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

[Chaosmancer]

The Eyrie would be in my DMG

If I were to write the DMG,I would not just use the the Feywild and Shadowfell as my echoplanes
I would have many echoplanes

Jotunhiem (The DMG describes the 9 planes of Norse myth but explains none of them)
Xibalba/Frightlants
Dinoworld/Pangea/Beastlplane
Eyrie/Dragonplane

If you are going to teach worldbuilding, tech it. Give them options.

Pick 2 Echo planes
Pick a Inner Plane setup (Elemental Planes, Paraelemental Planes, Elemental Chaos, Fire/Ice World)
Pick a Outer Plane setup (Great Wheel, Astral Planes, Heaven/Hell)

So, on top of world-building, you want to rewrite the cosmology of DnD? That would be best served for a chapter on the cosmology of DnD, and it would also absolutely NOT contain four brand new planes of existence that have never been tested or expanded on. That is such a blatantly unreasonable set of expectations.

And that's a mistake

No, it absolutely is not. You can use examples and demonstrations FROM the PHB, and if you do it correctly, it applies to everything. If you show how a species can be created, then you have shown them how to make everything imaginable, and if you show them how a species can be integrated or changed, you can do that with every species imaginable. But there is a lot of risk and little reward in just spouting off things they have no reference to.

Who said it would be in the Worldbuilding chapter

That is literally what I was asking you. After all, we aren't talking about the DMG in general, but the worldbuilding chapter of the DMG.

(Refer to Chapter Y, page XX)

If the 2014 wasn't organized like something out the toilet, you wouldn't ask this question.
Which is my point.
Until you see WOTC show they know how to reference, you can't imagine them doing it.

Of course I can imagine them doing that. But when talking about the worldbuilding chapter, and asking you about the worldbuilding chapter, and talking about the worldbuilding chapter.... I cannot assume you are suddenly talking about a different chapter for no reason!

That's the core fight I keep referring to.

Experienced DMs and New DMs are fighting for the same books.

One side always wins.​

So you want to make it worse by making the resource less inviting to new DMs? That seems counter-productive to everything you keep going on about.

 

[Faolyn]

In one of my 4e campaigns, the players had their PCs argue over title to a particular bit of real estate:
But this did not require me having world-built a legal system.

Well, it's a good think I didn't say that people should figure out their world's legal system, now isn't it?

Here, let's look at what I wrote again:

You obviously don't need to go into great detail about the government or law of an area unless the actual adventure is about those things, but it is a good idea to thing of something like "the town is ruled by a mayor who tries to be fair to everyone" or "the city is ruled by a Court of Lords who are often influenced by wealthy lobbyists." You don't even need to name the mayor or lords until you need them. You could even make this into a table, to make it easier to generate on the fly.

I don't need to know in advance if title to a temple is argued in a temporal or spiritual court - I can just make this up. I don't need to know what the details of the legal arguments are - this is a History check as part of a skill challenge.

And as I also said:

While I agree, some people aren't good at that--especially newbies.

A peasant's sense of the government will typically not be about whether or not it is fair, but about whether or not it is appropriately generous or merciful.

But here's something to keep in mind: the players did not grow up as peasants in whatever the setting happens to be. Thus, you need to communicate to the players what the government is like by using words like "fair" or "corrupt" or "requires bribes to make things happen" because that lets the players know how to respond.

Also? Most people are not going to run their games to be scrupulously accurate to real medieval politics or mindset (not that we actually can know how medieval peasants really thought). To many groups of adventurers, a ruler who demands presents before being seen? A jerk, maybe even evil--doesn't the ruler know the adventurers are there to do them a favor by killing their monsters for them? They should be giving the group presents!

 

[Hussar]

They don't offer explanations of planes outside the Great Wheels.

Where is Jotenhiem, Muspelhiem, or Nefielhiem?
Where is Xibalba?
Where is the Dinoworld where times is time in the Prehistoric?
Where is the Spiritlands talking spirit animals?
Where is the Plane of Light?
Where is the Caverns, an endless cave plane with no suns?

Who cares?

Seriously, why would you teach dms about this stuff at the beginning? It’s not needed. Most campaigns don’t go planar. Cosmologies are largely setting wank that serve no practical purpose.

This is so far down the “stuff you need to know” list that it’s not even funny.

 

[TiQuinn]

I always see myself doing a combination of bottom up and top down. While I think people can world build in either way, I think overall, it gets people playing the game faster and engaging with the game faster when they do a bottom up approach and expanding as needed, though sometimes this may mean jumping up to a big overarching aspect quickly - i.e. if the party is adventuring into a dungeon of a temple dedicated to some evil god, it could make the DM think a bit about the world's pantheon at a high level, perhaps naming a few evil gods and a few good gods who oppose them. I've tried doing a full top down approach, but ultimately find that it's 100% done for my own sake, not because the players ever cared about that level of detail.

 

[Maxperson]

So the DMG doesn't have Jotenhiem.

So that doesn't matter. It gives you the Asgard set up and the DM who is interested in using it will just look up Norse myth and put it in Asgard where the book says it will be.

They don't have to list EVERY plane.

Just SOME alternatives!
Or ONE. I can be okay with one. Go through the process of creating Jotunheim. A plane where everything is big. A place of giants. A plane you can travel to get big treasure that only cost a magic bean to travel to. Perhaps traveled to out of selfish greed, a rich craving for knowledge, or a desperate need for gold in the kingdom's coffers. A place of danger where giants kitted out with magic items defend their treasures from dragons, demons, devils, and fey and raid the same for more.

Have you read the inventing your own planes section? It's smaller than it probably should be, but it goes into creating a trait or traits that deal with the philosophy or mood of the place you are creating.

So Jutenheim. It's a place of giants. The DM decides everything is 10x bigger than on the prime plane. A pine tree that is 100 feet tall on the prime will be 1000 feet high. A 4 foot high deer is 40 feet high and has a lot of hit points and does a lot of damage. And so on. He decides on a high gravity trait and halves movement of non-giant creatures. And so on.

The books gives the DM enough to make Jutenheim, but I do agree that there should be more to it than that paragraph.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They don't offer explanations of planes outside the Great Wheels.

Where is Jotenhiem, Muspelhiem, or Nefielhiem?
Where is Xibalba?
Where is the Dinoworld where times is time in the Prehistoric?
Where is the Spiritlands talking spirit animals?
Where is the Plane of Light?
Where is the Caverns, an endless cave plane with no suns?

New GMs might be new to world-building... but they aren't new to fantasy.

"What if I made a plane of existence that was entirely ranch dressing?" is a question they can ask themselves. They might be familiar with Nevermore or the Ever After or a dozen other things that have been created by hundreds of fantasy creators. You don't need the DMG to create a bunch of brand new things that never existed before, when you can rely on people that want those things.... to have read fantasy that includes them.

The DMG doesn't need to show me the Celestial Bureaucracy of the Jade Emperor. Plenty of books I've read have done a superior job. They just need to show me what goes into utilizing a plane of existence in game, and the types of mechanical hooks a plane of existence should have.

 

[Autumnal]

What are the governments in JRRT's Middle Earth? No idea. Does the The Shire have any public officials other than a Mayor and some Shirriffs? We're not told. It's modelled on England, but does it have JPs? Are Shirriffs, among other things, analogous to JPs? We're not told. Does The Shire have a system of criminal justice? We're not told.

Um. Since I reread The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings this month, I can say with confidence that we are told these things. It matters for the story at hand that the Shire is very nearly ungoverned, and that this contrasts with Gondor’s and Rohan’s functional (though declining) feudalism. And more so with the basically modern kleptocracy Saruman imposed. The lock holes and the bureaucracy around the gatherers were innovations along with the factories.

Gondor is an important kingdom. How is it administered? Who rules Osgiliath, when it is not being sacked by Sauron's forces? We don't know.

This is discussed in the story and appendixes.

What is the government of Bree? Are tariffs levied on imported goods? We don't know.

We know some, though mentions are brief.

Or consider Earthsea. This world provides an engaging backdrop for multiple, highly-regarded fantasy stories. How are the lands of Earthsea governed? How are taxes collected, and who commissions public works? Almost nothing about these things is said.

I’d have to reread to check on these.

In REH's Hyborian Age, what are the duties of the King of Aquilonia, other than to lead the military defence of the kingdom? We don't know.

Again, we actually do pick up some at various points.

I see the underlying point, and since I’ve previously argued that relevance to play should be the test for worldbuilding and presentation, I don’t disagree much. But I think you got carried away by enthusiasm in several places. If I were outlining a pair of chapters on world building (one general advice, one worked example), I’d include short lil’ entries on interesting types of social and political organizations, each with typical adventure hooks - emphasis on opportunities over restrictions. Same deal with types of religion and degree of development (where are you most likely to find monsters, and such).

 

[Faolyn]

No, but you and others keep acting like the inclusion of Goliaths into Greyhawk is uniquely difficult, something that wouldn't need to even be addressed if they just made a new setting. Yet, what you want is the exact same thing you want for the humans, elves, dwarves, halflings gnomes... so I'm confused. Where is the unique problem? Why are Tieflings, Goliaths, Orcs, and Aasimar problems that are arising in the 5e version of Greyhawk if they are literally just needing identical treatment to everything else?

Hope this will clear things up!

When you get this, then maybe we can discuss other things.

 

[Minigiant]

You know what I give.

Just reprint the 2014 DMG reorganized and slap the Bastion system and 1980 Greyhawk on the back. No new advice. Chapters referencing other chapters. No new ideas.There's no space.

That's what everyone wants.

 

[Maxperson]

You know what I give.

Just reprint the 2014 DMG reorganized and slap the Bastion system and 1980 Greyhawk on the back. No new advice. Chapters referencing other chapters. No new ideas.There's no space.

That's what everyone wants.

The pushback you are receiving is because you insist that there is no world building advice in the DMG when in fact there is a lot, and a ton of it is good advice. If you had instead said something like, "The advice in the DMG is good/decent, but if they added a bit here, here, and here, it would be better. And it needs much improved organization," people here would have been agreeing with you and discussing possible improvements.

Pretty much everyone who has been arguing against you and/or agreeing with me(including me) has acknowledged that there is room for improvement and additions/changes should be made. Saying everyone wants the 5e DMG information to remain as is for 5.5e is a misrepresentation of what we have been saying.