D&D General Greyhawk Humanocentricism?

[Emerikol]

That's really low, unless you're talking about the Dark Ages. The population of England in 1086, at the time of the Domesday Book, was 1.5 million. England is almost exactly 50,000 square miles, so that's 30 people per square mile at that point. By 1300 (after 200 years of a good, warm, stable climate that allowed populations to boom), the population had grown to 4 to 5 million, which amounts to 80 to 100 people per square mile, before the Little Ice Age and the Black Death dropped the population significantly (but not anywhere near the 1086 level). France is similar, with about 50 people per square mile in 1100, and 100 by 1300.

Yes. 1000AD is as late as I would go and 500AD is possible. These are just numbers I've gotten off the internet so if they are wrong then I stand corrected.

What I see after some more searching is 500AD is 3.7, 700AD is 13.3, and 1000AD is 18.6. So you could pick what you want but it does seem Greyhawk is very dark ages.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What I see after some more searching is 500AD is 3.7, 700AD is 13.3, and 1000AD is 18.6. So you could pick what you want but it does seem Greyhawk is very dark ages.

greyhawk is a helluva drug...

 

[MGibster]

So, while it should remain faithful to its roots, it also needs to allow for the introduction of the new options that have appeared in the game for the last 50 years. It's a balance that is hard to get, specially with the current approach of WotC of not providing enough lore for the basic stuff.

We can't keep having a conversation if you're going to be reasonable. While I don't like every species in D&D, I tend to allow players to pick whichever one they want to play. This is partly because I don't think it matters which species a player picks, but also because I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to play most species that are printed for the game. This is especially true for any species in the Player's Handbook.

I plan on running a Greyhawk campaign, and I'm fine with Dragonborn, a species I don't care for, because I'll have no difficulty fitting them into the setting. Tiefling? Sure. Tieflings are going to be super uncommon, some people might mistake them for demons, but knock yourself out. Aasimar? Sure. Super uncommon again and a lot of people won't know what to make of your character at first, but we can have fun with it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

While I don't like every species in D&D,

This is going to take me a LONG time to adjust to.

I still order my abilities S-I-W-D-Con-Cha.

 

[MGibster]

I still order my abilities S-I-W-D-Con-Cha.

There are other options?

 

[Emerikol]

This is going to take me a LONG time to adjust to.

I still order my abilities S-I-W-D-Con-Cha.

Absolutely. I don't know why they changed it.

 

[TwoSix]

Absolutely. I don't know why they changed it.

You konw how you can raed soemtihng as long as the frist and last lteters of the wrod are the same? Stat odrer is like taht. As long as Stergrth is frist and Cahrsima is last, you're good.

 

[Parmandur]

The population density doesn't bother me overly.mu h: real world Europe wasn't full of Trolls, Dragons, or Giants.

 

[Emerikol]

You konw how you can raed soemtihng as long as the frist and last lteters of the wrod are the same? Stat odrer is like taht. As long as Stergrth is frist and Cahrsima is last, you're good.

Lol. Well I will admit I'm not trying to lead a movement to get them changed back. I just always write them down in S-I-W-D-Cn-Ch order.

 

[Azzy]

This is going to take me a LONG time to adjust to.

I still order my abilities S-I-W-D-Con-Cha.

When did that change occur? Was it with 2e or earlier?