Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zeromaru X" data-source="post: 9505369" data-attributes="member: 65487">To be honest, the changes don't mean anything to me because I'm a newcomer to Greyhawk, so I don't have any attachments to the old materials. That said, I don't see the new stuff as irreconcilable with the old lore as the author of that article says.For instance, nothing in the DMG contradicts that Yolande is depressed. That she appears smiling in a picture while condecorating some adventurers doesn't mean she is not depressed. She can be masking, people with depression do that all the time (yeah, it's my theory, but is as valid as the theory that she is a happy-go-lucky person the author from the article states).I also think that having a few non-humans in the setting is interesting, as is a contrast to the human dominance of the Flanaess. I don't see it as "non-interesting" as the author claims. But, in the end, what is interesting is subjective, what is interesting to me may be not interesting to you, and viceversa. That doesn't makes the Greyhawk info in the DMG "pure garbage" as the author of the article claims.All in all, the Greyhawk 2024 is good enough to have picked my interest despite the reservations I had with the setting (reservations completely valid, given opinions like those of the author of the article, that make people who like the current D&D lore like me feel unwelcome to try Greyhawk to begin with. In that regard, Dave Arneson's Blackmoor proved to be superior to Greyhawk, as that setting didn't break just because they added a few dragonborn to the setting... Point for Dave Arneson, I guess).</blockquote>

Verification