D&D 5E (2024) WotC Invites You To Explore the World of Greyhawk

Greyhawk is the example world in the new Dungeon Master's Guide.
Screenshot 2024-10-18 at 11.31.28 AM.png


This week a new D&D Dungeon Master's Guide preview video was released. This one features the sample setting chapter in the book, which showcases the World of Greyhawk.

One of the earliest campaign settings, and created by D&D co-founder Gary Gygax, Greyhawk dates back to the early 1970s in Gygax's home games, receiving a short official setting book in 1980. Gyeyhawk was selected as the example setting because it is able to hit all the key notes of D&D while being concise and short. The setting has been largely absent from D&D--aside from a few shorter adventures--since 2008. Some key points from the video--
  • Greyhawk deliberately leaves a lot for the DM to fill in, with a 30-page chapter.
  • Greyhawk created many of the tropes of D&D, and feels very 'straight down the fairway' D&D.
  • This is the world where many iconic D&D magic items, NPCs, etc. came from--Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tasha, Otiluke and so on.
  • The DMG starts with the City of Greyhawk and its surroundings in some detail, and gets more vague as you get farther away.
  • The city is an example of a 'campaign hub'.
  • The sample adventures in Chapter 4 of the DMG are set there or nearby.
  • The map is an updated version, mainly faithful to the original with some tweaks.
  • The map has some added locations key to D&D's history--such as White Plume Mountain, the Tomb of Horrors, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Ghost Tower of Inverness.
  • There's a map of the city, descriptions of places characters might visit--magic item shop, library, 3 taverns, temples, etc.
  • The setting takes 'a few liberties while remaining faithful to the spirit of the setting'--it has been contemporized to make it resonate in all D&D campaigns with a balance of NPCs who showcase the diversity of D&D worlds.
  • The backgrounds in the Player's Handbook map to locations in the city.
  • Most areas in the setting have a name and brief description.
  • They focus on three 'iconic' D&D/Greyhawk conflicts such as the Elemental Evil, a classic faceless adversary; Iuz the evil cambion demigod; and dragons.
  • There's a list of gods, rulers, and 'big bads'.

 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Because the fantasy Nazis were in the old material and the Dragonborn weren’t?

I mean, I don’t agree with it, but “I want the 2024 version to be just like the 1980 version” isn’t an incoherent opinion.

The Scarlet Order LAUGHS (evilly, of course) at your so-called Humanocentric approach.

What, you think just stanning for humanity is good enough for the Scarlet Order?

1730239950693.png
 

For me, I don't want them to retcon an entire part of the Flanaess (suddenly making, inter alia, the Yeomanry the retconned "Dragonborn Kingdom") but there's lot of space both in the Flanaess, and in Oerth, for Dragonborn- or whatever!

"Dragonborn: No dragonborn are native to Fallcrest, but travelers occasionally pass through and take up work for a time, especially as bodyguards or caravan guards."

Dungeon Master's Guide (4e).

This is from the Nentir Vale, the setting that was created with the dragonborn already integrated into its lore. They aren't native in the nominal region of that setting, but they are part of that world.

They didn't needed to retcon anything, they just needed to acknowledge they are part of the world.
 

They didn't needed to retcon anything, they just needed to acknowledge they are part of the world.

Agree completely!

As I have repeatedly pointed out, Greyhawk was around when they kept introducing new races (species) into the game. You can totally have them as part of the hoi polloi.

MMMm..... Hoi polloi.... now I want some avgolemono soup.
 

Sure, but I would have preferred "canonical" recognition for the modern D&D species, not some sort of nebulous DMs fiat.
 


I don't understand where this is coming from. Who said you can't change the setting to accommodate PHB races? It wasn't WotC. Old school DMs and players? If that's the case, who cares what they think?

There is more to it than that though. Without express placement in the setting, these will always be the “guest starring” races. Just like gnomes and halflings.
 


There is more to it than that though. Without express placement in the setting, these will always be the “guest starring” races. Just like gnomes and halflings.
so now every race needs a homeland and kingdom for it, anything less is unacceptable? If I am misunderstanding this, what is it you are asking for so they are properly recognized?
 

Because the fantasy Nazis were in the old material and the Dragonborn weren’t?

I mean, I don’t agree with it, but “I want the 2024 version to be just like the 1980 version” isn’t an incoherent opinion.

Well, that is the issue here. You don't make a setting the "starter setting for DMs" and then try to make it a unique setting were some options of the PHB are banned. You either have an starter setting that allows for the basic PHB options, or you have a unique setting geared towards a certain trope (and that's what the specialized settings such as Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance are for).

Personally, that's why I would have preferred they wouldn't have used Greyhawk as the sample setting. Greyhawk has a legacy and an established fanbase that may not be as open to the new options in their sandbox. But I also know that if WotC did not used Greyhawk in the 50th anniversary, it would have been akin to shooting themselves on their feet.

Am I missing something? How is the Knight Commander not canonical recognition?

Good for dragonborn, then. Are there tiefling NPCs? Aasimar? Goliaths? As I said earlier, I just used dragonborn because they are the ones that get the more rejection, given their "modern" origins. But, my arguments are about all new generation species in general.

All of them need to be given an example of how they fit in an already defined setting with 50+ years of history.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top