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.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

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."

About 200 is not 200. Though I personally would have said about 300.

I think they were trying to refer to Nyrond leaving a little over 200 years ago as the start of it utterly falling apart.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

About 200 is not 200. Though I personally would have said about 300.

I think they were trying to refer to Nyrond leaving a little over 200 years ago as the start of it utterly falling apart.

It started falling apart long before that. I think just prior to 200 CY is when the big comet of doom appeared.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

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

Sigh.

Agreed, but changes you cannot find an explanation for seem like changes for change sake.

 

[Dire Bare]

Agreed, but changes you cannot find an explanation for seem like changes for change sake.

So?

To assume designers are changing things . . . just because . . . is ridiculous.

And besides, as the discussion in this thread has shown, it isn't hard to find reasons, good ones, for most if not all of the changes made.

 

[Selas]

So?

To assume designers are changing things . . . just because . . . is ridiculous.

And besides, as the discussion in this thread has shown, it isn't hard to find reasons, good ones, for most if not all of the changes made.

Obviously some of the changes were made to avoid backlash like with the Hadozee controversy, while others were to be more inclusive of 5E content which wasn't part of the original setting. The few major events that were tweaked must also have a reason, but I'm not smart on GH to provide an opinion

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

The few major events that were tweaked must also have a reason, but I'm not smart on GH to provide an opinion

I'm not 100% sure being "smart on GH" would help understand why they were tweaked.

 

[Selas]

I'm not 100% sure being "smart on GH" would help understand why they were tweaked.

Maybe; but sometimes understanding what something was in the past might help with understanding why it was changed. I have never played in GH since I started on The Realms, so I have no knowledge to form an opinion

 

[jasper]

If you get three Greyhawk fans together, they will come up with four mutually contradictory sets of demands.

LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES.
One set of lies per us three demands.

 

[jasper]

Vecna: Eve of Ruin has a Greyhawk chapter. (The Tomb of Horrors one).

The dungeon is solid. The setting stuff is what you expect from the Wizards that brought you Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen.

My group just finished that chapter. it is a solid dungeon crawl. And the setting stuff is just marshmallow fluff.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I wholeheartedly wish that Wizards abandons Greyhawk.

Not because I have anything at all against Greyhawk (in fact I generally prefer it to the forgotten realms). But because the 2024 DMG makes clear that the writers haven't the faintest miserable clue as to what makes the setting awesome.