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

[Warpiglet-7]

But that's not what I mean. I'm fine with new and different. I just don't want it to be the most important thing (which is literally what I said). Please stop trying to frame my opinion as either/or.

I don’t like high maintenance when DM. By that I mean a character who must always steer the party to their idiosyncratic ends—-unless others enjoy it too.

Then again a LG Paladin played rigidly is often unfun.

I try to play unique but not to anyone’s detriment. That’s the key and some level of congruence with the world. Some. But I find it’s not hard to have a weird race that hails from far off. Maybe just not cities full of them…

 

[AstroCat]

It seems that the idea of Greyhawk as a unique setting with a distinct "flavor" is extremely overwhelmingly unpopular. So ok, turning GH into just another FR with everything and the kitchen sink thrown with no logic also seems to be the prevailing desired viewpoint. All good, just add every single thing from all the 5e/6e books and just who cares about GH as a setting, it's just stupid old thing anyway, right, it's basically just throw away trash if it's not "super current"? All change is good, no matter what, because change.

Who cares, wotc can do no wrong, they are perfect, especially now a days. So ok I don't have any more energy or time to fight the tidal wave of wotc can do no wrong and GH is stupid anyway so let's change it all to make it exactly the same as FR or whatever. I have an actual d&d game to prep for, so I leave the 6e GH/FR or whatever it is to the all the brand new day 1 customers and carry on enjoying other things. That's the message, right?

I've said many times what I really think, and how it would make sense to add stuff to GH in really good way. But that doesn't matter, it's all or nothing. If you want to preserve anything from the past setting you are the "enemy" basically, out to do evil for "bad" reasons. Change it all or you are not welcome is much more of the message.

 

[Demetrios1453]

It's going to be amusing in the probable event of the DMG coverage of the setting being so bare-bones that it renders all the arguments in this thread moot. Other than those who will still insist that if the DMG didn't explicitly forbid the things they want forbidden, it's still all wrong.

 

[AstroCat]

Unless it is a sub-heading on how to feed chronological information to your players... what would be the point of this? The chapter is supposed to highlight how to make things, listing changes in Greyhawk lore as they move forward the timeline is not the purpose of the chapter.

Right, who cares, the lore and history of the setting is stupid and doesn't matter.

 

[AstroCat]

Where in Greyhawk's flavor and integrity does having Warlocks hurt the setting? Because, remember, that was part of the series of questions Minigiant started this whole thing with: How does Primal Barbarians, Warlocks, and Sorcerers fit into Greyhawk?

So please, what flavor and integrity would be lost with the addition of Warlocks?

He also mentioned Goliaths, are we going to lose something with their inclusion? Actually... no, probably not. Because the Verbeeg or Human Behemoths are a race of giants who are about 9 ft tall on average. The only thing you really need to change to make Goliaths take the place of Verbeeg is to take away the occasional reference of eating people. They can still be intelligent giant-kin, smaller than the other giants, but more clever than their ogre and hill giant brethren.

So please, what flavor and integrity of the setting would we lose by, instead of erasing the Verbeeg entirely, shifting them to be Goliaths? The loss of a fourth type of man-eating giant? We still have ogres, hill giants, and Trolls.

I didn't say any of that... add whatever you want. I actually said organic growth is great and can be done in really good ways while still keeping the flavor and uniqueness of the setting that makes it special but that is lame right? The setting sucks anyway, it basically has no history worth noting, unique character or meaning, it's just another lame name wotc can use to sell more to day 1 new customers. It's a lot easier to just not care about "the current" game stuff, and just accept whatever wotc does and call it perfect. That's the cool thing these days and a lot easier.

 

[AstroCat]

I feel like we're quibbling over an ant hill.

So far, the 5e PHB is adding five new species that weren't in 3e: tieflings, aasimar, goliaths, dragoborn, and promoting orcs. Aasimar and tieflings are planetouched and emulate their parent species (and fill in nicely in Iuz's lands as well). Goliaths were always reclusive mountain dwellers, and Good orcs fill the role previously filled by half-orcs. At best, we have to account for dragonborn and as people have said, its a big map outside the Flanaess. "Dragonborn migrated en masse after a major cataclysm in their homeland" is about all I need.

As for all the optional MotM races? Well, those were always DMs call but most of them are fairly minor bit players. There isn't going to be a tabaxi nation anymore than there is going to be a gnoll or minotaur nation. Isolated villages scattered here and there and occasional NPCs in major metropolitan areas.

I think a lot of the pearl clutching about "the Furrys are coming" is overblown because people can't let go that D&D isn't just Tolkien races anymore. But the fact goliaths walk around the Free City doesn't mean Greyhawk is ruined. If Greyhawk's theme is "Sword & Sorcery in a world of danger and adventure", then it doesn't matter if I'm an elf or a dragonborn. If Greyhawk's theme is really "D&D using only what existed in 1983" well, then maybe is should have stayed dead.

I think it is now apparent the theme doesn't matter at all as long as everything from the latest books is added. It's really all that matters, GH is basically just one step away from worthless, it's just the new stuff that matters. "Sword & Sorcery in a world of danger and adventure" is dead, and buried, that is old, and should be destroyed in modern gaming. That is the prevailing message. Not for me, but that sure will get a lot more support than trying to add new stuff to a classic setting in a "respectful thoughtful" way. That idea is considered bad and must have ill intentions, because it's from "before", and "before" is all bad.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Now, a war forged in Dragonlance or any other setting than Eberron, hmm, gotta think on how I’d do it but probably go with a spark of magic brought it (suit of armor, etc) to life. Again if it means a friend or myself having fun and hanging out, we go with it and have fun but every table and person can look it differently.

Honestly, just treat a warforged as a sentient type of lesser golem, which is essentially what they already are.

That lets them theoretically exist anywhere that has (or once had, at least) wizards/artificers/etc. capable of creating golems and you can make them as one-of-a-kind or as mass-produced as you like.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Honestly, just treat a warforged as a sentient type of lesser golem, which is essentially what they already are.

That lets them theoretically exist anywhere that has (or once had, at least) wizards/artificers/etc. capable of creating golems and you can make them as one-of-a-kind or as mass-produced as you like.

In my experience, this has been going on for decades. I’ve come across a fair few in the FR.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Being unhappy with what other people like isn’t really acceptable, even expressed more politely. Railing against the modern world isn’t a good look. Other people having fun differently to you does you no harm.

It literally isn’t.

If a lot of people like things you don't, what you like gets pushed out and becomes harder to find, especially if it's a social activity. What you seem to be suggesting is that, while I'm privately allowed to feel how I wish (thank you so much for that concession), in public discourse I need to either get with the times or shut up because it's not ok to be publically dissatisfied with the current take on a subject, which is tantamount to telling me I'm not allowed to express an opinion outside of the majority.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because one likes the existing things? Because ripping up everything that's come before every time is wasteful and cumbersome? Because it's fun to think about how to integrate things in ways that make sense?


Building off the previous poster's questions....what "flavor and integrity"?

This is the world with Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Where the creator himself threw in literal actual rayguns and space aliens because he felt like it.

You act like Greyhawk has some sort of deep, sacrosanct lore structure that must be carefully surveyed and scrupulously honored if one is going to make use of it. This is demonstrably untrue. Gygax did what felt fun. He didn't erase established events or the like, but if he felt like adding something, it got added, "flavor and integrity" be damned. I don't think an argument based on preserving the purity of the setting has a leg to stand on given what stuff was already perfectly acceptable for insertion into it with no context or connection to anything else.

You realize you added the word "purity" to their opinion yourself, right? How is that not just going to be inflammatory?