D&D 5E Mike Mearls on Settings

GH is FR minus the sentimentality, romanticism and pretentiousness.

Rod Staffwand said:

GH is FR minus the sentimentality, romanticism and pretentiousness.

Click to expand...

That's just it though, isn't it? The easiest way to describe Greyhawk is "Take FR and remove <list of things that annoy me about FR>".

It's Forgotten Realms, but all the expies are of Conan instead of Aragorn.

Sure, the tone is different, but tone is not inseparable from setting. You can run gritty, morally gray S&S in FR just as you can just epic high fantasy in GH. You can do swashbuckling action and ancient (and recent) conspiracy pile-ups in both too. The other main difference seems to be GH's general lack of lore and world knowledge that keeps it mysterious (and seems rather at odds with demands for more setting material...)

In a setting with a metaplot that actually advances (see: FR), an updated campaign guide for a new edition makes a certain kind of sense. The setting has been shaken up; how has that changed things since the last time I bought that guide?

In a setting without that, a new campaign guide is needed mostly only to conform setting-specific rules to the new edition. And I have to question what that means for Greyhawk. We don't need a campaign guide with tips and guidelines on how to run Sword & Sorcery vs. High Fantasy (the DMG already does that, though how successful it was is in the eye of the beholder). We don't really need a new gazetteer that's filled with old information that hasn't changed. All such a thing would be useful for is rules.

But what rules? The only concrete list of "rules updates" for Greyhawk I've seen so far could have essentially boiled down to "...and instead of playing 5e, play OD&D". We don't really need an OSR version of 5e. And here's the ultimate rub: even if we did need (and actually got) such a thing, it would in no way actually be setting specific. Greyhawk does not have ownership over old-school holdovers like stronghold building rules and racial & alignment class limitations.

Meanwhile, WotC has a whole pile of settings that could actually use rule updates (and in one case, better rule updates). Races, classes, equipment, spells, and other rules changes (dragonmarks, defiling/preserving, portals, magic moons, etc.) Stronghold building rules would be nice, but I fail to see how that would be either essential or unique to GH.

I'm curious what people who want this actually want it to include/have, and how that would be unique to a Greyhawk Campaign Setting book (or UA article).

While I do agree there are ways to differentiate FR from GH, I think those differences are subtle enough--at least to people not already familiar with both--that it's a mistake to jump straight from one to the other.

Give us Eberron, Al Qadim, Dark Sun first. Then do Greyhawk.

Gradine said:

That's just it though, isn't it? The easiest way to describe Greyhawk is "Take FR and remove <list of things that annoy me about FR>".

It's Forgotten Realms, but all the expies are of Conan instead of Aragorn.

Click to expand...

This. Exactly this.

I don't dislike Greyhawk, but reviving it as an official setting would be a monumentally wasted opportunity. It overlaps with Forgotten Realms in nearly every category except "tone." What would be the point?

If the goal is to give people more options and draw in new players, then Planescape, Eberron, or Dark Sun would be the far better choice.

It does seem like the best way for WotC to capitalize on the success of 5e is to expand the options of play (in an orderly manner). "Sick of the Forgotten Realms?" Try Xxx, with new DM rules and player options. Publish along with an adventure book and boom DMs by two books and players buy the book for the new options.

Once every other year produce a new setting and after the first year open the setting up for DMs Guild expansion.

And then at some point do a 6th edition . But I think everyone is a bit burned out on edition churn

Prakriti said:

I don't dislike Greyhawk, but reviving it as an official setting would be a monumentally wasted opportunity. It overlaps with Forgotten Realms in nearly every category except "tone." What would be the point?

Click to expand...

I would assume the goal is to have one book/boxed set that someone can pick up and run a campaign. With no prior experience or knowledge of the campaign world. It's something we don't have for the current edition.

Creating a comprehensive campaign guide for The Forgotten Realms IMHO would be an incredible amount of work. Yes all it "needs" is updates to the current timeline, but how is that going to help people who aren't FR grognards?

It's a lot easier to take something like Greyhawk and set up a new campaign world. Slap a new coat of paint on it, update an old map, list regions and major factions. Throw in a sub class or two. History for most regions could be covered in a paragraph or two.

In addition, Greyhawk default is a lot "cleaner". No Tieflings, Dragonborn, Drow, and so on. Not to mention it doesn't have a bazillion factions everywhere.

If you want to add Drow into your Greyhawk it's easier than trying to taking Drizz't out of FR.

I'd love an updated Eberron campaign, but it's not generic D&D, it's showing how you can stretch the core rules into a different direction.

Prakriti said:

This. Exactly this.

I don't dislike Greyhawk, but reviving it as an official setting would be a monumentally wasted opportunity. It overlaps with Forgotten Realms in nearly every category except "tone." What would be the point?

If the goal is to give people more options and draw in new players, then Planescape, Eberron, or Dark Sun would be the far better choice.

Click to expand...

Indeed, this is because FR was largely designed as a replacement for GH (or at least adopted from Greenwood's original for this purpose and then expanded continuously over 25 years). Both can be considered relatively straight-forward fantasy settings with strong roots in the Medieval Europe aesthetic. Of course the differences are going to be primarily of tone. Any adventure designed for one setting can likely be ported to the other with minimal effort.

I personally don't care what WotC does with setting support since I'm not likely to buy or run anything they put out. I agree they would probably better serve their customer base if they focused other settings first (I don't have poll numbers handy). However, I doubt anyone would be surprised by the contents of a Dark Sun or Eberron book. Warforged--check. Muls--check. Its the stuff you've probably played before updated to a new system and that's about it.

An updated, evolved Greyhawk setting that earns its distinctiveness would be surprising, though, and interesting. It's a curious design challenge and could provide fun and useful content. I'm not saying WotC can pull it off or even that they should or that I wouldn't be disappointed in the final product (I probably would). I just find the premise more intriguing than the other settings. Greyhawk also plays such a large part in the history of the game I can understand Mearls & Co., D&D fanboys that they are, being keen to take a crack at it.

Mouseferatu said:

While I do agree there are ways to differentiate FR from GH, I think those differences are subtle enough--at least to people not already familiar with both--that it's a mistake to jump straight from one to the other.

Give us Eberron, Al Qadim, Dark Sun first. Then do Greyhawk.

Click to expand...

Based on what Mearls says in the interview, something like this sounds like it might be their current publishing strategy.

I mean, he's a huge Greyhawk fan who comes out and says that he wanted to schedule some kind of release for the setting, but didn't pull the trigger. But given that he also says they've been working steadily on settings and talking a lot about them internally - that sounds like another setting could already be up for release (in whatever shape they've decided that should look like).

My guess is that it would be a setting that Mearls & Co. have decided is sufficiently different from the Realms to be immediately distinguishable from it, and one that polled high in terms of customer interest.

I could throw up a bunch of guesses as to what it could be, but I think that's ultimately like a Rorschach test: it would show the settings that I want to see.

Rod Staffwand said:

GH is FR minus the sentimentality, romanticism and pretentiousness.

Click to expand...

"How do you write Greyhawk characters so well?"
"I think of a Forgotten Realms character, and I take away reason and accountability."

Oofta said:

In addition, Greyhawk default is a lot "cleaner". No Tieflings, Dragonborn, Drow, and so on. Not to mention it doesn't have a bazillion factions everywhere.

If you want to add Drow into your Greyhawk it's easier than trying to taking Drizz't out of FR.

Click to expand...

Actually, Greyhawk is the setting where drow were first introduced, via the GDQ series, which basically is a struggle against giants that reveals the drow (discovered for the first time) as the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes, with the latter half of the series pivoting away from giants to tackle the drow head on.

I do agree though that they are a lot easier to ignore in GH than they are in the Realms, if you are so inclined.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app