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.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Has anyone actually ever gotten high in the High Quarter?

Reminded me of this:

 

[Zeromaru X]

Hiring a group of adventurers to go check out a cult 5 days down the road isn't quite in keeping with that.

It's not irreconcilable, either. She may want to spy on someone, or keep the cult from entering her lands. Isolationism doesn't mean she is going to leave her lands be destroyed by these smurfing elemental lovers. That this ends up benefiting other kingdoms is just an unintended side-effect that she may or may not take credit for.

Hiring adventurers is the best way to keep her soldiers loses to a minimum, as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by non-humans but old Greyhawk was very much in the Tolkien vein.

Mostly, anything not human, but also in this case species that aren't Tolkienian in nature. Nothing against Tolkienian species per se (save for halflings, they make no sense outside of Tolkien's books, IMO), but the near-religious adherence to that unwritten rule that you can only play with these ones make no sense for me. I know these were the species available back then, but we are now in 2024. Lots of new species to play with today. But, I'm more accustomed to the Warcraft approach of fantasy species.

Did they add dragonborn to Blackmoor?

Yes, in the 2009 version of Dave Arneson's Blackmoor: The First Campaign (that is basically the same Campaign Setting book from the 3e/d20 line @mamba linked, but with 4e stuff added). The dragonborn just appeared one day in Dragonia, asking for an alliance between their kingdom and Blackmoor (and their lore was recently expanded in the polemical Dave Arneson's Blackmoor: Age of the Wolf sourcebook).

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

Yes, in the 2009 version of Dave Arneson's Blackmoor: The First Campaign (that is basically the same Campaign Setting book from the 3e/d20 line @mamba linked, but with 4e stuff added). The dragonborn just appeared one day in Dragonia, asking for an alliance between their kingdom and Blackmoor (and their lore was recently expanded in the polemical Dave Arneson's Blackmoor: Age of the Wolf sourcebook).

Interesting - was Mr. Arneson wasn't around for the release of that? (His bio says he passed on in 2009). Be interested to know if he was involved in it. Does sound a bit like the Dragonborn fell out of the sky though.

As to the Tolkienien thing - you're right about halflings not really fitting in, and WotC having to do some spectacular backpeddling around the mid 2000s when the LotR movies came out. 'd argue gnomes have also struggled for relevance too outside Dragonlance, and too many people try to make them wacky tinkers in other campaigns.

However there's nothing wrong with Greyhawk being Tolkenien in my mind as it sets it apart from all the other 5e campaign settings - otherwise they get a bit homogenous.

In my mind Warforged work in Eberron, Draconians/Dragonborn in Dragonlance, cannibal halflings in Dark Sun and so on. I also really liked the Caliban race White Wolf created for the 3rd Edition Ravenloft setting - a Quazimodo type replacement for half-orcs. I was very sad that they didn't use any of White Wolf's excellent Ravenloft gazetteers and lore in the 5e reboot as the writing in those supplements made Ravenloft into a more coherent setting.

I guess I like my settings distinct - the problem is D&D doesn't have a setting baked in by default (unlike my other favorite game, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay) so whatever setting is on the slate has to bend to accomodate. And ultimately we don't want every setting to be homogenous.

 

[Scribe]

I guess I like my settings distinct - the problem is D&D doesn't have a setting baked in by default (unlike my other favorite game, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay) so whatever setting is on the slate has to bend to accomodate. And ultimately we don't want every setting to be homogenous.

There absolutely is a default, it's FR.

 

[mamba]

There absolutely is a default, it's FR.

it might be the world the most adventures get published for, but the PHB, DMG, and MM are pretty setting neutral (as they should be)

 

[Parmandur]

it might be the world the most adventures get published for, but the PHB, DMG, and MM are pretty setting neutral (as they should be)

The Forgotten Realms has often been used as the Setting for Adventures is because it is easy to transfer across to other Settings or homebrew.

And it is notable that there has been one Advebrure book in the last three years primarily set in Faerûn, anyways, and that was a reprint (Shattered Obelisk). Most recebt 5E books are Setting neutral.

 

[Zeromaru X]

Interesting - was Mr. Arneson wasn't around for the release of that? (His bio says he passed on in 2009). Be interested to know if he was involved in it. Does sound a bit like the Dragonborn fell out of the sky though.

According to what I've read at Havard's website, he was still alive when they wrote that book, and he approved the idea. In fact, he wrote a manuscript with ideas for what would have been a whole line of 4e products based on Blackmoor (similar to the d20 line) that got cancelled after he passed away. That manuscript evolved into the polemic Age of the Wolf sourcebook that was published this year.

As for the specific implementation of the dragonborn, they are supposed to be a mysterious species that is tied with the enigmatic Valley of the Ancients, from where they originated. Likewise, 4e tieflings are part of the lore, and they are related to the shady stuff done by Wizards Cabal.

However there's nothing wrong with Greyhawk being Tolkenien in my mind as it sets it apart from all the other 5e campaign settings - otherwise they get a bit homogenous.

I agree. As I said, I come from a more modern world view of more fantastic species coexisting in the same world, thought not necessarily in good terms with each other, as presented in the Warcraft games. That's why I have no real problem with gnomes (besides for them being perfect targets for a certain meme), while I tend to strongly associate halflings with their hobbit origins from the Tolkien's books.

But again, what I may find interesting is not necessarily interesting for anyone else, and viceversa. And that is ok.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In the Lord of the Rings the hobbits, dwarves, elves etc. all have their own lands separate from the humans and interactions between the species

Except for Bree-land, where humans and hobbits lived together.

 

[Stuart Kerrigan]

Except for Bree-land, where humans and hobbits lived together.

We don't talk about those queer and disreputable folk in Bree.

My point was there is no great metropolis where all the races live side by side like Water deep or 5e's City of Greyhawkm

 

[Hussar]

However there's nothing wrong with Greyhawk being Tolkenien in my mind as it sets it apart from all the other 5e campaign settings - otherwise they get a bit homogenous.

Umm, no?

Being Tokenien is pretty much what every single setting looks like until you start adding other stuff. Nothing distinguishes Dragonlance from Tolkien until you start adding kender and draconians. Mystara as 100% Tolkien (to the level of actually having the 5 Shires) until it started getting the ball rolling.

Being Tolkenian is the baseline for pretty much any setting. Humans --- check. Dwarves, elves, orcs --- check, check, check. Races all live separate so you have the "elf land" and "dwarf land"? Yup. Hard wired biological essentialism? Check. Built in bigotry - elves dislike dwarves, everyone hates orcs, etc.? Check.

Being Tolkenien is the most vanilla a setting can be.