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

[Desdichado]

First note, Gen Zers are starting to age out of the target audience for D&D, Gen Alpha is the upcoming target.

Says who? Seriously; the idea that college students have "aged out" of being targeted is absurd. Since when is D&D a kids' game and nobody wants to target anyone out of middle school?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

I don't assume that, and I hope they do. I was responded to a post that seemed to indicate such actions are unwarranted and perhaps even unwanted. I want them because fictional integrity and consistency in an imaginary world, particularly one that has existed for a while, is very important to me personally.

 

[Hex08]

I think this is a craptastic take

Well, everyone's got an opinion...

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Fair. With Greyhawk it is indeed easy to add something new. I just feel that the settings origin as the personal original setting of one of the game's creators made during a very early period of the game's history should be respected and considered when deciding what and how to add new things, and I feel there are folks here who see no good reason to give that consideration.

 

[TiQuinn]

Fair. With Greyhawk it is indeed easy to add something new. I just feel that the settings origin as the personal original setting of one of the game's creators made during a very early period of the game's history should be respected and considered when deciding what and how to add new things, and I feel there are folks here who see no good reason to give that consideration.

But what does that origin mean when measured against all the changes over the years? Does every new player species need to be specifically stated? Just as you’re concerned that people won’t give it consideration, I see people who want Greyhawk to constantly be preserved as if it’s in amber because of edition war reasons, changes to canon reasons or anti-anyone but Gary reasons. It happened with Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. It’ll happen here as well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But what does that origin mean when measured against all the changes over the years? Does every new player species need to be specifically stated? Just as you’re concerned that people won’t give it consideration, I see people who want Greyhawk to constantly be preserved as if it’s in amber because of edition war reasons, changes to canon reasons or anti-anyone but Gary reasons. It happened with Van Richten’s Guide to Ravenloft. It’ll happen here as well.

I have a well-known hatred of VRG, and the biggest reason for it is that they retroactively changed the nature of the world. Lore was altered, in some cases radically, with no attempt at explanation. They changed how the setting works and ignored the fact that they changed it. It is the opposite of respecting the material you are "adapting". They didn't expand it, or re-explain it's history. They flat-out ignored it and made a new setting with similar names and a horror theme. It might as well have been Innistrad (which I would have preferred), and I have not trusted WotC with their own settings since its release. The fact that some people like the new version is irrelevant to my concern, because it's not about popularity. The only one I think they actually did do a good job with since then was Planescape, and I'm still blown away by that.

Don't do that to Greyhawk, or any other setting they touch. You don't have to blow up a setting to add new stuff to it.

 

[Parmandur]

Says who? Seriously; the idea that college students have "aged out" of being targeted is absurd. Since when is D&D a kids' game and nobody wants to target anyone out of middle school?

D&D has been aimed at 12-24 year olds since forever. Yes, it is a kids game, but that's OK.

 

[TiQuinn]

I have a well-known hatred of VRG, and the biggest reason for it is that they retroactively changed the nature of the world. Lore was altered, in some cases radically, with no attempt at explanation. They changed how the setting works and ignored the fact that they changed it. It is the opposite of respecting the material you are "adapting". They didn't expand it, or re-explain it's history. They flat-out ignored it and made a new setting with similar names and a horror theme. It might as well have been Innistrad (which I would have preferred), and I have not trusted WotC with their own settings since its release. The fact that some people like the new version is irrelevant to my concern, because it's not about popularity. The only one I think they actually did do a good job with since then was Planescape, and I'm still blown away by that.

Don't do that to Greyhawk, or any other setting they touch. You don't have to blow up a setting to add new stuff to it.

It is almost literally a dead setting that has had nothing new published for it except tangential material, unless you count stuff like Ghosts of Saltmarsh. Further, WotC publishing new setting material has an actual benefit for fans of the setting because it typically results in DMsGuild third party products to start using it, if the licensing agreement holds true. Third, it has no impact on anyone’s home campaign which I’m sure if they’re using Greyhawk or Ravenloft’s older stuff have created their own canon by now.

It’s a ridiculous standard to expect the company to be held to and one that actively hurts fans of the setting, even if they don’t want to use the material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is almost literally a dead setting that has had nothing new published for it except tangential material, unless you count stuff like Ghosts of Saltmarsh. Further, WotC publishing new setting material has an actual benefit for fans of the setting because it typically results in DMsGuild third party products to start using it, if the licensing agreement holds true. Third, it has no impact on anyone’s home campaign which I’m sure if they’re using Greyhawk or Ravenloft’s older stuff have created their own canon by now.

It’s a ridiculous standard to expect the company to be held to and one that actively hurts fans of the setting, even if they don’t want to use the material.

Not blowing up the setting in a fundamental way that ignores its history to that point is a ridiculous standard to expect the owner of that setting to uphold? Don't you think WotC could have at least acknowledged what they were doing with Ravenloft? The makers of the Battlestar Galactica remake in the early aughts didn't pretend that was the first version of BSG. Paramount made an honest, transparent attempt to reboot Star Trek with the 2009 movie, but they didn't fail to acknowledge it was a reboot, and even made an attempt to fit the events in the existing fiction. WotC didn't bother putting in the effort when they rebooted Ravenloft.

 

[TiQuinn]

Not blowing up the setting in a fundamental way that ignores its history to that point is a ridiculous standard to expect the owner of that setting to uphold? Don't you think WotC could have at least acknowledged what they were doing with Ravenloft? The makers of the Battlestar Galactica remake in the early aughts didn't pretend that was the first version of BSG. Paramount made an honest, transparent attempt to reboot Star Trek with the 2009 movie, but they didn't fail to acknowledge it was a reboot, and even made an attempt to fit the events in the existing fiction. WotC didn't bother putting in the effort when they rebooted Ravenloft.

They didn’t blow up the setting, they gave it new life (and allowed others to start contributing their work to it on DMSGuild as a result). And the foremost fundamental thing to supporting a setting is actually creating new products for that setting. History of settings are mutable - they are fictional worlds where numerous parties have slayed Strahd over and over and over. So much for canon.