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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Either way, it's pretty clear that there are some interesting and unique things in GH and I'm still confused as to why that seems to be actively obfuscated in favor of trying what appears to be very hard to convince the world that it's dull as dishwater after a dinner of plain white rice.

 

[Parmandur]

so it is about a week ahead of me creating my own setting…

I understand not wanting to be beholden to every bit of history and detail of the FR, but as a DM I am only as beholden as I want to be. The difference seems to be that FR has the details filled in and I can choose to ignore them while GH is a blank canvas with a rough sketch of the intended painting that I am ‘required’ to fill in myself.

Not sure one or the other is better for me personally, I am more looking for inspiration than to precisely follow the FR story, but inspiration can come from different places

At least this seems to be the main difference between GH and FR, they are otherwise pretty vanilla, the difference is one is pretty open while the other has tons of material if one wants it

Yeah, pretty much.

But Vanilla is one of the most valuable substances on Earth, that people have fought literal wars to control.

No accident that the most popular D&D Settings over time are Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Mystara (in its day), and Exandria...next to vanilla homebrew compatible with those Settings.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

Either way, it's pretty clear that there are some interesting and unique things in GH and I'm still confused as to why that seems to be actively obfuscated in favor of trying what appears to be very hard to convince the world that it's dull as dishwater after a dinner of plain white rice.

To a lot of gamers the 32 page Folio is indelibly ingrained in their mind as to what Greyhawk is and it seems it was the holy grail to the DMG 2024 writers. Seminal work, good stuff but bear in mind it was the first ever campaign setting publication for Greyhawk - there's a lot missed out that one traditionally puts in RPG Gazetteers these days. It is a fairly bland read IMHO - you can tell Gary is a wargamer because he'll list a nation's armed forces in great detail but other specifics are not there...

For instance, the famously intolerant Theocracy of the Pale are mentioned as being intolerant but Gary neglected to mention which God they worship. In fact I think this is true for most of the "Theocratic" nations in the Folio and first boxed set. A much later supplement mentions it is Pholtus - WG8 Fate of Istus, which is quite late in that module series (which started at WG4 because numbering).

Some of the other theocratic nations ended up worshipping deities that Gary didn't intend, and there are a lot of purists who think that the world should be run the way (they think) Great Gygax intended.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I just feel like fans would remember and pitch something aside from the literal first rough description.

It feels like if 90% of Star wars fans just described Luke getting his saber and blowing up the Death Star and never mentioning Vader or the Force or even what the Death Star is or that the lightsaber is a laser sword. and instead they just told people that Star Wars is a serviceable work of Scifi with all the tropes and also some samurai movie influence. You have to understand, it was the first big scifi blockbuster, so nothing interesting had to happen.

 

[Hussar]

I just feel like fans would remember and pitch something aside from the literal first rough description.

It feels like if 90% of Star wars fans just described Luke getting his saber and blowing up the Death Star and never mentioning Vader or the Force or even what the Death Star is or that the lightsaber is a laser sword. and instead they just told people that Star Wars is a serviceable work of Scifi with all the tropes and also some samurai movie influence. You have to understand, it was the first big scifi blockbuster, so nothing interesting had to happen.

The point your ignoring is that so much of what made Greyhawk unique became the default in DnD. And then you have decades of strip mining the setting for other settings.

Your Star Wars analogy doesn’t really work because you’re claiming that we don’t need a Star Wars setting because we already have fifteen other derivatives.

As much as I bitch about Tolkien in the game, I’m not going to pretend it shouldn’t be in the game just because decades of following authors mimicked his tropes.

And there’s still the point here that people seem to forget. This is the DMG example setting. It’s serving a very different purpose than pretty much every setting since the old Monday Expert books. It’s showing new players an example template for how to build a setting.

It’s not meant to be another complete setting. It’s there to provide the skeleton.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The point your ignoring is that so much of what made Greyhawk unique became the default in DnD. And then you have decades of strip mining the setting for other settings.

I feel like I'm going crazy here.

I'm ignoring that point because objectively, based on what other posters are saying, there are things unique to Greyhawk that other people just... seem to be trying to obfuscate to present it as boring and generic.

Your Star Wars analogy doesn’t really work because you’re claiming that we don’t need a Star Wars setting because we already have fifteen other derivatives.

I'm not claiming we don't need a Star Wars, I'm claiming Star Wars fans don't actively work to ignore all the cool stuff about Star Wars.

Like until earlier this year, I spent twenty years convinced Greyhawk with this boring, generic nutrition cube of a setting the fans keep presenting it as until as if by a miracle, one actually managed to let the cat out of the bag about the Bright Desert and then it took seven more months to learn something else unique.

As much as I bitch about Tolkien in the game, I’m not going to pretend it shouldn’t be in the game just because decades of following authors mimicked his tropes.

And LotR still also has unique things to offer. People who enjoy LotR don't try to convince other people it's boring and generic.

And there’s still the point here that people seem to forget. This is the DMG example setting. It’s serving a very different purpose than pretty much every setting since the old Monday Expert books. It’s showing new players an example template for how to build a setting.

It’s not meant to be another complete setting. It’s there to provide the skeleton.

It's mostly meant for nostalgia bait, let's be completely honest. They could have used an actual generic setting and been free to say and do whatever they wanted without old heads getting sad that they changed a word and said interesting species exist.

 

[Hussar]

But why use a “generic setting”? Since so much of DnD is grounded in Greyhawk, why reinvent the wheel?

If you actually want to lean about the setting, read it.

No one goes up to a Star Wars fan and demands them to justify the existence of the movie. You want to know what’s great about Star Wars? Watch it.

Since both Star Wars and Tolkien have been repurposed endlessly by various media, there’s nothing particularly unique about them anymore. But then making the jump to ignoring them in favor of generic stories is not helpful.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For instance, the famously intolerant Theocracy of the Pale are mentioned as being intolerant but Gary neglected to mention which God they worship. In fact I think this is true for most of the "Theocratic" nations in the Folio and first boxed set. A much later supplement mentions it is Pholtus - WG8 Fate of Istus, which is quite late in that module series (which started at WG4 because numbering).

A quibble.

First, the original version in the Folio couldn't have had any god mentioned. Because famously, the Folio predated the Greyhawk pantheon.

Next, the Boxed Set, which included Pholtus, made it abundantly clear that it was Pholtus. Unless, you know, it was some other Greyhawk Deity that LG, but was also the god of Inflexibility, and who happened to have his two symbols on the Pale's Coat of Arms.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But why use a “generic setting”? Since so much of DnD is grounded in Greyhawk, why reinvent the wheel?

Because nostalgia bait. I said they could have.

If you actually want to lean about the setting, read it.

If you're not going to use the actual setting, why reference it in a generic way?

No one goes up to a Star Wars fan and demands them to justify the existence of the movie. You want to know what’s great about Star Wars? Watch it.

No one has to pull a Star Wars fan's teeth to get them to say thing one about what's great about Star Wars. They tell people. They discuss it. They don't actively avoid talking about Darth Vader as if his name was a curse.

Since both Star Wars and Tolkien have been repurposed endlessly by various media, there’s nothing particularly unique about them anymore. But then making the jump to ignoring them in favor of generic stories is not helpful.

As I said very recently, I wish people actually referenced LotR instead of it's corpse. I want Old Man Angel PCs and whatever Tom Bombadil is and mythic trolls, and the stuff that's unique about the setting instead of 'all the species are humans but short or sexy' and ' the ugly humans are inherently evil because we never actually read the source material and just want smart zombies to kill'.

The unifying Force and Sci-Fantasy in general are criminally underserved while people act like Star wars invented the Hero's Journey.

 

[Hussar]

No one has to pull a Star Wars fan's teeth to get them to say thing one about what's great about Star Wars. They tell people. They discuss it. They don't actively avoid talking about Darth Vader as if his name was a curse.

.

This thread is chock a block with people singing praises of setting elements. What teeth pulling are you talking about.

Even the negative stuff in the thread is mostly deep dive quibbles that only a tiny handful of people know/care about.

I guess my question is, what are you looking for? You like drow? Here’s the original source. You like giants? Here’s the definitive source in DnD. You like Urban Renaissance era fantasy? Here’s Greyhawk which was doing it a decade before Waterdeep was a thing. You want gonzo fantasy? Got that in spades. You want the definitive mega dungeon? Got it.

Why would they not use Greyhawk as the source for the definitive DnD setting in the DMG? You keep poo pooing it as nostalgia bait without making the slightest effort to understand the historical context of the setting.

Why should we be trying to convince you? You’ve obviously already decided to hate this. What more can be presented here?