D&D 5E Greyhawk: Pitching the Reboot

[Ralif Redhammer]

Likewise. I knew Greyhawk was the default setting, but my first 3e game was set in the homebrew I had created in late 2e, and after that in the Forgotten Realms. I would not return to Greyhawk until after 4e, when I ran a 1e campaign in Greyhawk.

And from the blurb on DTRPG on the D&D gazetter (3e):
"In other words, Greyhawk was almost invisible to the average D&D player, despite being the new default setting for the game."

In my case, absolutely true.

 

[Mecheon]

TLDR; given the history of the setting and the upcoming 50th Anniversary of the product, it would be kind of stupid for Hasbro to not monetize it, wouldn't it?

Thing is though, its not just "Do we sell Greyhawk?" as the question.

Greyhawk's effectively being put up against every other setting as a thing. That's where Greyhawk falters, as you've gotta convince people there's far more of a desire for a Greyhawk source book over Planescape, Spelljammer, Dragonlance or Dark Sun.

And that's where I think the problem's going to hit.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is there a live play show that takes place in Greyhawk? I hear that's a good way to promote something!

 

[TwiceBorn2]

There's Lord Gosumba's Old School 1e/2e Order of Ulek campaign, but I'm not convinced it would appeal to a younger demographic:


Another alternative, which might be more palatable to new recruits, is Streets of Leukish:

 

[Rob Kuntz]

My last two coppers for this speculative foray.

Greyhawk is not too old to be developed for the current and future markets. Perhaps many of its remaining/current adherents are of that opinion (but that is rooted, IMO, in individual proclivities than in common sense marketing and realistic business views), but when all is accounted for in its history their view is not the original designer's view nor mine. Just as Greyhawk was an ongoing developmental terrain for individual DMs (micro scaling) it always remained an expanding concept (macro scaling) for Gary and myself. Gary saw the multimedia potentials and also concurred with me on what it lacked. BUT. He also noted many times to me, and I quote, "If TSR would just get behind it with marketing it could be as successful as DL." IOW, Gary knew that politics was the main reason that Greyhawk was not being promoted and that FR and DL were. People must not forget the anti-Gygax sentiment that had fostered at TSR as the main reason why it was mothballed and, because of that, why it remains shattered and scattered to the winds with only the fans, bless them all, continuing its micro-scaled history.

But Greyhawk cannot depend upon a small segment, a cadre, to sustain macro-level penetration of a competitive market, just as D&D could not in its original form, nor could have Greyhawk done so without TSR's re-commitment to it that never materialized.

Thus in 1997 I submitted my Greyhawk Market plan and it was ignored--it was all macro-level stuff, well thought out and presented and which Gary referred to as "A good first pass."

I have nearly 150,000 words and accompanying maps and sketches re WoG materials that were never published: The Wild Coast (now Barbarous Coast); the Ruins of Seer (set in the Kron Hills), The Pit of Geburah (set in the Drachensgrab Mtns.), The Seven Cryptical Books of Hsan (spanning a wide area in south-central portions of the Flanaess). I had also championed in 1985 a redo of spells for clerics making them religion-specific and working down those lianes for all priesthoods in general world wide.

So it's not about whether there's material, it's not about lack of creativity, it's not about the ability to continue building a world, and it's certainly not about fiddly mechanics. It's about a cool story, interesting and engaging adventures and a wide variety of new materials that have been thoughtfully constructed and engaged.

So. It's really ALWAYS been about whether the other side of this coin--that other side being those who make creations manifest in the material market--wanted that. There is no new "magic formula" that either myself and Gary missed in this. It's all about WotC's reasons; and they have always been silent on their reasons, starting with their silent rejection of my 1997market plan. "So it goes" -- Kurt Vonnegut.

 

[TwiceBorn2]

Continuing on the subject of WotC's publication record vs. Greyhawk...

Although not a setting book per se, we shouldn't forget that WotC also published two massive Greyhawk adventures for 3.0/3.5:

Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil
Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk

Before that they published a Greyhawk campaign book (The Adventure Begins), a Greyhawk Player's Guide, and several sourcebooks and modules for 2e between 1998-2000 (The Scarlet Brotherhood, Slavers, The Doomgrinder, The Crypt of Lyzandred the Mad, The Star Cairns, Return of the Eight, the Return to the Tomb of Horrors boxed set, Against the Giants: The Liberation of Geoff, Return to White Plume Mountain, and Return to the Keep on the Border Lands).

As recently as 2013, WotC compiled/expanded/re-issued the original Against the Slave Lords series of modules for 1e (yes, for 1e). That's only 1 year before the 5e core books came out.

So while Greyhawk may face a competitive disadvantage in terms of setting identity/distinctiveness vs. the more recent settings, I still think there's a good possibility that WotC will release new Greyhawk material in 2024.

Things I can see them releasing:

. a limited edition reprint of the 1983 boxed set;
. an updated Descent into the Depths of the Earth/Vault of the Drow/Queen of the Demonweb Pits combined with a mini gazetteer expanding the southwestern Flanaess beyond what was presented in Ghosts of Saltmarsh (easily converted to FR);
. a City of Greyhawk book combined with a selection of short adventures (easily renamed and plopped into other settings);
. a compilation of previously published adventures from Dungeon Mag set in Greyhawk;
. or an updated campaign book

It is worth noting that the comprehensive Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, was essentially edition neutral and focused on history, races, politics, geography, religion/gods, adventure hooks, and power players/influential organizations, with a full colour pull-out map; whenever it mentioned NPCs, they were given a race, alignment and level, and nothing else (much as was the case with the original Folio/1983 boxed set).

I still think the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer is the best campaign book TSR/WotC have ever released regardless of setting, and I love its edition neutral design (giving DMs plenty of room to maneuver... I realize that will not be to everyone's taste). Not sure how people would react to an essentially edition neutral WotC product in 2021...

That may not be much of a full setting "pitch" in itself, but I still think there are ways for WotC to turn a profit releasing material that is implicitly, if not explicitly Greyhawk (as they did with Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Tales from the Yawning Portal).

 

[Aldarc]

My last two coppers for this speculative foray.

As an aside: have you played in Greyhawk using 5e D&D before? If so, what was that experience like? Did you approach the game any differently or make any rules adjustments?

 

[TwiceBorn2]

Another thread in this forum also made me wonder: what if a 5e Greyhawk campaign book included rules for playing 0-level characters (e.g., see the 1e module Treasure Hunt, which was a generic module)?

Those kinds of rules might complement the grittier perception that many seem to have of Greyhawk, and be a better fit in a GH book than FR. It's worth pointing out that the Greyhawk Adventures hardcover ended up expanding the rules that first appeared in Treasure Hunt.

Just a thought...

 

[Rob Kuntz]

As an aside: have you played in Greyhawk using 5e D&D before? If so, what was that experience like? Did you approach the game any differently or make any rules adjustments?

No. But it's a game, no? There is an underlying system structure that perforce allows it to be engaged at the RPG level, no matter the system. If, for instance, those returned qualities would differ from system to system by being contracted or limited, then I could emphatically state that this would be a wizening of them to a more constrictive form edging away from intersecting design/play POVs and would thus be on the move away from the holistic RPG concept.

As an example, when Erik Mona and I started our 100 e-mail stream between us re the creation of Maure Castle, he specifically noted that I should write in 1E and that James Jacobs would translate for 3E, even though I had passing knowledge of d20/3E. I could go on about why he thought this but it really boiled down to his concern of a system construct interfering with what he viewed as my specific qualities of expression. Again, I could, and have, gone on about this but I see it as a non-factor.

 

[Aldarc]

No. But it's a game, no? There is an underlying system structure that perforce allows it to be engaged at the RPG level, no matter the system. If, for instance, those returned qualities would differ from system to system by being contracted or limited, then I could emphatically state that this would be a wizening of them to a more constrictive form edging away from intersecting design/play POVs and would thus be on the move away from the holistic RPG concept.

As an example, when Erik Mona and I started our 100 e-mail stream between us re the creation of Maure Castle, he specifically noted that I should write in 1E and that James Jacobs would translate for 3E, even though I had passing knowledge of d20/3E. I could go on about why he thought this but it really boiled down to his concern of a system construct interfering with what he viewed as my specific qualities of expression. Again, I could, and have, gone on about this but I see it as a non-factor.

I get your point, but I was more generally curious whether you had actual experience running Greyhawk with 5e D&D. I think that reading "Rob Kuntz's campaign adventures in Greyhawk using 5E" would be interesting and insightful, particularly for purposes of this thread.

That said, 5e is a game with its own "specific qualities of expression" and idiomatic features, and the edition can have an impact on how those settings translate. @Bedrockgames, for example, has talked before about his own issues regarding the difference in feel between running Ravenloft in 2E and running it in 3E. Eberron feels different to me when I run it using 3.5E or 4E or 5E D&D as a result of these "specific qualities of expression" found as part of each edition, which can enhance or detract, from that setting's experience in different ways.

Again, this is not me being skeptical about translating your vision of Greyhawk from 1E to 5E. It was more about whether you have tried playing Greyhawk using 5E and insights you gleaned from the process.