|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 12:57PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Then which books contain the less popular but multiple setting aspects?
Where is the info on Minotaur and Gnoll PCs that are in Setting A, Setting B, but not Setting C?
Where is the Feywiild and Fey Dark that exists in Setting A, Setting C, but not Setting B?
Do you put them in the PHB? the MM? the Setting X book? Setting X and Setting Y books?
Things are all fine and dandy for Warforged and other setting specific races and places. But if you lock the PHB to Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling; you mess the ACTUAL cross setting races.
My game as an area (A whole plane) with just Minotaurs, Human, and Warforged NPCs. Do I have to wait for the Dragonlance and Ebberon books to play the official version of the Warmaze?
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 1:21PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2006
|
Yes or No. Should 5th have an all encompass basic information on all campaign setting thus allowing DM's to choose what setting to play. Book has basic info on greyhawk, Dragonlance, FR, Eberron, Mystara, red sun etc history of the worlds; Points of light "how to create your own campaign setting" So it lists geography photo some key history abd key city hero villain and then let the DM expand from that. Later , they can decide to make individual campaign books but this allows DM's to get to choose some options.
No.
The general PHB, DMG, MM#1 etc. should not focus on this info at all. Especially not the PHB.
The various campaign settings are specialized info best presented in their own products. (With the possible exception of monster entries in later MM volumes.)
If some one wants FR material? Then they simply buy the FR book(s).
Again, I'd say no. Additional playable races, or setting specific alterations to a race, should appear in the setting material that spawns them.
But since I assume that's a futile wish? Then the next best thing would be to simply present the race in the basic book & leave out any mention of where it originates from.
Then, in the setting specific products, go & detail the races history &/or changes as they pretain to that setting.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 1:39PM
#13
|
|
|
I feel the PHB and D&D have outgrown campaign setting entirely. All I want in it are mechanics, races, and classes. I'd rather all campaign setting materials be presented in the DMG. The setting is the realm of the DM, is it not? He is the one declaring what races and classes are for his game, yes? Help him to that by putting the information he needs to do that in his book, where it belongs.
To answer your questions directly...
#1. Yes, D&D Next should provide very basic information on most campaign settings (popular and unpopular) in a single book. The DMG. That information should be very basic, probably lacking in maps but listing general terrain types, common races and classes, and a few points of interest that have 1-2 paragraphs each.
#2. Yes, yes, and more yes. D&D has grown beyond Middle Earth and Conan fantasy. It has grown to the point where the concept of a big tent "core world" has become ridiculous (how do you reconcile Plaescape, Spelljammer, and Eberron cosmologies?). There is no longer a core race, class, or world. The PHB should reflect that. The DMG is the place for declaring appropriate race, class, and core cosmology.
Which would lead me to my own #3...
Putting 2 pages in the DMG about a cosmology that interests the DM encourages the DM to go out and buy the D&D Next books that describe his desired cosmology in more detail. He doesn't NEED them. He has what he needs in the DMG. He wants them. That's the "hook".
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 1:59PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2001
|
1. I don't see how they could include even the barest essentials for every D&D campaign setting in one of the core books for 5e without eating up the entire page count. What I would like to see them do is include a box in the DMG that lists all the settings WotC/TSR ever produced with maybe a one line description of each (e.g. Dark Sun - Gritty fantasy on a desert world), then DMs who are interested can go take a look at previously released products on those settings. How to create your own campaign setting is a neccessary part of the dmg, I would be amazed if they didn't include it.
I agree putting any real description would take too much space -- people don't seem to realize the list of settings ever produced is rather long! However, I'd think even a listing in the DMG would be useless: those settings would either out-of-print, or not yet published for 5e at the time the DMG gets out. What's the point in telling people: "You know, there's this setting about PC kings, high priests and merchant princes. It's called Birthright, and you can get it in a box published fifteen years ago"?
2. Races from specific campign settings should be presented in that campaign setting book. One of the cool things about a campaign setting such as Dark Sun/Eberron is that you get to play Thri-Kreen/Warforged. If DMs want these races in their homebrew campaign setting they can import them easily. It's much easier to rule something in than rule something out.
As to your last part, campaign settings should be free to change the core races' stats and not be bound by them. Again, one of the reasons someone might be interested in playing Dark Sun is that Halfings in Dark Sun are not PHB Halflings.
I totally agree with this. There's no reason why one should play a halfling with a pony-tail instead of a kender in Dragonlance, and even less for the other settings. Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.
So in the end its "no" to both questions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 2:55PM
#15
|
|
|
Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.
So in the end its "no" to both questions.
The bolded claim is odd. At most I'd say elements specific to one published setting are less valuable to people who only use other published settings. Warforged don't help you if you only play in Dark Sun, for example, and you are wed to the canon. However, a lot of people make their own settings, so I wonder why ideas from a specific campaign setting wouldn't enrich what people are creating. If I can stick gnomes in my homebrew campaign, why not changelings too? I don't really see how a race or class can be "setting specific" unless it really strongly ties into some complicated element of that setting.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 5:31PM
#16
|
|
|
Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.
So in the end its "no" to both questions.
The bolded claim is odd.
It definitely is odd. In addition to the points you made, emwasick, I have never known any DM to leave a setting exactly as it is. Every DM I have ever known (the good and the bad) have customized the settings they play in by dabbling in the races/classes/etc. of other setting.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 9:35PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
My answers would be No and No.
My first reason is that, if you make the core PHB and DMG so all inclusive, then they are going to cost far too much.
Secondly, the campaign world specifics should be presented in their own publications, including races, because the specifics are what make them unique; and thus worth investing in separately.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 10:52PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Yes and No. The Core Books need to be setting-neutral, with no default. Hell, don't even name the gods.
- If you are running a campaign, you have every right to tell players they can't run a race you don't like or don't want in your campaign.
- If you are playing, and some other guy picks a race you don't like or don't believe should be in the campaign, then shut up or leave. Nobody wants a whining complainy-pants at the table, and you can be replaced by another player if need be
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:56AM
#19
|
|
|
No. Core books should not have a campaign setting, but they should publish one at launch because not everyone wants to play homebrew worlds.
And playable races is a great way to get people to buy campaign settings even if they don't intend to run a campaign in that setting. Warforged in Eberron, for example.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 10:18AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2001
|
Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.
So in the end its "no" to both questions.
The bolded claim is odd. At most I'd say elements specific to one published setting are less valuable to people who only use other published settings. Warforged don't help you if you only play in Dark Sun, for example, and you are wed to the canon. However, a lot of people make their own settings, so I wonder why ideas from a specific campaign setting wouldn't enrich what people are creating. If I can stick gnomes in my homebrew campaign, why not changelings too? I don't really see how a race or class can be "setting specific" unless it really strongly ties into some complicated element of that setting.
Of course ideas from specific campaign settings can be used outside them: by buying that campaign setting, which will improve WotC's business -- and that is why they need to stay in the setting books, to help sell them. Selling fluff-only books doesn't seem to work (and indeed, all 4e setting player's books have at least one new race and class or other similar mechanical element).
On the other end of the spectrum, there's no reason why one should have to use ideas from other settings -- I, for one, do not want Warforged (or any other mechanical element of Eberron, for that matter) in any campaign setting I use, so Warforged are of no use to me. While most DMs might tinker with the settings, very few (none in my experience) will use all races from every campaign setting.
|
|
|
