3E and 4E just don't "feel" the same; can't explain it).

That's all I can think of right now. Can 5E support this kind of play? What other world-building conceits do the rules encourage?

For the most part, these are fine. Your magic might be a bit higher than desired with Standard. I would suggest allowing only 1 primary caster (Cleric, Wizard, Druid, etc) and 1 secondary/half caster (Paladin, Ranger, etc) in your group to make the power of magic feel special.

There will probably be a Module for lower magic games if you are willing to use Advanced.

 

[Li Shenron]

Here are some things I'd like to do without houseruling or adjusting encounters to compensate:
- Magic is low access, but powerful and marvelous; not pervasive.
- No magic Walmarts whatsoever; random curio shops may have "plot items". In general, if you want something magical, you have to make it or do something dangerous to acquire it.
- "Classic" dungeon crawl support (3E and 4E just don't "feel" the same; can't explain it).

I think 5e supports #2 and #3 very well, but I am quite skeptic about #1. Magic is even more pervasive than before, because of cantrips and rituals to all spellcasters. You can compensate by making magic items the least pervasive as possible and more marvelous.

 

[Halivar]

I think 5e supports #2 and #3 very well, but I am quite skeptic about #1. Magic is even more pervasive than before, because of cantrips and rituals to all spellcasters. You can compensate by making magic items the least pervasive as possible and more marvelous.

This I don't have a problem with; my problem is with there being a level 10 wizard in every city. Spellcasters having all the goodies is ok; the assumption that spellcasters are always on hand is not.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm ok with the magic level of the party being relatively high; it's the magic level of the world they live in that I would like to be a little lower. "Magical services" should be almost non-existent. A lord or general may have access to sending​ and a magic sword, but beyond that the PC's should be quite unique.

 

[Li Shenron]

This I don't have a problem with; my problem is with there being a level 10 wizard in every city. Spellcasters having all the goodies is ok; the assumption that spellcasters are always on hand is not.

Then I don't see any problem, in 5e or any other edition!

What's in the rules stopping the DM from deciding there are no >10th level Wizards at all?

edit: there is nothing in the rules saying that anyone in the game is entitled to "magical services", or having magic items created and sold to them, or require NPC for training...

 

[Halivar]

Then I don't see any problem, in 5e or any other edition!

What's in the rules stopping the DM from deciding there are no >10th level Wizards at all?

edit: there is nothing in the rules saying that anyone in the game is entitled to "magical services", or having magic items created and sold to them, or require NPC for training...

I feel like it was at least strongly encouraged in 3.x and 4E due to the vital role magic items played in character progression.

In addition, 4E introduced (rather let me say exacerbated; 3E had this too to a lesser extent) the problem of the arms race between PC's and NPC's. When the PC's decide to tear up town, who will fight them? Level 1-4 men-at-arms can't touch them, so they have to be higher to present a meaningful challenge.

But if you do this, you now have a quandary; if the men-at-arms can be 10th level, why can't the local hedge wizard?

I can solve this if low-level NPC's are still a meaningful challenge for the PC's.

 

[Gadget]

In addition, 4E introduced (rather let me say exacerbated; 3E had this too to a lesser extent) the problem of the arms race between PC's and NPC's. When the PC's decide to tear up town, who will fight them? Level 1-4 men-at-arms can't touch them, so they have to be higher to present a meaningful challenge.

But if you do this, you now have a quandary; if the men-at-arms can be 10th level, why can't the local hedge wizard?

I can solve this if low-level NPC's are still a meaningful challenge for the PC's.

I'm curious about this statement. I don't see why the local hedge wizard needs to be 10th level just because the men-at-arms are. Especially if the the DM has decided that magic users of all stripes are exceedingly rare compared to other adventuring types in the campaign world (PCs excluded). I agree that the 'arms race' was a problem, but I found it to be much more contained in 4e than 3e (except for perhaps the general greater durability of 4e characters at low levels). 4e made strides to reduce the 'arms race' by limiting stacking, (big three instead of big six) the layering of so many spell effects (scry and fry or Save or Die/suck as well), providing the inherent bonus option as an alternative to magic item bonuses, representing lower level threats as higher level minions (admittedly a very hit or miss solution). For me, the ability to build and represent NPCs using a different system than the PC's was a great boon in this regard. Need the local priestess to have the raise dead ritual, but don't want to have her be a high level adventurer that would be better qualified than the PC's to handle the <evil threat>? Sure thing. Done. Maybe the encounter with the town men-at-arms could be played as a hail of arrows crossbow bolt that a skill challenge is needed to avoid or make it through; or the men-at-arms could be represented using the swarm rules to hinder the PCs. Admittedly, these type of solutions only work to a point (but I appreciated some of the greater flexibility afforded in 4e). After a certain level, PCs just can't be bothered, and I'm pleased the 5e's bounded accuracy seems to have mitigated it to a greater degree than other editions.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Yes, 5e should work great for the playstyle you are describing.