Ladybird
RIV
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,583
- Reaction score
- 12,908
You might be thinking of PoLand from 4e.I'm familiar with Forgotten Realm's I was under the impression they set it in an entirely new game world. FR is not an issue for me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You might be thinking of PoLand from 4e.I'm familiar with Forgotten Realm's I was under the impression they set it in an entirely new game world. FR is not an issue for me.
Yah, the default setting for 5e seems to be Forgotten Realms, but the core books themselves barely favor FR over any other "generic" setting.
This is still the case with 5e. For all my niggles with D&D, fifth edition is the best game of that name in my book.
I could go on at length about all the ways that Fifth Edition fails to "be D&D" for me...
How so? The only thing in the core rules that really ties 5e to Forgotten Realms are the overabundance of player races and those can easily be eliminated.Fifth Edition is heavily tied to the implied fifth edition world - which is both significantly different to the 1E implied world and a lot more crowded.
Yeah, all you really lose by ditching the munchkin races like... humans... is an easy justification for half-orcs and half-elves, but if you just say they're some vaguely similar race like half-lings you're fine. Or just make them tieflings that inherited more from their natural parent than their daemonic one.How so? The only thing in the core rules that really ties 5e to Forgotten Realms are the overabundance of player races and those can easily be eliminated.
Races are part of it (and subraces) - but also all the classes. A fey pact warlock requires the fey to be part of the setting for example. Where do Monks learn their skills? What about Bards? Are there bardic colleges? Where are they? You can handwave all this stuff of course, but that in itself is a kind of implied setting - one in which there is very little grounding for anything.How so? The only thing in the core rules that really ties 5e to Forgotten Realms are the overabundance of player races and those can easily be eliminated.
You might be thinking of PoLand from 4e.
Yeah, D&D has always had an implied setting.
One that's REALLY weird, the more you think about it.
I sort of wish D&D was just humans and no elves, dwarves or others.
Nope, it's still just generic D&D land. WotC have said they want to move away from boring stereotypes. They want to drill more deeply into racial cultures and why they are like they are, rather than just saying they're evil and that's all there is to it, and that movement is upsetting some people; but it seems to me like they're just taking the opportunity to elaborate and remove outdated offensive stereotypes rather than remake anything, and it'll be a continuation of work they've already started. You're still going to be murdering Orcs, but now the GM has read a 20-page essay on the driving factors behind the Orc's lust (And capability!) for violence; Gnolls will still be cannibal scavengers, but now you'll know what their favourite spices are.No its 5E, there has been a lot of (politics) rage about it at another place. Not being into 5E or the deeply interested in the source of the rage I haven't paid close attention, but was under the impression that there was a new game world as the default setting.
I look at 5e as a toolbox and not a mandate to use every option in the book (IMHO it makes for a crowded and silly kitchen sink world if you do!). Off the top of my head I got rid of non-human PC races, Rennaissance-era gear, and sub classes I didn't like. Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal. Otherworldly fae, for example, can easily be reskinned as ancestral or animistic spirits.Races are part of it (and subraces) - but also all the classes. A fey pact warlock requires the fey to be part of the setting for example. Where do Monks learn their skills? What about Bards? Are there bardic colleges? Where are they? You can handwave all this stuff of course, but that in itself is a kind of implied setting - one in which there is very little grounding for anything.
Yet again I must petition that the pub add a Sign of the Horns emote to the like button.I look at 5e as a toolbox and not a mandate to use every option in the book (IMHO it makes for a crowded and silly kitchen sink world if you do!). Off the top of my head I got rid of non-human PC races, Rennaissance-era gear, and sub classes I didn't like. Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal. Otherworldly fae, for example, can easily be reskinned as ancestral or animistic spirits.
Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal.
The race descriptions in the 5E PH heavily foreground the "implied setting" by including several pages describing the personalities, social organization, prejudices, motivations, typical alignments, and even the common names of each race. The idea behind this was presumably to give newbie players roleplaying guidelines so their PC wouldn't just be a string of numbers, but it actually comes off (to me) as much more proscriptive, narrow, reductive, and stereotypical than the equivalent section in 1E that's focused entirely on each race's game-functions (bonuses and penalties; e.g. dwarfs have 60' range infravision, get a bonus to hit against goblins and an AC bonus against giants, get a bonus to their saving throws against poison and magic, can detect and identify various types of underground construction and features, and automatically know several languages, but can only be fighters, thieves, or fighter/thieves) and doesn't give any guidance (or implicit restrictions) about how they should be be roleplayed.
There is a section like that in the 1E DMG, briefly describing the stereotypical personality of each racial type (that dwarfs are gruff, elves are flighty, gnomes are jokers, half-orcs are bullies, etc.) but that's specifically labeled as shorthand guidelines for use by the DM to depict NPCs because "as a general rule, the player will develop the personality and other characteristics of his or her personae in the campaign, and little or no DM interference is necessary in this regard."
Its funny to me that 1E has the reputation of being restrictive and possibly racist because it says that dwarf characters can't be wizards or monks or rangers and are limited to 9th level as fighters (unless the individual DM allows it as an ad-hoc exception from the general rule), while the supposedly more flexible and enlightened 5E fills 3 pages with unqualified stuff like "a commitment to clan and tradition, and a burning hatred of goblins and orcs - these common threads unite all dwarves," "individual dwarves are determined and loyal, true to their word and decisive in action, sometimes to the point of stubbornness," "they love the beauty and artistry of precious metals and fine jewelry, and in some dwarves this love festers into avarice," "'the difference between an acquaintance and a friend is about a hundred years,' is a dwarf saying that might be hyperbole, but certainly points to how difficult it can be for a member of a short-lived race like humans to earn a dwarf's trust," "most dwarves are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order," and "a dwarf's name is granted by a clan elder, in accordance with tradition. Every proper dwarven name has been used and reused down through the generations. A dwarf's name belongs to the clan, not to the individual. A dwarf who misuses or brings shame to a clan name is stripped of the name and forbidden by law to use any dwarven name in its place" and that male dwarfs are named Adrik, Alberich, Baern, Barendd, Brottor, Bruenor, Dain, Darrak, Delg, Eberk, Einkil, Fargrim, Flint, Gardain, Harbek, Kildrak, Morgran, Orsik, Oskar, Rangrim, Rurik, Taklinn, Thoradin, Thorin, Tordek, Traubon, Travok, Ulfgar, Veit, or Vondal and female dwarfs are named Amber, Artin, Audhild, Bardryn, Dagnal, Diesa, Eldeth, Falkrunn, Finellen, Gunnloda, Gurdis, Helja, Hlin, Kathra, Kristryd, Ilde, Liftrasa, Mardred, Riswynn, Sannl, Torbera, Torgga, or Vistra.
I mean, I guess that stuff might be helpful if you don't know what a dwarf is because you've never read The Hobbit, but it really does feel limiting and stereotypical, and is a big turn off for me. In 5E I very much get the feeling that I'm not really creating a character, I'm just choosing one off of a menu (a big menu, admittedly, but still ultimately just a menu).
I look at 5e as a toolbox and not a mandate to use every option in the book (IMHO it makes for a crowded and silly kitchen sink world if you do!).
Off the top of my head I got rid of non-human PC races, Rennaissance-era gear, and sub classes I didn't like. Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal. Otherworldly fae, for example, can easily be reskinned as ancestral or animistic spirits.
Yet again I must petition that the pub add a Sign of the Horns emote to the like button.
The race descriptions in the 5E PH heavily foreground the "implied setting" by including several pages describing the personalities, social organization, prejudices, motivations, typical alignments, and even the common names of each race. The idea behind this was presumably to give newbie players roleplaying guidelines so their PC wouldn't just be a string of numbers, but it actually comes off (to me) as much more proscriptive, narrow, reductive, and stereotypical than the equivalent section in 1E that's focused entirely on each race's game-functions (bonuses and penalties; e.g. dwarfs have 60' range infravision, get a bonus to hit against goblins and an AC bonus against giants, get a bonus to their saving throws against poison and magic, can detect and identify various types of underground construction and features, and automatically know several languages, but can only be fighters, thieves, or fighter/thieves) and doesn't give any guidance (or implicit restrictions) about how they should be be roleplayed.
There is a section like that in the 1E DMG, briefly describing the stereotypical personality of each racial type (that dwarfs are gruff, elves are flighty, gnomes are jokers, half-orcs are bullies, etc.) but that's specifically labeled as shorthand guidelines for use by the DM to depict NPCs because "as a general rule, the player will develop the personality and other characteristics of his or her personae in the campaign, and little or no DM interference is necessary in this regard."
Its funny to me that 1E has the reputation of being restrictive and possibly racist because it says that dwarf characters can't be wizards or monks or rangers and are limited to 9th level as fighters (unless the individual DM allows it as an ad-hoc exception from the general rule), while the supposedly more flexible and enlightened 5E fills 3 pages with unqualified stuff like "a commitment to clan and tradition, and a burning hatred of goblins and orcs - these common threads unite all dwarves," "individual dwarves are determined and loyal, true to their word and decisive in action, sometimes to the point of stubbornness," "they love the beauty and artistry of precious metals and fine jewelry, and in some dwarves this love festers into avarice," "'the difference between an acquaintance and a friend is about a hundred years,' is a dwarf saying that might be hyperbole, but certainly points to how difficult it can be for a member of a short-lived race like humans to earn a dwarf's trust," "most dwarves are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order," and "a dwarf's name is granted by a clan elder, in accordance with tradition. Every proper dwarven name has been used and reused down through the generations. A dwarf's name belongs to the clan, not to the individual. A dwarf who misuses or brings shame to a clan name is stripped of the name and forbidden by law to use any dwarven name in its place" and that male dwarfs are named Adrik, Alberich, Baern, Barendd, Brottor, Bruenor, Dain, Darrak, Delg, Eberk, Einkil, Fargrim, Flint, Gardain, Harbek, Kildrak, Morgran, Orsik, Oskar, Rangrim, Rurik, Taklinn, Thoradin, Thorin, Tordek, Traubon, Travok, Ulfgar, Veit, or Vondal and female dwarfs are named Amber, Artin, Audhild, Bardryn, Dagnal, Diesa, Eldeth, Falkrunn, Finellen, Gunnloda, Gurdis, Helja, Hlin, Kathra, Kristryd, Ilde, Liftrasa, Mardred, Riswynn, Sannl, Torbera, Torgga, or Vistra.
I mean, I guess that stuff might be helpful if you don't know what a dwarf is because you've never read The Hobbit, but it really does feel limiting and stereotypical, and is a big turn off for me. In 5E I very much get the feeling that I'm not really creating a character, I'm just choosing one off of a menu (a big menu, admittedly, but still ultimately just a menu).
I love that 'appropriately metal' music clip, it just wrote itself for the next plot I will run, heh hehI look at 5e as a toolbox and not a mandate to use every option in the book (IMHO it makes for a crowded and silly kitchen sink world if you do!). Off the top of my head I got rid of non-human PC races, Rennaissance-era gear, and sub classes I didn't like. Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal. Otherworldly fae, for example, can easily be reskinned as ancestral or animistic spirits.
Cute how you totally undercut your assertion that rules are harder to disregard than fluff by admitting that you managed to do so with no problem at all. Guess what - you weren’t unique, and weren’t a daring rebel sticking it to the man. Modifying and disregarding the rules to personalize the game and make it work better for you is exactly what was always known and expected would happen.
You can say that the pages and pages of fluff in the 5E books are just as easy to disregard as the mechanical restrictions in earlier editions - that’s valid. But claiming that everyone - even beginners - knows to ignore fluff but nobody dares disregard rules (except for you, and many thousands of other people) is laughably inane.
Actually I find that good things are interesting in the ways they are well-put together. Bad things are those piles of that you delve in to find a forgotten gem...I further comment on game-hating: the more I hear someone tearing down a game, the more I start itching to play it just to find out if it's really as bad as they say.
I'm like that with everything, though. Bad things are interesting. Good things usually smooth, functional, elegant and with absolutely nothing in them that hooks your interest.
That said, I have limits. I'm not going to try to run FATAL or read Fifty Shades of Grey.
Amusing, indeed. I first encountered that when recruiting players for my first PbP game ever.My point isn't that 5e doesn't have an implied setting, it is that all D&D has an implied setting. Every version of it.
People who don't recognize that generally aren't seeing it because D&D has informed how they think of all Fantasy to such a degree that they identify all D&Disms as just Fantasy itself.
The ability to ignore fluff and/or crunch doesn't impact what the game is, however.You were the one who acted like a couple of pages of fluff was more restricting than Dwarves not being able to be wizards or racial level restrictions.
As I said, both of them can be ignored.
Every version of D&D has an implied setting baked into the rules, and none or really better or worse about that.
I don't even LIKE D&D. I just think this absurd "oh no there is a few pages of fluff so restricting" thing is dumb.
Not really. 5e's goal isn't to say that every culture is good. 5e's goal is to say that everybody comes from a culture that is valid (And in most cases, flawed).Hoist by their own petard.
Well I'm a BRP fan from way back, and yet I'm reasonably happy with this edition of D&D, so hopefully that tells you something.Well I ordered the 3 three core books along with Salt Marsh, so we shall see if I join the lovers or the haters. .
Well I'm a BRP fan from way back, and yet I'm reasonably happy with this edition of D&D, so hopefully that tells you something.
It's not the El Dorado of rpgs, but it is a version of D&D that seems to appeal to a wide audience.
If D&D is the standard and currency of the rpg hobby, then I'm content having D&D 5E in my collection, and happy break it out to folk who just want to play rpgs.
I wish you all the best with it
I bought 7e but haven't done a deep dive into the changes or updates; would you mind explaining?As an issue of pure personal taste, I feel like CoC7e added new things I mostly didn't want, while not taking the opportunity to update some things that I would have welcomed. It's still utterly playable, though.
Oh goodness, it's been a bit. For the former, I'd say the change to attributes (making them 1-100) wasn't something I particularly wanted. For the latter, I'd have liked a more Mythras-like approach to skills. I'd have to take a closer look again to recall some of the other things.I bought 7e but haven't done a deep dive into the changes or updates; would you mind explaining?
As an issue of pure personal taste, I feel like CoC7e added new things I mostly didn't want, while not taking the opportunity to update some things that I would have welcomed. It's still utterly playable, though.
...which might have been part of the point.That is my impression as well. A lot of changes I don't feel are needed, but ones that don't actually do anything significant, like making the stats their %. I guess that helps some so not really a bad thing, and other than "grrr, change bad" doesn't actually impact me. I think I'm more bothered that it makes CoC different from every other BRP game out there.
...which might have been part of the point.
That said, the attributes are easily revertable back and forth.
Best-ever edition of Poland as far as I'm concerned:You might be thinking of PoLand from 4e.
Best-ever edition of Poland as far as I'm concerned: