• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Greyhawk: Pitching the Reboot

Mercurius

Legend
So, as I mentioned in another thread, there were two ways to handle Greyhawk (IMO):

Two solutions-

1. Re-issue the old stuff. Just some sort of fancy "collector set" with reprinted big ol' Darlene Maps and charge a ton of money. It won't attract the new gamers, but will keep the olds happy, and would "celebrate" the setting. Of course, it will also result in the death of it ... given the lack of new gamers playing it, but still!

2. Make something good.


To expand on that-

Sure, Hasbro can always make a super-deluxe edition for the 50th anniversary and sell it for lots of money. Just include a fancy big ol' version of the Darlene map and the original, pre-85 info, and that will make the majority of the grognards super happy. If you include some sort of supplement that includes and expands on the 3e timeline and lore in a well-done manner (without trampling on the Gygax "core") then you've got, what, 95% of old-school Greyhawk fans on board?

But then it's done. And, tbh, that does a disservice both to young D&D fans, and to Hasbro. Let me explain.

Imagine if, in the late 80s, Paramount had said, "Sure, people liked the old Star Trek. But who really cares any more? Let's just keep milking the olds with Spock ears. Don't bother rebooting it. Who would care about a New Generation?" Well, they would have lost some valuable IP and history. Not to mention an entire streaming service (seriously, CBS All Access and Paramount+ are basically carried by Star Trek and 90s nostalgia.... SHUT UP BEAVIS!).

Greyhawk is the ur-setting for D&D (yeah, yeah, Blackmoor, City State). To lose Greyhawk is to lose an invaluable piece of D&D history. From the names of so many spells (however stupid, MELF) to items and artifacts, to famous historical people- it's all there. I think it's great that we have young fans coming in and putting their own stamp on the game; but many of them also love re-discovering the roots, and understanding where it all came from.

As such, a rebooted Greyhawk, one that carried bits of the past forward while being attractive (in whatever way) to a newer generation, would be beneficial to the game. To the IP owners and the fans. A way to reconnect the past and the present.
I hear you, but I think it is a bit of a conundrum. On one hand, as you say, remaining faithful to Gygax's Greyhawk would please grognards, but it probably wouldn't add too many new fans. On the other, to adapt to a modern audience would likely require changing it to such a degree that it was no longer Gygaxian.

The charm of Greyhawk is Gygaxianism, but I'm not sure how translatable that is to a contemporary audience -- at least not without changing it to such a degree that it is no longer "vintage Greyhawk."

Star Trek doesn't quite work as an analogy because it was updated only a decade after the original series ended, and then continually expanded upon and adapted over the following decades. Of course the first film was mostly a failure, but it laid the groundwork for the Wrath of Khan in 1982 - still only 13 years after TOS ended - which, of course, resuscitated the franchise. And then it continued, with no real gaps from that point until the present. There were ups and downs, but it has been overall very successful and fruitfully multiplying for four decades.

Greyhawk, on the other hand, after its "glory years" of 1980-89 (folio to City of Greyhawk box) was re-envisioned in the early 90s with mixed to poor results, leading to TSR dropping it (they cancelled a Sargent book in 1994, according to Wikipedia). Some guys at WotC were fans and brought it back, first with the 25th anniversary stuff and then as the default setting for 3E, but with minimal support. Since then, it has been rather neglected.

So to compare Star Trek and Greyhawk would be more like if Star Trek had come out with the Motion Picture in 1979 (From the Ashes, essentially), and then dropped it before Wrath of Khan, with no Next Generation. Then tried to resuscitate in late 90s.

On the other hand, and to challenge my own argument, there's Battlestar Galactica. It was dead for almost 30 years when it was brought back with a different take, and one that is largely considered to be superior. But even so, I'm not sure we can compare film/tv to RPGs.

Again, I think the challenge is translating the creative work of a pre-Boomer, who was very much the product of his time (as are we all!) to a Millenial/Gen Z crowd. I'm just not sure it is worth the trouble, and that the middle ground would be to create a deluxe commemorative box set, while focusing energy on new worlds. Meaning, I think they're already doing this, with both classic and new settings being published.

I would also add that WotC's approach in 5E is not to provide ongoing support for any worlds, except FR - and even then it is mostly just as context for new adventures, only minimally expanding the Realms.The new/other worlds aren't being expanded upon (although we very may well see another Exandria book at some point, unless Mercer keeps it within his new publishing house). There is no Ravnica line, for instance, and likely never will be. In fact, the Magic worlds are perfect for this: each provides a different play experience that can either be mined for one's homebrew, or used for a new campaign. Reviving Greyhawk would imply continued support, and i just don't see that happening. So I don't think the commemorative box for Greyhawk would be as much killing it, as reviving and immortalizing it; in other words, it is the middle ground between keeping it dead and a supporting line ala 2E/3E era, which they've obviously moved away from.

But I do think that remaining true to the Gygax vibe is crucial.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
If you turn down the magic of D&D and turn up nothing in return, you won't be able to sell it to many.
That is assumption based on what? Magic, or more specifically having lots of magic (which is the opposite of what I consider low magic), is not the only thing D&D has to offer.
Taking those out as well is a recipe for boredom at many tables.
How do we know that? I can only speak for my table. It hasn't made our games less fun. I don't you or I have any idea if a low magic D&D setting would have a marketable appeal. The closest I get to an idea is the success of TOR and AiME, which suggest to me their could be a market for a low magic D&D setting.
 

dave2008

Legend
I would also add that WotC's approach in 5E is not to provide ongoing support for any worlds, except FR - and even then it is mostly just as context for new adventures, only minimally expanding the Realms.The new/other worlds aren't being expanded upon (although we very may well see another Exandria book at some point, unless Mercer keeps it within his new publishing house). There is no Ravnica line, for instance, and likely never will be. In fact, the Magic worlds are perfect for this: each provides a different play experience that can either be mined for one's homebrew, or used for a new campaign. Reviving Greyhawk would imply continued support, and i just don't see that happening. So I don't think the commemorative box for Greyhawk would be as much killing it, as reviving and immortalizing it; in other words, it is the middle ground between keeping it dead and a supporting line ala 2E/3E era, which they've obviously moved away from.
Actually, there are lots of support for all of the settings published so far in 5e, it is just in the form of the DMsGuild. I think that is what a lot of GH fans would like to see. Let WotC publish something and open it up on DMsGuild. Then people like @Rob Kuntz could write awesome new supplements and everyone is happy, maybe.
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
How do I know my group is niche? I guess I don't know 100%, I just go off what I see here on EnWorld and see most people here don't play like we do. Also, to be clear Minigiant made the niche claim, I was just leaning into it.

Do what right? I never claimed anyone was playing D&D incorrectly. I was just stating that I am pretty sure they way my group plays is not the way a lot of people play. Different ways of playing, not correct or incorrect ways of playing.
you have mistaken my point, I am sorry what I meant was do people not like it because it is difficult to do well and they lack the knowledge or training to do it in a way that is enjoyable?
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
That is assumption based on what? Magic, or more specifically having lots of magic (which is the opposite of what I consider low magic), is not the only thing D&D has to offer.

Genre.
Genre.
Genre.

If you take the fantasy out of a fantasy work, it is just historical or alternate historic fiction.

Pure History fiction is very very very niche and has been for centuries.

Drama, Comedy, Mystery, Tragedy, Thriller, Romance, Action.

That's what drives the butts to the shopping carts.

Selling Greyhawk as low magic low fantasy D&D with no other genre thrown in the mix as a replacement for the lost classes, items, and monsters would be an incredibly difficult task.
 

dave2008

Legend
Genre.
Genre.
Genre.

If you take the fantasy out of a fantasy work, it is just historical or alternate historic fiction.

Pure History fiction is very very very niche and has been for centuries.

Drama, Comedy, Mystery, Tragedy, Thriller, Romance, Action.

That's what drives the butts to the shopping carts.

Selling Greyhawk as low magic low fantasy D&D with no other genre thrown in the mix as a replacement for the lost classes, items, and monsters would be an incredibly difficult task.
I didn't say anything about taking the fantasy out of the setting. I have no interesting in playing D&D without orcs, ogres, dragons and the like. For me low magic means magic is rare, not that it is non existent. As I have said many times in this thread, I think you could reboot GH as a low magic setting without getting rid of any classes and I think the same goes for races, items, and monsters. I would personally prefer some restrictions, I mean they did it for Theros, so why not Greyhawk?
 

dave2008

Legend
Eight pages in, this is what I meant about the difficulty of deciding what a good Greyhawk product would look like. Low vs. High Magic, Grimdark vs. Gonzo, Humanocentric vs. Standard D&D, Clash of Kingdoms and Armies or Small Potato Sword & Sorcery Adventurers, and so on. If you cannot nail down what the essence of Greyhawk is, you cannot release a good Greyhawk setting for 5e. Case in point: most people use the 3e Forgotten Realms campaign guide and not the 4e version, and most of the changes introduced in 4e have since been reverted.

If you ask me why consensus on what Greyhawk is is so varied, it's because it's generally been more bare-bones than other settings. Much of what a person thinks of as Greyhawk is what came to life at their table; official canon was often scant, or even contradictory.
The OP's point is to ignore all of that and just write something good. Good sells. My some connections to the past would probably help, but don't be burdened by it. Find a new niche and run with it.
 

Mercurius

Legend
Actually, there are lots of support for all of the settings published so far in 5e, it is just in the form of the DMsGuild. I think that is what a lot of GH fans would like to see. Let WotC publish something and open it up on DMsGuild. Then people like @Rob Kuntz could write awesome new supplements and everyone is happy, maybe.
Yes, agreed - and I think that's the approach WotC is generally taking with settings, and will continue to take. By "lack of support" I was referring to official channels, meaning actual books published by WotC.
 

May I suggest you reach out again to someone else at WotC (preferably multiple people) and suggest something GH related for the 50th might be a good idea. We know the plan at least 2 years in advance, so that gives you a bout 6 months to a year to really work on them. Heck, point them to this thread (and many other's here on EnWorld) to show them there is still some interest and viable ways to bring it back!
Yeh. Youthful excitement for certain things (not for their intrinsic values, but addressing the extrinsic kind here) can sometimes wane, you see. The value of doing yet another, mostly ceremonious, anniversary. send-up to something that for all intents and purposes they do not wish to be on the ascendant (and for many and varied reasons, including the "Which is the Right Greyhawk?" conundrum endlessly beat to death here and elsewhere)? It would be yet another crust of bread thrown, I fear. I would be pleased (and greatly surprised) if that were not the case, of course, but my instinct, not so much bread by cynicism at this point but by sobering facts, senses gray in Greyhawk's continued history.

On a positive note HASBRO's recent attention to D&D, and thus to its properties as expansive, money-making digital and movie venues, bodes well for them possibly examining other avenues, though this may well end up being a thrust with FR as the setting and thus any other focus may well be dimmed in that regard.

On a bolder note, there is another approach that exerts some leverage for the point. I have noted it before now. It involves taking my Castle El Raja Key--in which were born Mordenkainen, Bigby, Yrag--and all of Gary's recountings of their adventures therein in his (player POV) Up on a Soap Box articles for Dragon Magazine--and championing that as the second Castle used in the D&D playtests and whose levels, in part, were then sluiced into our combined Castle Greyhawk 2.

If some enterprising publisher of 5E were to be excited about that, and it got the fan support witnessed here, that in itself could well act as a fulcrum in the main matter now being discussed. At the least it would be more "Greyhawk" than some one-off 50th versioning, so this speaks, as well, to my view on maintaining its vision as its last remaining creator and just as I did with Maure Castle.

My two coppers of course, but this thread has been a speculative smorgasbord. I am otherwise open to other opinions like you've forwarded.
 

Mort

Legend
Supporter
Let's see ... to date, we have the following official settings in 5e in publications .. not including setting that are only referred to in rulebooks (DL, DS, etc.):

Eberron (Official Setting Book)
Forgotten Realms (SCAG, APs)
Greyhawk (AP, multiple references in rulebooks)
Other Planes (BG: Descent into Avernus)
Ravenloft (AP, upcoming setting)
Ravnica (Official Setting Book)
Theros (Official Setting Book)
Wildemount (Official Setting Book)

This does not include additional free settings released as pdfs by WoTC such as the six MtG settings they have on-line.

So, yeah, they've been putting out a steady stream of settings.

And, with the exception of Wildemount, all of them are their OWN IP. Weird, huh?

And it's not just multiple references to Greyhawk in rulebooks:

Ghosts of Saltmarsh is fully and officially acknowledged to be set in Greyhawk:

right from the introduction: "Ghosts of Saltmarsh continues that tradition, presenting a portion of the coastal lands of Keoland, a kingdom in the Greyhawk setting..."
 

Remove ads

Top