D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

I am a little surprised at how new-setting averse folks here are. No wonder WotC won't ever do anything new.
Not averse to new Settings at all: but the basis has to be theme and story, not mechanics.

The reason WotC has trouble making something really new ia that TSR or Magic both took shotgun approaches to fantasy themes, so they already own a Setting for most possible themes.
5E never got its own setting. 5.5 is the current version of the game. WotC should make a setting for 5E -- now that is 5.5E.
Examdria, Ravnica, Theros, Strixhaven, Radiant Citadel and it's satellite worlds.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not averse to new Settings at all: but the basis has to be theme and story, not mechanics.
You seem overly focused on this. Do you think Eberron was without theme or story?
The reason WotC has trouble making something really new ia that TSR or Magic both took shotgun approaches to fantasy themes, so they already own a Setting for most possible themes.
That is just silly.
Examdria, Ravnica, Theros, Strixhaven, Radiant Citadel and it's satellite worlds.
Of those, only Radiant Citadel was created for 5E, and it is hardly a complete setting. Exandria was made for 4E and/or Pathfinder, and the rest are MtG settings.

But we have been over this in this thread already, and there doesn't seem to be a lot more to say on the subject.
 


Because it didn’t need one. 5e is akin to GURPS Fantasy, not The One Ring.
It's really not all the GURPS like, based on how much of it isn't as modular as people wanted. I can strip down 5e to brass tacks and rebuild atop it, but I can do that with a bunch of systems. D&D is good for D&D with different amounts of syrup to favor it, but it's not the Generic d20 Fantasy RPG toolbox people claim it is.
 

As I stated up thread, the shift away from species to background as more important for characters, and the reduction of importance of species in "monster" NPCs, suggests a world that is more culturally focused and cosmopolitan. That is just an example. There is a lot of implied setting in 5.5 that can be developed into an actual setting.
5e 2024 feels more cosmopolitan when referring to cultural roles rather than species traits. The reorganization of background mechanics makes characters feel different because they express features of the culture. But I am less sure the reorganization makes the setting feel different.

When thinking about my 5.5 setting here, it is only in the "urban" cities that one even notices the mechanics update, because one can have an encounter with two different species serving in the same role, such as two city guards. Even then I am unsure two species using the same mechanics is noticeable narratively, while the DM describes the encounter. The mechanics is more like a subtle encouragement that makes it easier for DMs to run cosmopolitan multispecies encounters.


And, just in case it isn't clear, my intent here is not to have a default setting. Eberron was not the default setting for 3.5E. The idea is simply to have something new, built for the current version of the game.
Yeah, I enjoy the setting neutrality of the 2024 core.

In my setting whose development is still in progress, a design goal is to emphasize the power sources. I have the Dwarf-founded cultures emphasizing the Martial power source. I happen to have Dwarf originating in mountains then spreading to underdark and surface wetlands. I was happy to find nothing in the Players Handbook contradicted this particular setting.
 


Unless you expect the PCs to spend most of their time fighting non-human NPCs rather than monsters, this is largely irrelevant.
The point is these types of combats are not in the mix because D&D 5e doesn't utilize enemies that have their combat strategy influenced by race.

Like I said, most DMs have not run a squad of dragonborn to have PCs experience how different combats with dragonborn would be.

Or elves or dwarfs or tieflings.

D&D actually went backwards are REMOVED species combat.
 

It's really not all the GURPS like, based on how much of it isn't as modular as people wanted. I can strip down 5e to brass tacks and rebuild atop it, but I can do that with a bunch of systems. D&D is good for D&D with different amounts of syrup to favor it, but it's not the Generic d20 Fantasy RPG toolbox people claim it is.
It is a pretty fluid system thwt can adapt to multiple Settigns: it doesn't cause much friction with diverse Settings.
 

It's really not all the GURPS like, based on how much of it isn't as modular as people wanted. I can strip down 5e to brass tacks and rebuild atop it, but I can do that with a bunch of systems. D&D is good for D&D with different amounts of syrup to favor it, but it's not the Generic d20 Fantasy RPG toolbox people claim it is.
This has for years, literally been one of the few things I feel we disagree on.

No need to debate here, just me nodding at you from the other side of the room.

robert-redford-jeremiah-johnson.gif
 

Cloudier alignment and moral issues

Alignment is out of fashion and has been officially de-emphasized or deleted from newer editions of fantasy games like D&D or Pathfinder, but I do think it can be useful as a character motivation or adventure hook if handled carefully (i.e., not as a stick that the game designer orders DMs to use on players in order to beat them into compliance with the designer’s favorite fantasy archetypes). I wonder what it would look like to make a 5E setting that brought back the old tripartite “Law vs. Chaos” alignment system, and made it a major focus for faction intrigue within that setting.

Inspiration could come from 70’s pulp fiction (especially Moorcock), Babylon 5 (Vorlons vs. Shadows), and the old wargaming conventions that used alignment to determine who could recruit which troop types (IIRC 0E elves and orcs could be Neutral and might find themselves fighting alongside one another, if the price was right). Players could ally with one side or the other, or try to play them off against each other for fun and profit. There would be powerful aligned magic items that might have their own agenda, like the ones in Blackmoor and Greyhawk (Original Recipe™) - not just swords but other weapons too, and spellcaster items like wands, staves, or rings (“Nine for mortal men, doomed to die” 💍😈). I never particularly liked D&D’s modrons and slaadi anyway, so if I were homebrewing this I would use Pathfinder’s axiomites, inevitables, and proteans, but obviously the Coastal Wizards and 5E 3PPs could not use Paizo IP that way.

Would it end up just being Lawful Neutral vs. Chaotic Neutral, or is there another way to make an interesting dichotomy? Gen X kids like me learned D&D from the red Basic sets, and even back then TSR had already muddied the waters somewhat (IMO) by explaining Law and Chaos as just Good and Evil with a different coat of paint. In my old gaming group, we struggled to understand the more arcane AD&D alignments like True Neutral, and in general alignment issues rarely came up much at the table. We played lots of the classic B/X and 1E dungeon crawl modules, and alignment never seemed particularly relevant to most of them. We frowned on what would now be called “murderhobo” behavior as a distraction from mission objectives and a waste of everybody’s valuable table time, so DMs did not really need alignment to make players behave.

It might be tough to get newer and/or younger 5E players interested in this rather esoteric style of play, but I think some OSR games are already using three-way alignment. Mystara might be a good fit for this idea since it was the original setting for B/X and BECMI.

EDIT: 0E did not use the Known World / Mystara.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top