D&D (2024) WotC Invites You To Explore the World of Greyhawk

This week a new D&D Dungeon Master's Guide preview video was released. This one features the sample setting chapter in the book, which showcases the World of Greyhawk.

One of the earliest campaign settings, and created by D&D co-founder Gary Gygax, Greyhawk dates back to the early 1970s in Gygax's home games, receiving a short official setting book in 1980. Gyeyhawk was selected as the example setting because it is able to hit all the key notes of D&D while being concise and short. The setting has been largely absent from D&D--aside from a few shorter adventures--since 2008. Some key points from the video--

• Greyhawk deliberately leaves a lot for the DM to fill in, with a 30-page chapter.
• Greyhawk created many of the tropes of D&D, and feels very 'straight down the fairway' D&D.
• This is the world where many iconic D&D magic items, NPCs, etc. came from--Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tasha, Otiluke and so on.
• The DMG starts with the City of Greyhawk and its surroundings in some detail, and gets more vague as you get farther away.
• The city is an example of a 'campaign hub'.
• The sample adventures in Chapter 4 of the DMG are set there or nearby.
• The map is an updated version, mainly faithful to the original with some tweaks.
• The map has some added locations key to D&D's history--such as White Plume Mountain, the Tomb of Horrors, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Ghost Tower of Inverness.
• There's a map of the city, descriptions of places characters might visit--magic item shop, library, 3 taverns, temples, etc.
• The setting takes 'a few liberties while remaining faithful to the spirit of the setting'--it has been contemporized to make it resonate in all D&D campaigns with a balance of NPCs who showcase the diversity of D&D worlds.
• The backgrounds in the Player's Handbook map to locations in the city.
• Most areas in the setting have a name and brief description.
• They focus on three 'iconic' D&D/Greyhawk conflicts such as the Elemental Evil, a classic faceless adversary; Iuz the evil cambion demigod; and dragons.
• There's a list of gods, rulers, and 'big bads'.

 

[pemerton]

1e DMG grappling rules or 1e UA grappling rules?

UA method 1 or UA method 2?

Both the DMG and U have pummelling rules too. The DMG ones, and method 2 in the UA, both permit stunning the victim - with the result being a game in which it is possible to be stunned by a punch, but not by a blow from a weapon or a bear or a dragon's tail. Which struck me as a bit odd even back in the mid-1980s.

 

[Voadam]

UA method 1 or UA method 2?

Both the DMG and U have pummelling rules too. The DMG ones, and method 2 in the UA, both permit stunning the victim - with the result being a game in which it is possible to be stunned by a punch, but not by a blow from a weapon or a bear or a dragon's tail. Which struck me as a bit odd even back in the mid-1980s.

Punches stunning when weapons don't has been a D&D thing since OD&D Supplement II Blackmoor introduced the monk in 1975.

1e OA martial arts has pseudo grapple-like options too in their locking special maneuvers.

 

[pemerton]

Punches stunning when weapons don't has been a D&D thing since OD&D Supplement II Blackmoor introduced the monk in 1975.

At least the monk has the excuse of their preternatural mysticism! (Which continues to this day.)

1e OA martial arts has pseudo grapple-like options too in their locking special maneuvers.

OA martial arts was - at least in my experience back in the day - quite a bit of fun in play. And could be applied to weapons, if they were built into a style.

One of the appeals of 4e D&D for me was that it didn't limit condition infliction, in melee combat, to unarmed attacks or esoteric styles.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

View attachment 383550

That said, I want to address a slightly bigger issue that I've hit before.

I think that the three following statements are all true:
1. Greyhawk (as in the Flanaess) is "humanocentric" in the sense that humanity is the dominant force, in terms of population and politics.

I think the reason any given campaign setting resonates with any given person is due to whatever conceits that that campaign setting has. And certainly "humanocentric" is a long established conceit of Greyhawk. I have to say it's not one I've personally ever much cared about.

2. Greyhawk (as in the Flanaess) shouldn't have "retconned" countries of other races/species.

Look, we're old. Old-ish. We like things the way they were. Us, and every generation of old farts that has come before. But this is a new product for a new generation. If it's got differences to previous versions of the product, so be it. We can grumble about it if we want.

For me, humanocentric could be dilluted by the addition of a half dozen non-human nations. Or even, and I know I won't make many friends saying this, turn some of those existing nations into confederations* of various peoples. E.g.: given it's location I can easily see Furyondy being a human/elven confederation. Veluna even more so.

* By confederation I mean that the incoming Oeridian (etc) tribes merged with the pre-existing peoples to form states. This allows for politically influential nobles of various species in some/many/all of the new states. We have precedents (Snarf, I'm sure you love a good precedent) for such confederations. The Uleks are human/nonhuman and several states are confederations of various human tribes.

3. Greyhawk is easily able to have all the races you could want for a PC, and it's always been that way.

To expand- the Flanaess is human dominated in terms of the politics and countries, and also in terms of overall population. The non-human countries are either few and clearly demarcated (see, e.g., Celene, Pomarj) or alluded to and not on the map (dwarven areas in mountains, dark elves per D1-D3)

In full agreement here.

It wouldn't make sense to just say, "Well, the Yeomanry is actually a Dragonborn kingdom." Moreover, you don't need to.

I agree one doesn't need to. But what does "sense" have to do with it? Do you mean internally cohesive? We (well, WotC) are making a fantasy world. It can have whatever internal cohesion it requires written into it.

A version of Greyhawk I did up I would go with Dragonborn being associated with the old Baklunish Empire and thus have any states they formed be much further north. Yeomanry as a dragonborn state wouldn't make for internal cohesion in my Greyhawk. Ket would though. But that's just me.

Greyhawk is scaffolding. It always had the ability to accommodate new races. As I wrote before, Gygax was constantly putting in new things (Half Ogre, Duergar, too many dang elves, etc.). You don't need to explain a small presence, because there's a lot of space! In addition, we know that PCs could be non-standard races back then from reincarnation (Rogue's Gallery, Centaur).

It's simple to have a PC from a non-standard race. Why? Because:
1. The map has areas that are unexplored. You could have dragonborn in the mountains near the Sea of Dust, for example.
2. The Flanaess isn't all of Oerik. The PC can be from "off the map." Maybe your Flanaess doesn't have dragonborn, but just west of the Flanaess ....
3. The borders between worlds are porous. Whether you're Gith, or a Warforged that fell through a portal, you can always deus ex machina it in Greyhawk.

Again, in agreement.

Also, I did notice you used deus ex machina when mentioning Warforged.

 

[pemerton]

For me, humanocentric could be dilluted by the addition of a half dozen non-human nations. Or even, and I know I won't make many friends saying this, turn some of those existing nations into confederations* of various peoples. E.g.: given it's location I can easily see Furyondy being a human/elven confederation. Veluna even more so.

When I used GH as my setting for a RM campaign, the wolf-people (Vulfen) were the Wolf Nomads, and the tiger-people (I can't remember their RM label) were the Tiger Nomads. The Rovers of the Barrens were a mix of Vulfen and humans.

In other words, I agree.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I like that! A very literal interpretation of their names.

Aside: I don't recall tiger folk or Vulfen from my RM days. Then again, my RM days are 30 years past.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Look, we're old. Old-ish. We like things the way they were. Us, and every generation of old farts that has come before. But this is a new product for a new generation. If it's got differences to previous versions of the product, so be it. We can grumble about it if we want.

And one of the aspects that needs to be dropped for a new generation is the idea that every race needs a homeland. This is an idea rooted in racism, connecting, as it does, to the "go home!" rhetoric that is so commonly spouted by racists these days. The way to portray things for the new generation is species living side by side in mixed communities.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I do hope an official Statblock is released for Iuz. Does not have to be in the DMG, but a supplement like the Monstrous Compendium's or Vecna Dossier could work for him.

 

[Yaarel]

And one of the aspects that needs to be dropped for a new generation is the idea that every race needs a homeland. This is an idea rooted in racism, connecting, as it does, to the "go home!" rhetoric that is so commonly spouted by racists these days. The way to portray things for the new generation is species living side by side in mixed communities.

Today, most kids grow up in multiethnic neighborhoods, and have friends in schools from many ethnicities. It is part of the modern experience, especially in urban economies.

While there are remote places where an indigenous group or a recent historical migration are the defining majority, these places are the minority. Especially in America.

Today, it feels normal to have fantasy species coexisting together. The city of Greyhawk is an example of this.

As a rule of thumb, WotC should look to the demographics of the United States when establishing the feel of the fantasy demography.

I am fine with Flanaess having Humans be a defining majority. However, it is easy ror 5e Flanaess to have "Human" segue into "Humanoid" being the defining majority.

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding the Dragonborn species. The 2024 Players Handbook specifies their ancestors were created from Dragon eggs, by both Metallic and Chromatic. Apparently, those that do come from Gem eggs originate from a separate historical incident?

(The magical engineering of Dragonborn may have happened with or without permission from Bahamut and Tiamat.)

On the planet Oerth, the Dragonborn can have come into existence anywhere there is a civilization of both Metallic and Chromatic Dragons, a location where both have been coexisting with each other historically. Or perhaps while warring with each other, each used the same magical technology to create Dragonborn from their own eggs. The Dragons seem to specifically want to engineer Dragons with Human-like features. There is something about Humans that the Dragons find beneficial.

There are places on Oerth where Dragons prevail, including Dragons Island. Such a place is where it makes sense for a Dragonborn civilization to historically originate.

A description of the magical artifact, Orbs of Dragonkind, mentions there are (local) kingdoms of Red Dragons and Shadow Dragons in the Hellfurnaces mountainrange, referred to as the "Fiery Kings". But the origin of the Dragonborn implies an origin place where all species of Metallic and Chromatic are coexisting together. Again, Dragons Island can be this place, as it is reputed to be ruled by "Dragon Prince".

(Interestingly, 2024 describes Dragonborn as a "wingless bipedal", meaning ambiguously some might retail their draconic feature of a very long tail and some might like tails.)