D&D (2024) A Reintroduction to Greyhawk

[Parmandur]

Against it.

The best advice I have is for DMs to start small. A small area that has adventure sites, factions, and mysteries.

Say what you will about 4e, but the sample setting ( something N valley) was a great example of how DMs should do it. Give the players a sandbox, highlight some cool spots, throw down some mysterious names and get them going. Lost Mines is good. A home base and lots of things to do on a manageable map you can give the players.

Providing a whole world and a major metropolitan area as a sample is in my opinion a disservice to DM laying out the expectations that they should aim big.

The presentation in the DMG is just that: they start with a manageable hub in Greyhawk itself, and spread it out from there, precisely as an example of how to start small and build out.

 

[OptionalRule]

Optional, I think this is a nice little article and I thank you for sharing. Your thoughts on the intersection of the evolved flavor of D&D (more "superheroic," might be the most succinct way of describing it) and the bastion system are provocative. At the same time, one can hope that through the continued publicization of Greyhawk (with an important acknowledgement of Ghosts of Saltmarsh, which is set in Oerth with the possibility of hosting it in different settings), the history and tone of the setting -- which you so well describe -- can influence the tenor of future D&D games to reach for such a tone, even if the game system may seem to not easily facilitate it upon first impression.

I agree. The tone is the thing I have the most reservations about. I like the OG sword and sorcery feel of Greyhawk and 2024 just doesn't support that. I'm able to keep that feel through tier 1, but by the time we're getting into tier 2, that's just gone.

 

[Parmandur]

I think that's a valid take. It's not mine though. Eladrin had a brief mention. Greyhawk has a full treatment.

How this is seen will really be shapped by any new modules. If none of them use Greyhawk sure, if most of them do then it is the default.

That is precisely what I don't expect will happen: the Dragon Anthology will no doubt be Settijg neutral with some suggestions for locating in multiple Settijgs, and they already said the Starter Set will be doing that route too. So next year we will have two Setting neutral products, and two Forgotten Realms products. And I would expect thst trend from the past few years towards Setting neutrality to continue.

 

[Hatmatter]

It's the setting included in detail in the core books. If that isn't default, what is?

I am surprised to read this from you, Optional. Crawford and Perkins have said again and again in interviews that they regard the "default" setting of D&D as the multiverse. Really, D&D never had a default setting and I think people return to that term because of the decision to make a "default" setting of Greyhawk for 3rd edition D&D. As someone who lived through Basic, 1st edition, 2nd edition, and on to today, I can say that the emphasis of D&D & AD&D back in the 1980s was of a generic fantasy role-playing game that faciliated play in many different worlds. That was part of the appeal: Play in Hyboria, your own world, Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Middle Earth, whatever. Gygax certainly encouraged this in the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.

3rd edition seemed to have established some of the language and concepts (the notion of a "0.5 edition," "default" setting, and other terms I read uncritically repeated here on ENWorld and in other forums) from which the game has migrated but to which others have not consented.

Per my post above, I enjoyed your article and thank you for it, but let's leave this idea of a "default" setting put aside. We can celebrate Oerth, Abeir-Toril, Krynn, Blackmoor, and many an other setting without recourse to it.

A final note, upon hearing that Greyhawk will be the example setting in the new book, I often have thought of Mike Mearls's comment years ago about how he wanted to see Greyhawk return, but he felt it was not handled correctly with the large campaign setting books and box set treatment it previously received á la the Forgotten Realms. I wonder if the kind of concise, collaborative model of Greyhawk that Perkins and Wyatt are proposing for the new Dungeon Master's Guide is not a realization of Mearls's aspiration for Gygax's world?

 

[OptionalRule]

I am surprised to read this from you, Optional. Crawford and Perkins have said again and again in interviews that they regard the "default" setting of D&D as the multiverse. Really, D&D never had a default setting and I think people return to that term because of the decision to make a "default" setting of Greyhawk for 3rd edition D&D. As someone who lived through Basic, 1st edition, 2nd edition, and on to today, I can say that the emphasis of D&D & AD&D back in the 1980s was of a generic fantasy role-playing game that faciliated play in many different worlds. That was part of the appeal: Play in Hyboria, your own world, Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Middle Earth, whatever. Gygax certainly encouraged this in the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.

3rd edition seemed to have established some of the language and concepts (the notion of a "0.5 edition," "default" setting, and other terms I read uncritically repeated here on ENWorld and in other forums) from which the game has migrated but to which others have not consented.

Per my post above, I enjoyed your article and thank you for it, but let's leave this idea of a "default" setting put aside. We can celebrate Oerth, Abeir-Toril, Krynn, Blackmoor, and many an other setting without recourse to it.

A final note, upon hearing that Greyhawk will be the example setting in the new book, I often have thought of Mike Mearls's comment years ago about how he wanted to see Greyhawk return, but he felt it was not handled correctly with the large campaign setting books and box set treatment it previously received á la the Forgotten Realms. I wonder if the kind of concise, collaborative model of Greyhawk that Perkins and Wyatt are proposing for the new Dungeon Master's Guide is not a realization of Mearls's aspiration for Gygax's world?

I think people are belaboring the term default. It's the setting presented to new fans in the core book. So it will be initially the most prominent to those readers. Default isn't intended as a statement on quality, future direction, or setting rank. I'm just trying to express how prominent the setting is prestended in the core books.

So to me, that is the default setting new players will start with in their mind when reading these books and I stand by that statement.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm happy to see attention paid to Greyhawk and it will be nice if this opens up Greyhawk-related content on DM's Guild. I'll still keep my Darlene maps and boxed set handy, but I'm curious to see how they approach or avoid several things (Scarlett Brotherhood, Dragonborn) in the new section.

No matter what they do in the DMG, opening up Greyhawk on the DMs Guild would be the best thing to happen for Greyhawk since 1983.

It does makes me wonder if they'll ever be willing to tackle Mystara.

The upcoming Setting lore book has a Mystarra chapter.

 

[Hatmatter]

I agree. The tone is the thing I have the most reservations about. I like the OG sword and sorcery feel of Greyhawk and 2024 just doesn't support that. I'm able to keep that feel through tier 1, but by the time we're getting into tier 2, that's just gone.

Me too. However, merely use a few of the alternate rules in the (2014) DMG to create a grittier and more deadly world and D&D works just fine for sword & sorcery. I have been doing it the past couple years with a low magic Renaissance-era historical D&D campaign and there really is no problem. Just limit some of the class selections and races and so forth and it's not an issue. I have always looked at the D&D rules as a menu with no obligation to use everything. If I used everything, my world would look the Mos Eisley cantina!!! And that is not a milieu I am trying to capture.

 

[Charlaquin]

True, but I interpret that to mean "homebrew, and we will offer you a menu of usable parts".

I think it’s a bit more specific than that. It means all the official settings, along with all homebrew settings that don’t explicitly claim otherwise, are parallel Prime Material planes, which exist in a shared multiverse and connect to the same outer planes.

 

[Yaarel]

I think that's a valid take. It's not mine though. Eladrin had a brief mention. Greyhawk has a full treatment.

How this is seen will really be shapped by any new modules. If none of them use Greyhawk sure, if most of them do then it is the default.

The 2024 Core Rules wont refer to setting assumption that are in Greyhawk. That said.

Perkins refers to Greyhawk as a "complete setting". It seems top down design, with brief descriptions, but it covers an entire gaming area that can share various campaigns.

So if a DM doesnt purchase an official setting, and doesnt create their own setting, one probably would "default" to the setting that is available in the DMs Guide, and then modify it from there, depending on what the players do and where they go from there.

 

[Parmandur]

The 2024 Core Rules wont refer to setting assumption that are in Greyhawk. That said.

Perkins refers to Greyhawk as a "complete setting". It seems top down design, with brief descriptions, but it covers an entire gaming area that can share various campaigns.

So if a DM doesnt purchase an official setting, and doesnt create their own setting, one probably would "default" to the setting that is available in the DMs Guide, and then modify it from there, depending on what the players do and where they go from there.

While true, "default setting" has meant something far stronger in RPGs historically.