Do You Like Having a Default Setting?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

Ath-kethin

Dec 13, 2014 6:19:42

I am wondering how people feel about having a setting built in to the rules. Prior to 3rd Edition, the rules were setting-neutral, with simple guidelines for how to make up cities, dieties, organizations, etc. It bugged me a little in 3e when they included Greyhawk stuff, but I could easily ignore it. Now in 5th, the default setting in Forgotten Realms, and while the PHB isn't too partial (human ethnicity information is easily extractable from the regions they are supposedly from, for example), it still irks me a bit to have the assumption be that I will use a given setting.

 

Am I alone here? I imagine popular sentiment goes in the other direction, or there wouldn't be a "default" setting. But really, was the lack of a default that big a problem with 2e?

#2

1eejit

Dec 13, 2014 6:36:50 		5e doesn't have a default world, but a "default multiverse". It just happens that the official adventures so far are in FR, but the core books are non-specific.
#3

Adjule

Dec 13, 2014 6:40:00

You aren't alone. I would prefer no default setting as well, and go with the 2nd edition route of putting any setting things into their own specific books. To me it feels like having a default setting stifles and restricts things. Mostly race and class choices. Not every setting has orcs as monsters, and to me it feels like having a default setting keeps racial write-ups for non-"pretty" races from happening, as the publisher has to figure out where that race would have to fit in as a non-enemy entity.

 

Is that true? I don't know, but it feels like it to me.

#4

iserith

Dec 13, 2014 6:42:24

This is one of those things about which I would struggle mightily to give half a flumph.

#5

Samrin

Dec 13, 2014 6:42:32

I like how 4e did it with points of light. I don't like having a full fledged setting by default. Points of light gives you a basic framework to work with and lets you build on it into whatever you want. A very modular approach to a setting.

(Reply to #4)

shpelley

iserith wrote:
#7

cowleymen

Dec 13, 2014 9:20:13

shpelley wrote:
#8

Gnarl

Dec 13, 2014 9:39:49

As long as I have the default D&D monster and racial fluff, I couldn't care less about the setting.

#9

Emerikol

Dec 13, 2014 10:46:56 		I think they need a multiverse for the sake of the monster manual. I don't see the need for a specific prime material or pantheon.
#10

bonethug0108

Dec 13, 2014 10:56:09

As long as the fluff doesn't bleed into the core rules I could care less. All of the rules are setting neutral, and it's actually nice to have examples of a fleshed out world that I can take and adapt.

#11

Criswell

Dec 13, 2014 11:04:47

Early D&D didn't have a really detailed assumed setting, but Mystara ended up being the default setting described by modules and such, and it was useful by the time you got to BEMCI. It's good to have a baseline, I think.

#12

AaronOfBarbaria

Dec 13, 2014 11:11:16

I think there are benefits to be had with a "default", and benefits to be had without. Both have their downsides too.

 

With a default the text can include more flavorful "fluff' portion because it isn't spending word-count on a lot of "You could do this, or this, or that", but I've experienced gamers that can't handle not doing the default if there is a default presented and that is a huge problem. (Example: I had some players that grew extremely confused, and even argued with me that I was cheating, when being told that the deities in the 3.5 player's handbook were not the right deities for their character because their character lives on Toril of the Forgotten Realms rather than Oerth of Greyhawk.)

 

Without a default groups are more likely to feel empowered to create their own vision, if for no reason beyond "I have to because there is no other option that won't cost me more money", but I've experienced gamers that can't handle there not being a default presented even though they would change it to suit themself because they don't want to be bothered to start from nothing. (Example: I know one guy that refused to even read Vampire: the Requiem when it came out despite Vampire: the Masquerade being his favorite game because of no more reason than he had heard that no default origin myth, political set up, or meta-plot was present.)

 

I like the sort of middle-ground approach that 5e has taken in which the adventures have been given a specific setting (the benefit of adding definite information rather than numerous suggestions is greatest in the adventure writing context) and the other materials have presented themselves in a "You can, and should if you want to, make up your own multiverse setting, but here is the default D&D multiverse in which most (maybe all) the official campaign settings exist as an example of what a multiverse is."

#13

Azzy1974

Dec 13, 2014 11:59:01

Ath-kethin wrote:
#14

Slyck314

Dec 13, 2014 12:34:24 		I prefer having the flavour of a default setting to help inspire or at least fill in the cracks of what you don't develope yourself. I've always founds game systems that were compketely flavour neutral to be sterile and unappealing.
#15

THEMNGMNT

Dec 13, 2014 12:39:54

I think 5E handles it well. The books mention multiple settings, but tend to use Forgotten Realms to illustrate larger ideas. For example, the DMG talks about how to bring your campaign world to life, then uses the FR currency and calendar as setting-specific examples. Smart.

#16

Alduran

Dec 13, 2014 13:00:26

I've never really cared much about whether there was a default setting/multiverse, provided that it did not create additionaly work trying to tailor the data to my own needs. One would think it a bad idea, however, with each release having more worlds available and then having to re-work or adjust so much for customization to each setting.

#17

Shasarak

Dec 13, 2014 14:06:27

Ath-kethin wrote:
(Reply to #5)

Reius

Samrin wrote:
#19

Zardnaar

Dec 13, 2014 14:28:52

Not to fussed but a default light setting like Mystara/Greyhawk/PoL helps new players I suppose. Mystara and Greyhawk got me hooked via 1E and BECMi stuff. 

#20

dafrca

Dec 13, 2014 14:29:30

Ath-kethin wrote:
(Reply to #20)

AaronOfBarbaria

dafrca wrote:
#22

Daydreamer80

Dec 13, 2014 15:15:44

Yes and no.   I liked what they did in 4th edition with the default Nenthir vale.

 

I wish D&D had no named spells like 'bigbys grasping hand, or mordakeins'.   Just use generic spells.

I wish the gods in the players handbook/dmg where made up entirely and not at all linked to any established or historical campaign settings.

 

I dont want the default to be FR or greyhawk, DL, ebberon, etc etc.

I want less metaphysical baggage not more, but having a default reference thats highly undetermined, thats useful.

 

(Reply to #22)

AaronOfBarbaria

Daydreamer80 wrote:
#24

MechaPilot

Dec 13, 2014 15:55:33

Azzy1974 wrote:
#25

CCS

Dec 13, 2014 16:04:17 		Doesn't matter to me at all.
#26

sleypy

Dec 13, 2014 16:38:02

Doesn't matter to me. As long as the rules are settings neutral, I really could care less about the default setting.