D&D General Greyhawk setting material

[Son of the Serpent]

Lol. Say you dont want the sensibilities part to be absolutely necessary while making clear that you also dont care if it is included and that you would like to focus on making the game mechanics and other important aspects as robust as possible (very big difference between that and demanding that everything be arbitrarily restricted on racial bases. Dont know where that came from) saying that you want less censorship and if anything more choice in the matter and everyone assumes you are racist white male and restrictive. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Also you guys are way off the deep end at the moment.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Ad hominen much?

Assume this is meant to be a part of the most recent comment. Refering to the ad hominen used to attempt to imply i was racist or sexist or that i supported either. Very ridiculous.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

"Modern sensibilities" is why we no longer have race/class restrictions, level limits, and ability score min/max based on race and gender, just to name a few things.

Also those are generally speaking changes to mechanics. Like i said. Something i think is a great OPTION lol for people to opt into. Not really what im talking about. Less assumption is a good thing.

 

[Wolfpack48]

"Modern sensibilities" is why we no longer have race/class restrictions, level limits, and ability score min/max based on race and gender, just to name a few things.

The reason I dislike the phrase “modern sensibilities” is that everyone misinterprets what it means. It’s a “weasel” phrase because everyone projects their personal agenda onto it. For example, I happen to agree with your point about open race/class abilities, but the way you are using “modern sensibilities” has nothing to do with why I dislike the phrase.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

that is exactly why i think its a weasel phrase actually.

And i stay away from talking like that for that exact reason. Because people assume a lot.

I just want high player enfranchisement and minimal censorship with maximal attention to mechanics and story quality.

Some how that translates to THEY WANT A BOYS CLUB and HE WANTS MANDATORY RACE/SEX RESTRICTION. Thats a leap. I never said those things.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[grodog]

I'm not sure why you seem to think that those of us who don't enshrine canon are not actually playing in Greyhawk. I mean, good grief, that's @grodog in this thread. He's forgotten more about Greyhawk than I'll ever know, and even he isn't having too much of a problem with the notion of adding dragonborn.

To be clear: I see the options for races and classes in a campaign as tools to shape that campaign and what makes it different from other campaigns in the same setting, or in different settings:

• If I run a Lankhmar-style campaign in the Free City of Dyvers, where the PCs are all members (or adjunct members) of the thieves guild, then most of the PCs will be larcenous bastards in demeanor/personality, even if they're not all members of the Thief PC class.
• If I run an Game-of-Thrones style campaign in Erelhi Cinlu where all of the PCs are demon-worshipping drow in-fighting amongst themselves in order to be Queen of the Vault, that's a very different campaign in tone and focus compared to the one above, even if both are ostensibly "evil Greyhawk campaigns"

So, if using a dragonborn or tielfling or whatever race (or winged folk or valley elves, or whatever) works in a that campaign, I use them. If not, I don't.

And yes for my part I have got enough greyhawk material and I also love and use @grodog stuff

Thanks!---it's always nice to know that folks use my work in their games here and there =)

@Hussar imo the trick with older settings is to add new things that seem like they have a natural way of popping up there (like gh adjacent things or things that were involved in events that had a tie in to gh) as that would revitalize it while maintaining its gh flavor. Its sort of something i wish they would do more on both ends when it comes to some settings. Its a balancing act, sure but it makes the setting new while robust and not just bloated.

Empahsis above added by me, for two points:

1. I think that juggling that balancing act is tricky, especially for settings like GH and FR with lots of material to master, but that adding new worthwhile content to them is essential to keeping the setting fresh and not to be caught in a Nidus' Endless Repetition of seeing the same plots, villains, and heroes being recycled, reprinted, updated, and cannibalized with each new edition of the game. @Rob Kuntz 's Maure Castle adventures are a great example of this enrichment process.
2. While maintaining a setting's tone and distinct flavor is key, there's also nothing about an older setting that inherently requires revialization either---that's part of the exercise of design restraint that I feel like often gets neglected, and what creates too much sameness across D&D's fantasy settings. Part of what made DS, RL, PS, and other 2e settings more distinctive in comparison to GH and FR was that they had unique baseline worlds as play environments. If you add all of the same classes and races and gods and spells and magic items to every setting, they all become the same, in which case then there's no point in having any of them at all (a la The Incredibles). So maintaining each setting's uniqueness seems important to me as a way to show why and how we play D&D differently in Krynn vs. in Spelljammer vs. in Blackmoor, et al.

Allan.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

To be clear: I see the options for races and classes in a campaign as tools to shape that campaign and what makes it different from other campaigns in the same setting, or in different settings:

• If I run a Lankhmar-style campaign in the Free City of Dyvers, where the PCs are all members (or adjunct members) of the thieves guild, then most of the PCs will be larcenous bastards in demeanor/personality, even if they're not all members of the Thief PC class.
• If I run an Game-of-Thrones style campaign in Erelhi Cinlu where all of the PCs are demon-worshipping drow in-fighting amongst themselves in order to be Queen of the Vault, that's a very different campaign in tone and focus compared to the one above, even if both are ostensibly "evil Greyhawk campaigns"

So, if using a dragonborn or tielfling or whatever race (or winged folk or valley elves, or whatever) works in a that campaign, I use them. If not, I don't.



Thanks!---it's always nice to know that folks use my work in their games here and there =)



Empahsis above added by me, for two points:

1. I think that juggling that balancing act is tricky, especially for settings like GH and FR with lots of material to master, but that adding new worthwhile content to them is essential to keeping the setting fresh and not to be caught in a Nidus' Endless Repetition of seeing the same plots, villains, and heroes being recycled, reprinted, updated, and cannibalized with each new edition of the game. @Rob Kuntz 's Maure Castle adventures are a great example of this enrichment process.
2. While maintaining a setting's tone and distinct flavor is key, there's also nothing about an older setting that inherently requires revialization either---that's part of the exercise of design restraint that I feel like often gets neglected, and what creates too much sameness across D&D's fantasy settings. Part of what made DS, RL, PS, and other 2e settings more distinctive in comparison to GH and FR was that they had unique baseline worlds as play environments. If you add all of the same classes and races and gods and spells and magic items to every setting, they all become the same, in which case then there's no point in having any of them at all (a la The Incredibles). So maintaining each setting's uniqueness seems important to me as a way to show why and how we play D&D differently in Krynn vs. in Spelljammer vs. in Blackmoor, et al.

Allan.

Bottom line is the BOTTOM LINE. and that is always, for sales, slanted to the median view and thus median use. So specificity and uniqueness will fall to the sword of the market bottom line almost each and every time. Wotc should just license the darn thing and take a cut from the proceeds but, then again, there's bottom line issues (via competition) involved with that, even.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I would also like to posit that the world is becoming EXTREMELY all about opt in customizability in more and more products of entertainment. This is why i keep going on and on about having opt in features. I think we will actually get the most people if there is a way to, instead of making the game the fruit salad whos list of ingredients never ends, OR the oposite, the sandwich shop which only sells grilled cheese, make a system in which you can add or subtract the restrictions easily. Add or subtract the variance of involved effects. We are moving more than anything else toward a world who wants customizability. Both in restriction and in diverse games. And if you dont think you will see many people who will want the option for opt in restrictions then you havent seen people who play on single life no resurrection survival servers for a game that is normally not single life. Thats an extremely common thing for some types of gamers. Thats why i keep saying we need options for it all. Its a choice that every table should have as an option. It makes the game their game.

Also what grodog said i can get behind too. There is a difference between a setting experiencing new events advancing growing changing all that versus bloat and polution. Part of painting a picture is knowing where you want to put the paint and where you dont. At least in so much as to actually get the image in your mind onto the canvas. Restraint is a part of the artists tool kit.

 

[The Glen]

Each of the traditional D&D settings had a different theme. You have Pulp Fiction, Gothic horror, interdimensional Freak Show, D&D in space, hi politics, low politics, world-building and exploration, kitchen sink High fantasy, Epic Quest and post-apocalypse. the beauty of them is they offer something different for people with varying tastes Rob is right if they don't want to make a birth rate setting for example license it out or just open it up on the guild and let other people make money for you.