Paul Farquhar
Legend
Beowulf is pretty close to S&S.
Personally, I have no need of such a product, and neither do most existing fans of the setting. They'll only get so much out of it. You seem to want to capture a new generation of fans for the setting. This is not in any way a bad idea.....but I think that the question then becomes: "how do you make Greyhawk seem as awesome to people today as it did to the early gamers?"
And that's kind of tough.
@Snarf Zagyg Okay, so I think then that what we're doing is actually ignoring those that are already passionate about Greyhawk, right? Or at least, focusing less on pleasing them and instead trying to find a way to make the setting appeal to a new audience. If that's the approach, then I think it may be possible.
I think the best approach would be to use the boxed set as a starting point for the lore and nations. Focus on some of the elements that you indicated in your OP were what makes GH different than the Realms (the quasi-post-apocalyptic vibe, the blank spots on the map, the focus on neutrality, the toned down level of fantasy, etc.). Make those things very central to the material in every way you can. Give mechanical rules for these elements so that they're a focus of play. Give suggestions about how to make the setting feel like a sword & sorcery story. Give some suggestions about how all the options in the PHB could potentially fit into this setting and maintain that feel.
This seems like a much more achievable goal to me than going with an approach that tries to please the existing fans while also appealing to new ones.
The thing is, I wouldn't be interested in buying a book that basically says "all the things you like about D&D? Sorry, you cannot enjoy them in Greyhawk". Because that's what that approach suggest. And I don't enjoy the 80s-90s D&D tropes. I barely tolerate them in my table.
I maybe a minory, but that hypothetical book is one I will not buy.
Forgotten Realms and Eberron are both kitchen sink settings, and yet there are ample reasons to play both in 5e. Greyhawk was already fairly kitchen sink, albeit in the context of 1e: it had crashed spaceships for crying out loud! So saying that Greyhawk shouldn't be a "kitchen sink" setting when we already have Forgotten Realms seems to suggest that there is not much that makes Greyhawk unique apart from being slightly less kitchen sink than Forgotten Realms. I would hope that there would be more reasons to play Greyhawk than simply "it's like FR but with less and rarer playable options!"Totally agree. The main area where I disagree with people is when they insist or argue that Greyhawk should be a "kitchen sink" setting; we don't need an alternate Forgotten Realms. There should be a reason to play to it.
I don't have the Theros setting, but I understand if they said "no D&D here" because Theros is not a D&D setting to begin with. Is a Magic setting ported to D&D. And a setting I'm not interested about, either.
I don't want a "Forgotten Realms 2: Electric Bongaloo" either. What I want is to play what I enjoy. I don't enjoy replaying Lord of the Rings in every D&D game unlike many of you here. And find the idea of anthropocentrism in fantasy highly nonsensical. I'm more of a Warcraft-kind of fantasy guy.
So, yeah, I approach Greyhawk not only as a newbie (I started in 4e, so my starting settings where the maligned 4e Realms and the Nentir Vale), but also as an skeptical. What does Greyhawk has to offer me?
My only experience with Greyhawk so far doesn't help, either. Saltmarsh left a very bad taste in my mouth (a book that encourages the DM to bully you if you play a dragonborn or a tiefling don't qualify as fun in my experience).