Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
So what you’re saying is that your anecdotes can beat up other people’s anecdotes?
D&D General For the Love of Greyhawk: Why People Still Fight to Preserve Greyhawk
So what you’re saying is that your anecdotes can beat up other people’s anecdotes?
Remathilis
Legend
Well, since you quoted me:
Officially published D&D settings have one major goal: support the current version of the game. It can do that by providing lore, options, mechanics, or theme, but the setting is beholden to the main game, not the reverse. As such, a setting should look at what D&D is currently, and say "where does this fit?" (or "why can't this ever fit?") rather than be beholden to the era where it originated. Too many fans of classic D&D settings end up marrying it to the edition it came from (or was popular in) and thus the setting doesn't get to grow. The setting stagnates; it become an anachronism to a game whose classes and races have long since evolved past where the setting was. It becomes beholden to long lists of "canon" and "noncanon" sources, ban lists of options that didn't exist when the setting was first established, and increasingly complex house rules used to mimic the "feel" of editions that have long since passed by.
All that said, a Greyhawk can exist quite easily in 5e; Saltmarsh alone proves that. That Greyhawk though isn't going to look quite like Gary's version though. Too much time has passed, to many things have been added. You might be able to cut away the godawful Castle Greyhawk module, but it's a losing battle to fight against Tasha/Iggwilv, Vecna's divinity, or that dragonborn, tieflings, warlocks and sorcerers can't/shouldn't exist. The setting cannot be encased in amber and shielded from all change and also be relevant and supported by today's D&D.
What should happen, as with all settings, is a simple question must be asked: What is the essence of the setting? What makes it FEEL different than the other settings? Usually it's the genre, the tone, or "story" the setting is telling in its history, geography, and politics. Greyhawk captures a grittier, more mercenary tone of adventuring that focuses less on "save the world" heroics and more on "survive in the face of insurmountable odds". That is a setting worth exploring; one not steeped in shiny knights and evil dragons but one of rogues, necromancers, and others just trying to survive. That essence isn't bound to the specific names of NPCs or the available character options, and it would make a fine counterpoint to settings where Good and Evil are much more clearly defined.
So yes, I can see a Greyhawk guide that distills that essence of the setting, including elements from Gary and from later authors, into a viable setting that supports and is supported by the 5e ruleset. This is not hard, but it is not going to be a faithful copy of the setting that existed in 1982. That setting needs to grow and change in order to thrive today. And if it cannot, then it should remain a relic of a bygone time, married to a certain era and edition, as a footnote in the long story of D&D.
Empires that refuse to change cease to be Empires for long.
Officially published D&D settings have one major goal: support the current version of the game. It can do that by providing lore, options, mechanics, or theme, but the setting is beholden to the main game, not the reverse. As such, a setting should look at what D&D is currently, and say "where does this fit?" (or "why can't this ever fit?") rather than be beholden to the era where it originated. Too many fans of classic D&D settings end up marrying it to the edition it came from (or was popular in) and thus the setting doesn't get to grow. The setting stagnates; it become an anachronism to a game whose classes and races have long since evolved past where the setting was. It becomes beholden to long lists of "canon" and "noncanon" sources, ban lists of options that didn't exist when the setting was first established, and increasingly complex house rules used to mimic the "feel" of editions that have long since passed by.
All that said, a Greyhawk can exist quite easily in 5e; Saltmarsh alone proves that. That Greyhawk though isn't going to look quite like Gary's version though. Too much time has passed, to many things have been added. You might be able to cut away the godawful Castle Greyhawk module, but it's a losing battle to fight against Tasha/Iggwilv, Vecna's divinity, or that dragonborn, tieflings, warlocks and sorcerers can't/shouldn't exist. The setting cannot be encased in amber and shielded from all change and also be relevant and supported by today's D&D.
What should happen, as with all settings, is a simple question must be asked: What is the essence of the setting? What makes it FEEL different than the other settings? Usually it's the genre, the tone, or "story" the setting is telling in its history, geography, and politics. Greyhawk captures a grittier, more mercenary tone of adventuring that focuses less on "save the world" heroics and more on "survive in the face of insurmountable odds". That is a setting worth exploring; one not steeped in shiny knights and evil dragons but one of rogues, necromancers, and others just trying to survive. That essence isn't bound to the specific names of NPCs or the available character options, and it would make a fine counterpoint to settings where Good and Evil are much more clearly defined.
So yes, I can see a Greyhawk guide that distills that essence of the setting, including elements from Gary and from later authors, into a viable setting that supports and is supported by the 5e ruleset. This is not hard, but it is not going to be a faithful copy of the setting that existed in 1982. That setting needs to grow and change in order to thrive today. And if it cannot, then it should remain a relic of a bygone time, married to a certain era and edition, as a footnote in the long story of D&D.
Empires that refuse to change cease to be Empires for long.
Eyes of Nine
Everything's Fine
Interestingly, today is the day the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 CE. That doesn't really relate to your post; but I was just reminded about hearing that factoid on the radio today.
Last edited:
I think there are two ways "more limited" could apply and be good.
One is in terms of power level. The first and third ages of middle earth feel very different in terms of power levels and what kind of focus different character types would get. If you had access to characters from any of the ages to help Frodo get the ring to Mordor, would any from the Fellowship, besides maybe Gandalf, come close to making the cut (unless one were foresighted enough to chose Sam)? Does having a more limited background power level allows for a different kind of story with different concerns?
The second is on how specified the world is. If only a limited amount of information is given about it, does it give the DM and players more of a chance to make their own mark on it.
DnD Warlord
Adventurer
What does antidotes have to do with getting old... did someone somehow live from 1985 until now and NOT age 35 years!?!
LordEntrails
Hero
So what you're saying is we need to lobby governments for mandating child-birthing ages? Maybe a permit to get pregnant?
JUST KIDDING, no political discussion intended!
Smirk, laugh, or groan and just move on!
DnD Warlord
Adventurer
And since I guess I need to prove my joke... god what happened on enworld...
In the USA, the average age at which women bore their first child advanced from 21.4 years old in 1970 to 26.9 in 2018.
So if a young woman was 9 playing in 1985 and she would on average have her first child between 21 and 27 years old (12 to 18 years later) those children would be born in 1997-2003. Those children would be 17-23 now...
mid she was 15 (age I was when I started playing was just shy of 16) that would add 6ish years on there... making that 1st child on average 23-29 years old,
Helldritch
Hero
The realm is a mismatch (or a melting pot) of many different settings inspired from many time periods associated with history. Greyhawk is a lot more coherent. It is sword and sorcery mixed in with chivalry and stories of barbarians, demons, evil groups and gods. The gods of Greyhawk have a more direct impact on the prime than Fearunian gods have. Iuz is in the world, has his own country and is responsible for hundreds of thousands of death on the continent. In the setting, St-Cuthebert can and will come to the aid on anyone fighting the Old One itself if it so happen. In the ToEE, it is possible that anyone mentionning Iuz outloud in the temple has a chance to see him come. If St-Cuthebert is called for help, he will appear and both gods will go somewhere else to settle their differences out of the way of mortals. It is not as strong as in Theros, but it is also more direct.
The orders of knighthood are just that. Orders of knighthood. Only fighter type can be full members. Others can hope to be honnorary member but a caster will only be that, an honnorary member. Some orders are a little bit more lenient but even then, the fighter types are more prevalent. This is both something the new players can relate to very quickly and assimilate without a flinch and something that is alien enough from our society to be memorable. My first women character that got accepted into the Knights of the Holy Shield was litterally screaming at the table. She had accomplished something (it was 1ed.) Even today, not everyone can enter the Knighthood so easily as you can do in the FR. Wanna be a knight of Mythdrannor? Do a few missions for them. Whereas being a Knight of the Hart takes a lot more than that. Doing missions and getting paid makes you just a mercernary. Mercenaries don't enter the knighthood. I still use the old rules where you have to own lands, be a member of the aristocracy, and work freely for the order before even being considered.
Magic users in GH still learn their trade with a mentor. The college of wizardry in GH is a place where you can learn with other mages, but to enter you have to be a full fledged wizard. No accademy as those you can have in the FR (such as the Host Tower of the Arcane in Luskan).
With me, Greyhawk is not an easy setting. It is a harsh world where evil can be around the corner. If you don't do anything for anyone, no one will help you out. It is much more difficult to enter organisations as it is in the FR. You have to search and petition to get a chance to join them. This is Greyhawk.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Ha not bad news, I am just going by averages. On average, the greyhawk players from old now have D&D player kids in their 20s. YMMV. For me, I am 51 and my daughter is age 9.
doppelganger
Explorer
Perhaps we could select another acronym? That is a rather unpleasant word to throw about.
