Dungeons & Dragons May Not Come Back to Greyhawk After 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide

Wizards of the Coast does not appear to have future plans for the Greyhawk setting past the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide. Speaking at a press event earlier this month, Dungeons & Dragons game architect Chris Perkins explained that the inclusion of Greyhawk campaign setting material in the upcoming rulebook was meant to stand on its own. "Basically, we're saying 'Hey DMs, we're giving you Greyhawk as a foundation on which you can build your own setting stuff,'" Perkins said when asked about future Greyhawk setting material. "Whether we get back to Greyhawk or not in some capacity I cannot say, but that's our intention for now. This is the sandbox, it's Greyhawk. Go off and run Greyhawk or Greyhawk-like campaigns with this if you wish. We may not come to this version of Greyhawk for a while because we DMs to own it and play with it. This is not a campaign setting where I think we need to go in and start defining large sections of the world and adding more weight of content that DMs have to sit through in order to feel like they're running a proper Greyhawk campaign."

The 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide includes a campaign setting gazetteer focused on the Greyhawk setting, one of D&D's earliest campaign settings. The use of Greyhawk is intended to be an example for DMs on how to build a full-fledged campaign setting, with an overview of major conflicts and places to explore within the world. New maps of both Oerth and the city of Greyhawk are also included in the rulebook.

However, while it seems like Wizards isn't committing to future Greyhawk campaign setting material, Perkins admitted that the fans still have a say in the matter. "We're not so immutable with our plans that if the fans rose up and said 'Give us something Greyhawk,' that we would say 'No, never,'" Perkins said. "That won't happen."

Perkins also teased the appearance of more campaign settings in the future. "We absolutely will be exploring new D&D worlds and that door is always open," Perkins said.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

Evil. Windmill.

Just don't read the module where they try to explain the Evil Windmill. We don't talk about that in polite circles - it is resigned to the same Circle of Hell that the Castle Greyhawk module that features Mordenkainen/Gygax in a hot-tub (and yes that is a real thing).

 

[Zeromaru X]

Tolkien is what you like, there are Middle Earth products available, or you can homebrew your own Middle Earth.

Well, I don't see a problem with having Tolkienian species in the game. They have become staple of fantasy after all (or at least, the dwarf-elf-human trio). My only problem is trying to make them the exclusive species you must play. I'm accustomed to the really diverse world of Warcraft, after all. Or Mos Eisley cantina, for those who don't play Warcraft.

For instance, I don't see any reason to shun dragonborn in the basis that "they aren't fantastical" enough, when there is a lot of dragon folk in ancient mythologies. They are more traditional than halflings, lol

But again, I'm not going to ban any species, even halflings, from my games, specially if a player shows interest in a certain race. I prefer to talk with them and wove them into the narrative, than to try to maintain a sense of "lore purity". I prefer my players have fun (or to play in a game I enjoy and have fun with everyone).

 

[Zeromaru X]

I think my view was, why not have Greyhawk embrace its 1e roots and still have the quirky old feel to it? Have a newer setting (or god forbid, release a brand new non-MTG setting) be the poster-boy for 5e. Or just use the Realms.

This would have been the ideal. And why I was not enthusiastical with the return of Greyhawk. After all, Greyhawk has a legacy and an established fanbase, and trying to deviate from it is going to make some people angry (I know it, I'm angry about Dragon Age right now).

But, on the other hand, they weren't going to let the 50th anniversary go away without profiting from it, and Greyhawk, in theory is supposed to be the basic setting of D&D (or at least, that was the purpose for which it was created before the TSR writers decided to give it an storyline). And basic setting implies a place for everything in the core books.

 

[Zeromaru X]

there's no Dragonborn

As I've said before, I just use dragonborn as an example because that's the species that old skool DMs typically hate for reasons I don't really understand. But I can change to catgirl or shadowman and it would hardly made a difference.

Sure, there is the Forgotten Realms, where these races are already integrated in... But, you see, the Forgotten Realms has the same problem that Greyhawk in this regard: fans who want to change everything back to the 1e/2e/3e status quo and that say that the current Forgotten Realms are garbage because they added dragonborn/tieflings with a non-random look/orcs as good guys/what have you in their lawn. And they almost got their wish fulfilled during the D&D Next storyline, when WotC backtracked and reseted the setting to a certain status quo. Dragonborn managed to stay just because of the popularity they have within certain fan circles. Other species weren't as lucky (I still mourn Many-Arrows).

So, it's kinda frustrating and tiresome to be rejected almost universally by D&D fans of any setting just because I (and people like me) happen to like a flavour of fantasy that is different to what they had back in the 70s.

Do I want you to have dragonborn in your Greyhawk? No. You are free to throw them into Mordor if you want. What I want is to be allowed to have dragonborn in my Greyhawk without someone telling me I'm doing Greyhawk wrong because of it, or that WotC destroyed the setting just because they added the option to have dragonborn in it (that is that, an option. Is not like they are going to send the Pinkertons to your house because you preferred to play in the 1983 Greyhawk version instead of the 2024 one).

 

[Zeromaru X]

ancient Flan

You almost made me imagine some ancient desserts scattered in the desert...

 

[Parmandur]

As I've said before, I just use dragonborn as an example because that's the species that old skool DMs typically hate for reasons I don't really understand. But I can change to catgirl or shadowman and it would hardly made a difference.

Sure, there is the Forgotten Realms, where these races are already integrated in... But, you see, the Forgotten Realms has the same problem that Greyhawk in this regard: fans who want to change everything back to the 1e/2e/3e status quo and that say that the current Forgotten Realms are garbage because they added dragonborn/tieflings with a non-random look/orcs as good guys/what have you in their lawn. And they almost got their wish fulfilled during the D&D Next storyline, when WotC backtracked and reseted the setting to a certain status quo. Dragonborn managed to stay just because of the popularity they have within certain fan circles. Other species weren't as lucky (I still mourn Many-Arrows).

So, it's kinda frustrating and tiresome to be rejected almost universally by D&D fans of any setting just because I (and people like me) happen to like a flavour of fantasy that is different to what they had back in the 70s.

Do I want you to have dragonborn in your Greyhawk? No. You are free to throw them into Mordor if you want. What I want is to be allowed to have dragonborn in my Greyhawk without someone telling me I'm doing Greyhawk wrong because of it, or that WotC destroyed the setting just because they added the option to have dragonborn in it (that is that, an option. Is not like they are going to send the Pinkertons to your house because you preferred to play in the 1983 Greyhawk version instead of the 2024 one).

Probably best to just ignore the noise.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As I've said before, I just use dragonborn as an example because that's the species that old skool DMs typically hate for reasons I don't really understand.

They were made in the past 30 years and aren't humans of variable height and hairiness.

I don't know either. They seem to insist any new species be shackled and brainboxed to the setting they originated in because they don't 'fit' the game that's had bronze collossus mecha, goblin cowboys with magic missile six shooters, crashed space ships full of antimatter rifles, a whole dimension of Hammer Horror parodies, wizards whose casting method is based on scifi wetware and liberal stealing from 50,000 years of disparate mythology for far longer.

Apparently the ultimate gonzo fantasy isn't allowed to be gonzo anymore.

 

[Hussar]

Sure, but it was the Tolkienen races back in the day. If you follow the thread of the civil discussion I was having with the other poster that was what I meant. However I get the impression you'd rather strut your feathers and be hostile.

Oohhh, my mistake. I didn't realize that civil discussion was one person pontificating about how everything other people might like is crap and how WotC should never have revisited Greyhawk because they obviously don't understand what makes Greyhawk great. How one single vision of Greyhawk is the one true vision and everything else is just bad.

That civil discussion?

Yeah, again, I have no problems with pointing out how this or that thing has been changed. But instead of telling all and sundry how these changes are bad, why not take them as opportunities to tell new stories? You've spent pages and pages telling us how these changes are lacking in vision, lack understanding of the setting and whatnot. Ok, I get that you don't like the changes. But, here's a thought, maybe instead of endlessly posting negativity why not try to put all that energy instead into telling us how these changes can be used to create fantastic Greyhawk stories? In other words, if all you're going to do is endlessly complain about how these changes are bad, without providing any actual solutions, what's the point?

 

[Hussar]

Problem is Greyhawk fans are dogmatic.

Well, now here? Here we are ENTIRELY in agreement.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

But, here's a thought, maybe instead of endlessly posting negativity why not try to put all that energy instead into telling us how these changes can be used to create fantastic Greyhawk stories?

Already done - I wrote this article on DM's Guild. There will be more. It contains suggestions for incorporating Tieflings into the setting. Get it for free, read it, let me know what you think. Perhaps I can spin straw into aluminium as well as anyone.

Well, now here? Here we are ENTIRELY in agreement.

It was bound to happen eventually good sir.