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

[Desdichado]

Gotcha. You scanned 'em.

Wait ... so, you didn't scan them. Not even the PH?
So, you were making that up.
Also—it was easy and yet, you didn't want to post more because you'd have to "scan" them.
Gotcha.

So you bought copies of Dragon and Dungeon magazines on DriveThruRPG? Interesting,
Before fourth edition? Fascinating, I wasn't aware that DriveThruRPG sells those magazines from 2002.

Good job, Hancock.


For anyone else curious here's a link to a search on DriveThruRPG, for "magazines" made by Wizards of the Coast.

Scan, snip. So I'm imprecise sometimes in my action verbs. Where are you going with this? Are you suggesting that those AREN'T the covers of the of the AD&D PHB or that the blurb that it's an adult RPG wasn't on the cover of the Holmes book? Because unless you are, what's your point?

Also, I said I have the Book of Vile Darkness and the Dungeon/Dragon issues as physical copies, I said I bought the AD&D and BD&D pdfs on DrivethruRPG years ago.

In fact, in general, it'd be nice if you'd take a step back and actually be clear what your point is. If you're arguing whether or not I scanned or snipped the covers of the PHB, then I don't care to bother with such a ridiculous discussion. If you're saying that anyone over 24 has "aged out" of being targeted by WotC, which I'm not clear about because someone else actually made that point, it'd be nice to tell us why you think such an extraordinary thing. If you think D&D is a kids game, and not one targeted at adults, I'm not quite sure that I'm interested in continuing to attempt to prove that to you when I've already done so, because you've ignored what I've posted, but at least I'd understand what your point is.

If you actually want to talk about the topic of the thread, like you say, then it'd be nice if you added something to the idea of why use an old Gen X or older setting in a book that you are convinced is only marketed to teenagers.

And for those who keep referring to "WotC's own data", maybe you can explain to me why Generation Z is mislabeled to look bigger than it is, why Millennials are actually bigger than Generation Z even with the mislabeling and yet apparently WotC are only targeting Gen Z because they're the "biggest cohort" and why anyone over 45 is just not even shown as if they don't exist... all points that make the data extremely suspect. Not that I believe this is true, but there could be more Gen Xers than all of the rest of the individuals shown combined, and we'd never know it, because they just cut the chart off arbitrarily to not show how many there are.

 

[Gradine]

Yes, yes, your elf is pretty, immortal and lives in the woods... could we ALSO put in a death cult, please? It is so much more interesting than generic fantasy elf! (Shout out to Eberron for sick elven death cult lore)

Yes, but which elven death cult from Eberron are you referring to here?

 

[Parmandur]

Seldom have more true words been written.
There's an old saying—

(Or something like that. I'm probably paraphrasing.)
It's true of those who just came to gaming (or anything, at all) and want to be part of it's history.
You're absolutely right. "Borrowed nostalgia" is absolutely a thing. It's not uncommon, for example, for someone to love an older sibling, parent, or aunt/uncle, and to listen to their nostalgia and play [whatever edition] and declare it "best". And, frankly, even though I haven't played some editions since I was a teenager, I think that's absolutely lovely and endearing.

But, also, there's positive and negative sides to every trope. The flip side of the coin, so to speak. Like, borrowed outrage. Or like grognards who are only 22. It's absolutely their right, but, I think it can sometimes fracture a community (and not just in gaming).

Well, for example, my mom watched the original Star Trek as a teenager, so I went back and got into it later.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, but which elven death cult from Eberron are you referring to here?

I prefer the Aerenal.

But yes! Exactly! There are TWO of them! Three if you want to count the villainous half-dragon lich, but I haven't delved too much into her lore directly.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

The choice of Greyhawk is nostalgia bait for older fans and IP implantation for new fans.

Strixhaven, Eberron, or Nentir Vale are strictly better choices for an introductory setting and teaching material for a setting.

Why? What makes them better than Greyhawk for newbies?

 

[Parmandur]

Why? What makes them better than Greyhawk for newbies?

I think their various options are fairly interchangeable in terms of suitability as settings...but, Greyhawk has a big advantage in terms of being able to fit in as a quickie example without making sacrifices.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why? What makes them better than Greyhawk for newbies?

Better is obviously subjective, and I don't think Greyhawk is a bad choice, but I have some theories behind the thought process.

1) Many people seem to keep laboring under this idea that the chapter is somehow going to attempt to explain the entirety of the Greyhawk setting. Obviously, the entirety of the Greyhawk setting with its entire history is rather large and hard to digest. Strixhaven and Nentir Vale are much much smaller settings.

2) Nentir Vale was designed to be easily digestible, and Strixhaven is a very common trope wrapped up in a single location. "Magic School" is something that everyone can easily grasp, and with the highly limited location and NPCs, it is also potentially easy to run.

Again though, I think these both stem from this assumption that the chapter will somehow cover the entirety of Greyhawk and everything in it. Or that Greyhawk will simply be copy pasted from how it was in 3.X

Ebberon might be on the list simply because it is the coolest setting, bar none, but I wouldn't say "is very cool and therefore very exciting to explore" is enough to make it newbie friendly. It has a lot of lore after all.

 

[Minigiant]

Why? What makes them better than Greyhawk for newbies?

Better is obviously subjective, and I don't think Greyhawk is a bad choice, but I have some theories behind the thought process.

1) Many people seem to keep laboring under this idea that the chapter is somehow going to attempt to explain the entirety of the Greyhawk setting. Obviously, the entirety of the Greyhawk setting with its entire history is rather large and hard to digest. Strixhaven and Nentir Vale are much much smaller settings.

That's not why to me.

2) Nentir Vale was designed to be easily digestible, and Strixhaven is a very common trope wrapped up in a single location. "Magic School" is something that everyone can easily grasp, and with the highly limited location and NPCs, it is also potentially easy to run.

Yeah. Nentir Vale was designed to be easy to understand and have a quick to get logic about it. Strixhaven is modern and contained into a single area, premise, and plot progression.

But the biggest reasons to me are

1. They have the ALL 2024 PHB races ingrained in the setting with each their own cultures, societies, and character hooks.
2. They have the ALL 2024 PHB classes and subclasses ingrained in the setting with each their own traditions, practices, and character hooks.
3. They are not linked to "flooding the setting with outside stuff to make it cool"
4. They are themed at Heroic Fantasy which is closer to the base 5e rules than Greyhawk's Sword and Sorcery
5. They are more modern and require little work to bring up to speed or inject modern ideas into it
6. Their playstyles are closer to how the majority of people who would use the DMG;s advice would run the game.
7. They closer match the "SPELLS! SPELLS! SPELLS!" and Magic loot style WOTC pushes in game design.
8. The setting have explained empty spaces for injection of adventure books with the need of for heavy overland travel

 

[Parmandur]

Obviously, the entirety of the Greyhawk setting with its entire history is rather large and hard to digest.

No, quite the contrary: the whole thing is small and compact. The Mentir Vale is less "small" and more "nonexistant".

 

[Scott Christian]

Not really IMO. The divide between DM and Player is largely artificial and it was something that was presented as this huge thing in earlier versions of D&D where players weren't even supposed to know the rules, let alone have any input in setting design.

That just isn't true. Basic, Advanced, and everything after actively engaged players learning the rules. I am not sure where you got that. Maybe one line taken out of context. I mean, they had an entire magazine devoted to players, giving them optional rules, races, inventory items, etc.

It's not 1981 anymore though. There is zero reason for this divide to be that big. If you have a player that comes back with nonsensical answers, do you really think the DM presenting options is going to work?

Yes. Yes, I do think having a DM give options will reduce answers like that. As someone who has run the D&D club for several high schools, the difference between letting players do whatever they want, and then putting a DM that understands the direction in charge is night and day. I can definitely tell you, the tables that have players that want BooBerry as their god never seem to last long. They dissipate, and then slowly, the ones that want to continue, gravitate towards the tables that have DMs who had a vision - even if that vision was a simple Forgotten Realms style adventure path.

Wouldn't it be far better to teach players that they have just as much responsibility for the success of a game as DM's? That they should be engaged in designing the world just as much as the DM? I mean, I'm doing a fairly short side campaign for my regular group right now to give the DM a bit of a break. It's a single adventure, so, it's not like I'm doing much in the way of deep building here. One of the players is fairly new and wanted to know more about Tabaxi. My response was, "You tell me." And he did. Fantastic stuff.

The social contract says they DO have as much of a shared responsibility. Again, goal keepers and strikers. Their shared responsibility is to themselves, the DM, and all the other players. The DMs responsibility is to themselves and the players. It's goal keepers and strikers. Both have the same goal, they accomplish it in different ways.

That's what we need to be teaching players. That level of enthusiasm that gets beaten out of players by DM's constantly shutting down any attempt by players to have any authorial input into campaigns. We need to have less of a divide between players and DMs, not more.

All these beat downs, yet I have never really seen one. I have seen, over and over at the game shop and at the high school, players coming from completely different trajectories as the DM. That's the only consternation I see. And that is often solved by laying the groundwork at session zero, the DM understanding the needs and wants of the players, and having consistency in lore, which in turn creates consistency in mood and tone.