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

[Nikosandros]

Are Zoomers aging out of the D&D market?? I was thinking the opposite. I always assumed D&D's core demographic was high-school/college aged people moving up through young professionals, which would be Gen Z. The former is the group that has the time and the passion to play the game, with the latter being the older version of the same group, but now with the spending power to buy all the content they wish they still had time to play.

How old are the older Gen Alpha kids? 10? 12? I can see this generation getting into D&D, but probably mostly through the influence of older, Zoomer siblings, or Millennial parents.

I have no specific insight on what WotC is doing, but I remember that I started playing when I was 12 and all the people I gamed with were about the same age. No one older introduced us and we certainly didn't feel that we were too young!

 

[DarkCrisis]

Speaking as an older gamer, all the nostalgia from Greyhawk to the cartoon is just a big plus in my book. Also helps offset stuff like the dragon designs etc

 

[Reynard]

I think maybe when they said "0e and 1e", they were saying that Tasha's Cauldron of Everything pretty much replicated (in some way, or similarly) or covered the way psionics were in Eldritch Wizardy and AD&D.

I am pretty sure that tasha's psionics looks nothing like AD&D psionics. I was asking if AD&D psionics looked like Eldritch Wizardry psionics or if it had evolved since its first introduction.

But @Yaarel has planted a psionic flag and doesn't seem particularly interested in actually discussing it.

 

[billd91]

I just doublechecked.

Psionics is CORE in 1e (PH and everywhere else).
Psionics is CORE in 2e (MM).
Psionics is CORE in 3e (MM, and mention in PH spells).
Psionics is CORE in 4e (mention as a power source in PH1, and everything is core in 4e)
Psionics is CORE in 5e (MM, and mention as Psychic damage of Mindflayer Psionic Blast in PH).

Psionics is CORE D&D.

Psionics may have appeared in some core books, but they were explicitly optional in contrast to most other elements present in 1e. So while they may have been in the 1e core rules, they were never core to the experience of D&D and always supplementary, which is pretty much why they never again really appear in the core PH or even most DMGs I can remember (aside from some late 4e stuff).

So, I think the statement "Psionics is CORE D&D" isn't a really apt description. More like "Psionics is a common optional subsystem in D&D".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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 it’s not accurate?

Aside from looking dated and rather silly now?

Some people think it is intended to be historical, and object to anything that doesn’t gel with their idea of history. Much better to make it clearly fantasy.

 

[RedSquirrel]

Whatever. Your comment defines "authentic" D&D as psionic. After every time we tried it, we hated it, and we ignored it. Any psionics 2E and older was a hot mess of a burden. It wasn't fundamental, authentic, or vital in any way. It was very easily dropped without breaking anything and therefore the best way to describe it was optional.

That's like saying dwarves not being able to use arcane magic is "authentic D&D" because that is the way things were back in the day.

Simply disliking something doesn't mean it's not authentic.
Simply not using a thing in your own game doesn't mean it's not authentic.
Neither of those mean it's not core.
It seems they're defining "authentic" as being core, because they're listing "optional" books like the Complete Psionics Handbook (2e) or Psionics Handbook, Expanded Psionics Handbook, or the Complete Psionic (3e).

Additionally, "authentic" is an opinion, at best.

 

[MGibster]

Some people think it is intended to be historical, and object to anything that doesn’t gel with their idea of history. Much better to make it clearly fantasy.

I think the dragons and elves are pretty loud and clear indications that we're in a fantasy and not a historical setting.

 

[Reynard]

Aside from looking dated and rather silly now?

Some people think it is intended to be historical, and object to anything that doesn’t gel with their idea of history. Much better to make it clearly fantasy.

The point is, most versions of "fantasy Aztecs, but they are orcs!" is garbage and settings that rely on that stuff are outmoded and should be altered or, better, scrapped.

 

[Yaarel]

I am pretty sure that tasha's psionics looks nothing like AD&D psionics. I was asking if AD&D psionics looked like Eldritch Wizardry psionics or if it had evolved since its first introduction.

But @Yaarel has planted a psionic flag and doesn't seem particularly interested in actually discussing it.

The early psionics were more like feats (talents) that players could get, in addition to other character features. Tashas does this in a balanced way via the feat design space.

Early psionics also came with a mini game between psionic characters. Heh, I hate this mini game. But I like how 5e translates its psionic combat modes into D&D 5e spells.

 

[Yaarel]

Psionics may have appeared in some core books, but they were explicitly optional in contrast to most other elements present in 1e. So while they may have been in the 1e core rules, they were never core to the experience of D&D and always supplementary, which is pretty much why they never again really appear in the core PH or even most DMGs I can remember (aside from some late 4e stuff).

So, I think the statement "Psionics is CORE D&D" isn't a really apt description. More like "Psionics is a common optional subsystem in D&D".

In the Monster Manuals of every edition of D&D, psionics is CORE.

In three editions of the Players Handbook it is mentioned as existing.

Psionics is D&D CORE.