D&D 5E What should be the 5E default setting?

[GameDoc]

2e had no default setting.

2e had more settings written for it than any edition.

Coincidence? Maybe.

But it seems to me the more narrative you attach to the core system, the more you constrain setting developers by forcing them to either incorporate the core fluff or spend extra page space on expository about how they have refluffed classes and races for their setting. Either way, it discourages or at least stifles writers from being able to create new and unique settings.

 

[Mattachine]

I hate the Realms. Sad that there is so much content for it, but I can't stand it and the gaming subculture surrounding it.

Some others feel the same about Points of Light, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and so on.

By not having a default setting, DDN can avoid this sort of thing.

 

[timASW]

I'd prefer they give a couple of big world maps with the physical details but leave out an in depth description of whats on them.

Just give me some maps to choose from and detail myself and I'm happy.

 

[the Jester]

Love them or hate them, the default settings in 3rd edition and in 4th edition provided a common ground from which games can begin and provides a cohesive base around which the rules, backgrounds, and everything else can cling to make for better games...

...at least, better games set in the default setting.

Which some of us- and, I suspect, most of us- won't use.

...With that in mind, having the Forgotten Realms be the default setting makes a lot of sense. It's generic enough that most of the content can be used in other worlds. But it has enough unique elements that can be worked with and inspire game design. Instead of free rein of imagination, the designers will need to ask "does this really and truly fit the Realms? Can we add this class/race/option without a major retcon?" Because those are the options other DMs will need to answer regarding that same content. It adds a uniform and consistent feel to the material and the game.

Except for those of us that have no interest in running the FR or in having our campaigns conform to FR conceits.

Seriously, if 5e has a default setting that is strongly central to the game like you're proposing, even if it's a default setting that I really like, that's two strikes against. If it's a strongly-central default FR, that's FOUR STRIKES before I even see the game. No chance.

I homebrew. I will pretty much always homebrew. I have no interest in a campaign setting product that isn't exceptional; the last actual setting book (other than the Dark Sun monster book) that I got was the 3e Eberron setting book. And even though it was great, I've never used anything from it- because I homebrew.

If the Realms is tied too strongly to (say) warlocks, racial info, etc. to extricate, I'm pretty much not buying 5e. Yes, this is prejudicial of me. I'm okay with that. I've no interest at all in playing "Forgotten Realms" instead of "Dungeons and Dragons".

 

[CAFRedblade]

I think the system mechanics should be system neutral, but, the books should use either a Greyhawk Lite, or FR Lite as examples. I doubt they'll launch some fourth setting book at the same time as the core rulebooks, so they'll need something to help new players get a feel and have a lite world to travel/journey/hack in.

I liked some of the fluff for the fourth ed world, but disliked that they pulled too many bits and pieces for the pantheon from several previous game worlds. I started playing in FR, but I can take it or leave it. My preferred setting is Eberron, however, that isn't a good starter world, it's a bit niche.

 

[Jester David]

Seriously, if 5e has a default setting that is strongly central to the game like you're proposing, even if it's a default setting that I really like, that's two strikes against. If it's a strongly-central default FR, that's FOUR STRIKES before I even see the game. No chance.

I homebrew. I will pretty much always homebrew. I have no interest in a campaign setting product that isn't exceptional; the last actual setting book (other than the Dark Sun monster book) that I got was the 3e Eberron setting book. And even though it was great, I've never used anything from it- because I homebrew.

Unless they go pure 100% mechanics there will aways be a story bias. Just saying elves live in forests and dwarves in mountains is setting the world and drawing on inspiration and conventions.
And 4e was rife with assumptions for its setting and what worked there (I.e. everything).
The Realms is a limiting factor. It's generic enough that 90% of the content will be unaffected. And the Core books should be really, really FR-lite. But accessories and expansions can draw a little more heavily from Realmslore.

 

[the Jester]

Unless they go pure 100% mechanics there will aways be a story bias. Just saying elves live in forests and dwarves in mountains is setting the world and drawing on inspiration and conventions.

But not setting a single world. Once you start naming gods, you've done that- and I think that is a flaw in both 3e and 4e. 2e did far better at keeping the setting more generic and adaptable, for instance providing a framework for specialty priests without giving a list of specific deities.

The Realms is a limiting factor. It's generic enough that 90% of the content will be unaffected. And the Core books should be really, really FR-lite. But accessories and expansions can draw a little more heavily from Realmslore.

I'm fine with accessories and expansions detailing campaign settings; I'm fine with a very light touch of default setting in the core rules.

What I don't want, for example, is a world map of the Realms in the PH as "the world", or the Realms gods listed as "the gods" instead of a sample pantheon.

Seriously, right now I am a guaranteed 5e consumer, but a heavy-handed FR default setting intruding in the PH, DMG and MM (or however the core rules are presented) would kill my interest in the game so fast that I'd never get past the playtesting. And I know I'm not the only one- there is a significant and rabid anti-FR group in the larger D&D culture. What gain is to be had by alienating us? Certainly not uniting the fan base.

 

[Lanefan]

But not setting a single world. Once you start naming gods, you've done that- and I think that is a flaw in both 3e and 4e. 2e did far better at keeping the setting more generic and adaptable, for instance providing a framework for specialty priests without giving a list of specific deities.

Or go back to how 1e did it and use real-world mythos (Norse, Egyptian, Celtic, etc.) for examples.

And I know I'm not the only one- there is a significant and rabid anti-FR group in the larger D&D culture.

FR was just fine - excellent, in fact - when it first came out in 1e days. Each version since has become steadily less useful as it gets crushed beneath its own history.

I hate the Realms. Sad that there is so much content for it, but I can't stand it and the gaming subculture surrounding it.

Some others feel the same about Points of Light, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, and so on.

By not having a default setting, DDN can avoid this sort of thing.

Or by doing a new setting as the default - and then not letting anything (novels in particular) written about it later become canon to it.

Lan-"and if they need help designing said new setting I hereby offer my services"-efan

 

[Stormonu]

I'm hoping 5E will be world-neutral. I've tried and liked many of TSR's worlds, but in the end I think one of the things that's the most fun about D&D is making your own world.

 

[Sadras]

The first platest packet was setting neutral, using names of locales from a variety of settings. This could easily be adapted for a PHB. In 2E, TSR was supporting multiple settings with adventures and campaign books - I'm not sure if they are going to go that route (I personally hope they do) instead of pumping out more books with rules bloat, multitude of classes and options.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I would prefer no default setting, like pre-3rd Ed; 3rd Ed's default Greyhawk was half-ass, IMO, rather do a setting justice.

But of course, if any setting is default, it should be Greyhawk (and Planescape, to a degree), so much of the built in lore relates.

 

[JeffB]

2e had no default setting..

Yep.

So did OD&D. So did Holmes Basic. So did Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X...it wasn't until X1 and the MEntzer sets that the Known World/Mystara became more than an example. Heck even AD&D had no default setting either as it was written.

This was not an issue in the previous to 3E versions of the game, and there is no reason a new edition has to have a setting tied to it, cosmology/pantheon or not. They can simply put a column at the end of a generic Deity of X summary with examples Sun gods of mythology or D&D (Pelor, Lathander, etc), Gods of Strife/Tyranny (Hextor, Bane, Set), etc etc.

Same goes for the actual cosmology..put up a page or so explanation in the DMG of each cosmology as examples..i.e The Great Wheel, 4E, Ancient Egypt, etc.

:mild conspiracy theory:
The real issue lies in IP. And I'm sure WOTC has come to realize the IP is the money maker, not the rules (Hello OSR & PF). So they are contemplating spoonfeeding us "Story elements"(Like cosmology/settings as well as the class writeups, and monster fluff we have seen in the playtest) as a (the) big selling point. Things that make D&D different that can also be protected (legally)

To which I say, "No Thank You".

 

[am181d]

What has Wizards said?

1. They're putting the lion share of their effort into developing the realms.
2. They're already thinking ahead (and designing) to other settings, but we likely won't see these for a long time.
3. For monsters, they will likely include instructions for how to handle them in multiple ways. (e.g. Minotaurs are unique creatures, but you can use them as a playable RACE like this)
4. They will set up races so you can easily decide which are and aren't a part of your campaign.

That sounds to me like Forgotten Realms is the default setting, with out-of-the-box support for home brew campaigns, and supplementary material for other campaign settings over time.

 

[Salamandyr]

Personally, I would prefer they go to no default setting, and especially no default gods. I would like a return to the default assumption that the DM creates his own worlds.

As fun as the creative writing is surrounding many of their current monsters, I don't need a book telling me that "Hill Giants are desccended from the youngest of the Giant Gods, and blah-di-blah blah". I need "Hill Giants are big and stupid and have 8 hit dice".

 

[Steely_Dan]

I don't need a book telling me that "Hill Giants are desccended from the youngest of the Giant Gods, and blah-di-blah blah". I need "Hill Giants are big and stupid and have 8 hit dice".

I like some of that, like ogres and trolls worship the deity Vaprak the Destroyer.

I love that they have brought back racial gods (Maglubiyet, Hruggek, etc).

 

[bogmad]

I want no default setting, but it's not going to bother me if they put in the actual names of different gods or whatnot. One of my first D&D memories is flipping through the AD&D Dieties and Demigods book. Was that setting specific? I didn't see it as such; it was just a bunch of cool gods you could use or not use in your campaign, some based in mythology, some made up for D&D. Just because something is specific and uses proper nouns, there's no need to get all worked up about how "they're forcing me into a default setting!"

 

[Consonant Dude]

I'm torn on the choices.

On one hand, Greyhawk and Planescape have historically been tied to the setting assumptions prevalent in the game. Unfortunately, it suffered in its execution. Its original inclusion in the game had more to do with archiving the adventures of game contributors than providing a game-ready setting for customers. It's full of "winks" and former PCs with lame names and back stories. As a setting it is fairly bland. As time went by, TSR and WotC's attempts to develop it were half-hearted. Making it a poor choice. It also suffers from being mostly beloved by nostalgics and a lot of those aren't likely to switch system to come back for a new iteration anyway.

Forgotten Realms is an interesting case. Grey Box is a marvel of ready-to-play setting design. It got an open-ended nature that it mixed with a strong flavor. At that point in time in history however, TSR was just discovering how much money there was in novels and products related to their settings' IP (the Dragonlance experiment) and they seized the opportunity. Today, the Realms are an incredibly rich and detailed world with a lot of history behind it. This is unneeded baggage for a lot of people. Going back to Grey Box and starting from scratch would kind of defeat the purpose of using the Realms. You can't pretend all these novels and successful setting products never existed when they were (and still are) so popular.

Other past settings come with their own baggage and without the advantages of these two. Settings like Dark Sun and Ravenloft have their fans but are regarded as too weird or exotic by the majority.

Where does that leave us? To the creation of a new default setting. When 5th edition is released in 2013, it will mark more than a decade without having seen a new official DnD setting (Eberron, 2002). I've left minor settings and spinoffs such as Kara-Tur and Lankhmar but take a look:

70s-80s - Greyhawk (difficult to pinpoint a starting point as an official setting)
1984 - Dragonlance
1987 - Mystara (Gazetteers)
1987 - Forgotten Realms
1989 - Spelljammer
1990 - Ravenloft
1991 - Dark Sun
1992 - Al Quadim
1994 - Planescape
1995 - Birthright
2002 - Eberron

In 2013, we will have seen only one new official setting in the last 18 years when previously, we would easily see a major new one every couple of years.

I don't know if the new edition needs a default setting. Maybe as another poster said, the lack of a default setting may leave WotC more freedom to produce settings. But I do think this franchise is in dire need of new settings sooner than later.

And if they decide a default setting is needed, I'd rather they try something new without baggage.

 

[bogmad]

4th editions Nentir Vale, with its whole Bael Turath/ Arkhosia history is pretty arguably a new settinig. Especially if you add things like the Conquest of Nerath board game.

 

[GreyICE]

Guh.

Forgotten Realms being the default setting is... not good. The Realms are their most famous setting, because the realms lends itself to books very easily. Books can have the sort of dramatic, spanning plotlines the Realms needs, while also focusing on the main characters lets you push aside what the "big names" are doing in the Realms. In a way the realms runs into the issue of 'good campaign settings and good novels are two very different things.' (as DM of the Rings points out in a hysterical manner, LotR is a very bad D&D campaign)

Eberron is a tad too... I dunno. Steampunk/high fantasy mashup to really be what drives their marketing. It's a really good setting, but it's not what people think of when they think D&D, so they have to go to another setting for their default.

I love PoL/4E cosmology, but it's not a defined setting, and they said some of their strongest feedback was that players want much more defined settings. That means it's out practically by default.

Dark Sun is a 'kick you in the teeth' setting that hates people, forgives nothing, steals all your magic items, and spits in your face. I love it. It's not for new players. Ravenloft is this taken to 12 - dear gods, most adventures in Ravenloft are "GET OUT OF RAVENLOFT!"

I say reboot Greyhawk, fix up a lot of the problems with it that Living Greyhawk and all the other nonsense that was done to the setting over the years, and make it a neutral, interesting setting with some defined places, some defined countries, and some defined powers. I hope they do what they did with Exalted - define some things, and specifically DON'T define certain things. Like:

"Here are five countries. These are details on three of them. Lots and lots and lots of detail. Here are two countries. Here are some very vague facts about them. Everything else about those two is left for you, the DM, to decide."

It's hard, but that's seriously my best thoughts on the approach they should take.

As for cosmology, do a mashup. Great Wheel, Points of Light, let people pick what they want to run with.

 

[Consonant Dude]

4th editions Nentir Vale, with its whole Bael Turath/ Arkhosia history is pretty arguably a new settinig. Especially if you add things like the Conquest of Nerath board game.

I don't know where to put the line exactly on what is or is not a setting. But the work WotC put into presenting Nenthir Vale as a setting pales in comparison to efforts that weren't even worth being listed on my timeline.

The Points of Light philosophy is one bit other than rituals which I particularly appreciated from the 4th edition. It's a worthwhile experiment that may still have its place. But I still think it is time for WotC to put some real effort and thought into setting material, something they have neglected since acquiring the DnD franchise. They've half-assed it when it comes to honoring the legacy of old settings and failed to put much effort into new ones.