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.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

the writers haven't the faintest miserable clue as to what makes the setting awesome.

I understand the sentiment. I cannot see what is so morally objectionable to the Flanaess presented in the 1983 boxed set that it warranted such a massive rewrite. Some of the changes I get - I assumed the Glorioles had to go because of dirty jokes. I don't want to tell the King of Glorvandrum though - and yes, again I had quite a lot of investment in the old material.

I can understand crowbarring in the new PHB races though I think presenting a world with Dragonborn, Tieflings etc. everywhere gives the setting a distinct flavour from all the 5e settings (probably not ideal for the "model setting" in the DMG though unless you use it as an example of tailoring your world's flavour).

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

By reprinting rather closely the 1980 boxed set?

Okay.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

By reprinting rather closely the 1980 boxed set?

Okay.

Well, you can update it to the new rules and provide some new adventure hooks. Or move the metaplot along. It doesn't have to be identical. There's a beautiful spectrum between slavishly reprinting the 1980 folio (which I don't hold as some kind of holy text, though it was groundbreaking) and completely changing the setting.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I’ve determined I’ll be going a different direction for my Greyhawk.

Advancing the timeline to the 700s CY. Just like how GDQ brought awareness of drow to the campaign and the unreliable narrative of the setting, there will be events that do the same for Dragonborn, goliaths, others, though they were all just there all along in small numbers.

 

[Parmandur]

I’ve determined I’ll be going a different direction for my Greyhawk.

Advancing the timeline to the 700s CY. Just like how GDQ brought awareness of drow to the campaign and the unreliable narrative of the setting, there will be events that do the same for Dragonborn, goliaths, others, though they were all just there call along in small numbers.

Even doing that, I think all Greyhawk fans do really benefit from this DMG version, because newer players will be 10,000% more likely to know what a "Greyhawk" even is.

 

[mamba]

newer players will be 10,000% more likely to know what a "Greyhawk" even is.

it’s in the name

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

Advancing the timeline to the 700s CY. Just like how GDQ brought awareness of drow to the campaign and the unreliable narrative of the setting, there will be events that do the same for Dragonborn, goliaths, others, though they were all just there all along in small numbers.

They did say make Greyhawk your own, so mission accomplished then.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Do you know how long it takes in every discussion of Greyhawk for the fans to tell you what's awesome about the setting?

It's like page after page of how it's generic and it's humanocentric and how it lets you disallow everything other people find interesting and then, only then, after you wake up from your involuntary nap, do you hear about actual setting-specific interesting stuff.

If the fandom itself refuses to advertise the awesome parts, I'm not surprised a bunch of designers on a time crunch would to.

 

[Zeromaru X]

what damage?

Kinda necroing, but the damage is obvious. They added dragonborn to the setting, the audacity!

 

[Zeromaru X]

do you hear about actual setting-specific interesting stuff.

I haven't reached that part yet. Care to point a link? I want to skip the "it's humanocentric/xenophobic and that is good" part.