D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[JEB]

How are they “messing up” anyone’s old favorite setting?

Heck if I know. I was speaking generally.

 

[Remathilis]

Why doesn't WOTC just MAKE A NEW DANGNABBED SETTING with all the IP characters they want to push and all the themes the 5e audience likes?

It seems so much less risky and has the added benefit of being new so people have to buy the new book to learn about it in order to love or hate it.

For the same reason it's easier to change a legacy comic book character than make a new one: brand recognition. It's easier to tie a new character to a beloved one than it is to start over fresh when you have to convince people to buy something new. Why do you think Kamala Khan was named Ms Marvel despite not having a thing in common with Carol Danvers (different origins, different power sets, different everything) except being a fan girl of the latter? Because someone is willing to check it out for no other reason than it's connected to a legacy character.

Could D&D make a brand new setting? Sure, they have done it before, but they want to leverage a lot of the legacy of their characters as well. Would people accept a setting like Nentir that poached many classic D&D characters, dungeons and monsters? A new setting with Mordenkainen, Tasha, Vecna, Soth and Strahd that ignores their original setting? People would scream bloody murder! They whined when Accerack had the gumption to build a second tomb on a different world!

 

[Vaalingrade]

What are things that never happened. There was no anti Strixhaven and Witchlight crusades. There was some concerns on the quality.

And Radiant Citadel had some concerns on how its economy worked.

Can't say something didn't happen when on the forum where the threads still exist.

Unless we're saying 'quality' in place of 'color and cute animals exist and who the designers were'.

 

[Minigiant]

For the same reason it's easier to change a legacy comic book character than make a new one: brand recognition. It's easier to tie a new character to a beloved one than it is to start over fresh when you have to convince people to buy something new. Why do you think Kamala Khan was named Ms Marvel despite not having a thing in common with Carol Danvers (different origins, different power sets, different everything) except being a fan girl of the latter? Because someone is willing to check it out for no other reason than it's connected to a legacy character.

Could D&D make a brand new setting? Sure, they have done it before, but they want to leverage a lot of the legacy of their characters as well. Would people accept a setting like Nentir that poached many classic D&D characters, dungeons and monsters? A new setting with Mordenkainen, Tasha, Vecna, Soth and Strahd that ignores their original setting? People would scream bloody murder! They whined when Accerack had the gumption to build a second tomb on a different world!

Sure that makes sense.But Greyhawk doesn't match the assumptions of Greyhawk

How does Primal Barbarians, Warlocks, and Sorcerers fit into Greyhawk?
Where are the social links of Aaasimar, Goliaths, and Good Orcs in Greyhawk?
Are Goliaths just Half Giants? I thought we were dropping half folk?
How do Dwarves and Halflings get to cast Arcane magic now?

OR Is this a generic D&D world with no real legacy history or lore and are painting "Greyhawk" on it as nostalgia and legacy bait?

 

[MGibster]

Why doesn't WOTC just MAKE A NEW DANGNABBED SETTING with all the IP characters they want to push and all the themes the 5e audience likes?

This isn't a full blown setting we're talking about here. It's an example setting in the DMG to help people learn about how to build a setting. Otherwise, I'm kind of with you. Whenever someone brings up Dark Sun or Birthright I can't help but think, "Those settings had a chance. Why not do something new?" But it hasn't really mattered because WotC really hasn't been in the business of creating settings like they used to be. In some ways that's a good thing, I don't think we need a glut of settings like we had back in 1993. But then again many of the settings material they've released have been terrible.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure that makes sense.But Greyhawk doesn't match the assumptions of Greyhawk

How does Primal Barbarians, Warlocks, and Sorcerers fit into Greyhawk?
Where are the social links of Aaasimar, Goliaths, and Good Orcs in Greyhawk?
Are Goliaths just Half Giants? I thought we were dropping half folk?
How do Dwarves and Halflings get to cast Arcane magic now?

OR Is this a generic D&D world with no real legacy history or lore and are painting "Greyhawk" on it as nostalgia and legacy bait?

They fit the same way they all fit in 3e Greyhawk.

5e didn't invent sorcerers, aasimar and dwarven wizards. That stuff is at least 24 years old. Greyhawk didn't get published in 1983 and then hasn't been touched until this year, it has had development since AD&D 1e. All this stuff is established to all but the groggiest grognards.

We've already had the gnomish necromancers debate back when Eric Noah ran this site. Greyhawk survived it then, it will survive it now.

 

[TiQuinn]

Sure that makes sense.But Greyhawk doesn't match the assumptions of Greyhawk

How does Primal Barbarians, Warlocks, and Sorcerers fit into Greyhawk?
Where are the social links of Aaasimar, Goliaths, and Good Orcs in Greyhawk?
Are Goliaths just Half Giants? I thought we were dropping half folk?
How do Dwarves and Halflings get to cast Arcane magic now?

OR Is this a generic D&D world with no real legacy history or lore and are painting "Greyhawk" on it as nostalgia and legacy bait?

A lot of these things didn’t exist originally for Forgotten Realms, or Eberron, or any other setting created in earlier times before new rules debuted.

Settings are not tied to rules.

 

[Minigiant]

This isn't a full blown setting we're talking about here. It's an example setting in the DMG to help people learn about how to build a setting. Otherwise, I'm kind of with you. Whenever someone brings up Dark Sun or Birthright I can't help but think, "Those settings had a chance. Why not do something new?" But it hasn't really mattered because WotC really hasn't been in the business of creating settings like they used to be. In some ways that's a good thing, I don't think we need a glut of settings like we had back in 1993. But then again many of the settings material they've released have been terrible.

But that's the problem. Greyhawk is old and didn't contain many of the 2024's game's -options and aspects.

Are they going to describe how a DM can reflavor a species or class to match a setting's theme's better?
Are they going to describe how a DM can provide the feel or themes of a banned or restricted option with another to match a setting?
Are they going to explain how to make interesting and memorable encounters with limited monsters options?

Greyhawk isn't a great example setting unless WOTC is going to do the work it and TSR never does.

Unless they are painting "Greyhawk" on "Generic D&Dland" and dropping Tasha and Mordy in it.

 

[TiQuinn]

Greyhawk isn't a great example setting unless WOTC is going to do the work it and TSR never does.

Which is it? WotC or TSR?

 

[Micah Sweet]

They fit the same way they all fit in 3e Greyhawk.

5e didn't invent sorcerers, aasimar and dwarven wizards. That stuff is at least 24 years old. Greyhawk didn't get published in 1983 and then hasn't been touched until this year, it has had development since AD&D 1e. All this stuff is established to all but the groggiest grognards.

We've already had the gnomish necromancers debate back when Eric Noah ran this site. Greyhawk survived it then, it will survive it now.

Do you believe that no amount of change is too much then? That Greyhawk can take whatever WotC throws into it and remain Greyhawk?