Dungeons & Dragons May Not Come Back to Greyhawk After 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide

Wizards of the Coast does not appear to have future plans for the Greyhawk setting past the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide. Speaking at a press event earlier this month, Dungeons & Dragons game architect Chris Perkins explained that the inclusion of Greyhawk campaign setting material in the upcoming rulebook was meant to stand on its own. "Basically, we're saying 'Hey DMs, we're giving you Greyhawk as a foundation on which you can build your own setting stuff,'" Perkins said when asked about future Greyhawk setting material. "Whether we get back to Greyhawk or not in some capacity I cannot say, but that's our intention for now. This is the sandbox, it's Greyhawk. Go off and run Greyhawk or Greyhawk-like campaigns with this if you wish. We may not come to this version of Greyhawk for a while because we DMs to own it and play with it. This is not a campaign setting where I think we need to go in and start defining large sections of the world and adding more weight of content that DMs have to sit through in order to feel like they're running a proper Greyhawk campaign."

The 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide includes a campaign setting gazetteer focused on the Greyhawk setting, one of D&D's earliest campaign settings. The use of Greyhawk is intended to be an example for DMs on how to build a full-fledged campaign setting, with an overview of major conflicts and places to explore within the world. New maps of both Oerth and the city of Greyhawk are also included in the rulebook.

However, while it seems like Wizards isn't committing to future Greyhawk campaign setting material, Perkins admitted that the fans still have a say in the matter. "We're not so immutable with our plans that if the fans rose up and said 'Give us something Greyhawk,' that we would say 'No, never,'" Perkins said. "That won't happen."

Perkins also teased the appearance of more campaign settings in the future. "We absolutely will be exploring new D&D worlds and that door is always open," Perkins said.

 

[Scribe]

Ah here it is @Henadic Theologian

 

[mamba]

But the DMG presentation makes it monolithic. One reason I object to the "three themes" approach is because including Iuz, Elemental Evil, and (sigh) Dragons doesn't make sense for a lot of the continent.

it’s an example, no one will complain when you replace dragons with something else for your campaign

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

it’s an example, no one will complain when you replace dragons with something else for your campaign

I'm pretty sure someone could change the plot of Tyranny of Dragons to be something like Rise of Tarzhidun or something like this without much effort.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

You could make any adventure into a Greyhawk adventure. It'd just be nice to have adventures written for Greyhawk you don't need to adapt, like in the old days. And not just ones that start "Return to..." or are "reimaginings" of old ones.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Yeah, that's an awesome analogy.

One of the weirdest things is that I see Greyhawk as being incredibly regional in terms of storyline and campaign tone. So, if I run a campaign set in the Great Kingdom I'm likely in a different genre than if I run a campaign set in the Free City of Greyhawk, and then another one set in the County of Ulek.

They have different themes, enemies, and tropes.

Greyhawk is not monolithic.

But the DMG presentation makes it monolithic. One reason I object to the "three themes" approach is because including Iuz, Elemental Evil, and (sigh) Dragons doesn't make sense for a lot of the continent. I run a lot of games in Greyhawk and Veluna. Iuz pops up a lot, Elemental Evil less so, and Dragons not at all. (Funny, that).

My County of Ulek campaign drew a lot on the tension between newer gods and the Old Faith of druidism (the ruler of Ulek was a druid), while also introducing a non-canonical threat - an invasion by the "Fhoi Myore" (drawing on Moorcock, but making them alien spirits that possessed and deformed the Fomorian giants).

The Onnwal campaign (one of the few in that part of the map) ignored Iuz and Elemental Evil and Dragons, and instead was all about the struggle against the Scarlet Brotherhood.

Looking over the Greyhawk material provided in the new DMG, it's often not horrible - and occasionally really good. But mixed with general misunderstanding of the setting and trying to shoehorn in material that doesn't fit.

Cheers,
Merric

Then I feel you missed a bit, as they explicitly stated the flavours of Fantasy could be very different between the major regions.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Interestingly the DMG 2024 isn't even internally consistent with its own. It mentions Furyondy seceded from the Great Kingdom in 356 CY. Then it mentions that 200 years ago the Great Kingdom spanned the Flanaess - meaning 376 CY?

That’s not a contradiction. Also Furyondy declared independence about 100 years before that. Nyrond seceded in 356.

 

[pemerton]

Agreed - you don't have to follow the settings canon but it makes for a common baseline for supplements. Otherwise you might get a follow up supplement where - I dunno, to use my Game of Thrones analogy - Ned Stark survived Game of Thrones and still Hand of the King.

GH already has this. The Horned Society-Shield Lands events, and ensuing refugees, that are mentioned in the City of GH boxed set, are missing from later From the Ashes stuff.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

That’s not a contradiction. Also Furyondy declared independence about 100 years before that. Nyrond seceded in 356.

Greyhawk 404 - Rebellious Province Not Found Error.

You are right - good job I'm not writing this nonsense.

But if Furyondy secedes in 254 CY, how can the following quote from the DMG be true:-

It is helpful to picture the Flanaess about 200 years ago. At that time, the Great Kingdom of Aerdy stretched from the Vast Swamp to the Rakers, and from the Solnor Ocean to the Yatil and Lortmil Mountains.

576 - 200 = 376
376 CY = No Nyrond or Furyondy in the Great Kingdom, much less the states they took with them.

Veluna jumped ship with Furyondy, as did Perrenland (a quick glance at my Living Greyhawk Gazetteer confirms). The Yatils are next to these two states. So when they say, "It is helpful to picture the Flanaess about 200 years ago." I say, "I kinda wish you, Mr. Author had done that before writing this slush."

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I just picked up the 2024 DMG last night. I’m in agreement with Stuart. There is a lot of interesting choices I could find myself thinking I might not have made that call, but I’m glad they thought of it. Such as the number of rulers who are explicitly listed as dragons under the guise of a human or elf. Making the leader of the Knight of Holy Shielding a Dragonborn was inspired and I can get behind.

However, making Drax an orc I can’t go with. There were enough opportunities to mention an orc leader somewhere (Bone March of Pomarj?). Have Drax be a tiefling as that would firm up the discussed devil ties of the Great Kingdom.

I thought it was weird to allude to Korenth Zan as allegedly a red dragon consort of Tiamat (shoehorning in the chromatic dragon metaplot?) when there has been the rumor in canon that there is a faction in the SB with Tharizdun ties, and Elemental Evil is already on the the three “Greyhawk Conflicts” listed on the page earlier.

I can’t figure out why they changed the history since it couldn’t be done for space reasons. Which apocalypse shot first was reversed, and the independence of the western Aerdy lands were off.

Still, there is a lot I like. I feel it suffers from a page count restriction and fitting both a starting local region, plus a continent-worth of geography. It took most of the 80 folio, and trimmed out even more then brought in some stuff for a starter region around the City of Greyhawk. I came for the continent-wide material and it was edited down far more than I anticipated. For instance the coverage of the various hills, forests, mountains, swamps get almost nothing except a handful around the Sheldomar valley.

I like the local region around Greyhawk City material here, which the 80 folio was bare bones about.

This is a fine intro for someone who want an example setting to mimic when building their own setting, and I does that quite well.

 

[Dire Bare]

Change for change sake sums up WotCs approach to settings perfectly . . .

Changes you do not care for do not equal "change for changes sake".

Sigh.