D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[Blue]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to use a Setting with players who had read any novels or.other media set there.

This advice is that shouldn't run Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Dark Sun if the players have consumed media set there? That would really kill off settings. We can not assume that is a generally accepted piece of advice, otherwise WotC would have stopped publishing novels set it their worlds, but instead do the opposite and build up the brand with novels, movies, and computer games set in them.

Again, with the brand build up, it is expected that at least some people around the table are familiar with a setting. Which goes back to my original point that a known setting is a shorthand between the DM and players, and making major changes misaligns those understandings and at that point it's better to just homebrew.

BTW, I take this to heart - I homebrew setting (and adventures, etc) for the campaigns I run.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Here's their blurb from Saltmarsh:

That's a good write-up.

 

[Reynard]

. Or if you were intimately affected by a school shooting, you might not have fun with a villain who kills a bunch of children gathered in a place meant to protect them. Just, not really the subject you wanna deal with while hanging out with your buds for a casual Saturday afternoon.

Or have people just bring it up as an offhand example like it's nothing.

 

[Jaeger]

Seems like a pure nostalgia play, as most players can't tell the difference between the various high fantasy medieval settings anyway.

I agree, they could easily just do an all new clean-sheet setting like they did with 4e.

But I can see Wotc's reasoning though:

"Greyhawk" works for them because it has been a while since they have done anything for it; So new players will not have a real clue.

Those that do know will go for the nostalgia berries "because GreyHawk!"

So Wotc will can write neu-Greyhawk into whatever they want it to be, just like every setting reboot they have done for 5e. While playing on people's nostalgia at the same time.

It's almost like people have trouble accepting that their preferences are mostly set in their formative years, those preferences are difficult to change once they're set, ...

Yes people have preferences, but some things are just classics that stand the test of time.

Works like Shakespeare's, and Tolkien's writings; both of which I can walk into any US books store and find copies of, will be around long after D&D 7th edition is making way for D&D 8th edition...

A lot of the dissatisfaction here has to do with the fact that may of the older "official" D&D settings have been repeatedly altered to fit what the game designers have done with new editions.

To a large degree, I think many fans are just tired with the continual retconning.

For this very reason:

Again, with the brand build up, it is expected that at least some people around the table are familiar with a setting. Which goes back to my original point that a known setting is a shorthand between the DM and players, and making major changes misaligns those understandings and at that point it's better to just homebrew.

As for this:

... that those preferences won't continue to be catered to as they get older and less relevant in the marketplace.

It's clearly a crapshoot when you update things for: "Modern Audiences."

The DragonLance setting/Adventure/Wargame reboot didn't really do all that hot. Were there some things in the original setting that could do with a change? Sure. But you can also go too far and fail to stick the landing, which is what happened.

And new products specifically created from the ground up by and for the "modern audience", like 'Journey's Through The Radiant Citadel' have been among the lowest sellers in 5e's product portfolio.

There are very good reasons why Wotc keeps going back to the nostalgia well, rather than creating all new content. Even then it is a balancing act that they clearly have a hard time getting right.

In my opinion; Given Wotc's track record when they try their hand at 'updating' older settings, it should not be controversial that many fans will be skeptical of the dev's ability to execute.

 

[Minigiant]

You'd think WOTC would put a setting with all the core races species, classes,and monsters in the PHB inthe DMG.

But milk nostalgia and IP names.

"I want to be a Goliath Warlock"
"Well Goliaths and Warlocks don't match nor have info any of the primers I read about the setting in the the book"

 

[GarthS]

I don't think they are going to do much with Greyhawk post release. It will be the DM's Guide barebones example of how you can build your own setting on top of Greyhawk.

They WotC can tell the grognards to shut up because "we support Greyhawk now".

 

[Cadence]

Yes people have preferences, but some things are just classics that stand the test of time.

Works like Shakespeare's, and Tolkien's writings; both of which I can walk into any US books store and find copies of, will be around long after D&D 7th edition is making way for D&D 8th edition...

A lot of the dissatisfaction here has to do with the fact that may of the older "official" D&D settings have been repeatedly altered to fit what the game designers have done with new editions.

To a large degree, I think many fans are just tired with the continual retconning.

I wonder if Shakespeare and Tolkien have withstood the test of time in part because they are finite things. Tolkien didn't continually try to turn out new stories - instead he constantly revised the ones he had that make up the Silmarillion whose only true form is sitting in Dream's library (and providing his son with lots of things to publish about the various versions). Shakespeare's plays, for the most part, are separate unconnected things. They weren't trying to stretch one thing out and keep it selling.

On the other hand Marvel and DC Comics, Star Trek, etc... have been going on for decade after decade of new material and now involve massive amounts of it. It feels like that brings the challenge of how to stay new and stay fresh.

As I posted somewhere earlier, the Avengers started turning things over early in their existence with Cap's Kooky Quartet. Thor, Iron Man, and Cap all got alternatives put in a couple decades later (Eric Masterson, Throgg, etc; Rhodey; US Agent). Moving forward again, Bendis Disassembled the Avengers and laughed at the long time fans - and yet those that started within (say) 20 issues of when he came on board think he saved everything.

I also note that Marvel, DC, and Star Trek have always tackled IRL issues of the day from racism to fascism to run-amok capitalism to alcohol abuse to government overreach to nationalism vs. patriotism to drug abuse to religious fanaticism.

Without the change and the tackling hot issues, are all we left with giant cross-overs that blow up the world again and bigger universal threats that could beat the last one - and not much story?

Is D&D kind of like these? How much would it sell if it was Gary putting monthly updates of Greyhawk into Dragon Magazine?

Finally, just like the old comics and old Star Trek episodes, the old campaign material is still out there for folks who want to work with it. It just doesn't make the company who exists to sell it much money.

 

[Reynard]

I agree, they could easily just do an all new clean-sheet setting like they did with 4e.

But I can see Wotc's reasoning though:

"Greyhawk" works for them because it has been a while since they have done anything for it; So new players will not have a real clue.

Those that do know will go for the nostalgia berries "because GreyHawk!"

So Wotc will can write neu-Greyhawk into whatever they want it to be, just like every setting reboot they have done for 5e. While playing on people's nostalgia at the same time.




Yes people have preferences, but some things are just classics that stand the test of time.

Works like Shakespeare's, and Tolkien's writings; both of which I can walk into any US books store and find copies of, will be around long after D&D 7th edition is making way for D&D 8th edition...

A lot of the dissatisfaction here has to do with the fact that may of the older "official" D&D settings have been repeatedly altered to fit what the game designers have done with new editions.

To a large degree, I think many fans are just tired with the continual retconning.

For this very reason:


As for this:


It's clearly a crapshoot when you update things for: "Modern Audiences."

The DragonLance setting/Adventure/Wargame reboot didn't really do all that hot. Were there some things in the original setting that could do with a change? Sure. But you can also go too far and fail to stick the landing, which is what happened.

And new products specifically created from the ground up by and for the "modern audience", like 'Journey's Through The Radiant Citadel' have been among the lowest sellers in 5e's product portfolio.

There are very good reasons why Wotc keeps going back to the nostalgia well, rather than creating all new content. Even then it is a balancing act that they clearly have a hard time getting right.

In my opinion; Given Wotc's track record when they try their hand at 'updating' older settings, it should not be controversial that many fans will be skeptical of the dev's ability to execute.

None of the old things you mention would be around if they were not continuously reinterpreted for the "modern audience." Shakespeare's plays have ever been seen through the lens of whatever the current time is, adapated and molded to fit. Tolkien too, now that we have had a couple generations since their wide popularity. Comic book super heroes, Robin Hood and King Arthur, foundation social figure, and D&D settings: they all get reinterpreted and that allows them to survive the everchanging landscape of what counts as popular culture.

if these things are changing in a way that upsets you or makes you feel left out, that is the system working as intended. If it is going to survive, it can't be solely for you and your cohort anymore.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the sample setting chapter is going to be a bit of a misnomer. They are going to use Greyhawk references throughout the book like they used Realms references before. They will give us a short Gazetteer, but they will also give us sample Oerth deities, sample adventures set in or around The Free City, villains and important characters in the index/encyclopedia of important characters, artifacts and magic items tied to the setting, and other nuggets of lore hidden in. It's going to be on par with 3e's D&D Gazetteer, which was a surface level overview to allow DMs to get started or get inspired.

Honestly, I expect it to be on par with the use of Greyhawk in 3e; some proper nouns and maps to fill in the gaps. It will be generic and remain kitchen sink because that's what Greyhawk does best.

 

[Remathilis]

You'd think WOTC would put a setting with all the core races species, classes,and monsters in the PHB inthe DMG.

But milk nostalgia and IP names.

"I want to be a Goliath Warlock"
"Well Goliaths and Warlocks don't match nor have info any of the primers I read about the setting in the the book"

Last I checked, 3e's default setting was Greyhawk and nothing was off the table. People expecting Greyhawk to adhere only to the Folio already lost that battle 25 years ago.