Do you want Greyhawk updated to 5e? - Page 10

View Poll Results: Do you want Greyhawk updated to 5e?

Voters
223. This poll is closed
    The results in this poll are hidden.
  • Yes! Greyhawk should be updated to the current edition.

    The results are hidden 0%
  • No! That sounds like a terrible idea.

    The results are hidden 0%
  • I refuse to answer polls that value my opinion.

    The results are hidden 0%
  • Other (will explain the comments why I can't answer yes or no to a yes or no question)

    The results are hidden 0%
Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 145
  1. #91
    Maybe the solution is the time spheres from AD&D Chronomancer. The time sphere would be like a demiplane, a Uchrony or alternative timeline, a parallel earth. This would allow D&D worlds with changes, and the same worlds like twin brothers but where nothing has changed. But we would need a good explanation about what happened to Athas(Dark Sun) and Barovia (Ravenloft).

  2. #92
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacon Bits View Post
    So, both of your responses to the statement that they don't really do anything with Greyhawk and set everything in FR is that the module they're only just now reprinting was originally only minimally located in Greyhawk and, at best, remains equally minimally Greyhawk? Wow, WotC's really jumping into the deep end with both feet here!




    Exactly how many campaign settings have you read that have detailed notes about the culture, population, demographics, imports/exports, geographic features, rulers, alignment, history, deities, locations, etc. of a sea itself? Not the cities that surround it. The sea itself. In my experience there's usually a blurb that says if it's fresh or salt water, what lives in the sea, and then merely describes it as a path for commerce and transportation. If we were to take our map of Toril and pluck out "Inner Sea" and replace it with "Nyr Dyv", what does that actually change? Now what happens when you pluck out Waterdeep and replace it with Greyhawk, populace and all?
    What does any of that last paragraph have to do with Saltmarsh and U1?

  3. #93
    Member
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)



    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    2,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Bacon Bits View Post
    So, both of your responses to the statement that they don't really do anything with Greyhawk and set everything in FR is that the module they're only just now reprinting was originally only minimally located in Greyhawk and, at best, remains equally minimally Greyhawk?
    I would dispute that Saltmarsh was originally set in Greyhawk. Tonally, the setting resembles 17th century Cornwall, Norfolk or Massachusetts. There was nothing in any Greyhawk material published at the time to suggest that Keoland was anything like that. It's quite clear that the adventure was originally set in the author's homebrew setting, and was moved to the current official AD&D setting upon publication.
    XP Bacon Bits, Jer, Pauln6 gave XP for this post

  4. #94
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios1453 View Post
    What does any of that last paragraph have to do with Saltmarsh and U1?
    You tell me. You're the one that said replacing a country was the same as replacing a sea.

  5. #95
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    944
    I can't figure out how to answer this question.

    Because what does it mean to "update" Greyhawk to 5e? The core rules for Greyhawk shouldn't be any different than the basic core - if they are, then 5e has failed to capture the essence of D&D in the way that 5e fans - including myself - think it does. IMO part of what it means to be D&D is that you can run a campaign set in Greyhawk using the rules. So no need for new rules, and if you look at the TOC for the Wayfarer's Guide to Eberron, "new rules to make the setting work" and "here's how core thing X works in Eberron" is more than a third of the content in the book.

    The atlas and maps? The 1st edition box set is still the Gold Standard IMO for Greyhawk, and it's available via PDF for those who don't own it. I'd want any update to work from that and treat the setting like Eberron - from a publication standpoint fixed in time even as our own campaigns take it in new directions. I'm hard-pressed to think of what additional material I'd want beyond what's in that core box set. Maybe more adventure sites and old ruins scattered around the map, and more discussion of adventures in the City of Greyhawk, but I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff. (I can see how some folks would want to start it from the end of the Wars boxed set, but you asked what I wanted and I don't actually want that - I want that to be a possible campaign you can run in Greyhawk, not canonical "here's what happened in Greyhawk").

    Monsters? I can't think of any monsters that are pure Greyhawk because Greyhawk was the setting that you took stuff from to put in your own game. Any monster that would be "iconically Greyhawk" would essentially be "iconically D&D" and so should already be in one of the monster books somewhere. And if it isn't, well it could be - you don't need to update Greyhawk to bring back old creatures.

    That leaves stats for major NPCs, which I don't really need but I guess I can see how some would. But to me that's not enough to fill a whole setting book on its own.

    That's one of the problems with updating Greyhawk - if you're already a fan of the setting and own the existing material, there isn't a lot there that needs to be updated that hasn't already appeared somewhere among the core books. Greyhawk is just such a "core D&D" setting that it just works out of the box with 5e without needing to do much.
    XP Paul Farquhar gave XP for this post

  6. #96
    Member
    Hydra (Lvl 25)



    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    Posts
    6,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester David View Post
    I don't think I like the idea that every setting needs to advance their timeline between 119 and 133 years, reflecting the passage of time between the 3e & 2e Forgotten Realms (when the other campaign settings would have last been published) and the current FR date. It's just easier to assume time passes differently in the different lands. If you even want to set a campaign in the "present".
    To that point, I don't think there's anything in 5e published material that points to the idea of the "D&D Multiverse" as being a cohesive setting with direct linkages; the designers seem to view the setting design as more of an anthology or a shared universe.
    XP Jer gave XP for this post

  7. #97
    Member
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    944
    Quote Originally Posted by TwoSix View Post
    To that point, I don't think there's anything in 5e published material that points to the idea of the "D&D Multiverse" as being a cohesive setting with direct linkages; the designers seem to view the setting design as more of an anthology or a shared universe.
    I much prefer this model. The fact that Eberron gets updated to new rules without advancing its timeline is one of the best choices they made. Every version of Eberron is its own - we all start from the same starting point, and how the setting gets changed is all unique to our own campaigns. And it also means that all of the adventure material created is always relevant if I start a new campaign - I don't have to decide if certain adventures no longer "work" because of how the timeline has changed.
    XP TwoSix gave XP for this post

  8. #98
    In the new Dragon+ there is an article about Greyhawk with input from Luke Gygax: https://t.co/izXpplXIDX

  9. #99
    Member
    Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)



    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    480
    Quote Originally Posted by vpuigdoller View Post
    In the new Dragon+ there is an article about Greyhawk with input from Luke Gygax: https://t.co/izXpplXIDX
    Great retrospective. I'm glad I stuck with Greyhawk. I've only played in the Forgotten Realms once in 36 years.
    XP vpuigdoller gave XP for this post

  10. #100
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)

    Azzy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    St.Aug, FL
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauln6 View Post
    Great retrospective. I'm glad I stuck with Greyhawk. I've only played in the Forgotten Realms once in 36 years.

    I played in the Realms a few times. I didn't start hating the setting until that whole Time of Troubles BS and then FR product spam.

Similar Threads

  1. [Hexographer] Updated! Easily make "child" maps; classic World of Greyhawk style maps
    By InkwellIdeas in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, 17th December, 2010, 09:55 PM
  2. Replies: 48
    Last Post: Thursday, 7th February, 2008, 10:08 PM
  3. What would you like to see expanded/updated for Greyhawk?
    By Olive in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: Wednesday, 23rd June, 2004, 05:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •