D&D General Greyhawk book is NOT 'Shield Lands' but 'Borderlands of Iuz' according to team member

Iuz, courtesy of greyhawk.fandom.com​

Last week, Luke Gygax referred to the upcoming Greyhawk book for Dungeons & Dragons as Melf's Guide to Greyhawk: The Shield Lands. However, it turns out that that might not be the actual title.

According to Jay Scott, who is on the writing team, the book is actually called 'Melf's Guide to Greyhawk: The Borderlands of Iuz'.

I came on to clarify as I believe Luke was mistaken when he was excitedly talking about the project and the Easley artwork of Melf. My real name is Jay Scott: I was directly mentioned in the press conference with Luke and Dan Ayoub .... We have a project meeting with Luke and the entire team this evening, and the project is on point to make all date goals. I will specifically ask Luke about his comments on the title. To my knowledge, Book 1 is still titled: Melf's Guide to Greyhawk: The Borderlands of Iuz. If a change has been made, I would be happy to let you know here.

Possibly more importantly, Scott also refers to the book as 'Book 1'--hinting that a series of books is on the table. Additionally, he refers to "the old, gritty Greyhawk while being written in current 5.5 2024 ruleset". Finally, he notes that no WotC personnel are involved with the project, although the book is 'Official Greyhawk D&D WotC.

Scott also mentioned that the team was small, including Stephen Radney-Macfarland and Les "Oblivion Seeker" Reno.

The title Borderlands of Iuz refers to an evil demigod in the Greyhawk setting. He lives on Oerth itself (the world of Greyhawk) ruling an empire, and is the son of Graz'zt, one of the demon lords of the Abyss, and Iggwilv, a human witch. The Shield Lands, by contrast, refer to a number of provinces, many of which are ruled by Iuz, with the exception of the 'New Shield Lands', which seeks to reclaim the areas lost to Iuz.

Shield Lands by Greyhawk cartographer Anna B Meyer​

 

[Mark Craddock]

I’d rather have the optional rules in one place. To me that is more table / style specific than setting specific. There is no reason why I can use (let alone should use…) gritty resting in Greyhawk but not in FR or Krynn or what have you

If they want to add other setting specific things like subclasses, factions, bastions, etc. they can do that. They can even add additional optional rules if they think they make sense for a setting (fear / insanity for Ravenloft, dragon riding & air combat for Dragonlance), but some generally applicable rules to make a game more or less gritty should be general, not limited to a setting book

I see your point but it could be a tactic to incentivize purchase of sourcebooks. I have no insider info so hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Morrus]

I see your point but it could be a tactic to incentivize purchase of sourcebooks. I have no insider info so hopefully I'm wrong.

I’d be worried if a company wasn’t trying to incentivise people to buy their products. It’s basically their job.

 

[Jahydin]

The 'grittiness' of Greyhawk seems an inappropriate term. Greyhawk is Greyhawk, it is pulp Sword and Sorcery meets Ivanhoe. It is Lahnkmar and Moorcock. There are dungeons, dark and dangerous, Flaeness wide intrigue, and consequences for players actions. I think of Greyhawk as more granular than gritty. It is world building with starter prompts. I await more...

I think this is more of a comparison of lethality between 0D&D/AD&D and current 5e. Pretty popular opinion among grogs that 5e is "too easy" and "full of super-heroes" (mostly past level 4 ), so makes sense to house rule a few things to alleviate that.

 

[VashVet]

it is pulp Sword and Sorcery meets Ivanhoe

I love that description.

 

[Nobleshield]

Quite excited to see what they might do to make 5.5e feel more like older style D&D, as that's my biggest issue with the revision.

 

[Mark Craddock]

I’d be worried if a company wasn’t trying to incentivise people to buy their products. It’s basically their job.

Well said and of course you are right. What I should have said was "setting rules" might be more enticing for each group.

 

[Distracted DM]

Quite excited to see what they might do to make 5.5e feel more like older style D&D, as that's my biggest issue with the revision.

Are they going to be doing this? Cuz yeah that sounds interesting ... and difficult without a lot of rules revisions.

 

[Jahydin]

Are they going to be doing this? Cuz yeah that sounds interesting ... and difficult without a lot of rules revisions.

Yes! Sounds like just a page or two of house rules, but would be great if it was more.

Look forward to see what they've come up with. Considering how long some of them have been playing in this setting, I can't think of another group more qualified to tune this engine into shape.

 

[Xenolith234]

I could see them modifying initiative rules to use spell interruption/casting time, and changing the healing and resting rules.