D&D 5E Greyhawk: Pitching the Reboot

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Next, about two years ago, I wrote Mike Mearls about rebooting Greyhawk. My response was the same Gary and I received in 1997--crickets.

He always seemed to be the champion of Greyhawk, when he still had a presence on social media, before those other issues came up and he got shifted for a while into a non-ttrpg job with WotC. If I remember the timing correctly, you may have tried to contact him at about the time all that was happening, so it could have easily gotten long in all the internal dealings going on there.

 

[S'mon]

And you're talking anime? You think like, most kids today watch stuff like Attack on Titan, because mate, they don't. Attack on Titan was big with people in their 30s and 40s particularly, that's why you've heard of it. The stuff younger viewers are watching is a lot more interesting than that.

My son is 13, Attack on Titan seems to be his favourite Anime.

I don't think Greyhawk has ever been low magic or should be marketed as such, but it has some things to distinguish it from FR such as the lack of good high level NPCs, the emphasis on nation states and war, and a much more firmly high-medieval tone. It's also closer to swords & sorcery than heroic fantasy.

It also has racism & racial animosity, which I don't think WoTC will be keen on, though the Scarlet Brotherhood do make good villains.

 

[dave2008]

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..."

FYI, Snarf list an "AP" with the Greyhawk setting notation.

 

[dave2008]

He always seemed to be the champion of Greyhawk, when he still had a presence on social media, before those other issues came up and he got shifted for a while into a non-ttrpg job with WotC. If I remember the timing correctly, you may have tried to contact him at about the time all that was happening, so it could have easily gotten long in all the internal dealings going on there.

That does seem to, sadly, be the same timeframe. It could be an issue of Rob's bad timing.

 

[Mort]

FYI, Snarf list an "AP" with the Greyhawk setting notation.

Ah, missed that.

Point is that it's essentially a mini setting book, and by all accounts a well received one. So they might be open to a larger scope.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

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.

I like your optimism. But DMsGuild may be the proof in the pudding as to why they have not opened it up. Gary and I always thought their recalcitrance in the matter was that they were now in control of the apparatus and would not re-surrender it to us, so to speak. I also get that feeling from others over the years but have never gotten that from Paizo. There was true respect there; and it was mutual.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

That does seem to, sadly, be the same timeframe. It could be an issue of Rob's bad timing.

My bad timing? Har! Shoot the messenger! Shoot the messenger!

 

[Minigiant]

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?

Sure.
All I am saying "the more you take away, the more you have to add back". The more you click down the frequency knob, the more you will have to turn up some other knob to get the same level of excitement or more.

Most settings bring something extra to the setting to make up for the restrictions. Some use drama and shock. Others use tons and tons of lore told in gripping books. Others use a popular and well known but underutilized mythology as a background.

Greyhawk has to do something. You can't sell fantasy on a map with some of the fantasy restricted without some kind of spice to jazz it up. That's just selling trust in the group to do the work in making up for the losses.

 

[Jaeger]

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)

None are competing in the same High-Fantasy space as FR.*

AP are not settings. And Kuntz's article he linked to says it all about its use in AP's and references: " In other words they use it, but not in any sincere way that it was intended to be used."

*WiIldemount - I have to give you that one. It is somewhat understandable due to the success of CR. And Hasbro will Ha$bro.

But it is also completely unsupported. (see what WOTC did there...) Its been good for the end of bookshelves and atop coffee tables from what I hear.

And Greyhawk has nothing even close to the CR phenomenon as its champion.

Well they already have, perhaps you didn't pick Theros?

Regardless, I think you could reboot GH and not trim anything from the PHB. In fact, it might even want to add some classes at least. You could even accomplish this with the proposed low-magic, Witcher / GoT slant as suggested by the OP. You don't need to trim things to make GH work, IMO.
Again, from Theros:

Form the Pic of the rules you posted: "...the races in the Players Handbook are unknown on Theros, unless they're visiting from other worlds."

And there it is.

The catch-all loophole clause WOTC puts in to ensure that anyone can play anything....

And yes, I agree, it is a technical loophole. But it shouldn't be there at all.

Yet, WOTC puts it in...

Yep you did. Of course you are wrong about that as I already pointed out about Theros. So based on your track record..

WOTC has owned the D&D brand longer than TSR. Looks at WOTC track record...

Nary a Greyhawk setting book to be seen...

I'm good.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

He always seemed to be the champion of Greyhawk, when he still had a presence on social media, before those other issues came up and he got shifted for a while into a non-ttrpg job with WotC. If I remember the timing correctly, you may have tried to contact him at about the time all that was happening, so it could have easily gotten long in all the internal dealings going on there.

Mearls was a subscriber, long ago and in a galaxy, far, far away, to my Lord of the Green Dragons blogspot. I know of his love for Greyhawk, that is why I wrote him. Timing can be everything, but then again, it was a professional communication. I have no idea about the "internal dealings" and suspect I don't want to know...