Excellent points, I don't think 5e and the default setting are completely divorceable either, and this non-default-setting experiment has partly been an exploration of those limits.
Currently the party is coming to the end of their current campaign arc, and we take the opportunity at those points to decide whether we want to continue with the current campaign, swap DMs, swap settings, or swap parties & locations. The group seems leaning toward the same DM, same world, different party, different part of the world option - and I'll take the advantage of that to relax or remove some of the homebrew adaptations in place for the new setting, since they don't seem to accomplish their intended purpose.
My point regarding D&D and finding a player base wasn't that it's impossible to do - just that most new people coming into the hobby, or looking for groups that are specifically D&D and don't have any interest in anything else; I would hazard a guess that it's very difficult to decide that you want a different system/flavor than default D&D so you're going to start a game of GURPS Fantasy, and find a new group of players right off the bat.
You're talking about educating an existing RPG group about the broader possibilities, and I agree that is 100% doable; I'm doing that now with my group. We discussed some of the mechanics/approaches to mysteries in the GUMSHOE system when they were floundering in a mystery ( that actually ended up being more DM education in how to handle mysteries ), we've poached the idea of "Character Drives" out of Ashen Stars ( also GUMSHOE ), and we've recently instated a "someone can't be here Wednesday, don't cancel, let's do a random one-shot, anyone can GM" policy ( although given my Paladin's sense of humor, I pale at the idea of him trying to run a Paranoia one-shot :p )
My question wasn't really "is it OK to re-skin D&D", or really Hack it, since the changes have to go well beyond merely cosmetic as - you noted - the system and the setting aren't totally distinct. As you say, "of course" you can.
I think I'm more interested on what are the experiences, issues, pitfalls, problems, and triumphs - which you did touch on. Thanks :)
But your broader question about the degree you can separate the setting and the rules causes me to wonder about the existence of systems which that sharp divide does exists; GURPS is one for sure; beyond that I can't say.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My point regarding D&D and finding a player base wasn't that it's impossible to do - just that most new people coming into the hobby, or looking for groups that are specifically D&D and don't have any interest in anything else; I would hazard a guess that it's very difficult to decide that you want a different system/flavor than default D&D so you're going to start a game of GURPS Fantasy, and find a new group of players right off the bat.
You're talking about educating an existing RPG group about the broader possibilities, and I agree that is 100% doable; I'm doing that now with my group. We discussed some of the mechanics/approaches to mysteries in the GUMSHOE system when they were floundering in a mystery ( that actually ended up being more DM education in how to handle mysteries ), we've poached the idea of "Character Drives" out of Ashen Stars ( also GUMSHOE ), and we've recently instated a "someone can't be here Wednesday, don't cancel, let's do a random one-shot, anyone can GM" policy ( although given my Paladin's sense of humor, I pale at the idea of him trying to run a Paranoia one-shot :p )
I mean, I've done both. One thing we've done is play Dungeon World and I tell them it's D&D.* Or do it with a game that is geared toward whatever genre and themes you want to explore, and tell them it's "basically" D&D. (I'm sure the WotC overlords are not a fan of this, but in my experience, it works well enough.) Of course, this really only works with games that are comparatively "rules light." I can do this with Dungeon World because most of the mechanics are for the GM; pretty much any new player can step in and play and they don't have to learn a whole complex system. I would never do this with GURPS, for instance (since you bring it up) nor would I tell my players "we're going to play D&D" and then force them to play Burning Wheel--a mechanically elegant but fairly complex system.
*Edit: I only do this when if it's clear that they want experience with epic fantasy RPGs but not necessarily D&D in particular. You'll notice that outside of the hobby, most people refer to any/all TTRPGs as "Dungeons and Dragons." I'll interrogate what they're looking for in a game and if 5E is a better fit, then that's what we're going to do. I don't do this to mislead people, but rather to introduce people to the hobby. I'll give a disclaimer and get consent like "well, this isn't the 'official' Dungeons & Dragons but I think it's a really good introduction to heroic fantasy. Is it cool if we try this game?"
My question wasn't really "is it OK to re-skin D&D", or really Hack it, since the changes have to go well beyond merely cosmetic as - you noted - the system and the setting aren't totally distinct. As you say, "of course" you can.
I think I'm more interested on what are the experiences, issues, pitfalls, problems, and triumphs - which you did touch on. Thanks :)
Gotcha. Sorry if I sidestepped your question to pontificate on the debate that I'm more interested in! I do have a lot of experience with trying to hack 5E to contain some of my favorite Dungeon World mechanics, which ... resulted in me realizing that I just want to play Dungeon World most of the time instead since all the stuff I like is already built in. It's also helped me appreciate 5E for what it is and allowed me to run it more or less as written. I think that's part of why using the "default" setting actually has been pretty compelling for me, because I'm playing with the system sort of "as it's intended to be played." That's not better or worse than modifying it, just interesting.
But your broader question about the degree you can separate the setting and the rules causes me to wonder about the existence of systems which that sharp divide does exists; GURPS is one for sure; beyond that I can't say.
I don't have much love for GURPS; I think in trying to be all things to all people it ends up failing at being especially good at anything in particular. I know others would disagree. Other "generic" systems like Savage Worlds and Fate seem to be exceptions that prove the rule--while they are technically "generic" they still work best with specific play styles and genres which are encouraged and reinforced by the systems' mechanics.
Heh - I will never have any right to complain about other people pontificating :D No worries.
I think starting a new groups with "no really, this is D&D" or "this is basically D&D" might be a bit of a disingenuous bait-and-switch - but at the end of it all, as long as everyone is happy with the results then no harm, no foul.
I don't have much experience with GURPS - but it's my understanding that it isn't a game system out of the box. Rather its a toolbox which allows the GM to "tune" the rules to a particular campaign or storytelling style. If the GM doesn't do that tuning, then yes - it end up "failing at being especially good at anything in particular". It's kind of like slapping a bunch of engine parts together, failing to adjust the timing, and having your engine run badly :) But the same engine can run wonderfully with some tuning.
But also haven't dug into deep enough to do any "engine tuning" myself.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've never run a campaign using the default setting, but I definitely see the appeal. It's true that players who are new to the game may have certain expectations about what D&D is. I'll actually disagree with some of the discussion above, though, as I've found it's easier to introduce new players to settings that are noticeably different, as their preferences for the game are less ingrained. For experienced players, the default setting may serve as an even better jumping off point, as it's likely that every one of your players will be deeply familiar with its basic assumptions.
There's definitely a middle ground here. I think you can alter a couple of the base assumptions about the setting without creating something that is no longer D&D. In most of my campaigns, I've tended toward this approach: keeping at least a few of the well-known touchstones of D&D while introducing enough changes that the setting feels fresh and different. If this is the approach, it's best to give your players a (brief) guide to what's changed. My main experience in completing discarding the default setting has been in games that are highly genre-focused, where the default assumptions can be more of a detriment than an asset.
Vedexent, you specifically mentioned non-humanoid intelligent beings as a potential way to change the default setting. I've played with this idea a few times in my campaigns, but I think the obvious reason that this type of change isn't often made is because humanoids are so familiar to us. Having a number of slightly different humanoid races is a way for us to roleplay something "different" without it being so alien that we can no longer empathize. Non-humanoid intelligence can feel more like a trope of science fiction, and so if you're not careful, it can undermine the "high fantasy" feel the game is going for.
Another risk with discarding the default setting is that the rules of D&D inform the story to a certain extent. Things like Vancian spellcasting are built not only into the rules, but also into the default setting. So if you violate too many tenets of the default setting, you risk creating a game where the rules are no longer a good fit for the story.
I don't think I'm arguing for it being harder to introduce new players to a new type of setting, I think I was saying it's harder to draw a new group toward a different system - which some have ( I think correctly ) argued would be a much better fit for an atypical setting: "Hi, we want to play this D&D which we've seen on Critical Role!" ... "Great, how do you feel about playing Dungeon World instead?" ... "Um... we want to play this D&D which we've seen on Critical Role!"
But I agree that playable races should be humanoid, and not so alien in their cultural background that they are not relateable. The one non-human character coming up in my campaign is still humanoid.
Not all the civilized species in my developing world are playable, some exist merely as human foils ( and given the world's history, mainly as forces arrayed against the human civilizations ) - and you're right, it does give a little bit of a science-fiction vibe ( or at least Empire of the Petal Throne - which some have said feels like Science Fiction as well ) to the campaign - but so far no one seems to feel it's slipped out of fantasy territory yet.
As for altering things until they're "no longer D&D" - I think it's another talking point as to where that line is - although realistically there isn't an answer, there's just personal answers to that one - save when setting changes start breaking the core mechanics of the game, like - as you mentioned - Vancian magic.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've never used the default setting, having started DMing in 1988 after designing my main continent, but if I see something from a setting that fits my world, I'm not afraid to port it over. My world is based on a post-apocalyptic planet, so, for example, the warforged of Eberron makes sense to me.
I picked up MToF here on D&DB, but realized there would be more tinkering. Why? My Gith are not world-spanning races, but rather a pair of closely-related humanoid races that have been fighting a near endless war between their pair of small continents for millennia. Once, in centuries past, a great Githzerai general managed to unite both Gith races and invade the main continent. Illithids had no part in their races. So, when I got the free Rrakkma adventure, it's basically useless to me.
I, however, have had a bigger problem using my own world. That is players trying to port in things either from the default setting or other settings. When I got my D&D 5E books, I immediately stripped out Dragonborn (non-existent; I have my own reptilian races) and Tieflings (NPC race only). I do have other player races that I have converted over from my 3.5 campaign: Armands, Ibixians, Tabaxis (which replaced my Catfolk) and Warforged. Added to this are my Lightless Elves. My problem was explaining that just because WotC printed Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, doesn't mean it is part and parcel of my world. I haven't used anything but a single background (City Watch) that I liked.
So even though I might be using standard dwarves, halflings and gnomes, for instance, they are being used for a more standardized purpose, which allows me to concentrate on other things that make my campaign world different from others.
I always do at least some hacking/re-skinning of DnD when I play. That's because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the lore for Grayhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc., and honestly I find it easier to make it up instead of do the research. (The exception is deities; I decided to use Grayhawk deities even though I'm not super familiar with them, which has lead to a decent amount of reading on my part.) But most of the changes I make don't have a huge effect on the actual mechanics of the game; I don't bother re-naming spells, for exmaple, so I guess that means that in my world Bigby and Mordenkainen and Tenser were all prominent spellcasters at some point - but their existence or non-existence in the history of the world doesn't really matter to my players, so it doesn't matter to me either. They're just names in a spellbook.
In my current game the setting is based on late Georgian England and France, which is aesthetically fairly different from the default Renaissance/medieval mishmash. That also means guns are a thing (albeit relatively primitive ones), and clockwork and steam technology, which also changes the feel of the game. It's more modern and more urban-feeling. I also made some flavor changes to the player races: in my game, humans are not native to that plane of existence; they wandered over from our real world about 3000 years ago. Dragonborn are a similar deal - they accidentally landed on that plane centuries ago and have just kinda stuck around. Stealing from The Elder Scrolls, I made orcs related to elves, and similarly long-lived (or they would be if they chose to use magical healing, which they don't), which means only the non-native player races have a natural lifespan of less than a century.
The world was actually first created by my partner, who also GMs, and we thought it would be fun if I also ran a game in the same world; some parts of the setting he came up with, and some I did. A couple of the players in my game were in my partner's game as well, so they already have a familiarity with the setting, but most of my players are new. So I made sure to give them a brief overview of the setting before the game started, so they'd know what to expect. I told them what historical era was the inspiration, so they could do research on the clothing etc. if they wanted to. (If they didn't want to, that's fine. No skin off my back.) I also gave them the rules for how guns work. Other parts of the setting I'm revealing to them in-game, partially because I'm coming up with them in-game. (World-building is a continual process for me.) So far the only pushback I've received was from one guy who assumed that I hadn't read Volo's Guide when I described how orcs work. But once I clarified that I had read Volo and was deliberately disregarding it, he was fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
I don't really think it's a matter of "fantasyland" being integral to D&D. It's just that an established setting, whatever that setting, is integral to high-demand RPG systems. To clarify, by integral, I mean that the value in maintaining or only loosely changing the established setting can often outweigh the value of a more complete overhaul. That's not to say that there isn't value, and for many its value is completely worth it. It just certainly doesn't seem to be the majority.
With D&D, that established setting is "fantasyland," as OP puts it. But it's not any different than what other big name, high-demand RPG or even wargaming systems do. Games Workshop is a huge wargaming company, has two separate settings, one of which having been utterly reset and revamped, and both are really just reflections of the other, including both the original and revamp of their fantasy setting. If you have knowledge of one, the other won't really be all that new or different. RPG lines like World of Darkness, 7th Sea, Pathfinder, so on and so forth. They have lots of product lines, huge amounts of source material, and they rarely, if ever deviate from their established settings, and most players follow along those lines.
Whatever the product line, whatever the setting they use, you're going to find very little variance among their products or in how their customers play. Where you do tend to see that kind of variance is in 3rd party producers of content, those companies and freelancers that make a living specifically to break that mold, and their popularity certainly says a lot to the value of it. But even though the greatest levels of variance, at least at the product level rather than the table level, come from these third party resources, you still see the majority conforming to the established setting's basic attributes.
So again, I don't really believe it's a matter of a "fantasyland" setting being integral to D&D. It'd be be more accurate to say that established settings are integral to their RPG system, and D&D's just so happens to be "fantasyland."
To answer the question in the topic - yes, I’ve never played in a campaign in the Realms. Lots of people play other settings. There are plenty of people who abandon the Realms all the time, you need only look at the hype for Planescape, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravnica, etc. for proof.
As to your broader question, I haven’t ever felt like completely abandoning all the mechanics and rules of D&D, because then I’m no longer playing D&D.
For me D&D is the mechanics and rules of play - that’s the game. Polyhedral dice, d20 based checks, the six ability scores with skills tied to them, advantage/disadvantage, action economy, spell slots, classes/subclasses, backgrounds, movement, attacking, and races/subraces. All of these things are part of character creation. If you’re using those mechanics and rules (or houseruled versions of them), you’re playing D&D. I don’t see how lore and setting are linked to this.
The mechanics don’t work because of the lore of the Forgotten Realms; they work because they are a solid framework of mathematics and gameplay interactions, the bones if you will, that are skinned with whatever lore you choose.
Take the Forgotton Realms for example. It’s the default setting and it is a classic European medieval skin. However, Eberron, with its sentient robots and magic-as-tech world with lightning powered trains is decidedly not. The bones are the same though, it’s still D&D.
The Elves in Eberron have a very different story than they do in the realms, still the mechanics of the race stay the same. If you want, change the bonuses based on the lore of your world. The same can be said for Planescape, Spelljammer, and other settings. Ravnica looks like a foreign and alien world, but it will still be D&D.
One of the greatest strengths of 5e is that is easily homebrewed; you only need a small bit of knowledge about the mechanical underpinnings to make whatever you want work.
The default is low magic, but we prefer high magic and shops that sell magic items, so that’s what we run. We’re still playing D&D.
If you ask me to join your game and I can use the mechanics and rules outlined in the PHB (with small tweaks here and there), then we’re playing D&D regardless of how Elves came to be or what they look like.
I see a lot of DM's ditching experience points and spell costs. I think the amount of rules you change depends of the DM's love of mechanics. If you have a better idea then go for it! As long as the players agree. That's what I think.
I've never considered "The Realms" to be the default setting - even though they are officially the default setting of modern D&D - because I've played D&D before the Forgotten Realms were ever published.
The Forgotten Realms, Eberron , Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft - these have never been the default setting of D&D, by the very fact that they're interchangeable.
What I'm referring to is how I stated it in the OP - pseudo-western European societies, and large swathes of distilled European mythology - the original assumptions baked into the game by Gary Gygax back in 1978, and which have been part of every interchangeable setting since then.
I agree Waterdeep isn't part of the default setting, and you can totally leave that behind. But can you leave behind Elves and Dwarves and Halflings? What about Dragons? It's not "We're playing D&D regardless of how Elves came to be", I'm considering settings where the Elves never come to be. They don't have a different origin story; they're not "re-skinned"; they just don't exist. It's filling in the function that those fictional elements have with other things - and not necessarily on a one-to-one basis ( so-as to avoid ripping out Elves and replacing them with a graceful, long-lived, magic&nature attuned race which totally aren't elves! :p )
Since your position seems to be that lore and mechanics are distinct and that D&D is defined by the mechanics ( which then leaves me to wonder about the 3rd version dalliance with the generic D20 system ), I suspect your answer is "yes", although maybe not - as those races are part of the PHB.
I'm of the opinion that you can - and since I started this thread, I've found other DMs which seem to agree, elsewhere. Jim Davis of Web DM seems to have at least one campaign with the standard fantasy races absent from the campaign ( although possibly not absent from the world - see below ) - although that Web DM episode really does emphasize the large amount of communication and player buy in that is required for such campaigns, as well.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've never considered "The Realms" to be the default setting - even though they are officially the default setting of modern D&D - because I've played D&D before the Forgotten Realms were ever published.
To answer the question in the topic - yes, I’ve never played in a campaign in the Realms. Lots of people play other settings. There are plenty of people who abandon the Realms all the time, you need only look at the hype for Planescape, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravnica, etc. for proof.
This topic isn't about playing in the Realms, its about playing with the general Lord of the Rings-like fantasy themes. Irregardless of how you feel about specific settings, you cannot deny the Tolkein-esk feel of many of the settings, and how that tends to be what is presented in the core books of each edition. Even the earliest Blackmoor campaign that was used by Gary was the medieval-fantasy archetype.
Other settings do exist, of course. But they're a minority, and often far less popular.
Take the Forgotton Realms for example. It’s the default setting and it is a classic European medieval skin. However, Eberron, with its sentient robots and magic-as-tech world with lightning powered trains is decidedly not. The bones are the same though, it’s still D&D.
Nitpick - the Sword Coast is the classic medieval Europe skin. The actual full Realms is filled with fantasy-egypt, fantasy-asia, fantasy-africa, etc settings as well. Al-Qadim is an arabian setting based on 1001 Arabian Nights within the Forgotten Realms.
That's something that many people often forget / don't know about the Realms. So many focused on the pseudo-europe fantasyland....
I've never considered "The Realms" to be the default setting - even though they are officially the default setting of modern D&D - because I've played D&D before the Forgotten Realms were ever published.
The Forgotten Realms, Eberron , Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft - these have never been the default setting of D&D, by the very fact that they're interchangeable.
What I'm referring to is how I stated it in the OP - pseudo-western European societies, and large swathes of distilled European mythology - the original assumptions baked into the game by Gary Gygax back in 1978, and which have been part of every interchangeable setting since then.
I agree Waterdeep isn't part of the default setting, and you can totally leave that behind. But can you leave behind Elves and Dwarves and Halflings? What about Dragons? It's not "We're playing D&D regardless of how Elves came to be", I'm considering settings where the Elves never come to be. They don't have a different origin story; they're not "re-skinned"; they just don't exist. It's filling in the function that those fictional elements have with other things - and not necessarily on a one-to-one basis ( so-as to avoid ripping out Elves and replacing them with a graceful, long-lived, magic&nature attuned race which totally aren't elves! :p )
The Realms are the current default setting and the title of the post is "How many have ever just abandoned the default setting entirely?" in a 5e focused forum, so I was operating off that assumption. Waterdeep is a part of the Realms, so at least in this edition it is part of the default setting.
While I'll give you Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, I don't see how Dark Sun, Eberron, or Spelljammer are interchangeable. They are very different settings both from each other and certainly from Greyhawk and the Realms. You have an world-in-decay setting where magic is shunned and psionics are plentiful, magic-as-tech with sentient robots, and spaceships that travel between different worlds. Those worlds in particular are objectively not interchangeable with medieval Europe or Tolkien style fantasy.
So, the answer to the questions in the title is yes, that's why those other worlds and the soon-to-be Ravnica exist.
However, this doesn't answer what I believe is your true question: "Have you ever thought of playing in a world where Elves and Dwarves don't exist?" I landed on this based on other comments in this thread and the quote below:
I'm of the opinion that you can - and since I started this thread, I've found other DMs which seem to agree, elsewhere. Jim Davis of Web DM seems to have at least one campaign with the standard fantasy races absent from the campaign ( although possibly not absent from the world - see below ) - although that Web DM episode really does emphasize the large amount of communication and player buy in that is required for such campaigns, as well.
The only thing Jim mentioned is not having the standard fantasy races in his world (sidenote: I love WebDM, it's a great show). I believe Matt Colville likes to do this as well, I remember him mentioning in one of his videos that he prefers to keep it mostly humans. However, his worlds seem to very much be medieval based.
My current campaign is a homebrew world that is starting to discover magic-as-tech, kind of pre-Eberron place where the concept is just starting to take root. There are gears, mechanical things, borderline guns, transports, even mech-like creations that a group of goblins created. Sure, Elves and Dwarves exist, but so do Old West type towns and factions like those you see in western movies. Is that world a Tolkien-inspired european fantasy? I think not, but I'm curious where this falls in your spectrum of "default setting".
So, to answer that question: I haven't thought about it, but I would have no problem doing it. I like the mixture of races, so I don't think I would ever bail on them, but I certainly am all for switching up the backgrounds for who those races are and how they came to be.
Since your position seems to be that lore and mechanics are distinct and that D&D is defined by the mechanics ( which then leaves me to wonder about the 3rd version dalliance with the generic D20 system ), I suspect your answer is "yes", although maybe not - as those races are part of the PHB...although that Web DM episode really does emphasize the large amount of communication and player buy in that is required for such campaigns, as well.
Yes, that is absolutely my position. D&D, in my opinion, is the mechanics. The edition you play defines the mechanics you are using. There are iconic monsters that people think of when you say "D&D", like Beholders, but you also have an alien species like the Mindflayers who are far from Tolkien. This also brings me to a point a didn't make in my previous post - the Monster Manual, Volo's, and Mordenkainen's have some weird monsters in them. You have goblins and orcs, but you also have gyph and other alien oddities.
Lore is there as a way to get you started if you need it, but it's not required to play D&D. As they talk about in WebDM though, if you are going to scrap all the races in the books, you have to explain the lore you're using. Otherwise, the players have no touchpoints for your world and no framework upon which to build their characters. If you're going completely custom, you absolutely have to put in the work to help players understand what the world is like.
That's what campaign books like Eberron and Ravnica are designed to do - they help players understand the world because it is very different from the one described in the PHB/SCAG/etc. it’s a ton of work and I think that’s the reason you don’t see more many radically different worlds. It’s also the reason you don’t see someone rewriting all of the spells and classes. The tools are all there, but it would take such a tremendous amount of time to pull off.
Now, if you invite me to a game and a large majority of the rules and mechanics in the PHB do not apply, to the point of having to learn a whole new set of rules - well then I say we're not playing D&D.
This topic isn't about playing in the Realms, its about playing with the general Lord of the Rings-like fantasy themes. Irregardless of how you feel about specific settings, you cannot deny the Tolkein-esk feel of many of the settings, and how that tends to be what is presented in the core books of each edition. Even the earliest Blackmoor campaign that was used by Gary was the medieval-fantasy archetype.
Other settings do exist, of course. But they're a minority, and often far less popular.
Take the Forgotton Realms for example. It’s the default setting and it is a classic European medieval skin. However, Eberron, with its sentient robots and magic-as-tech world with lightning powered trains is decidedly not. The bones are the same though, it’s still D&D.
Nitpick - the Sword Coast is the classic medieval Europe skin. The actual full Realms is filled with fantasy-egypt, fantasy-asia, fantasy-africa, etc settings as well. Al-Qadim is an arabian setting based on 1001 Arabian Nights within the Forgotten Realms. That's something that many people often forget / don't know about the Realms. So many focused on the pseudo-europe fantasyland....
First, regarding my bringing up the Realms - it's the current default setting and the title of the post is "How many have ever just abandoned the default setting entirely?" in a 5e focused forum, so I was operating off that assumption.
Second, that's a fair point about the Sword Coast being the medieval Europe skin and I'm in the "didn't know" crowd regarding the realms. I appreciate you pointing that out. You have all kinds of weird places in the Realms, but my knowledge is limited to the things that have been released of late. I started in 3.5, so I know more about the Greyhawk gods and some of those stories than any of the ones described in the PHB.
Now on to the Tolkien topic - yes, I think there are parts of the default setting that are inspired by Tolkien. My point is that the existence of campaign worlds like Eberron, Planescape, and Starjammer are proof positive that enough people desire a setting different from the default that WotC spends the time and money developing these worlds. The lore of these worlds are very different from the default setting presented in the PHB, that's why campaign guides spend so much time explaining how a certain class might be translated into a new and different world, but the mechanics are the same and they are most definitely "D&D".
Excellent points, I don't think 5e and the default setting are completely divorceable either, and this non-default-setting experiment has partly been an exploration of those limits.
Currently the party is coming to the end of their current campaign arc, and we take the opportunity at those points to decide whether we want to continue with the current campaign, swap DMs, swap settings, or swap parties & locations. The group seems leaning toward the same DM, same world, different party, different part of the world option - and I'll take the advantage of that to relax or remove some of the homebrew adaptations in place for the new setting, since they don't seem to accomplish their intended purpose.
My point regarding D&D and finding a player base wasn't that it's impossible to do - just that most new people coming into the hobby, or looking for groups that are specifically D&D and don't have any interest in anything else; I would hazard a guess that it's very difficult to decide that you want a different system/flavor than default D&D so you're going to start a game of GURPS Fantasy, and find a new group of players right off the bat.
You're talking about educating an existing RPG group about the broader possibilities, and I agree that is 100% doable; I'm doing that now with my group. We discussed some of the mechanics/approaches to mysteries in the GUMSHOE system when they were floundering in a mystery ( that actually ended up being more DM education in how to handle mysteries ), we've poached the idea of "Character Drives" out of Ashen Stars ( also GUMSHOE ), and we've recently instated a "someone can't be here Wednesday, don't cancel, let's do a random one-shot, anyone can GM" policy ( although given my Paladin's sense of humor, I pale at the idea of him trying to run a Paranoia one-shot :p )
My question wasn't really "is it OK to re-skin D&D", or really Hack it, since the changes have to go well beyond merely cosmetic as - you noted - the system and the setting aren't totally distinct. As you say, "of course" you can.
I think I'm more interested on what are the experiences, issues, pitfalls, problems, and triumphs - which you did touch on. Thanks :)
But your broader question about the degree you can separate the setting and the rules causes me to wonder about the existence of systems which that sharp divide does exists; GURPS is one for sure; beyond that I can't say.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I mean, I've done both. One thing we've done is play Dungeon World and I tell them it's D&D.* Or do it with a game that is geared toward whatever genre and themes you want to explore, and tell them it's "basically" D&D. (I'm sure the WotC overlords are not a fan of this, but in my experience, it works well enough.) Of course, this really only works with games that are comparatively "rules light." I can do this with Dungeon World because most of the mechanics are for the GM; pretty much any new player can step in and play and they don't have to learn a whole complex system. I would never do this with GURPS, for instance (since you bring it up) nor would I tell my players "we're going to play D&D" and then force them to play Burning Wheel--a mechanically elegant but fairly complex system.
*Edit: I only do this when if it's clear that they want experience with epic fantasy RPGs but not necessarily D&D in particular. You'll notice that outside of the hobby, most people refer to any/all TTRPGs as "Dungeons and Dragons." I'll interrogate what they're looking for in a game and if 5E is a better fit, then that's what we're going to do. I don't do this to mislead people, but rather to introduce people to the hobby. I'll give a disclaimer and get consent like "well, this isn't the 'official' Dungeons & Dragons but I think it's a really good introduction to heroic fantasy. Is it cool if we try this game?"
Gotcha. Sorry if I sidestepped your question to pontificate on the debate that I'm more interested in! I do have a lot of experience with trying to hack 5E to contain some of my favorite Dungeon World mechanics, which ... resulted in me realizing that I just want to play Dungeon World most of the time instead since all the stuff I like is already built in. It's also helped me appreciate 5E for what it is and allowed me to run it more or less as written. I think that's part of why using the "default" setting actually has been pretty compelling for me, because I'm playing with the system sort of "as it's intended to be played." That's not better or worse than modifying it, just interesting.
I don't have much love for GURPS; I think in trying to be all things to all people it ends up failing at being especially good at anything in particular. I know others would disagree. Other "generic" systems like Savage Worlds and Fate seem to be exceptions that prove the rule--while they are technically "generic" they still work best with specific play styles and genres which are encouraged and reinforced by the systems' mechanics.
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder)
Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
Heh - I will never have any right to complain about other people pontificating :D No worries.
I think starting a new groups with "no really, this is D&D" or "this is basically D&D" might be a bit of a disingenuous bait-and-switch - but at the end of it all, as long as everyone is happy with the results then no harm, no foul.
I don't have much experience with GURPS - but it's my understanding that it isn't a game system out of the box. Rather its a toolbox which allows the GM to "tune" the rules to a particular campaign or storytelling style. If the GM doesn't do that tuning, then yes - it end up "failing at being especially good at anything in particular". It's kind of like slapping a bunch of engine parts together, failing to adjust the timing, and having your engine run badly :) But the same engine can run wonderfully with some tuning.
But also haven't dug into deep enough to do any "engine tuning" myself.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've never run a campaign using the default setting, but I definitely see the appeal. It's true that players who are new to the game may have certain expectations about what D&D is. I'll actually disagree with some of the discussion above, though, as I've found it's easier to introduce new players to settings that are noticeably different, as their preferences for the game are less ingrained. For experienced players, the default setting may serve as an even better jumping off point, as it's likely that every one of your players will be deeply familiar with its basic assumptions.
There's definitely a middle ground here. I think you can alter a couple of the base assumptions about the setting without creating something that is no longer D&D. In most of my campaigns, I've tended toward this approach: keeping at least a few of the well-known touchstones of D&D while introducing enough changes that the setting feels fresh and different. If this is the approach, it's best to give your players a (brief) guide to what's changed. My main experience in completing discarding the default setting has been in games that are highly genre-focused, where the default assumptions can be more of a detriment than an asset.
Vedexent, you specifically mentioned non-humanoid intelligent beings as a potential way to change the default setting. I've played with this idea a few times in my campaigns, but I think the obvious reason that this type of change isn't often made is because humanoids are so familiar to us. Having a number of slightly different humanoid races is a way for us to roleplay something "different" without it being so alien that we can no longer empathize. Non-humanoid intelligence can feel more like a trope of science fiction, and so if you're not careful, it can undermine the "high fantasy" feel the game is going for.
Another risk with discarding the default setting is that the rules of D&D inform the story to a certain extent. Things like Vancian spellcasting are built not only into the rules, but also into the default setting. So if you violate too many tenets of the default setting, you risk creating a game where the rules are no longer a good fit for the story.
I don't think I'm arguing for it being harder to introduce new players to a new type of setting, I think I was saying it's harder to draw a new group toward a different system - which some have ( I think correctly ) argued would be a much better fit for an atypical setting: "Hi, we want to play this D&D which we've seen on Critical Role!" ... "Great, how do you feel about playing Dungeon World instead?" ... "Um... we want to play this D&D which we've seen on Critical Role!"
But I agree that playable races should be humanoid, and not so alien in their cultural background that they are not relateable. The one non-human character coming up in my campaign is still humanoid.
Not all the civilized species in my developing world are playable, some exist merely as human foils ( and given the world's history, mainly as forces arrayed against the human civilizations ) - and you're right, it does give a little bit of a science-fiction vibe ( or at least Empire of the Petal Throne - which some have said feels like Science Fiction as well ) to the campaign - but so far no one seems to feel it's slipped out of fantasy territory yet.
As for altering things until they're "no longer D&D" - I think it's another talking point as to where that line is - although realistically there isn't an answer, there's just personal answers to that one - save when setting changes start breaking the core mechanics of the game, like - as you mentioned - Vancian magic.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I've never used the default setting, having started DMing in 1988 after designing my main continent, but if I see something from a setting that fits my world, I'm not afraid to port it over. My world is based on a post-apocalyptic planet, so, for example, the warforged of Eberron makes sense to me.
I picked up MToF here on D&DB, but realized there would be more tinkering. Why? My Gith are not world-spanning races, but rather a pair of closely-related humanoid races that have been fighting a near endless war between their pair of small continents for millennia. Once, in centuries past, a great Githzerai general managed to unite both Gith races and invade the main continent. Illithids had no part in their races. So, when I got the free Rrakkma adventure, it's basically useless to me.
I, however, have had a bigger problem using my own world. That is players trying to port in things either from the default setting or other settings. When I got my D&D 5E books, I immediately stripped out Dragonborn (non-existent; I have my own reptilian races) and Tieflings (NPC race only). I do have other player races that I have converted over from my 3.5 campaign: Armands, Ibixians, Tabaxis (which replaced my Catfolk) and Warforged. Added to this are my Lightless Elves. My problem was explaining that just because WotC printed Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, doesn't mean it is part and parcel of my world. I haven't used anything but a single background (City Watch) that I liked.
So even though I might be using standard dwarves, halflings and gnomes, for instance, they are being used for a more standardized purpose, which allows me to concentrate on other things that make my campaign world different from others.
I always do at least some hacking/re-skinning of DnD when I play. That's because I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the lore for Grayhawk, Forgotten Realms, etc., and honestly I find it easier to make it up instead of do the research. (The exception is deities; I decided to use Grayhawk deities even though I'm not super familiar with them, which has lead to a decent amount of reading on my part.) But most of the changes I make don't have a huge effect on the actual mechanics of the game; I don't bother re-naming spells, for exmaple, so I guess that means that in my world Bigby and Mordenkainen and Tenser were all prominent spellcasters at some point - but their existence or non-existence in the history of the world doesn't really matter to my players, so it doesn't matter to me either. They're just names in a spellbook.
In my current game the setting is based on late Georgian England and France, which is aesthetically fairly different from the default Renaissance/medieval mishmash. That also means guns are a thing (albeit relatively primitive ones), and clockwork and steam technology, which also changes the feel of the game. It's more modern and more urban-feeling. I also made some flavor changes to the player races: in my game, humans are not native to that plane of existence; they wandered over from our real world about 3000 years ago. Dragonborn are a similar deal - they accidentally landed on that plane centuries ago and have just kinda stuck around. Stealing from The Elder Scrolls, I made orcs related to elves, and similarly long-lived (or they would be if they chose to use magical healing, which they don't), which means only the non-native player races have a natural lifespan of less than a century.
The world was actually first created by my partner, who also GMs, and we thought it would be fun if I also ran a game in the same world; some parts of the setting he came up with, and some I did. A couple of the players in my game were in my partner's game as well, so they already have a familiarity with the setting, but most of my players are new. So I made sure to give them a brief overview of the setting before the game started, so they'd know what to expect. I told them what historical era was the inspiration, so they could do research on the clothing etc. if they wanted to. (If they didn't want to, that's fine. No skin off my back.) I also gave them the rules for how guns work. Other parts of the setting I'm revealing to them in-game, partially because I'm coming up with them in-game. (World-building is a continual process for me.) So far the only pushback I've received was from one guy who assumed that I hadn't read Volo's Guide when I described how orcs work. But once I clarified that I had read Volo and was deliberately disregarding it, he was fine.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
I don't really think it's a matter of "fantasyland" being integral to D&D. It's just that an established setting, whatever that setting, is integral to high-demand RPG systems. To clarify, by integral, I mean that the value in maintaining or only loosely changing the established setting can often outweigh the value of a more complete overhaul. That's not to say that there isn't value, and for many its value is completely worth it. It just certainly doesn't seem to be the majority.
With D&D, that established setting is "fantasyland," as OP puts it. But it's not any different than what other big name, high-demand RPG or even wargaming systems do. Games Workshop is a huge wargaming company, has two separate settings, one of which having been utterly reset and revamped, and both are really just reflections of the other, including both the original and revamp of their fantasy setting. If you have knowledge of one, the other won't really be all that new or different. RPG lines like World of Darkness, 7th Sea, Pathfinder, so on and so forth. They have lots of product lines, huge amounts of source material, and they rarely, if ever deviate from their established settings, and most players follow along those lines.
Whatever the product line, whatever the setting they use, you're going to find very little variance among their products or in how their customers play. Where you do tend to see that kind of variance is in 3rd party producers of content, those companies and freelancers that make a living specifically to break that mold, and their popularity certainly says a lot to the value of it. But even though the greatest levels of variance, at least at the product level rather than the table level, come from these third party resources, you still see the majority conforming to the established setting's basic attributes.
So again, I don't really believe it's a matter of a "fantasyland" setting being integral to D&D. It'd be be more accurate to say that established settings are integral to their RPG system, and D&D's just so happens to be "fantasyland."
To answer the question in the topic - yes, I’ve never played in a campaign in the Realms. Lots of people play other settings. There are plenty of people who abandon the Realms all the time, you need only look at the hype for Planescape, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravnica, etc. for proof.
As to your broader question, I haven’t ever felt like completely abandoning all the mechanics and rules of D&D, because then I’m no longer playing D&D.
For me D&D is the mechanics and rules of play - that’s the game. Polyhedral dice, d20 based checks, the six ability scores with skills tied to them, advantage/disadvantage, action economy, spell slots, classes/subclasses, backgrounds, movement, attacking, and races/subraces. All of these things are part of character creation. If you’re using those mechanics and rules (or houseruled versions of them), you’re playing D&D. I don’t see how lore and setting are linked to this.
The mechanics don’t work because of the lore of the Forgotten Realms; they work because they are a solid framework of mathematics and gameplay interactions, the bones if you will, that are skinned with whatever lore you choose.
Take the Forgotton Realms for example. It’s the default setting and it is a classic European medieval skin. However, Eberron, with its sentient robots and magic-as-tech world with lightning powered trains is decidedly not. The bones are the same though, it’s still D&D.
The Elves in Eberron have a very different story than they do in the realms, still the mechanics of the race stay the same. If you want, change the bonuses based on the lore of your world. The same can be said for Planescape, Spelljammer, and other settings. Ravnica looks like a foreign and alien world, but it will still be D&D.
One of the greatest strengths of 5e is that is easily homebrewed; you only need a small bit of knowledge about the mechanical underpinnings to make whatever you want work.
The default is low magic, but we prefer high magic and shops that sell magic items, so that’s what we run. We’re still playing D&D.
If you ask me to join your game and I can use the mechanics and rules outlined in the PHB (with small tweaks here and there), then we’re playing D&D regardless of how Elves came to be or what they look like.
I see a lot of DM's ditching experience points and spell costs. I think the amount of rules you change depends of the DM's love of mechanics. If you have a better idea then go for it! As long as the players agree. That's what I think.
I've never considered "The Realms" to be the default setting - even though they are officially the default setting of modern D&D - because I've played D&D before the Forgotten Realms were ever published.
The Forgotten Realms, Eberron , Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft - these have never been the default setting of D&D, by the very fact that they're interchangeable.
What I'm referring to is how I stated it in the OP - pseudo-western European societies, and large swathes of distilled European mythology - the original assumptions baked into the game by Gary Gygax back in 1978, and which have been part of every interchangeable setting since then.
I agree Waterdeep isn't part of the default setting, and you can totally leave that behind. But can you leave behind Elves and Dwarves and Halflings? What about Dragons? It's not "We're playing D&D regardless of how Elves came to be", I'm considering settings where the Elves never come to be. They don't have a different origin story; they're not "re-skinned"; they just don't exist. It's filling in the function that those fictional elements have with other things - and not necessarily on a one-to-one basis ( so-as to avoid ripping out Elves and replacing them with a graceful, long-lived, magic&nature attuned race which totally aren't elves! :p )
Since your position seems to be that lore and mechanics are distinct and that D&D is defined by the mechanics ( which then leaves me to wonder about the 3rd version dalliance with the generic D20 system ), I suspect your answer is "yes", although maybe not - as those races are part of the PHB.
I'm of the opinion that you can - and since I started this thread, I've found other DMs which seem to agree, elsewhere. Jim Davis of Web DM seems to have at least one campaign with the standard fantasy races absent from the campaign ( although possibly not absent from the world - see below ) - although that Web DM episode really does emphasize the large amount of communication and player buy in that is required for such campaigns, as well.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
This topic isn't about playing in the Realms, its about playing with the general Lord of the Rings-like fantasy themes. Irregardless of how you feel about specific settings, you cannot deny the Tolkein-esk feel of many of the settings, and how that tends to be what is presented in the core books of each edition. Even the earliest Blackmoor campaign that was used by Gary was the medieval-fantasy archetype.
Other settings do exist, of course. But they're a minority, and often far less popular.
Nitpick - the Sword Coast is the classic medieval Europe skin. The actual full Realms is filled with fantasy-egypt, fantasy-asia, fantasy-africa, etc settings as well. Al-Qadim is an arabian setting based on 1001 Arabian Nights within the Forgotten Realms.
That's something that many people often forget / don't know about the Realms. So many focused on the pseudo-europe fantasyland....
The Realms are the current default setting and the title of the post is "How many have ever just abandoned the default setting entirely?" in a 5e focused forum, so I was operating off that assumption. Waterdeep is a part of the Realms, so at least in this edition it is part of the default setting.
While I'll give you Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, I don't see how Dark Sun, Eberron, or Spelljammer are interchangeable. They are very different settings both from each other and certainly from Greyhawk and the Realms. You have an world-in-decay setting where magic is shunned and psionics are plentiful, magic-as-tech with sentient robots, and spaceships that travel between different worlds. Those worlds in particular are objectively not interchangeable with medieval Europe or Tolkien style fantasy.
So, the answer to the questions in the title is yes, that's why those other worlds and the soon-to-be Ravnica exist.
However, this doesn't answer what I believe is your true question: "Have you ever thought of playing in a world where Elves and Dwarves don't exist?" I landed on this based on other comments in this thread and the quote below:
The only thing Jim mentioned is not having the standard fantasy races in his world (sidenote: I love WebDM, it's a great show). I believe Matt Colville likes to do this as well, I remember him mentioning in one of his videos that he prefers to keep it mostly humans. However, his worlds seem to very much be medieval based.
My current campaign is a homebrew world that is starting to discover magic-as-tech, kind of pre-Eberron place where the concept is just starting to take root. There are gears, mechanical things, borderline guns, transports, even mech-like creations that a group of goblins created. Sure, Elves and Dwarves exist, but so do Old West type towns and factions like those you see in western movies. Is that world a Tolkien-inspired european fantasy? I think not, but I'm curious where this falls in your spectrum of "default setting".
So, to answer that question: I haven't thought about it, but I would have no problem doing it. I like the mixture of races, so I don't think I would ever bail on them, but I certainly am all for switching up the backgrounds for who those races are and how they came to be.
Yes, that is absolutely my position. D&D, in my opinion, is the mechanics. The edition you play defines the mechanics you are using. There are iconic monsters that people think of when you say "D&D", like Beholders, but you also have an alien species like the Mindflayers who are far from Tolkien. This also brings me to a point a didn't make in my previous post - the Monster Manual, Volo's, and Mordenkainen's have some weird monsters in them. You have goblins and orcs, but you also have gyph and other alien oddities.
Lore is there as a way to get you started if you need it, but it's not required to play D&D. As they talk about in WebDM though, if you are going to scrap all the races in the books, you have to explain the lore you're using. Otherwise, the players have no touchpoints for your world and no framework upon which to build their characters. If you're going completely custom, you absolutely have to put in the work to help players understand what the world is like.
That's what campaign books like Eberron and Ravnica are designed to do - they help players understand the world because it is very different from the one described in the PHB/SCAG/etc. it’s a ton of work and I think that’s the reason you don’t see more many radically different worlds. It’s also the reason you don’t see someone rewriting all of the spells and classes. The tools are all there, but it would take such a tremendous amount of time to pull off.
Now, if you invite me to a game and a large majority of the rules and mechanics in the PHB do not apply, to the point of having to learn a whole new set of rules - well then I say we're not playing D&D.
First, regarding my bringing up the Realms - it's the current default setting and the title of the post is "How many have ever just abandoned the default setting entirely?" in a 5e focused forum, so I was operating off that assumption.
Second, that's a fair point about the Sword Coast being the medieval Europe skin and I'm in the "didn't know" crowd regarding the realms. I appreciate you pointing that out. You have all kinds of weird places in the Realms, but my knowledge is limited to the things that have been released of late. I started in 3.5, so I know more about the Greyhawk gods and some of those stories than any of the ones described in the PHB.
Now on to the Tolkien topic - yes, I think there are parts of the default setting that are inspired by Tolkien. My point is that the existence of campaign worlds like Eberron, Planescape, and Starjammer are proof positive that enough people desire a setting different from the default that WotC spends the time and money developing these worlds. The lore of these worlds are very different from the default setting presented in the PHB, that's why campaign guides spend so much time explaining how a certain class might be translated into a new and different world, but the mechanics are the same and they are most definitely "D&D".