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.