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

[Cadence]

Not for wills, contracts etc. whilst a solicitor will often be involved in drawing up the document, pretty much anyone can witness it. It’s the solution to Agatha Christie’s Why Didn’t They Ask Evans? Why wasn’t the housekeeper asked to witness the will?

You are largely wrong. British law takes the idea that “a gentleman’s word is his bond” seriously. Even more so in the 17th century. Of course children, the insane, and women could not witness legal documents, but no special official was required (or existed). I’ve learned quite a bit about wills and probate recently, dealing with my father’s estate. The UK isn’t the 51st state, it’s another country, we do things differently here.

I'm not from the US. I'm a legal academic in Australia. I teach, and have published on, Australian private law which (as I'm sure you appreciate) incorporates significant elements of English law in virtue of the general rules of reception of English law in a "settled" colony.

Unless you're an English lawyer, I'm confident that I know more about English law than you, have read more cases on wills and the transfer of land than you, and have a better grasp of English legal history than you.

@Ruin Explorer - Somehow the thread got off on to what notaries are in England vs. the US (do you need one for verifying signatures on a will? does it complicate things in probate if you didn't have one for the will? are they used for things like the documents conveying property? are they used for contracts?). Anyway, I was trying to think of a UK legal experienced person who might be good to ask on here, and you popped up in my brain. Apologies if I am misremembering.

 

[Hussar]

Might I suggest that this legal sidebar, as interesting as it may be, is very far afield from the topic at hand?

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think they will remove the planar stuff due to the reasons I gave in my post above this one. They may cut down a bit on detail, but I think the planes have to be detailed to some degree in either the PHB or DMG.

The planes and cosmology are one of D&D’s unique things throwing them away would be dumb.

And the DMG is still the place they should be talked about just later in the book.

I definitely agree with that. It was far too early in the book for a new DM.

Chris Perkins did a breakdown of the contents of the new DMG a while back:
Chapter 1 -- basic concepts
Chapter 2 -- Advice, common issues
Chapter 3 -- Rules cyclopedia
Chapter 4 -- Adventure building: including a template on how to build a single Adventure with at least one example
Chapter 5 -- Campaign building: including a template on how to build a Campaign from a string of Adventures, and a sample Campaign
Chapter 6 -- Cosmology
Chapter 7 -- Magic items
Chapter 8 -- How to build a Setting, woth Greyhawk as the example
Appendices -- maps, lore glossary, including a fold-out poster map

 

[Parmandur]

Might I suggest that this legal sidebar, as interesting as it may be, is very far afield from the topic at hand?

It's how Gygax would have wanted it.

Next, let's argue about the viability of various Mediecal Swiss polearms?

 

[Demetrios1453]

It's how Gygax would have wanted it.

Next, let's argue about the viability of various Mediecal Swiss polearms?

I'm doing a Let's Play thread on the old Gold Box CRPGs (on a short hiatus), and it's so funny to get the full 1e PHB list of polearms when shopping at the weapons store in the game. I mean, who would actually get those fauchard forks, Lucerne hammers, and glaive-guisarmes?

 

[Parmandur]

I'm doing a Let's Play thread on the old Gold Box CRPGs (on a short hiatus), and it's so funny to get the full 1e PHB list of polearms when shopping at the weapons store in the game. I mean, who would actually get those fauchard forks, Lucerne hammers, and glaive-guisarmes?

It is all the more hilarious actually knowing that, yes, the pragmatic difference in real world usage was pretty significant. But such a weird thing to zoom in on to detail, since the same is true of other weapons too.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Isn't that The Great Dismal Delve? (I only know it from MMII. Presumably someone did something with it in Planescape.)

No idea, never heard of the Great Dismal Delve before. Which kind of illustrates the point I was trying to make to Minigiant. A lot of what we are asking for exists, it just is never talked about or focused on. So I would much prefer having the cool stuff we never hear about expanded on, rather than just make new cool stuff we will never talk about again.

 

[thundershot]

I just hope for a new City or Greyhawk supplement! I wore the crap out of my 2E one… and it’d be cool to have it updated.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yet, we managed just fine in 1e, Basic/Expert, and 2e. It wasn't until 3e that the planes were detailed in any way in the DMG. ((Note, the 1e PHB did have a VERY brief outline of the Planes - but virtually no details. Just names mostly)) AFAIC, it's a waste of space in the DMG since it's almost never going to get used. So little gaming actually goes planar. I mean, heck, the 5e AP's, while some of the later ones do, spend nearly all their time not going planar. Even Ravenloft isn't really a planar adventure - it's a closed box setting. You don't even need it to be on another plane and the adventure contains advice for setting it in the Sword Coast.

I'm not saying we don't need planes in D&D. I am saying that they aren't all that needed in the DMG where there just isn't enough space to do them justice. A three paragraph blurb and a random table isn't a planar description.

Eh, I would actually argue that the fact that they were so loosey-goosey in the beginning is WHY we are stuck with a bunch of things that make no sense and aren't useful for anything.

Like, I have a cold hatred of "The Ethereal Plane" because it could be cool, but nothing is ever done with it in terms of anything players could interact with. But it is used to explain ghosts, and deeply tied to spells and monsters like Phase Spiders. I am fairly convinced that the idea was "we want intangible things. How do? Make them partially in another plane" and it wasn't thought out beyond that. And now we have this messy thing that getting rid of is annoyingly hard, because it is randomly mentioned in various spells, but that contains nothing.

Conversely, the Abyss and the Nine Hells get used and are referenced and detailed A LOT. More than anything else. Enough so that multiple adventures had used them. But that came with time and focus.

I think that if we had more detail on things like the Feywild and Shadowfell, especially places to go and villains with plots there, we would also see them used more often. But since it takes the same amount of effort to make a creepy mausoleum with a necromancer as it does to make a creepy mausoleum with a necromancer in the Shadowfell... most people don't bother with the extra detail.

I also think more settings should use the Manifest Zones idea from Eberron. Layering planar locations and themes over the Material World is a great threat, and something that is far easier for a group to simply stumble on.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, the erroneous assumption is that you would be applying a monoculture to your NPCS. The story potential is in the different way different people will react. Fictional societies don't have to be polarised any more than the real world.

That said, it's advisable to have a baseline and that baseline should shift based upon the prevailing culture. The baseline does not need to be the same for different settlements due to cultural variations.

Sure, monocultures are boring and baselines are a thing for individual communities. It still holds though, that this tends to be a one-way street.

No one ever says that "Be careful playing an Elf, the dwarves might kidnap and hold you for ransom due to ancient grudges against the elves" or "Be careful playing a dwarf, the humans might hold you at crossbow point and demand your secret stash of gold and gemstones" These are things that could happen, they make sense for different communities, but they are NEVER mentioned in casual discussion.

However, I had a conversation with someone about how I felt I could create a more interesting story for a character by pulling on the thematics in Kobolds. Their response was that the Kobold merchant I was talking about would be shot on sight like a dog, because Kobolds are known thieves on the King's Highway, and that wasn't fair to the rest of the party. Now, to make this clear, the discussion was "why do people want non-human characters". I wasn't planning on playing a game with this person, there was no established world or group. The very CONCEPT of playing a Kobold was met with "killed on sight because evil/different".

Which is what happens when people mention goblins. Or orcs. or Tieflings. Or Tabaxi. Or Warforged.

The stereotypes that could be problematic for someone playing a Tolkien-esque race are generally ignored, while they are the default assumption for anything that has previously been depicted as an antagonist or even just too different from the norm. Without a world, without a context, the default is just "they would be attacked on sight, because they aren't human/Elf/Dwarf/Halfing"

But, if you want to treat this seriously, as actually part of the way the world functions, and not just a "this isn't what I like, therefore kill" then the problem is a two-way street. Maybe a Tiefling is attacked by a town in the Shieldlands, because they know that the Tiefling likely has connections to Iuz's Kingdom and they are enemies with that kingdom. But a human Knight might also be attack by a town in the border region of Iuz's territory, because they think he is from the Shieldlands and they are enemies with that kingdom. If you want to make that sort of thing happen, then it can happen both ways. It can also happen that while the more zealous folk might be "kill the enemies of the state" the rest might be like "eh, the merchant who supplies my Bronzewood is a Tiefling, he passes through while going back home to visit his family. He owes me six silver from the last time we played cards. Do you know 'em? Cause I think he avoided me last time he came through."

But having complexity and nuance isn't generally the point.