• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Do you want Greyhawk updated to 5e?

Do you want Greyhawk updated to 5e?

  • Yes! Greyhawk should be updated to the current edition.

    Votes: 93 56.0%
  • No! That sounds like a terrible idea.

    Votes: 42 25.3%
  • I refuse to answer polls that value my opinion.

    Votes: 7 4.2%
  • Other (will explain the comments why I can't answer yes or no to a yes or no question)

    Votes: 24 14.5%

  • Total voters
    166
  • Poll closed .

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
EDIT- h/t Quickleaf. The poll was accidentally created as private. Apologies! The results as of 2/28/19 can be found at:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?657470-Do-you-want-Greyhawk-updated-to-5e/page12&p=7570875&viewfull=1#post7570875

I will update this page with the final results on March 12, 2019, when the poll closes.

FINAL RESULTS!!!!!


  • Yes! Greyhawk should be updated to the current edition.
    136 60.99%






  • No! That sounds like a terrible idea.
  • 50 22.42%





  • I refuse to answer polls that value my opinion.
    10 4.48%






  • Other (will explain the comments why I can't answer yes or no to a yes or no question)
    27 12.11%



So I was reading the Sinister Secret of Ghosts of Saltmarsh thread, and I saw that many people were complaining because, yet again, WoTC were mining the glorious history of Greyhawk ...

EDIT - To be placed on the Azure Sea. h/t @Demetrios1453

But that got me to thinking about my preference- namely, I don't want WoTC to "update" Greyhawk. For me, Greyhawk is forever the hints dropped in Dragon Magazine and various modules, and codified in the boxed set in 1983. I have been running a variant of the 1983 GH Boxed set in various incarnations since 1983, up to and including now with 5e.

I understand that it was updated with the whole 3e "Living Greyhawk" and the Gazetteer, and I have no ill will toward those who like or enjoy it, but that's just not me.

So allow me to expand on why I think WoTC shouldn't revisit Greyhawk, other than to nod to it occasionally.

In my mind, Greyhawk is the ur-DIY setting, especially for the swords & sorcery (as opposed to High Fantasy) crowd. What made the setting great at the time is that it didn't provide answers- it provided hooks. Every place described had hints of adventures for the DM to fill in. It was impossible to read more than a paragraph or two about the places without immediately thinking of some way that this place could be the setting for an adventure. Constant wisps of elder civilizations, great magics, vast riches, and unique and hidden lands waiting to be discovered by PCs (and filled in by the DM).

And that's before getting into fact that we only know of but a small part of Oerth.

Now, I genuinely like the work that WoTC has done to date. But I don't need them to update Greyhawk. I don't need an explanation for Tieflings (let me guess- Iuz) and Dragonborn. I don't want new explanations or a change in timeline. I don't want my mysteries filled.

There isn't really any need to update Greyhawk; the countries and forests and mountain ranges are what they are.

And for that reason, I guess I don't understand why some people are complaining when they use Greyhawk "stuff" (like the older modules) in 5e. Just take what you need- and leave out the rest of the fluff, right?

But I recognize that my opinion might not be a common one, especially in light of the comments I saw. So I'm putting up this poll, and asking for comments.

What do the rest of you think? Should WoTC update Greyhawk for 5e? And if so, why?
 
Last edited:
I'm not that familiar with Greyhawk, and was under the impression it was fairly similar to FR in genre and mechanics, being more of a "standart" fantasy setting. Am I woring in that? what an adaptation would have to include? What makes 5e as it is now unfit to play a Greyhawk campaign? Would DM's Guild be enough or a full hardcover book be necessary?
 

Ilbranteloth

Villager
So I was reading the Sinister Secret of Ghosts of Saltmarsh thread, and I saw that many people were complaining because, yet again, WoTC were mining the glorious history of Greyhawk ... and were probably just going to toss it into a generic Forgotten Realms location. (Note- this is not confirmed, but this is the internet, and what else would we do with our time if we couldn't complain about things that haven't happened yet?).

But that got me to thinking about my preference- namely, I don't want WoTC to "update" Greyhawk. For me, Greyhawk is forever the hints dropped in Dragon Magazine and various modules, and codified in the boxed set in 1983. I have been running a variant of the 1983 GH Boxed set in various incarnations since 1983, up to and including now with 5e.

I understand that it was updated with the whole 3e "Living Greyhawk" and the Gazetteer, and I have no ill will toward those who like or enjoy it, but that's just not me.

So allow me to expand on why I think WoTC shouldn't revisit Greyhawk, other than to nod to it occasionally.

In my mind, Greyhawk is the ur-DIY setting, especially for the swords & sorcery (as opposed to High Fantasy) crowd. What made the setting great at the time is that it didn't provide answers- it provided hooks. Every place described had hints of adventures for the DM to fill in. It was impossible to read more than a paragraph or two about the places without immediately thinking of some way that this place could be the setting for an adventure. Constant wisps of elder civilizations, great magics, vast riches, and unique and hidden lands waiting to be discovered by PCs (and filled in by the DM).

And that's before getting into fact that we only know of but a small part of Oerth.

Now, I genuinely like the work that WoTC has done to date. But I don't need them to update Greyhawk. I don't need an explanation for Tieflings (let me guess- Iuz) and Dragonborn. I don't want new explanations or a change in timeline. I don't want my mysteries filled.

There isn't really any need to update Greyhawk; the countries and forests and mountain ranges are what they are.

And for that reason, I guess I don't understand why some people are complaining when they use Greyhawk "stuff" (like the older modules) in 5e. Just take what you need- and leave out the rest of the fluff, right?

But I recognize that my opinion might not be a common one, especially in light of the comments I saw. So I'm putting up this poll, and asking for comments.

What do the rest of you think? Should WoTC update Greyhawk for 5e? And if so, why?
Well, aside from the Living Greyhawk, there was the whole Greyhawk Wars and From the Ashes box sets and series of modules, while still under TSR, up through the unreleased (although previewed Ivid the Undying).

Did you ever purchase those, or did you stick with the early material only.

My Realms campaign is most heavily influenced by the original campaign set and materials by Ed Greenwood, but I have drawn a lot from later sources, even if I haven’t used them entirely as is. I use very little of the 4e/5e material, with just hints of some of the APs from time to time.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
I don't want WotC to update ANY setting, with the possible exception of Forgotten Realms. (FR has been through multiple major transformations throughout the last 2 editions, and honestly I'm not sure exactly what's true about it anymore. For a normal setting, that isn't a big deal, but FR has been strongly defined by both its volume of detailed lore and the relatively fixed nature of the setting. It's the setting for people who really care about canon and detailed lore, and that should be respected.)

The other settings don't have advancing timelines and are really more a collection of tropes and setting elements with a map. The old material works fine for them. I love the Eberron guide, but even that is probably overkill for most other settings.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
Well, aside from the Living Greyhawk, there was the whole Greyhawk Wars and From the Ashes box sets and series of modules, while still under TSR, up through the unreleased (although previewed Ivid the Undying).

Did you ever purchase those, or did you stick with the early material only.

My Realms campaign is most heavily influenced by the original campaign set and materials by Ed Greenwood, but I have drawn a lot from later sources, even if I haven’t used them entirely as is. I use very little of the 4e/5e material, with just hints of some of the APs from time to time.
I had the Greyhawk Adventures hardcover (1988). That's it for GH stuff, but I only use the 1983 folio, and the earlier Dragon Magazine articles to inform the world.
 

Ilbranteloth

Villager
I don't want WotC to update ANY setting, with the possible exception of Forgotten Realms. (FR has been through multiple major transformations throughout the last 2 editions, and honestly I'm not sure exactly what's true about it anymore. For a normal setting, that isn't a big deal, but FR has been strongly defined by both its volume of detailed lore and the relatively fixed nature of the setting. It's the setting for people who really care about canon and detailed lore, and that should be respected.)

The other settings don't have advancing timelines and are really more a collection of tropes and setting elements with a map. The old material works fine for them. I love the Eberron guide, but even that is probably overkill for most other settings.
But that’s not entirely true. Greyhawk went through a major timeline upgrade in the Wars/From the Ashes era, and Dragonlance has covered multiple eras too, although not always by TSR/WoTC.

But updating to 5e/expanding the knowledge of the setting doesn’t have to be via timeline. Lord of the Rings has been detailed multiple times by multiple companies, and they don’t typically advance any timeline.

I think the key is not so much whether they publish for 5e, but how. Republishing established lore with new (or reworked) adventures is quite different than creating new world-changing APs. A large part of even Realms lore hasn’t been altered from
1e.

Greyhawk could continue to be presented in anthologies like Yawning Portal and, as it may now be, Saltmarsh. The only think really missing is a republishing of the general setting as was done in CoS or even SKT and SCAG. There was some new Realms material, but most wasn’t, other than to set things back to largely how they were.
 

Ilbranteloth

Villager
I had the Greyhawk Adventures hardcover (1988). That's it for GH stuff, but I only use the 1983 folio, and the earlier Dragon Magazine articles to inform the world.
So you’ve already skipped/ignored a lot of other published material anyway. So what difference does it make if they publish/republish now? New gamers aren’t likely to search out those resources now.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
I'm not that familiar with Greyhawk, and was under the impression it was fairly similar to FR in genre and mechanics, being more of a "standart" fantasy setting. Am I woring in that? what an adaptation would have to include? What makes 5e as it is now unfit to play a Greyhawk campaign? Would DM's Guild be enough or a full hardcover book be necessary?
So in a few parts-

1. Both Greyhawk and FR are often considered "standard" or "kitchen sink" campaign settings. This means that they are able to accommodate a wide variety of ... well, stuff. As opposed to ... I guess Point of View/Genre settings like Dark Sun, Eberron, and (to a lesser extent) Dragonlance which tend to play against certain D&D tropes or limit, modify, or otherwise deliberately exclude major standard D&D elements to create a specific feel.

On the other hand, Greyhawk tends to be more swords and sorcery (think Lieber, Howard) and FR tends to be more high fantasy (think Tolkien). In addition, because FR has been ... touched ... more often by the powers that be, there's both a lot of stuff out there for it (which can be good if you like that) but there's also a lot of less good stuff and the constant need to reset things (sunderings and what not).

2. I don't know what they would do to update it. It's perfectly fine, IMO, to run a 5e campaign in Greyhawk- I do now. Personally, I think all you need all the countries etc. Plus that gorgeous map!
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
But that’s not entirely true. Greyhawk went through a major timeline upgrade in the Wars/From the Ashes era, and Dragonlance has covered multiple eras too, although not always by TSR/WoTC.
Sure. My point is only that having a reference of up-to-date, canonically true lore isn't as important to those settings as it is to FR. Being the setting for lore nerds is a major part of the point of existence of FR.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
So you’ve already skipped/ignored a lot of other published material anyway. So what difference does it make if they publish/republish now? New gamers aren’t likely to search out those resources now.
Because it doesn't matter. I don't understand why people have the need to update the setting. It's not Eberron or Dark Sun where you need new rules that are 5e-specific.

More bluntly, the things that remain special about Greyhawk as a setting are the things most likely to get screwed up if they get touched again. In other words, Greyhawk isn't FR, and I'd rather it just be mentioned in passing than have it turned into that.

But that's just my opinion, and I created the poll and the thread to see what other people thought. Because I am not the KING OF EVERYONE! .... yet.
 
I’d certainly love to see Greyhawk updated for 5e. And heck, maybe say that there aren’t Tieflings or Dragonborn. But I don’t think putting them in harms the Greyhawk-ness of it.

The original Greyhawk Folio is pretty rules-empty, so one could just use it mostly as-is. But a 5e Greyhawk that accounts for the history that’s happened since, throws some new twists in, some new Backgrounds and subclasses (a thief-acrobat, maybe even the old proposed-but-unseen mountebank, for example), and new spells from Tenser, Bigby, and co, and I’d be darn happy.

But really, before that happens, I'd think that a full FR campaign setting has to come first…
 

Bacon Bits

Explorer
I don't think that Greyhawk needs anything along the lines of the SCAG, but I'd like to see something like a small print-on-demand document like the Elemental Evil Player's Companion. Like a 5e Companion for the World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting. List the suggested playable races, the gods and their suggested domains, include the major lore, etc. They could even split it and do part of the "book" (using the term loosely) with World of Greyhawk, part of the book with From the Ashes, and part of the book with Living Greyhawk events. They're already selling digital versions of essentially all the old modules. While I don't think there needs to be anything that extends Greyhawk (I prefer to use the original WoG boxed set still), it would be nice if they did something to encourage players to seek out the digital products that WotC intends players to be using. Heck, why not bundle it with the digital Greyhawk products (WoG boxed set, Greyhawk Adventures, From the Ashes boxed set, etc.).

I suppose they could do something in Dragon+, but... I don't think I know anybody who reads that or uses it. At least, compared to Unearthed Arcana, it's all but unheard of. Granted, they've only had two dozen issues in nearly 5 years. Back in 3e I knew multiple people subscribed to Dungeon and Dragon. I think the death of those two periodicals was the worst thing about 4e, and WotC certainly paid for it by turning Paizo into a direct competitor.
 
So I was reading the Sinister Secret of Ghosts of Saltmarsh thread, and I saw that many people were complaining because, yet again, WoTC were mining the glorious history of Greyhawk ... and were probably just going to toss it into a generic Forgotten Realms location. (Note- this is not confirmed, but this is the internet, and what else would we do with our time if we couldn't complain about things that haven't happened yet?).
Actually, it has already happened, and in just the opposite way than you've supposed - this Saltmarsh will still be on the Azure Sea in Greyhawk, confirmed by the product description as well as the Kate Welsh interview. It will, however, contain suggestions on where to place it elsewhere though.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
The more settings have official support, the better IMO.
What constitutes official support, though?

Greyhawk is supported in 5e enough that I can easily run campaigns there.

Do you mean allowed on DMs Guild?
A hardcover publication of the campaign setting?
Something else?
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
Actually, it has already happened, and in just the opposite way than you've supposed - this Saltmarsh will still be on the Azure Sea in Greyhawk, confirmed by the product description as well as the Kate Welsh interview. It will, however, contain suggestions on where to place it elsewhere though.
Thanks! I missed that. ;)
 

cmad1977

Explorer
Eh. Don’t need a ‘generic fantasy setting’ updated or covered. There’s nothing special to me about Greyhawk except nostalgia.
 

Ilbranteloth

Villager
Because it doesn't matter. I don't understand why people have the need to update the setting. It's not Eberron or Dark Sun where you need new rules that are 5e-specific.

More bluntly, the things that remain special about Greyhawk as a setting are the things most likely to get screwed up if they get touched again. In other words, Greyhawk isn't FR, and I'd rather it just be mentioned in passing than have it turned into that.

But that's just my opinion, and I created the poll and the thread to see what other people thought. Because I am not the KING OF EVERYONE! .... yet.
I do agree about that, but the problem with just saying “the old stuff is good enough” is that it’s not readily available. Yes, it’s on eBay, and digital copies from Drive Thru RPG, but that’s different. Not to mention many people won’t get it if it’s not 5e.

There are some rules in most of the books, but a repackaging of a “legacy” setting might be an interesting approach. Although even with Greyhawk, which do you pick? And many would complain that it’s just a reprint.

Another factor, that you touched on, is that Greyhawk is the ultimate DIY setting. I agree, especially in the early years, but the entire framework and support of the game was set up for that sort of thing. The adventures notated locations in Greyhawk, but rarely had a close tie to it that altered the lore for the setting. Dragon magazine basically promoted the approach of making the game your own, since the bulk of it was deemed “unofficial” and there were all sorts of homebrew variations for rules, lore, classes, monsters, etc.

While there is some of that discussion, in the DMG along with the promotion of things on DMsGuild in Dragon+, it’s different than when full articles appeared instead of just saying, “this is good,” and when the DM designed campaign/world was the default. On the one hand, it’s a golden age of homebrew now, but on the other hand there’s almost too much. And while the quality wasn’t always great in Dragon, at least it was chosen, edited, and presented in a consistent and digestible way. The current approach is more of a product review.

So I don’t necessarily disagree, but there seems to be a consistent group complaining that everything is in the FR and they need to release other settings too. I really dislike the way they’ve homogenized the settings over the years, although part of that is how they also dump everything into the Realms. I fully expect it to happen if they release a Greyhawk setting in any capacity, but Ill be even more disappointed if they dump Dragonborn and tieflings, among other things, into Greyhawk.
 

Advertisement

Top