D&D (2024) Should There Be a Core Setting?

[EzekielRaiden]

There should be no core setting. Some amount of setting-particular stuff is gonna leak through (that's product identity, it WILL happen), but the books should rather support a panoply of settings rather than one singular setting.

In the ideal case, the books would actually break down how and why various elements appear in various settings, as part of a package of information to help DMs and players put together settings they'll enjoy running and playing in.

 

[J.Quondam]

Bad core setting assumptions lead to madness like the ongoing "Can your druids wear metal armor?" thread.

 

[DammitVictor]

Bad core setting assumptions lead to madness like the ongoing "Can your druids wear metal armor?" thread.

Honestly, any core setting assumptions are going to get that exact same response. What they want is a "generic" fantasy system that will work for their own personal setting out of the box-- which is impossible-- and one that says D&D on the box and is played by millions of other people whose own personal settings are not theirs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Honestly, any core setting assumptions are going to get that exact same response. What they want is a "generic" fantasy system that will work for their own personal setting out of the box-- which is impossible-- and one that says D&D on the box and is played by millions of other people whose own personal settings are not theirs.

Which is why it should focus on providing robust analysis of what setting elements can do, and well-structured advice for how you can do what you intend.

Simple example, class and race availability. There's the obvious "core four by four" so-traditional-it-makes-my-eyes-bleed option, Fighter/Cleric/Rogue/Wizard x Human/Elf/Dwarf/Halfling, which has a lot of weird idiosyncrasies because of how it formed (e.g. taking Tolkien's juggernaut worldbuilding out of context can leave it...weird or disappointing). But there's also, say, a world where the races are Human/Tiefling/Dragonborn/Kobold and the classes are Paladin/Druid/Monk/Warlock. That leads to a distinctly different feel, perhaps one where dragons and fiends are the central focus, where fae stuff takes a back seat to the raw primal power of nature, and most magic is bestowed or stolen, where most people have SOME amount of magic but most people also learn some martial skill too. Dark Sun, for example, curates both things, adding its own bonus stuff for flair (psionics and thri-kreen, frex) in order to really bring home how different its world is from a typical D&D context.

Such stuff ACTUALLY empowers DMs, because it doesn't TELL them what to run. Instead, it shows them what they COULD run. As I said, some amount of product identity is gonna creep in no matter what, so getting hung up on that is pointless. We can still create works that emphasize the unique tools available to DMs and actually help them use them well, rather than telling them "this is what IS, unless you decide to change it, in which case...you figure it out!"

 

[DammitVictor]

Which is why it should focus on providing robust analysis of what setting elements can do, and well-structured advice for how you can do what you intend.

Absolutely, one hundred percent agreed.

 

[cmad1977]

No more so than there already is.

 

[Mirtek]

I dont recall there being any mention of a core setting in the 1E or 2E core books besides named spells, but its been over 20 years since Ive read any of those and I could be mistaken. But I think it could be done. Just my opinion and its what I would want if I had my choice.

Especially the 2e MM had as much if not more space dedicated to the ecology of the monsters than to their stats.

 

[Jaeger]

And don't tell me, "oh, the core setting is the D&D multiverse with Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, and everything else altogether", because to me that's just WotC wanting to have its cake and eat it too.

Either have a core setting, and design the system around it, or don't and create a truly neutral rules system. Don't try to have it both ways.

In It's defense, D&D has done a fairly good job at taking advantage of its market leader status, and having its cake and eating it too.

D&D has always been very coy with its implied settings... It has always tried to have it both ways.

Luckily being the market leader; most players squint or ignore what they want so that they can say that they are playing in their 'unique' setting.

But in reality the 'unique' D&D setting = "Parts of D&D I restricted or house-ruled to do what I want, keeping the rest of the base D&D setting and genre assumptions, and calling it 'unique'."

hose above 4 lines don't really define a setting, they define a genre of fantasy. It's not setting specific as it can be applied to innumerable works of fantasy fiction. It can be applied to Tekumel even! This is not setting specific in any measurable way.

Except for the fact that mechanically in the PHB and DMG Lots of setting specific assumptions are made. Particularly in Cosmology and Magic.

How Cosmology and Magic in the PHB and DMG works and effects the core classes is a HUGE setting assumption baked right into the D&D rules.

D&D is not 'generic fantasy' by any measure. It has been and always will be its own style of 'D&D fantasy'.

...What they want is a "generic" fantasy system that will work for their own personal setting out of the box-- which is impossible-- and one that says D&D on the box and is played by millions of other people whose own personal settings are not theirs.

So much this.

If you are playing D&D out of the three core books, you are playing D&D Fantasy. You may dress it up with various setting veneers to give you a 'different feel'. But you are still very much playing D&D Fantasy. Too many genre and setting assumptions are hard wired into the core system.

Pathfinders Galorion is a simple tacit acknowledgement of this fact, which is then leveraged to sell their AP's.

But as in my reply to King barber, TSR and now WOTC D&D has done a fairly good job of selling 'D&D Fantasy' = 'Generic Fantasy'.

The fact is that the game tropes of D&D have been so influential on the fantasy genre that D&D forms many people perceptions of what fantasy is. So to many people 'D&D Fantasy' does = 'Generic Fantasy'!

It makes for a nice self reinforcing feedback loop that has allowed D&D to have it both ways for decades now.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

The fact is that the game tropes of D&D have been so influential on the fantasy genre that D&D forms many people perceptions of what fantasy is. So to many people 'D&D Fantasy' does = 'Generic Fantasy'!

It makes for a nice self reinforcing feedback loop that has allowed D&D to have it both ways for decades now.

This is an interesting point. Before DnD got truly huge, it still had influence on the fantasy genre by, through game developers that played, having a huge influence on the design and assumptions in countless Fantasy video games that were (and are) played by tens of millions of people, shaping how people see fantasy even if only 1/1000 of the people who played those video games actually played old DnD.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

D&D is not 'generic fantasy' by any measure. It has been and always will be its own style of 'D&D fantasy'.

I think you need to read my post again, because at no point did I say that D&D reflects generic fantasy. It doesn't. It reflect "Heroic Fantasy," and even "Pre-Industrial Heroic Fantasy," but its not much more narrow in genre than that.

The core rules do make several assumptions, but few that are particularly setting-specific. In the cosmology section, it points out how you can run almost any cosmology you can imagine; it even gives an outline for how to do this.

The section on magic is much the same; the DMG provides questions for you to answer when making your world;

Consider these questions when fitting magic into your world;

• Is some magic common? Is some socially unacceptable? Which magic is rare?
• How unusual are members of each spellcasting class? How common are those who can cast high-level spells?
• How rare are magic items, magical locations, and creatures that have supernatural powers? At what power level do these things go from everyday to exotic?
• How do authorities regulate and use magic? How do normal folks use magic and protect themselves from it?

The answers to those questions result in a very wide number of possible settings, so I find it hard to accept there are enough "setting assumptions" that the core books result in a "Core Setting."