D&D General What Would You Base A non-OGL 5e-alike Game On? (+)

[doctorbadwolf]

Looking at the stuff that @doctorbadwolf has written, I think it's important to decide if you want to create a generic system or a setting along with a system.

Like DnD, I want to design a game that has an implied setting, or even references an explciti setting in the core rules, but that can be adapted to other worlds.

I disagree, to a point. Yes, mechanics enforce tropes, but some mechanics also enforce settings. For instance, when you said "allowing tying martial traditions to things like cardinal winds, elements, associated animals and mythic figures, constellations, etc. in a way that reinforces the lore of the world" that far more strongly suggests a specific type of setting than saying "fighters have limited spellcasting" and letting the DM or PC decide that it's tied to a wind or element or animal.

Yep, and that's the point. IMO you can't make a game that does what dnd does without an implied setting, nor would I ever want to design such a game.

 

[Cadence]

And now I kind of want the licenses for the games all of these companies are making to play well together so I can use all of their stuff at once...

 

[Faolyn]

Like DnD, I want to design a game that has an implied setting, or even references an explciti setting in the core rules, but that can be adapted to other worlds.

Yep, and that's the point. IMO you can't make a game that does what dnd does without an implied setting, nor would I ever want to design such a game.

See, I know people say that D&D has an implied setting but I've never really felt that, not in any of the editions I've played. It's always felt pretty generic to me.

 

[DMZ2112]

You can't really pin the "implied setting" of D&D down, and as evidence I present the fact that D&D itself has been struggling with this for almost 50 years, pausing only during the D&D4 era when they took a different approach.

To clarify, I think of core D&D4 as "your D&D setting can be whatever you want it to be but contains this set of things by default," and the rest of core D&D as "your D&D setting can be whatever you want it to be and contains this set of things provisionally." It's subtle, but it is there.

And D&D has never gotten it right. Every core book has held both unfriendly assumptions and unhelpful silences.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

See, I know people say that D&D has an implied setting but I've never really felt that, not in any of the editions I've played. It's always felt pretty generic to me.

In every edition of D&D there are elements that assume the planes of D&D, that assume gods that grant magical powers, that assume that mortal magic must be harnessed in the particular format of individual packaged abilities with specific movement and words, that assume certain types of creatures and Powers in the world, etc.

To not have an implied setting, you’d need to build the game like the Hero system, where Eldritch blast and magic Missile are just two ways two different players describe their “Magical Ranged Attack” power.

 

[Zardnaar]

See, I know people say that D&D has an implied setting but I've never really felt that, not in any of the editions I've played. It's always felt pretty generic to me.

My early exposure to D&D was via 5 1E books. But no PHB.

The fluff in MM, FF, OA got devoured (aged 14/15)

 

[Horwath]

I would do some unholy hybrid of DND5E, GURPS, AGE.

What to keep from D&D5E?

1. 20 levels. It's both familiar and iconic.

2. Proficiency bonus of +2 to +6 with expertise(×2 bonus) and ×3 bonus for some features/number of uses.

3. Tiers of play. Just re-tuned to 5 tier instead of 4: 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20

4. Spell levels. Just reduce spell levels from 9 to 5. Plus cantrips as normal.
Full casters: 1st level spells at 1st level, 2nd level spells at 5th level, 3rd level spells at 9th level, 4th level spells at 13th level, 5th level spells at 17th level.
current spell level 1&2 are rebalanced into 1st level spells
current spell levels 3&4 are rebalanced into 2nd level spells
current spell levels 5&6 are rebalanced into 3rd level spells
current spell levels 7&8 are rebalanced into 4th level spells
current spell levels 9 are rebalanced into 5th level spells

some spells from current levels 2,4,6 and 8 might be buffed to be moved to new levels 2,3,4 or 5.

5. Extra attacks:
martials get extra attacks at levels 5,9,13 and 17. Total of 5 attacks per Attack action at 17th level
That is, you can "buy" extra attacks at those levels.

6. cantrips: rescaled for extra damage/effect at levels 5,9,13,17 instead of 5,11,17.



for other effects;

1. 3d6 instead of d20 as core roll die.
double damage for roll 5 over AC/Defense.
triple damage for roll 10 over AC/Defense.

2. Every ability/feature can be chosen by everyone.

Only limited/balanced by required character level, other ability/feature prerequirement, minimal ability score., race(species)

3. Everyone proficient with all weapons. Min STR required to use without penalties.

4. Everyone proficient with all armors. Min STR required to use without penalties.

5. ability scores are direct modifiers to rolls/DCs.
ability 0 is below average,
ability 1 is average,
ability 2 is above average,
ability 3 is maximum at character creation
ability 5 is maximum for standard humanoids without magic.

 

[Horwath]

As I would use 3d6, there is no need for advantage/disadvantage mechanics.

We can go back to +/- X for 3d6 rolls.
With +5/-5 cap on roll modifiers.

Elven accuracy can be +1 modifier if you have atleast +1 bonus before that.(max of +6 in that case).

defender kneeling/attacker on higher ground but still in melee reach: +1
defender prone: +2
defender blind/attacker invisible/hidden: +3
defender unconscious/paralized: +5
attacker flanking: +1
attacker "charging": +1
defender was charging this round: +1
attacker feints(bluff vs. passive insight): +1, +2 if roll 5pts higher than DC, +3 if roll 10pts higher than DC.


defender behind cover: -1/-2/-3 by degree of cover
defender kneeling(ranged attacks): -1
defender prone(ranged attacks): -2
defender in dim light: -1
defender in darkness/invisible/attacker blind: -3
defender dodging: -3
defender blurred/displaced: -1/-2/-3, depending on spell/effect level.

spells like bless, faery fire and similar give +1 or maybe +2 attack.

rogues need at least +1 in bonus or "combat advantage" to gain sneak attack damage.

 

[Faolyn]

In every edition of D&D there are elements that assume the planes of D&D, that assume gods that grant magical powers, that assume that mortal magic must be harnessed in the particular format of individual packaged abilities with specific movement and words, that assume certain types of creatures and Powers in the world, etc.

The bolded bits are setting lore--which I've always ignored to the point that I actually find it surprising when people adhere to them religiously and insist they must be objectively true--and the other bits are actually game rules, not lore. Any system with combat has it works a certain way because of that system, and the same with magic. If the system has magic, then it works a particular way within that system.

So saying that "The Courts are compass points (and each house will probably have ordinal directions associated with them), with themes corresponding to the general concepts associated with the 4 suits of the minor arcana." is setting lore, because it assumes things that aren't game terms--houses, courts, tarot arcana. Saying that there are four types of magic is game rules, even if there were then a section in the game titled "ways to flavor this magic system for your setting" or even an entire published setting wherein the magic was divided into four compass points that are associated with the minor arcana.

To not have an implied setting, you’d need to build the game like the Hero system, where Eldritch blast and magic Missile are just two ways two different players describe their “Magical Ranged Attack” power.

Yes, which is why I asked whether this 5e-alike would be generic or have a built-in setting.

Either way is fine, but it should be established before the game is underway so there would be some sort of consistency. If there are four Courts of Magic, then those Courts might have meaning in other parts of the world. Maybe each Major Arcana is a clerical god or warlock patron, or represent a different type of magic experienced spellcasters can use.

 

[Faolyn]

My early exposure to D&D was via 5 1E books. But no PHB.

The fluff in MM, FF, OA got devoured (aged 14/15)

Me too. Well, 2e, not 1e. The PH and DMG was generic; the other books had the cool setting info.

 

[Zardnaar]

Me too. Well, 2e, not 1e. The PH and DMG was generic; the other books had the cool setting info.

Flash you had a phb!!

 

[DMZ2112]

The bolded bits are setting lore--which I've always ignored to the point that I actually find it surprising when people adhere to them religiously and insist they must be objectively true

So... you consider D&D to be generic because you ignore the universal setting-specific information?

I tease, but the line you describe between rules and lore is absolutely not as clear cut as you are suggesting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The bolded bits are setting lore--which I've always ignored to the point that I actually find it surprising when people adhere to them religiously and insist they must be objectively true--and the other bits are actually game rules, not lore.

That a given person ignores something does not indicate that said thing is not implied.

And those game rules imply elements of setting. If it tells us part of how the world works, it implies setting.

Any system with combat has it works a certain way because of that system, and the same with magic. If the system has magic, then it works a particular way within that system.

First, that means that any system with magic has an implied setting. How magic works is absolutely part of a setting.

Second, D&D spells, annd Spellcasting, are very specific. Tasha’s Hideous Laughter implies the existence (past or present) or an arcanist named Tasha, and further implies that spells can be created or invented, and thus sometimes get named after someone.

The mechanics of banishment, certain warlock patron abilities, even the text of Divine Sense and Detect Evil and Good, imply that beings come from other planes of existence, and that their nature is tied to the planes and to ideas of Good and Evil in some way.

Perhaps the issue here is that you are translating “implied” to mean “default” or “assumed”, and assuming that “setting” means “a specific published setting”?

To clarify, implied is simply being used to refer to an implication. “Y+X implies Y”.

Setting here means “an element or elements of worldbuilding, lore, or other information that tell us how the world works”.

 

[DMZ2112]

Just as an example, reasonable minds can and do disagree, but I have always strongly considered the D&D classes to be part of the implied setting. A Fighter isn't just a dude who fights, they're a Fighter, and that means something relevant to the context of (most) D&D worlds.

That's also something big I'd like to see retained.

 

[Faolyn]

So... you consider D&D to be generic because you ignore the universal setting-specific information?

The planes, which gods exist, and even the monster lists have never been universal. Every world had a specific list of gods and monsters (at least back in 2e, where I started, where every Monstrous Compendium Appendix had a list of the monsters for that setting), and those planes are only "universal" when it comes to the Realms and Greyhawk. Dragonlance, Dark Sun, and Eberron all have very different cosmologies--and so do the settings that got sucked into the Realms, like Maztica, Kara Tur, and Al Qidam.

 

[DMZ2112]

The planes, which gods exist, and even the monster lists have never been universal. Every world had a specific list of gods and monsters (at least back in 2e, where I started, where every Monstrous Compendium Appendix had a list of the monsters for that setting), and those planes are only "universal" when it comes to the Realms and Greyhawk. Dragonlance, Dark Sun, and Eberron all have very different cosmologies--and so do the settings that got sucked into the Realms, like Maztica, Kara Tur, and Al Qidam.

Hmm, perhaps I've misread you.

Surely if this setting lore was associated with a specific setting or settings, you would accept that it is explicit rather than implied, right? You referred to "setting info" as "cool" in a previous post, so I've been assuming that you appreciate the existence of explicit settings to some degree, as well as the "genericness" of D&D at large.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but I did not think you would be "ignoring" this lore material if it were associated with an explicit D&D setting.

I was using the word 'universal' to reflect that setting information is present in core D&D books, which you seemed to acknowledge in your previous post by stating you felt free to ignore it. I did not mean to state that the lore was the same in all explicit settings, and I own that miscommunication.

My position remains that not only has the implied setting been clear and present in core D&D material for more than 45 years at least, it is critical to the success of the game, and would be to any successor, as well.

 

[Faolyn]

That a given person ignores something does not indicate that said thing is not implied.

And those game rules imply elements of setting. If it tells us part of how the world works, it implies setting.

First, that means that any system with magic has an implied setting. How magic works is absolutely part of a setting.

Second, D&D spells, annd Spellcasting, are very specific. Tasha’s Hideous Laughter implies the existence (past or present) or an arcanist named Tasha, and further implies that spells can be created or invented, and thus sometimes get named after someone.

And since that name can't be used in a non-OGL-5e-alike, that bit of world doesn't actually exist--and it shows that the name of the spell isn't actually important, since plenty of OGL-5e-alike games are using a non-Tasha's hideous laughter spell without any problem.

It's also something that can be very easily ignored or adapted even in a regular 5e game. Just ignore the lore behind the name and decide Tasha was someone else. There are probably a lot more people who know the spell than who know of the actual character's history and lore, after all, and there's nothing about the spell that says that it must be authored by a very specific Tasha, student of Baba Yaga and who went by Iggwilv.

The mechanics of banishment, certain warlock patron abilities, even the text of Divine Sense and Detect Evil and Good, imply that beings come from other planes of existence, and that their nature is tied to the planes and to ideas of Good and Evil in some way.

Right, but this is a very light implication--and one that is very easily ignored. If you want all your fey to be happy-fun bundles of chaotic goodness, you can. If you want all the fey in your world to be the grimmest fey imaginable, the type that will smash the world if it would make a pretty noise, you can. If you want there to be no fey in your world, you can, and all you'd have to do is disallow or rename one archetype and maybe a couple of invocations.

And when you get down to it, even how most of the classes work is really up in the air. It's why there's so many discussions as to whether or not patrons can yank the spells of warlocks who aren't serving them properly. When it comes down to it, the only real lore is saying "warlocks get their powers from powerful beings who aren't gods." That doesn't say what or who those powerful beings are or how they grant the magic, just that powerful beings exist. One could even interpret this to mean that you could have a warlock whose patron is a much-higher level mortal fighter. Hey, why not? Basic D&D had Immortals, after all. Maybe any PC who hits 36th level can start handing out warlock powers now.

The warlock class would be lore-dependent if, instead of the book saying "your patron is an Archfey," it said "your patron is one of the following: Neifion, Hyrsam, Baba Yaga, Lurue, Titania, Oberon, or Verenestra." Because that seriously limits

So that's literally all I'm talking about here. How much of a setting is going to be implied in these rules? Is it going to be a game where anyone can make a world that looks like anything they want, or is it going to require the presence of specific, named people, places, things, or events?

 

[Faolyn]

Hmm, perhaps I've misread you.

Surely if this setting lore was associated with a specific setting or settings, you would accept that it is explicit rather than implied, right? You referred to "setting info" as "cool" in a previous post, so I've been assuming that you appreciate the existence of explicit settings to some degree, as well as the "genericness" of D&D at large.

Yep. To me, D&D is generic and the settings are specific.

As an example of what I mean, the 5e DMG goes into detail about different types of ways you can do the gods and the planes. It talks about having pantheons, dualistic or monotheistic religions, animistic religions, and philosophical or elemental forces instead of gods. It talks about how "most" D&D games have a plane of origins for fiends, celestials, and elementals and a plane where mortal spirits go after death, and provides ideas such as the Great Wheel, World Axis, or even having the other planes being part of the Material Plane (e.g., the gods living on top of a mountain and souls literally living in the subterranean underworld).

So if I'm making my own world, I can pick any of those or make up something else entirely. If I'm playing in Eberron, though I use that world's 13 planes. If I'm playing in Planescape, the Realms, or Greyhawk, I use the Great Wheel. If I'm playing in Dragonlance, I use that world's Lawfully-aligned Abyss and whatever other planes it has (I don't know DL cosmology all that well).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And since that name can't be used in a non-OGL-5e-alike, that bit of world doesn't actually exist--and it shows that the name of the spell isn't actually important, since plenty of OGL-5e-alike games are using a non-Tasha's hideous laughter spell without any problem.

I’m getting older, can you please point me to where the goalposts have been moved?

It's also something that can be very easily ignored or adapted even in a regular 5e game.

Irrelevant.

Just ignore the lore behind the name and decide Tasha was someone else. There are probably a lot more people who know the spell than who know of the actual character's history and lore, after all, and there's nothing about the spell that says that it must be authored by a very specific Tasha, student of Baba Yaga and who went by Iggwilv.


Right, but this is a very light implication--and one that is very easily ignored. If you want all your fey to be happy-fun bundles of chaotic goodness, you can. If you want all the fey in your world to be the grimmest fey imaginable, the type that will smash the world if it would make a pretty noise, you can. If you want there to be no fey in your world, you can, and all you'd have to do is disallow or rename one archetype and maybe a couple of invocations.

And when you get down to it, even how most of the classes work is really up in the air. It's why there's so many discussions as to whether or not patrons can yank the spells of warlocks who aren't serving them properly. When it comes down to it, the only real lore is saying "warlocks get their powers from powerful beings who aren't gods." That doesn't say what or who those powerful beings are or how they grant the magic, just that powerful beings exist. One could even interpret this to mean that you could have a warlock whose patron is a much-higher level mortal fighter. Hey, why not? Basic D&D had Immortals, after all. Maybe any PC who hits 36th level can start handing out warlock powers now.

The warlock class would be lore-dependent if, instead of the book saying "your patron is an Archfey," it said "your patron is one of the following: Neifion, Hyrsam, Baba Yaga, Lurue, Titania, Oberon, or Verenestra." Because that seriously limits

So that's literally all I'm talking about here. How much of a setting is going to be implied in these rules? Is it going to be a game where anyone can make a world that looks like anything they want, or is it going to require the presence of specific, named people, places, things, or events?

All of this is irrelevant. The setting is implied, regardless of whether you personally use it.

 

[Faolyn]

I’m getting older, can you please point me to where the goalposts have been moved?

What on earth are you talking about?

Irrelevant.

Yes, it is irrelevant because my question was whether or not this hypothetical non-OGL 5e-alike was going to have a setting in or be generic. I never even said that having, or not having, an inherent setting was good or bad. I merely said that saying that magic that revolved around tarot cards or clockwork or things like that implied an inherent setting, not a generic rule set.

You see awfully defensive about it for some reason.

All of this is irrelevant. The setting is implied, regardless of whether you personally use it.

Really? So, tell me about the inherent setting that's in D&D, in depth. What's the world's name? What are the countries' names, and what are their relationships with each other? Who are the gods of this inherent setting, and what are their religions like? Who are the warlock patrons, and how do they and the various religions get along? What's the tech level? How much magic is there, in this inherent setting, and how well is it integrated into everyday life? What do the various class archetypes mean in the setting? How do the various races get along?

Because I guarantee that your answer to those questions is going to be very different than anyone else's answers, even just using the PHB, DMG, and MM, with the only thing they have in common is "sorta but not entirely medieval fantasy." And those differences will only get more and more different when other books are brought in. And that shows that the setting is not implied.