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

[SteveC]

And, frankly, the real problem with "historial" settings is that by and large, they aren't. They are based on outmoded, ignorant, just plain wrong pulp fantasy interpretations of history. And even when they aren't, they are based on history written by people with biases and agendas stretching back centuries.

I think this is very important to remember. The "historical" Greyhawk is very much a pulp history-inspired game. That's baked into the cake. And I expect that it would be largely (or entirely) excised in a 2024 edition. And yes, the history of the 70s is also based on what we knew at the time. I would say that for as much as we've learned about history since that time, we've just decided to look at it through a different lens just as often and use our current views as opposed to the 1970s.

 

[MGibster]

It's just one of those things gleaned from a lot of other points ... Gygax wrote historical fantasy in his games and books, because he came from historical wargaming. So, a lot of people see the nuances in his work which influenced his other writing and whatnot, so they put it together piecemeal, to get the impression of Greyhawk being historical fantasy.

I guess where I'm coming from is that being influenced by real life doesn't a historical setting make. If I have a fantasy setting with knights, kings, and castles it's a little hard for me to argue I wasn't influenced by history. But it wouldn't make my seting historical.

 

[CleverNickName]

Tashas psionic feats pretty much cover the 0e and 1e versions of psionics. Still waiting on a Psion!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this is very important to remember. The "historical" Greyhawk is very much a pulp history-inspired game. That's baked into the cake. And I expect that it would be largely (or entirely) excised in a 2024 edition. And yes, the history of the 70s is also based on what we knew at the time. I would say that for as much as we've learned about history since that time, we've just decided to look at it through a different lens just as often and use our current views as opposed to the 1970s.

By that definition, whatever they publish in the DMG will not be Greyhawk in any sense beyond the legal. Everyone should accept this and focus on the Guild for actual setting material.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, when you look at the Greyhawk Folio, it's concise enough that you can strip it down a bit more and still be able to present a usable campaign setting in a single chapter. That would be impossible with the level of detail that the Forgotten Realms runs on.

Yup, exactly, and those are strengths of each Setting.

 

[Shardstone]

Out of curiosity, if you have no history with the setting, how would you know what "something new" is?

Because I've read the books??? I didn't grow up with it is what I meant, not that I know nothing about it. I've read the adventures, I've read let's plays, and I've talked to plenty of Greyhawk GMs on other parts of the internet.

 

[Reynard]

So what? I don't ask that to be rude or flippant, but so what? It's not a historical setting, so what does it matter if its not accurate?

I wasn't talking about accuracy, I was talking about grotesque stereotypes and biases.

 

[Blue]

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.

Ah, perhaps that differences in groups. My groups tend older, and also contain a lot of DMs. Most of the people I play with are in their 40s and 50s and are well acquainted with the various settings over the years. Though "well acquainted" may be understating the case for settings like Faerun where some of them have been playing and running in it since the 80s and have read over a score of novels. Eberron and Dark Sun also has people I play with who've gotten into the novel series as well as run the settings. Other setting also have their fans.

 

[Reynard]

Greyhawk's thing is that it's the core rules setting. It's the baseline that other settings may deviate from. That's what it's always been.

You misspelled Eberron.

 

[Mortellan]

For those who own and/or have read it, what is the extent of Greyhawk information in Ghosts of Saltmarsh?

This question got buried. Ghosts of Saltmarsh actually presented the Kingdom of Keoland and its present day context pretty good. The area map and text includes the Dreadwood which is a huge feature of the country, while incorporating smaller details from the other anthology mods that werent necessarily OG Greyhawk or rooted in Keoland-Saltmarsh area specifically. Its not alot but sufficient to get you started in that corner of the map.