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

[AstroCat]

It’s been a couple of days, and while this post has seen pushback, no one pointed this out so I feel obligated too. I’m sorry I’m advance for how it might affect the thread.

“There is a media-wide conspiracy to alienate true fans (meaning straight, white, cishet men) and pander to invaders that don’t care about our hobby” is a far-right talking point that originated during Gamergate. It’s a recruiting method used to fool (mostly) young cishet white boys into thinking that the problems with modern media can be easily blamed on a minority scapegoat. It is the “White Replacement Theory” of gamers. Neonazis love this type of conspiracy theory and alter it when necessary to fit the different hobbies they are infiltrating and recruiting from (gamers, 40k fans, Star Wars fans, TTRPGs, etc).

Since you’re the same guy that was complaining about Daggerheart’s art being of a woman of color, I doubt that you’re unintentionally engaging in this rhetoric. If you somehow are, you have fallen for far-right propaganda and are spouting their culture war talking points. Anyone interested in learning more should watch the Alt-Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios on YouTube. His video series on Gamergate and “How to Radicalize a Normie” go in-depth on the origin of this tactic and how it works.

You are so far out of line, it's beyond insulting in that mildly annoying but not really a big deal kind of way, but I will respond anyway. I stand by my post, no issues there and I never complained about "women of color", that's all you.

I'm pretty sure you want me to be some kind of stereotyped cliched boogey man, but again that's all you, watching a lot of youtube videos, are ya? Sorry I don't fit into your pre-conceived little internet personality boxes. As well, you don't know me, my family or my life so maybe take a small step back from the keyboard before you wipe out trying to gain some kind of internet bonus points.

Seriously, not everything is a cliché "right wing talking point" if it challenges something you value. If you actually knew, you would know I am so far from that zone it's absurd, but I still can have a variety of creative opinions and view points, from more than one political angle if you must reduce everything to that perspective, it's so "internet in" to do so anyway. It's a good conversation if opinions of art are political, nice topic, for real.

But I do feel people should be free to enjoy, like or not like art without being accused of "all the bads that are in today", it's just tiresome at best. And for sure stifles interesting and engaging conversation, where you know, people can learn new perspectives and expand viewpoints.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, I'm speaking as someone who knows next to nothing about Greyhawk - but from what I've read here, it sounds like it's always been a broad strokes setting.
So if it hat magic wielders, why would Warlocks and Sorcerers be a problem beyond "they were always there, we just haven't seen them yet"?
The same goes for Goliaths or Good Orcs or Aasimar.

Back then, we played practically exclusively in The Dark Eye's world Aventuria for about two decades ... it started very broad strokes. It had humans and elves and dwarves. Orcs and goblins were monsters. At some point, there was an adventure with lizard people, who where monsters. At some point, there was an adventure with humanoid undersea-creatures, who were monsters. Dwarves were anti-magical. "Demon" was the name of one monster in one adventure which looked like a Nazgul with a whip.

These days, Aventuria has at least four types of dwarves, one of them are is more or less a stand-in for halflings; orcs, goblins, lizard folk and undersea people are playable. Dwarves can wield magic, they even have their own type of druidic magic career (but they can be most other kinds of magic-wielders as well). Demons are a whole class of creatures with a complex mythology/theology behind them, and the "Nazgul" are among the most minor types. Rules have changed radically, and the lore has changed along; often changes were justified with wrong in-world assumptions, so that the "objective" information of a previous edition became the misconception of the next one. Dwarves never were anti-magical, most people just didn't know about the dwarf-druids; orcs weren't naturally evil, it's just that they used to raid the humans of the sorrounding areas and therefore were painted in that light; a lot of people knew nothing about demons, so the one type they may have encountered stood for the whole class. I could go on and on ...

Still, Aventuria is considered one of the most consistent fantasy worlds ever in existence, with an ongoing history since 1986; there was never a "reset", it has evolved continuously and mostly organically. Room was made for new elements, or for new interpretations of old elements.

I don't see why something similar shouldn't work for Greyhawk.

If even WOTC does broad strokes, Greyhawk has a history.

So the onus is one WOTC to either explain "Where the heck did Dragonborn come from?" or teach DMs how answer that question.

Is Greyhawk getting Spellplagued?

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they don't.

Legit question: do you think Forgotten Realms should not allow dwarven wizards? It was first published in 1e and for the first part of its existence did not allow them, not until 2000 (same as Greyhawk). Does dwarven wizards ruin Faerun? Should WotC to this day ban that combination in Faerun in order to preserve this continuity?

And if no, then why is Greyhawk different?

No, and I never said any given change to Greyhawk shouldn't be made. I just question the practice of blanket updates of all current aspects of WotC 5e to a setting that has no built-in place for them, without consideration for fictional integrity. Think about how to make it work and, if a reasonable way can be found, by all means do it. Just don't take "new is always better, and those who disagree are out-of-touch old fogies who should be ignored" as an axiom.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay but they’ve done it multiple times already. The Spellplague, The Time of Troubles. All walked back almost wholesale in later editions keeping only the pieces they ultimately wanted to keep.

Neither of those changed history. They might not have been good ideas, but they were additive and worked in the narrative.

 

[Swanosaurus]

If even WOTC does broad strokes, Greyhawk has a history.

So the onus is one WOTC to either explain "Where the heck did Dragonborn come from?" or teach DMs how answer that question.

If I understand correctly, the world of Oerth hasn't been fully described - so maybe the Dragonborn come from, I don't know, from the country of X on the continent of Y?
I'm not saying that they will do it right or respectfully; I can't know that. But I don't really get why introducing new elements to a world that has only been described in broad strokes would be considered problematic.

 

[TiQuinn]

Neither of those changed history. They might not have been good ideas, but they were additive and worked in the narrative.

Debatable, but okay.

As for Greyhawk, the entire setting is a single continent whose landmass just drifts off to the left side of the original Darlene map. It doesn’t take a designer much to have virtually any new PC species to migrate from elsewhere.

 

[Remathilis]

Neither of those changed history. They might not have been good ideas, but they were additive and worked in the narrative.

How many pages of the gazetteer in the DMG do you want them to devote to explaining why dwarves can now cast spells or where aasimar came from?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I understand correctly, the world of Oerth hasn't been fully described - so maybe the Dragonborn come from, I don't know, from the country of X on the continent of Y?
I'm not saying that they will do it right or respectfully; I can't know that. But I don't really get why introducing new elements to a world that has only been described in broad strokes would be considered problematic.

I agree. I would love for them to provide that explanation of where Greyhawk dragonborn come from and why no one in the to this point known areas has seen them before. Something like your example, one or two lines, would be fine. But I really don't think they will. Because they don't care.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How many pages of the gazetteer in the DMG do you want them to devote to explaining why dwarves can now cast spells or where aasimar came from?

I don't care if dwarves can cast spells, though it seems clear that most known dwarven cultures either hide or don't practice spellcasting much on Oerth. There are easy and brief explanations for stuff like that.

As to aasimar, the Sword Coast book provided brief tidbits about different species in Fareun, and many other D&D products up to and including 5e have done the same for different species in different official settings. Why not do the same for Greyhawk?

 

[TiQuinn]

Why not do the same for Greyhawk?

Why do you assume they wouldn’t? Why would it bother you if they didn’t?