What should the default setting be for 4th edition?

[an_idol_mind]

I liked that priests in 2nd edition were more variable than in 3rd. Why should the priests of all religions get Turn Undead?

The problem with 2nd edition was that the core books mentioned priests of specific mythos, but provided no useful guidelines to build them. When they did introduce specific priests in the Complete Priest's Handbook, most of the new classes made the cleric irrelevant.

The turn undead thing seems to be drawn from vampire lore, where true faith and/or a holy symbol of any religion can repel a vampire. It makes sense to me to extend that logic to all undead. If many people have a problem with it, it would be just as easy to make turn or control undead a granted power of certain domains (turn for healing, control for death). But 2nd edition basically just made every priest its own class, which needlessly complicated things.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I really don't think its feasible to leave out a setting. Ignoring no setting (which I don't think will be the case) I agree with Crothian and would like to see something that is supported be featured as the setting. I don't think it should be Eberron though. As I said earlier, its not classic D&D. Its a great setting, but not the norm.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I would be very surprised if that were the case. I don't know how many more times WotC can sell us the 'core' Realms again, and the non-core parts of the setting have markedly less popularity than the core. I wouldn't be surprised if FR doesn't disappear as a supported RPG setting with the next edition.

No way.

It'll continue being supported in novels and computer games, of course, but there may well not be a market for a new FRCS and supplements.

I very much doubt it. There are troves of fans.

(...)they really need to start developing a new setting, (...) or to take the place of FR in the new edition.

Nothing would be able to take the Realms' place. The Realms have been here since before D&D. They're the only setting that survived the big setting massacre 2/3e. There are hundreds of novels for it, and thousands of fans. Chances are that with giving up the realms, they would lose a great deal of fans.

Sure, they can use the old FRCS still. But from there it's not far to use the old core rules, too. BAM! Lots of people to stick with the old edition.

The game probably needs a near-generic fantasy setting in the vein of FR

It has one: the Forgotten Realms. Why re-invent the wheel and peter off fans along the way?

 

[heimdall]

I voted FR, only because of how fleshed out it is, however, what about the game setting that came with the Dungeons and Dragons game when there was two lines (AD&D being the other)? I don't think it ever got fleshed out that well. There are already maps and some setting information built for it. It would seem like a good start for a "new," neutral setting.

 

[shaylon]

Eberron hasn't really captured anyone's imagination (except possibly mine), and I feel like the recent releases have been half-hearted attempts.

I am really shocked to see someone saying this. I don't believe it to be true at all. The RPGA certainly was full with people playing the two Eberron paths at GenCon, and at Origins there were a ton of Eberron games. I see a lot of love for Eberron, all over these boards, and my group is playing an Eberron campaign. We chose it over the realms, greyhawk, and all the rest.

And for the record Secrets of Xen'drik was fantastic. If you haven't picked it up yet I suggest doing so.

-Shay

 

[howandwhy99]

Dump Eberron. FR can stay separate. Keep Greyhawk as the implied setting.

Let's face it ... core D&D, the D&D everyone knows (not just the super-informed and involved gamers who hang out at EN World) is built around Greyhawk or something that looks so much like it you can't tell the difference if you stand back and squint a bit (Mystara, FR, Wilderlands, etc, etc). I think if you deviate too much from the current implies setting you lose the feel of what is D&D to the majority of vanilla D&Ders.

I agree with the dwarf. If D&D were to change the default setting however, I suggest going with a generic "magical medieval" version of Earth. This is really were almost all of D&D's main tropes come from anyways. Sure there are monsters that are not normally present (like those left out of the SRD), but almost every other creature and spell is derived from our own mythologies. The gods and goddesses from Dieties & Demigods are all present. Even many of the iconic spells are versions of those from our own superstitious history.

Olgar does have a point though. Most of what makes D&D, well, D&D are compoments of Greyhawk. The named spells, the quirky magic items, multiple pantheons of Gods mixed together, even the roots of D&D lore seem to be intertwined with that one setting.

EDIT: Now that I'm running it, I understand why Common exist in D&D. It's a default setting rule and makes sense in Greyhawk. It really doesn't in most other worlds.​

If it does change, might I suggest something like Gygax's Epic of Aerth to take its' place? It is essentially Earth with its' mythologies come alive. And it doesn't hurt that WotC still holds the trademark from when TSR sued for ownership (IIRC).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Gygax's Epic of Aerth to take its' place?

No. No funny spelling of elements and/or planet. We could as well play on Marz or Pluto (oops, forgot: Pluto's no longer a planet).

 

[Reynard]

No. No funny spelling of elements and/or planet. We could as well play on Marz or Pluto (oops, forgot: Pluto's no longer a planet).

You know, I voted for 'no setting' but the more I think about it, I think there should be an implicit setting for D&D. You don't even have to doa whole lot. Throw a "Player's Map" in the back of the PHB (on the inside cover) -- you know, the kind with loosley sketched coastlines, lots of question marks, the named of a few cities, etc. Make sparse but consisten reference in the race/class/etc 'fluff'. In the DMG, you put the same map in -- exscept it is more concrete and descriptive -- and you use that setting for the examples/fluff in the advice and design chapters. Whatever example dungeon/adventure is included in the DMG should be placed somehwere on that map.

And from then on, every non-FR, non-Eberron etc... module, generic supplment or whatever should reference and expand (just a little) that world. Make it also the 'default' world for Dragon articles and Dungeon adventures. let it grow organically over time. never release a supplement for it specifically. Heck, you could even include some region as 'Open Content' like they did with d20 Moderns 'Section 7' (or whatever it was called) and see what 3rd party publishers and PDF semi-pros do with it.

But start fresh and watch it grow.

 

[Scarbonac]

Straight Greyhawk, Baby, uh-huh.

 

[delericho]

I very much doubt it. There are troves of fans.

I'm aware of that. But how often can they resell the same material to the same people? The current books are extremely high quality, for the most part, and extremely detailed. Doesn't there come a point where people say, "yes, it's nice, but I've already got it?"

I could well be wrong, of course.

Sure, they can use the old FRCS still. But from there it's not far to use the old core rules, too. BAM! Lots of people to stick with the old edition.

If 4e is significantly different from 3e, then I'm sure there would be a sizeable market for a new set of books. But if the rules are fundamentally the same, then I see less of a demand, and so less of a market.

And I expect the next edition to have essentially the same rules at its core, perhaps with fundamental overhauls of one or two areas. I doubt, therefore, whether there would be that huge number of people ready to shell out several hundred dollars on new versions of the same setting.

Again, I could well be wrong (about any of this).

It has one: the Forgotten Realms. Why re-invent the wheel and peter off fans along the way?

If they keep the Realms, then they would, of course, be mad to produce a new and similar world. However, if they don't then I can see a niche existing. The trick would be to make it generic enough to appeal to the masses, but different enough in the execution to not just be "FR redux".

Basically, the problem I see with the Realms is that there's now so much accumulated lore that it's nigh impossible for a newcomer to get into the setting, especially when confronted with experts. Sure, there's an emphasis on "making the Realms your own", but that only helps so far. And can still leave newcomers floundering.

It's the exact same problem any new Star Trek series faces - so much exists already that it's hard to go forward. At some point, it becomes better to do a reboot (start a new setting) rather than try to continue accumulating lore.

And, once again, I could be wrong about all of this.