D&D 5E Greyhawk: Pitching the Reboot

[Pauln6]

But, that's the thing. You don't get to pick and choose. It's not like it was rare for classed casters to be present in virtually every listed settlement. Did you have magic shops? Well, no. Of course not. That wasn't a thing in AD&D. But, this idea that it would be weird to see a non-human in Greyhawk just ignores far too much of what was presented. Greyhawk might not be as high magic as, say, Faerun, fair enough. But that hardly makes it low magic.

I just don't know where this idea comes from. And why it persists. It's such a bizarre read on the material.

Not quite. The 1e and 2e gazetteers made it clear that non humans were rare in human settlements until 3e re-jigged the numbers for LG play.

There was then an outline of the high-level NPC class distribution (high being level 10+) in the 1983 boxed set:
cleric types: 15%
fighter types: 50%
magic-user types: 10%
thief types: 24%
others: 1%

So a whopping 74%+ of npcs were purely martial. Obviously, there would need to be a slight adjustment for new classes and this would vary by location. Rel Deven with its wizard and artificer school is going to have more of them than average.

In the 2E High Level Campaigns supplement: for every NPC of level x, there are half as many of level x+1. Thus, in a small city of 10,000, there will be 100 classed NPCs, roughly as follows:

• 50 1st-level
  25 2nd-level
  13 3rd-level
  6 4th-level
  3 5th-level
  2 6th-level
  1 7th-level

It's possible to crunch the numbers from this, I suppose.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

my pitch for all the settings is the 4e treatment of darksun... an SO.

You go back to the original setting, add in some extra details and make it fit current edition (so some wizards become sorcerers or warlocks). You make a subclass or 3 for the setting, and 3-5 feats for it. (warlock "pact of the spellfire" FTW) then you only progress the story in novels not games

let the GM take the timeline advances they want or not... in the case of FR I could see an argument to make it the post times of trouble instead of the orginal grey box...

 

[Maxperson]

But that’s simply not true. It’s not supported at all by the sources.

There’s a sixth or seventh level wizard hanging around in Hommlet. There’s a sixth or seventh level wizard hanging out in Orlane. There’s quite specifically a magic shop in Saltmarsh.

There’s an entire country led by a Demi-god filled with demons and the undead.

There are many, many locations with clerics, wizards and various other casters living there.

The idea that magic is rare in Greyhawk is just not supported by the actual text.

Two empires were destroyed in a magical war! Drow in Greyhawk have a ton of magic.

 

[Maxperson]

But, that's the thing. You don't get to pick and choose. It's not like it was rare for classed casters to be present in virtually every listed settlement. Did you have magic shops? Well, no. Of course not. That wasn't a thing in AD&D. But, this idea that it would be weird to see a non-human in Greyhawk just ignores far too much of what was presented. Greyhawk might not be as high magic as, say, Faerun, fair enough. But that hardly makes it low magic.

I just don't know where this idea comes from. And why it persists. It's such a bizarre read on the material.

Hell, the civilized countries and cities even have a percentage of humanoid(orc, hobgoblin, etc.) inhabitants. Bissel is 10% demihuman and 10% humanoid. 1 in 5 people you see will be non-human. Dyvers is 10% demihuman and 5% humanoid. 3 out of every 20 people you see will be non-human. Geoff has 1 in 5 people as non-human. The Great Kingdom and Greyhawk are 1 in 5 as well.

There's no way in hell that it's weird to see non-humans.

 

[Maxperson]

Not quite. The 1e and 2e gazetteers made it clear that non humans were rare in human settlements until 3e re-jigged the numbers for LG play.

The 1e boxed set made it clear that they were pretty common.

 

[Pauln6]

The 1e boxed set made it clear that they were pretty common.

No, not really. We aren't talking about PC distribution. The 1e monster manual listed orcs and humans as common, halflings as uncommon, dwarves, elves, and gnomes as rare. That's not 'pretty common'. They tended to stick to their own settlements with a few exceptions. Even in the elven enclaves, like Celene and the Duchy of Ulek, numbers were less than 10,000.

Most modules would throw a few in the settlement listings but they were often lone individuals, grifters, or merchants. It was 3e that ramped up the numbers substantially and started putting 5% elves or dwarves in human settlements.

 

[Maxperson]

No, not really. We aren't talking about PC distribution. The 1e monster manual listed orcs and humans as common, halflings as uncommon, dwarves, elves, and gnomes as rare. That's not 'pretty common'. They tended to stick to their own settlements with a few exceptions. Even in the elven enclaves, like Celene and the Duchy of Ulek, numbers were less than 10,000.

Most modules would throw a few in the settlement listings but they were often lone individuals, grifters, or merchants. It was 3e that ramped up the numbers substantially and started putting 5% elves or dwarves in human settlements.

The monster manual isn't relevant. Settings alter default expectations. The 1e boxed set places about 1 in 5 people in the world as non-human. Either demihumans or humanoids. That's not rare by any definition of the word. Say what you want, this is the 1e Greyhawk Boxed Set!! It's what tells you what the setting is.

 

[Hussar]

Not quite. The 1e and 2e gazetteers made it clear that non humans were rare in human settlements until 3e re-jigged the numbers for LG play.

There was then an outline of the high-level NPC class distribution (high being level 10+) in the 1983 boxed set:
cleric types: 15%
fighter types: 50%
magic-user types: 10%
thief types: 24%
others: 1%

So a whopping 74%+ of npcs were purely martial. Obviously, there would need to be a slight adjustment for new classes and this would vary by location. Rel Deven with its wizard and artificer school is going to have more of them than average.

In the 2E High Level Campaigns supplement: for every NPC of level x, there are half as many of level x+1. Thus, in a small city of 10,000, there will be 100 classed NPCs, roughly as follows:

• 50 1st-level
  25 2nd-level
  13 3rd-level
  6 4th-level
  3 5th-level
  2 6th-level
  1 7th-level

It's possible to crunch the numbers from this, I suppose.

Part of that is an artifact of the edition. So many were martial because many of the classes had very little magic. Although, I would point out that by 10th level, both rangers and paladins could cast spells. So, "Fighter types" is a bit misleading. But, in any case that still means that 1 in 4 high level characters was a full caster. That's not rare. Considering the power of a 10th level caster in AD&D, that's HUGE.

And, the 2e supplement wasn't written for Greyhawk was it? It's a 2e book, so, by that time, nothing (or very close to nothing) was being written for Greyhawk and certainly not for specifically Greyhawk.

The point being, Casters and non-humans were not particularly rare in the setting. The modules, the setting supplements and a huge library of Dragon magazine articles all point to the setting having pretty ubiquitous magic.

 

[Pauln6]

Part of that is an artifact of the edition. So many were martial because many of the classes had very little magic. Although, I would point out that by 10th level, both rangers and paladins could cast spells. So, "Fighter types" is a bit misleading. But, in any case that still means that 1 in 4 high level characters was a full caster. That's not rare. Considering the power of a 10th level caster in AD&D, that's HUGE.

And, the 2e supplement wasn't written for Greyhawk was it? It's a 2e book, so, by that time, nothing (or very close to nothing) was being written for Greyhawk and certainly not for specifically Greyhawk.

The point being, Casters and non-humans were not particularly rare in the setting. The modules, the setting supplements and a huge library of Dragon magazine articles all point to the setting having pretty ubiquitous magic.

As a percentage of high level Npcs there were a lot of casters but there were not many high level NPCs so as a percentage of the overall population there were few. Also paladins and rangers were very rare because ability score minimums were quite punishing so I think they were in the 1% but then barbarians as a class didn't exist then either so the table is only a broad indication of assumptions. There was a great article on the Sorcerous universities which tried to pinpoint the Harry Potter type institutions (pre-Harry Potter) where mages gathered to learn. So Greyhawk was never full on low magic, more low to medium. 10% wizard is too high to call Greyhawk low magic. Living Greyhawk (post Harry Potter) ended up putting wizard schools in every playable nation, whereas 1e formalised the Jedi style master and pupil vibe, so there was a shift more towards the mundanity of magic as cultural reference points shifted over time.

Modules always leaned heavily into magic themes because adventures were all about going out to find those places but, again they were never meant to be common.

The monster manual isn't relevant. Settings alter default expectations. The 1e boxed set places about 1 in 5 people in the world as non-human. Either demihumans or humanoids. That's not rare by any definition of the word. Say what you want, this is the 1e Greyhawk Boxed Set!! It's what tells you what the setting is.

Greyhawk was originally built around those initial expectations in the MM. 1 in 5 people may be non human but after you take out the most common halflings, orcs and half-orcs, each individual species is quite rare.

Halflings don't get that much of a mention in Greyhawk. It think it all goes back to the assumptions from Tolkien. Humans and halflings are primarily subsistence farmers so lots of them are dotted around in small, often mixed, hamlets. Elves tend to be forest hunter-gatherers, and dwarves and gnomes tend to be miners and underground farmers so they are concentrated in small, more isolated settlements in specific locations, depressing overall numbers. Mixed villages were not meant to be the norm. If you recall, there was the table in 1e setting out which races likes each other.

But you are absolutely right to say that settings can change any baseline assumptions, as can specific locations. Grey elves are very rare overall but they aren't very rare within the borders of Celene.

But this is why I say a side bar might be a fun exercise. Greyhawk assumptions definitely morphed over time (some classes didn't exist, so it had to). A set of recommended assumptions on 1e, 3e, and 5e and how they differed could give really useful information on world building.

 

[Mind of tempest]

As a percentage of high level Npcs there were a lot of casters but there were not many high level NPCs so as a percentage of the overall population there were few. Also paladins and rangers were very rare because ability score minimums were quite punishing so I think they were in the 1% but then barbarians as a class didn't exist then either so the table is only a broad indication of assumptions. There was a great article on the Sorcerous universities which tried to pinpoint the Harry Potter type institutions (pre-Harry Potter) where mages gathered to learn. So Greyhawk was never full on low magic, more low to medium. 10% wizard is too high to call Greyhawk low magic. Living Greyhawk (post Harry Potter) ended up putting wizard schools in every playable nation, whereas 1e formalised the Jedi style master and pupil vibe, so there was a shift more towards the mundanity of magic as cultural reference points shifted over time.

Modules always leaned heavily into magic themes because adventures were all about going out to find those places but, again they were never meant to be common.


Greyhawk was originally built around those initial expectations in the MM. 1 in 5 people may be non human but after you take out the most common halflings, orcs and half-orcs, each individual species is quite rare.

Halflings don't get that much of a mention in Greyhawk. It think it all goes back to the assumptions from Tolkien. Humans and halflings are primarily subsistence farmers so lots of them are dotted around in small, often mixed, hamlets. Elves tend to be forest hunter-gatherers, and dwarves and gnomes tend to be miners and underground farmers so they are concentrated in small, more isolated settlements in specific locations, depressing overall numbers. Mixed villages were not meant to be the norm. If you recall, there was the table in 1e setting out which races likes each other.

But you are absolutely right to say that settings can change any baseline assumptions, as can specific locations. Grey elves are very rare overall but they aren't very rare within the borders of Celene.

But this is why I say a side bar might be a fun exercise. Greyhawk assumptions definitely morphed over time (some classes didn't exist, so it had to). A set of recommended assumptions on 1e, 3e, and 5e and how they differed could give really useful information on world building.

all I see is why greyhawk was left alone to decay, with it seems ill-adapted for what players want.
beyond the prestige of being made by the founder, what is so wondrous about it?