D&D 5E Greyhawk: Pitching the Reboot

[Chaosmancer]

There's a big difference between "the pcs rarely interact with magic" and "the peasants rarely interact with magic."

The latter, I would say, is barely relevant to how the game plays out. The former is a seismic shift from how 5e DnD is presented.

I both agree and disagree.

Yes, there is a big difference between the two. However, you really would notice it if the PCs are one of the only groups of people without magic. A world full of peasants with access to magic is going to play very very differently than one where the players are the only ones able to break the laws of physics over their knees.

But I think the larger point is about how the world works and reacts, and in that vein, it matters if you are telling the story from a perspective of a team without magic in a magical world, or all the other combinations.

 

[transmission89]

Well, if it's a "worthless" product then why hold onto it? You see, their bluff is easily called: Do a KS to raise a couple million or so and offer to buy WOG from them. They'd say no to that and the jig would be up, their act exposed. It's a prisoner in the Tower of London; and we all know, from history, what happened to all prisoners in that tower...

I don’t think they’d have the guts to execute it. I think they are just going to quietly smother it like the princes in the tower and pretend it never existed . I’d be happy if I was wrong.

Gah, if only someone else had their name attached to the setting as solidly as Gygax did (and not to diminish your contributions, I just mean in terms of the wider public consciousness). Someone else made a great point earlier, wotc can’t make a move against Dragonlance, they may hold the license, but it belongs to Hickman and Weis, nobody else is willing to touch it without their approval or oversight.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Gah, if only someone else had their name attached to the setting as solidly as Gygax did (and not to diminish your contributions, I just mean in terms of the wider public consciousness). Someone else made a great point earlier, wotc can’t make a move against Dragonlance, they may hold the license, but it belongs to Hickman and Weis, nobody else is willing to touch it without their approval or oversight.

I find this point very strange... not because I don't think it is true, just that there is another famous setting, (Forgotten Realms), that is extremely tied to its creator Ed Greenwood. But it is the most frequently published setting for 5E, compared to Dragonlance and Greyhawk which have nearly no 5E products.

I think there must be a bigger distinction than just the creator still being around... I'm not sure what though.

 

[transmission89]

I find this point very strange... not because I don't think it is true, just that there is another famous setting, (Forgotten Realms), that is extremely tied to its creator Ed Greenwood. But it is the most frequently published setting for 5E, compared to Dragonlance and Greyhawk which have nearly no 5E products.

I think there must be a bigger distinction than just the creator still being around... I'm not sure what though.

You know, this is very true. But I somewhat suspect its more down to the fact that Greenwood gives tacit approval as he negotiated a very favourable contract that still stands.

Feel free to correct me, but I believe he gets to publish a book every now and then and it has to be considered canon. I don’t think any other setting creators have that level of influence.

Plus, wotc are making bank on his setting. They aren’t trying to shut it down or some such. So it’s all good for him.

Of course, all of this is just (un)healthy speculation, but then, what else are forums for? .

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Feel free to correct me, but I believe he gets to publish a book every now and then and it has to be considered canon. I don’t think any other setting creators have that level of influence.

I think this is just a rumor, but it could well be true. I've tried to find something that confirms it and haven't found anything. Another version I've heard of the rumor is that the owner of the license needs to an FR book every year or so or the rights return to Ed. No idea if any of this is true, although Ed apparently only got $5,000 for handing the license to TSR.

Anyway, I'm a little confused by the arguments people make by each creator's link to each setting;

• WotC doesn't touch Greyhawk as the creator (Gygax) has passed and there is no longer a person pushing for it.
• WotC doesn't touch Dragonlance as they are afraid of the creators (W&H) and their power of the brand in public conciousness.
• WotC does publish Eberron, as the creator (Keith Baker) pushed for it to be released in 5E and helped make the playtest document for a 5E version
• WotC's favorite setting Forgotten Realms has a creator (Ed Greenwood) who doesn't do much work for 5E, but he may have a great contract that ensures it keeps getting published, so he's happy with its status.

There's... almost no consistent thread here at all. These are all popular theories on this forum, but it makes WotC look like a very inconsistent organization. I'm not really sure any of these above are actually true, and that there is some completely different ethos for why settings are published (and why others aren't).

I'm curious, when the other two "classic settings" are released whether people will need to change their priors. It would be quite interesting if it was Greyhawk and Dragonlance that are released, that would burst folks' bubbles.

 

[transmission89]

I think this is just a rumor, but it could well be true. I've tried to find something that confirms it and haven't found anything. Another version I've heard of the rumor is that the owner of the license needs to an FR book every year or so or the rights return to Ed. No idea if any of this is true, although Ed apparently only got $5,000 for handing the license to TSR.

Anyway, I'm a little confused by the arguments people make by each creator's link to each setting;

• WotC doesn't touch Greyhawk as the creator (Gygax) has passed and there is no longer a person pushing for it.
• WotC doesn't touch Dragonlance as they are afraid of the creators (W&H) and their power of the brand in public conciousness.
• WotC does publish Eberron, as the creator (Keith Baker) pushed for it to be released in 5E and helped make the playtest document for a 5E version
• WotC's favorite setting Forgotten Realms has a creator (Ed Greenwood) who doesn't do much work for 5E, but he may have a great contract that ensures it keeps getting published, so he's happy with its status.

There's... almost no consistent thread here at all. These are all popular theories on this forum, but it makes WotC look like a very inconsistent organization. I'm not really sure any of these above are actually true, and that there is some completely different ethos for why settings are published (and why others aren't).

I'm curious, when the other two "classic settings" are released whether people will need to change their priors. It would be quite interesting if it was Greyhawk and Dragonlance that are released, that would burst folks' bubbles.

I mean, I’d very happily be proven wrong. As I stated up thread, as long it grants access to DMsguild, I’ll take a wotc Greyhawk in any form.

 

[lkj]

Well, if it's a "worthless" product then why hold onto it? You see, their bluff is easily called: Do a KS to raise a couple million or so and offer to buy WOG from them. They'd say no to that and the jig would be up, their act exposed. It's a prisoner in the Tower of London; and we all know, from history, what happened to all prisoners in that tower...

It is worth noting (and maybe it already was in this long thread; my apologies if so), that WotC has dipped a toe in Greyhawk waters with their Ghosts of Saltmarsh product. I've suspected they have some future plans for it (explaining the lack of movement on DM's Guild), but they tend to work about five or more years out with their product planning. Now, even if they do have plans for it, there's no guarantee they would ever see the light of day. But they've clearly been playing with the idea.

I suppose we'll see, because, as many have noted, there are other settings that differentiate themselves more easily from their Forgotten Realms flagship. I say that even as a Greyhawk fan who would love to see more 5e treatment.

AD

 

[Rob Kuntz]

It is worth noting (and maybe it already was in this long thread; my apologies if so), that WotC has dipped a toe in Greyhawk waters with their Ghosts of Saltmarsh product. I've suspected they have some future plans for it (explaining the lack of movement on DM's Guild), but they tend to work about five or more years out with their product planning. Now, even if they do have plans for it, there's no guarantee they would ever see the light of day. But they've clearly been playing with the idea.

I suppose we'll see, because, as many have noted, there are other settings that differentiate themselves more easily from their Forgotten Realms flagship. I say that even as a Greyhawk fan who would love to see more 5e treatment.

AD

Maybe so, maybe not. Greyhawk fandom is forever stranded in the middle of the road and run over from both directions. I have no skin in this anymore. I have been GH's biggest champion and battlefield general for years. I am quite left with the feeling that Napoleon must have had when asked by his Marshall Ney at the Battle of Waterloo to provide the latter with more troops: "More Troops? What do you want me to do? Make them?"

 

[jmartkdr2]

It is a big difference.

The point is they are one the same scale. The scale is for the setting not the campaign.

Greyhawk is a low magic freqenvy setting because only high level nonmagical adventurers and full blown spellscsters have or see any magic.

"The pcs rarely interact with magic" isn't what D&D considers low magic in frequency. D&D's idea of low magic still has PCs encountering a lot of magic.

Does the nature of the setting matter, outside of how it affect a campaign? If it doesn't come up in play, how does it affect the game? And if it doesn't affect the game, why would anyone care?

 

[Minigiant]

Does the nature of the setting matter, outside of how it affect a campaign? If it doesn't come up in play, how does it affect the game? And if it doesn't affect the game, why would anyone care?

Do your PCs do anything outside of the direct adventure and dungeon crawl?

If most of the setting has no Xs, Ys, and Zs in it, then if your party decide to go there or deviate off the path they won't see nor encounter any Xs, Ys, nor Zs..