Zardnaar
Legend
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!!
Me too. Well, 2e, not 1e. The PH and DMG was generic; the other books had the cool setting info.
So... you consider D&D to be generic because you ignore the universal setting-specific information?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
That a given person ignores something does not indicate that said thing is not implied.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.
First, that means that any system with magic has an implied setting. How magic works is absolutely part of a 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.
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.So... you consider D&D to be generic because you ignore the universal setting-specific information?
Hmm, perhaps I've misread you.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Yep. To me, D&D is generic and the settings are specific.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.
I’m getting older, can you please point me to where the goalposts have been moved?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.
Irrelevant.It's also something that can be very easily ignored or adapted even in a regular 5e game.
All of this is irrelevant. The setting is implied, regardless of whether you personally use it.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?
What on earth are you talking about?I’m getting older, can you please point me to where the goalposts have been moved?
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.Irrelevant.
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?All of this is irrelevant. The setting is implied, regardless of whether you personally use it.