D&D General Wildly Diverse "Circus Troupe" Adventuring Parties

[Mecheon]

But, you were just going on about how this year it's Forgotten Realms, next year it's Dark Sun. So, it's going to be at least two years before we see a Greyhawk adventure. What was the point of putting it into the DMG and then not having any support?

I mean, basically no setting has full on support, let's be honest here. FR and Ravenloft are the most supported, but even then Ravenloft only has one adventure and a "Here's some ideas book", and FR is the setting of the award winning Baldurs Gate 3. Most people wanting Greyhawk just wanted it unlocked in the DMs Guild to go and publish their own adventures and stuff.

Plus... Well, let's be honest, there isn't really much to Greyhawk to make "This is a Greyhawk adventure" stand out from anything else and at that point, you may as well make it a FR one and coast on "This is the part of D&D people know and are fond for". That's by design per Greyhawk's roots. Saltmarsh can just be dragged and dropped into any setting relatively easily as long as you've got rough equivalents.

 

[Zeromaru X]

and they remain one of WotC's primary demographics for what mechanics their designs pursue.

Mechanics and lore, seeing what they did with the new FR books of removing anything from 4e because "most people got upset because of it" (this was the actual reason, as stated by the Tondro guy in Discord).

 

[Clint_L]

Nothing. Zero assigned reading. I describe the setting in session zero and answer any questions they have during character creation. The world unfolds as they play through it.

 

[Hussar]

Plus... Well, let's be honest, there isn't really much to Greyhawk to make "This is a Greyhawk adventure" stand out from anything else

Then, isn't that a pretty solid reason to have a new setting that is distinct? That draws on D&D as it is now and not D&D as it was thirty or forty years ago?

Sorry, I'm wandering a bit afield on topics and getting my streams crossed.

The reason, IMO, and IME, that players don't really care about settings is that they have virtually no stake in the setting. They get told what they are "allowed" to play. Even further, they often get told that if they make particular choices, they will be shoe horned into specific roles. Play a "weird" race and everyone hates you. Sure, you can play that character, but... do you really want to?

So, the players make characters that they want to play and pretty much ignore most of the setting. "Can I play X? Yes? Ok, then I'm going to play X that leverages absolutely nothing about the setting because I cannot be bothered to learn anything about this setting. It's all D&D anyway".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then, isn't that a pretty solid reason to have a new setting that is distinct? That draws on D&D as it is now and not D&D as it was thirty or forty years ago?

Sorry, I'm wandering a bit afield on topics and getting my streams crossed.

The reason, IMO, and IME, that players don't really care about settings is that they have virtually no stake in the setting. They get told what they are "allowed" to play. Even further, they often get told that if they make particular choices, they will be shoe horned into specific roles. Play a "weird" race and everyone hates you. Sure, you can play that character, but... do you really want to?

So, the players make characters that they want to play and pretty much ignore most of the setting. "Can I play X? Yes? Ok, then I'm going to play X that leverages absolutely nothing about the setting because I cannot be bothered to learn anything about this setting. It's all D&D anyway".

This raises a very good point.

A lot of GMs present their settings as a laundry list of things they aren't allowed to do, aren't allowed to play, as though that is an inherently cool and inspiring thing. I still to this day do not understand that perspective.

"You aren't allowed to do X, Y, Z, W, Q, P, J, G, or M. Aren't you super excited to play now?!"

 

[Necropolitan]

A lot of GMs present their settings as a laundry list of things they aren't allowed to do, aren't allowed to play, as though that is an inherently cool and inspiring thing. I still to this day do not understand that perspective.

Literally every setting has restrictions.

You need boundaries to make a setting unique, otherwise it's not a setting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Literally every setting has restrictions.

You need boundaries to make a setting unique, otherwise it's not a setting.

Okay.

Why should a laundry list of restrictions be inspiring to me as a player? Why do GMs act like this should be some ultra-exciting thing to hear, rather than looking like "alright, here's all the cool things I'm taking away from you".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay.

Why should a laundry list of restrictions be inspiring to me as a player? Why do GMs act like this should be some ultra-exciting thing to hear, rather than looking like "alright, here's all the cool things I'm taking away from you".

Presumably because they assume it suggests the setting is coherent and not generic and shapeless.

(Note: at best I have a leg in this camp; usually if I have a fantasy setting that I'm closing off options I'm also adding some, but I still understand the position).