D&D General Greyhawk Humanocentricism?

[Micah Sweet]

I think we are talking past one another. Your response seems out of the blue to me. I'm not questioning PC autonomy or the possibility of failure. I just said that traditional thematic elements are universal and PCs enjoy defeating the bad guy as much as they like watching or reading about the bad guy falling.

I meant the PCs success is up to them and their actions rather than the narrative needs of any particular story beat.

 

[Emerikol]

I meant the PCs success is up to them and their actions rather than the narrative needs of any particular story beat.

Yes. The PCs can absolutely fail. Without the chance of failure I'd argue the satisfactions of success are hollow.

 

[Zeromaru X]

After reading the whole topic, I can say this is why I was so reluctant to them using Greyhawk as the default/sample setting: it's a closed-minded setting. A default/sample setting needs to be open to all the options in the PHB, even if these options go beyond the Tolkien four.

On topic, having mostly played in Official settings (Nentir Vale, Forgotten Realms), my games tend to be humanocentric. I try to reduce that a bit, giving non-humans (specially non-Tolkienian non-humans) more relevance, or trying to show the realities of a place where one race dominates over the others, but I shouldn't bother. My players don't care about these things, they just want to have fun, and I have no problem with that.

 

[Emerikol]

After reading the whole topic, I can say this is why I was so reluctant to them using Greyhawk as the default/sample setting: it's a closed-minded setting. A default/sample setting needs to be open to all the options in the PHB, even if these options go beyond the Tolkien four.

On topic, having mostly played in Official settings (Nentir Vale, Forgotten Realms), my games tend to be humanocentric. I try to reduce that a bit, giving non-humans (specially non-Tolkienian non-humans) more relevance, or trying to show the realities of a place where one race dominates over the others, but I shouldn't bother. My players don't care about these things, they just want to have fun, and I have no problem with that.

I struggle with the number of races given in the PHB as core to a world. I could use any of them but probably all seems to imply a world I wouldn't design. My favorites are of course the originals. But I could definitely as a change of pace replace one or all of the originals with new races for a different feel. A world with so many intelligent races that are so different though all jammed together just seems wrong to me. (Not morally of course just feel).

edit: An example would be Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. He created a world with new races but he got rid of the old ones. So it felt like it all fit.

 

[Parmandur]

After reading the whole topic, I can say this is why I was so reluctant to them using Greyhawk as the default/sample setting: it's a closed-minded setting. A default/sample setting needs to be open to all the options in the PHB, even if these options go beyond the Tolkien four.

On topic, having mostly played in Official settings (Nentir Vale, Forgotten Realms), my games tend to be humanocentric. I try to reduce that a bit, giving non-humans (specially non-Tolkienian non-humans) more relevance, or trying to show the realities of a place where one race dominates over the others, but I shouldn't bother. My players don't care about these things, they just want to have fun, and I have no problem with that.

Honestly, it has nothing to do with Greyhawk itself as written.

 

[Azzy]

After reading the whole topic, I can say this is why I was so reluctant to them using Greyhawk as the default/sample setting: it's a closed-minded setting.

It's not the setting, it's just some of the fans. Greyhawk is a high-level framework that the DM is suppose to make their own. It's purpose is to serve you regardless of what others choose to do with setting.

A default/sample setting needs to be open to all the options in the PHB, even if these options go beyond the Tolkien four.

That what it was for 1e, and I believe will be again in the new DMG.

 

[Emerikol]

It's not the setting, it's just some of the fans. Greyhawk is a high-level framework that the DM is suppose to make their own. It's purpose is to serve you regardless of what others choose to do with setting.

That what it was for 1e, and I believe will be again in the new DMG.

Well if they put a dragonborn nation in where a human nation used to be that would ruin it for me. If they expand the map and add one then that would be fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well if they put a dragonborn nation in where a human nation used to be that would ruin it for me. If they expand the map and add one then that would be fine.

Always add. Never replace.

 

[Zeromaru X]

Honestly, it has nothing to do with Greyhawk itself as written.

I can't help but to wonder. When the fans of the setting are so reticent to add modern elements to the setting, the problem may as well be the setting itself.

 

[Zeromaru X]

Well if they put a dragonborn nation in where a human nation used to be that would ruin it for me. If they expand the map and add one then that would be fine.

For what I have read in this very topic, the setting would be ruined for many people even if they add new stuff instead of replacing old elements.

The problem seems to be the addition of new elements that deviate from the Tolkienesque tradition, regardless of how WotC does it. People won't have a problem if they add fruit elves, only if they add dragonborn.