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

[Charlaquin]

Right now, Rowling is annoying big time. But.

She’s not just annoying, she’s actively spending the absurd wealth and influence the series brought her to support an ongoing hate campaign against an extremely vulnerable group of people. Also I’d forgive anyone for not staying up to date on her Twitter activities, but she has advanced to the point of literal holocaust denial now.

 

[Blue]

Why Greyhawk? Because of nostalgia. And tradition.

Personally, my favourite settings are others, but I slightly prefer Greyhawk to the Forgotten Realms.

Which of your favorite settings would be best served via not having a full setting book, but rather be used as an example of campaign building in a single chapter of the DMG? So it's less than a chapter of info because it's just the example, not a chapter devoted to it.

Sorry, "favorite" does not seem to be the correct criteria for picking which setting should be used as an example. And that's even before the strong ties to the early history of D&D for the 50th Anniversary tie-in.

 

[Parmandur]

Which of your favorite settings would be best served via not having a full setting book, but rather be used as an example of campaign building in a single chapter of the DMG? So it's less than a chapter of info because it's just the example, not a chapter devoted to it.

Sorry, "favorite" does not seem to be the correct criteria for picking which setting should be used as an example. And that's even before the strong ties to the early history of D&D for the 50th Anniversary tie-in.

Greyhawk is one of my favorite Settings, from 3E nostalgia and later research into the OG version, and I think being rhe centerpiece of a fat DMG chapter like we are lookong to get here is serving it very well. I don't think it will get less detail than it would get in a Spelljammer style box set (which sold very well, as did Planescape, so is about what I expect from future game Setting products).

Also, being in the DMG means way more people will be exposed to it and try it than would seek out pririce product that's selling point is "This is very standard D&D!"

And also by virtue of being a fat sample in the DMG, it seems plausible that there will be more campaigns set in the Flannaes that detail various regions.

 

[Blue]

Why Greyhawk? Why any setting? It's a game of imagination.
In my experience most players barely know what's on their character sheet let alone the 400 year history of that place/thing over there. The fact that there is no x in y setting is laughable. It's your setting do with it what you will.

Using an well known setting is shorthand between the DM and the players at their table. If I want to run Dark Sun, that conjures up to anyone who knows the setting visions of the Sorcerer-Kings, of oppression, slavery, and secret rebels, of deserts, of psionics.

Taking a well known setting and tossing out parts and changing parts not only loses all that, but actively can confuse players expecting staples of the setting. "Waterdeep? Nah, I don't have any big cities in my Forgotten Realms - it's my setting to do with it what I will".

By all means make up a homebrew - that's what I do for every campaign I run. But mucking heavily with a well known setting is just asking for the DM and the players to be out of alignment about it. And that's a lot more work for the DM, or just problems ongoing in the campaign.

So sure, you can change it however you want. Doesn't mean that doing so will improve the experience around the table.

 

[Parmandur]

Using an well known setting is shorthand between the DM and the players at their table. If I want to run Dark Sun, that conjures up to anyone who knows the setting visions of the Sorcerer-Kings, of oppression, slavery, and secret rebels, of deserts, of psionics.

Taking a well known setting and tossing out parts and changing parts not only loses all that, but actively can confuse players expecting staples of the setting. "Waterdeep? Nah, I don't have any big cities in my Forgotten Realms - it's my setting to do with it what I will".

By all means make up a homebrew - that's what I do for every campaign I run. But mucking heavily with a well known setting is just asking for the DM and the players to be out of alignment about it. And that's a lot more work for the DM, or just problems ongoing in the campaign.

So sure, you can change it however you want. Doesn't mean that doing so will improve the experience around the table.

In my experience, moat players know nothing about any of this, though they may know the words "Forgotten Realms." Settigns are about helping DMs with their prep work: the less familiar the players are with how a Setting "should" be, the better IMO.

 

[Shardstone]

Heh, actually Greyhawk is more developed than any other setting. Its just, most of it is now normal D&D. So the stuff thats left that normal D&D fails to mention isnt much.

The stuff of Greyhawk that I enjoy is:

• Grey Wizard culture of Elves
• Grugach Strength athletics culture of Elves

Not as "subraces", but as 5e cultural backgrounds that any species can participate in. 4e Eladrin are Grey wizardly civilization. But the 5e Eladrin are something else, more seasonal wilderness naturalists. I want majestic Elven cities of magic across the Feywild. Fey urbanites whose spaces are woven out of magic and accomplish tasks magically.

• Valley of the Mage
• Aliens and robots and lasers
• Psionic angels

Psionic angels????

 

[Yaarel]

Psionic angels????

The angels and devils are all psionic creatures.

Psionics is the mind − the soul. Angels are "intellects".

 

[Gradine]

What I personally think should be the case: Hey we've ignored a very large portion of our customer base, those that have supported the game through thick and thin for decades. Maybe we should provide a tiny amount of content they might enjoy to see if we can win back or retain what remains of this customer base. Plus, it might even be enjoyed by our newer customers, and again it's just a tiny portion of all the new content.

The more realistic but cynical take, and most likely the real case: Hey, what is left of the original d&d world we can update in a way that will finally get rid of and alienate almost all of the remaining customer base that comes before 2014/2018 or so. I know, what about that super problematic setting? Dark Sun? No, the other one... ah Greyhawk. Yeah let's front cover warrior the crap out of it! That will be awesome! Yeah... mach 10 full ahead!

So, yeah I'm going with take two. A deliberate destruction of everything people enjoyed, related to and connected with in Greyhawk will be purposely and spitefully destroyed, oh I'm sorry "updated". You know, just to show "them/others" from "before" they are truly not welcome any more, at least in any "official" capacity. Love to be wrong, but I don't see why I would be.

Oh wow, you figured it out. WotC are deliberately pissing off old school gamers, such as yourself, who they actively hate and want to drive out of the hobby. Who needs customers. Nailed it one, you did.

 

[AstroCat]

Oh wow, you figured it out. WotC are deliberately pissing off old school gamers, such as yourself, who they actively hate and want to drive out of the hobby. Who needs customers. Nailed it one, you did.

Actually they do and are... literally a version of just that. It didn't start like that but it has evolved actively into this as a mission statement. If you compare the 2014 5e vs 2024 5e strategic alignment, you will see just that. It's been a paradigm shift that has accelerated over the last 3-4 years.

 

[Reynard]

Actually they do and are... literally a version of just that. It didn't start like that but it has evolved actively into this as a mission statement. If you compare the 2014 5e vs 2024 5e strategic alignment, you will see just that. It's been a paradigm shift that has accelerated over the last 3-4 years.

If it is a mission statement, surely you have a communication you can point to in order to confirm it?