D&D 5E (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[TiQuinn]

So if some people like something and others don't, the ones who don't are supposed to shut up about it?

Also, I don't appreciate the rudeness.

I don’t appreciate your comments in this thread at all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It would need to explain where the dragonborn came from

Okay. That is true. I don't see that as a problem. There are many ways to handle that.

and why there are so many tiefling

Points to Horned Society and the Evil Empire of Iuz the Cambion I don't think that one is much of a stretch. Evil devil-worshiping countries can be full of people who have the touch of the demonic on them. The worse that will happen is people will say "but 40 years ago that wasn't true!!!" and... so what? That doesn't mean it isn't completely in keeping with the setting. And remember, your point was that A) It doesn't work and B) New PLayers who don't know the 40 years ago lore. SO the cries of "but what about 40 years ago when that wasn't true" doesn't apply to either of your actual arguments.

and why all the orcs aren't evil

Good aligned Orcs existed in Greyhawk 40 years ago. Heck, the entry in the book even said something along the lines of "and humans suck too". This isn't even a change.

and why the psionics is different

Needs zero explanation. Psionics are mechanics. We don't need to explain mechanical differences.

and where the crashed space ships came from

Weren't those already in the setting?

and why evrrrrbody and dey mama has Cantrips and spells and why feats let everyone tap into there classes so easily

Did the setting ever specifically state that feats could not grant magic? Or that casters could not cast small spells with little issue? I've never read any setting that specifically called out these mechanics. Heck, I don't remember reading an explanation for why cantrips now exist in Eberron when they didn't before.

And again, the only people who need this explained are old fans, who don't like there not being an explanation beyond "the last time we wrote for this was two editions ago". And if you truly, deeply need this explanation... Vecna. Vecna just tried to rewrite the multiverse and was banished back to Oerth. That's why magic suddenly changed. Tie in the with the already published adventure that already goes to Greyhawk as part of the adventure.

This is a nothing burger.

and why the game is "Big Damn Heroes storm Iuz's castle" over "Plucky Jerks influencing Local Politics"

Was... Was fighting Iuz never something the party was supposed to do? What happened to the entire Vecna series where you start in Oerth and go to sigil, as Vecna ripped some of the divinity from Iuz?

Like, I can't believe that Greyhawk NEVER had an adventure focused on taking down a terrible evil, considering it featured Acerak, The Elder Elemental Eye, Multiple Demon Lords, Vecna, Iuz, and others. This seems like something you made up as a fact about Greyhawk.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t appreciate your comments in this thread at all.

I'm not really enjoying our interactions either, but I'm also not throwing insults.

 

[Faolyn]

They said fans of my preferred Ravenloft (which version I'm not sure what they even mean) have "bullied" fans of 1e/early 2e Ravenloft. Not sure what they mean by that.

No, that's not quite what they said.

But case in point: whenever there's a discussion of Ravenloft, you talk about how much you hate the 5e version.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, that's not quite what they said.

But case in point: whenever there's a discussion of Ravenloft, you talk about how much you hate the 5e version.

@Not a Decepticon said:

"And now consider people who liked the Ravenloft in 1st and early 2e consider the Ravenloft you love a travesty, you guys just bullied them into silence."

What does that mean?

 

[MGibster]

I honestly don't understand why people feel so strongly about this one way or the other. While I admit I'm somewhat enthusiastic about Greyhawk being used in the new DMG, I wouldn't have been particularly upset had they used something else from the past or something entirely new. It's the DMG, folks. You're suppose to scan through the pages once and only reference it when discussing D&D with people online and they tell you, "It's in the DMG."

There are a lot of different settings and different ways to play D&D. But the best way to play the game is whatever you think is the best way to play. We're all going to like different things. But the important thing is that we're all united in our love of the game. Can we all agree to that?

Rolls Diplomacy check ----1----- Well, #%@!

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm not really enjoying our interactions either, but I'm also not throwing insults.

By pointing out that you have options? That you have in fact lost nothing?

 

[Minigiant]

I honestly don't understand why people feel so strongly about this one way or the other. While I admit I'm somewhat enthusiastic about Greyhawk being used in the new DMG, I wouldn't have been particularly upset had they used something else from the past or something entirely new. It's the DMG, folks. You're suppose to scan through the pages once and only reference it when discussing D&D with people online and they tell you, "It's in the DMG."

There are a lot of different settings and different ways to play D&D. But the best way to play the game is whatever you think is the best way to play. We're all going to like different things. But the important thing is that we're all united in our love of the game. Can we all agree to that?

Rolls Diplomacy check ----1----- Well, #%@!

Because the last DMG was trash reference guide and a poor teaching tool.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Those settings were not used for educational purposes.

Maybe I have a higher standard of education

But the education isn't "what is the history of the game" it is "how do you build a world". Again, very different question that doesn't require us to go "and it used to be that Psionics were a percentile roll, and now you have psi dice and subclasses"

 

[Micah Sweet]

By pointing out that you have options? That you have in fact lost nothing?

I suppose you're right. VRG just really disappointed me. I'd been waiting for WotC to provide more material for Ravenloft since they pulled the license from Arthaus back in 3.5, and VRG was basically the opposite of what I wanted.