D&D General For the Love of Greyhawk: Why People Still Fight to Preserve Greyhawk

[Snarf Zagyg]

. A setting like Dragonlance or Dark Sun removes some common races but replaces them with unique options. A setting like Theros or Ravnica is attempting to emulate an extremely specific setting that wasn't designed with D&D in mind.

And right there is why there cannot be agreement.

“Every other setting, from Drsgonlance to Theros, may be different. but not Greyhawk. Because REASONS.”

No thank you. You have the Realms as the default in 5e.

The absolute last thing that any Greyhawk fan wants is for your solution. Just publish the Flanaess as a new continent for the Realms to swallow, republish WG7 as canon, retcon Bigby and Zagig as Elminster and punch every Greyhawk fan in the face.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The one that I don't accept is "It didn't exist when the setting was created." So what. The game has grown to include new elements. Find them a home. There is nothing, for example, in Greyhawk lore that would explicitly forbid any option in the PHB; Oerth is connected to the multiverse (indeed, its GH's model of the planes that other settings must bend to conform with, not vice versa), it has plenty of other sentient races (some of which have animalistic features) and doesn't feature any cataclysms or RSEs that would have killed off any particular race, class, or monster. Simply put, I don't believe "it didn't exist before the year 2000" to be an acceptable reason to ban anything from an official setting guidebook.

Yeah I largely agree with this. A paladin after all is really just a "warrior-cleric-crusader." The idea that this doesn't fit Greyhawk (where St. Cuthburt who SCREAMS Paladin exists) but a cleric is ok, seems a little silly.

I think this is especially important for a place like Greyhawk, because as you say it can't make up for "cut content" with its own unique races/class options. It doesn't have those, and the strength of Greyhawk is really its ties to "classic D&D dungeon-delving fantasy," and its more nuanced themes.

And right there is why there cannot be agreement.

“Every other setting, from Drsgonlance to Theros, may be different. but not Greyhawk. Because REASONS.”

No thank you. You have the Realms as the default in 5e.

The absolute last thing that any Greyhawk fan wants is for your solution. Just publish the Flanaess as a new continent for the Realms to swallow, republish WG7 as canon, retcon Bigby and Zagig as Elminster and punch every Greyhawk fan in the face.

I'm a fan of Greyhawk, and I think it's fine. This "true fans of this setting think this" is just gatekeeping.

 

[Remathilis]

And right there is why there cannot be agreement.

“Every other setting, from Drsgonlance to Theros, may be different. but not Greyhawk. Because REASONS.”

No thank you. You have the Realms as the default in 5e.

The absolute last thing that any Greyhawk fan wants is for your solution. Just publish the Flanaess as a new continent for the Realms to swallow, republish WG7 as canon, retcon Bigby and Zagig as Elminster and punch every Greyhawk fan in the face.

Strawman much?

This is a pointless debate. Apparently, there is NOTHING that makes Greyhawk unique, so it's best to start banning options. Hell, let's bring back class/race restrictions (no dwarven mages! No gnome paladins!), put level and ability score restrictions on classes, and make the AC go downwards again. It's what Gary Ordained, right?

I'm done with this. Don't respond, I won't be reading it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Great historical run through, Snarf Zagyg.

I don’t care what anyone else thinks, I loved the 1983 box with my heart, but the best thing to happen to Greyhawk was From the Ashes. It took the articles Gygax was writing in Dragon Magazine and made carried them out a couple years. That’s the Greyhawk grittiness I want a 5e Greyhawk to bathe in.

 

[Remathilis]

.I'm a fan of Greyhawk, and I think it's fine. This "true fans of this setting think this" is just gatekeeping.

Apparently, when I ran a campaign there years ago, I secretly hated it and wanted to be running in the realms instead.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Great historical run through, Snarf Zagyg.

I don’t care what anyone else thinks, I loved the 1983 box with my heart, but the best thing to happen to Greyhawk was From the Ashes. It took the articles Gygax was writing in Dragon Magazine and made carried them out a couple years. That’s the Greyhawk grittiness I want a 5e Greyhawk to bathe in.

I would prefer a reset to original 1983 timeline, but From the Ashes was definitely a thoughtful attempt to update it!

 

[billd91]

This is a pointless debate. Apparently, there is NOTHING that makes Greyhawk unique, so it's best to start banning options. Hell, let's bring back class/race restrictions (no dwarven mages! No gnome paladins!), put level and ability score restrictions on classes, and make the AC go downwards again. It's what Gary Ordained, right?

You know, if a DM wants to run GH that way - that's their option to pitch it to you. If you don't want to play in it that way, it's your right to refuse. But I'm not going to ding a DM for wanting to keep it to certain options that were on the table when the setting was published. There's no point in getting snippy about it because that's not how you would do it.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I would prefer a reset to original 1983 timeline, but From the Ashes was definitely a thoughtful attempt to update it!

There are a lot of possible directions a setting book for a 5e Greyhawk could take. But everything would need to emphasize the play theme WotC wants to go for, not as a way to show off Greyhawk but as a way to showcase that play style. If a Greyhawk 5e book is going to find a market of 5e customers, then it has be the 5e resource doing a sword and sorcery gritty campaign, and be a great Greyhawk resource second.

A challenge would be doing it in a way to meet the post-Tasha’s 5e direction of different “lineages“ not being necessarily evil. Maybe instead of rebooting 1983, advance the Greyhawk calendar a couple centuries. Bone March and Pomarj could be origins of non-evil orcs, even if those nations still come into conflict with neighbors. Orcs under Iuz would still fit the old stereotype.

Doing Greyhawk in a way that hardens to old Gygax race stereotypes just as 5e is moving beyond them would not fly. Greyhawk would need a design that accommodated the 5e direction and baking in the 1983 characteristics ... has issues. Advancing the setting, but having strong influences of the 1983 thin descriptions would make sense.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Having read this thread, I am now convinced that, though there are ways to shape Greyhawk into a distinctive campaign setting for 5e, one that would bring something unique to the table, in doing so, the product would probably not get the support of Greyhawk fans. While some people here have tried to find a niche for Greyhawk, a hook, something that would immediately make it distinct from all the other settings and would make gaming groups want to play in there, others have resisted any effort to pigeonhole GH or to reshape it into something that younger players and DMs could like. That sounds pretty pointless, and it seems to me that there is simply no way to bring back the setting successfully.

 

[Zardnaar]

Strawman much?

This is a pointless debate. Apparently, there is NOTHING that makes Greyhawk unique, so it's best to start banning options. Hell, let's bring back class/race restrictions (no dwarven mages! No gnome paladins!), put level and ability score restrictions on classes, and make the AC go downwards again. It's what Gary Ordained, right?

I'm done with this. Don't respond, I won't be reading it.

I would play with racial and alignment restrictions back.

Thought about running 5E GH doing that.

I wouldn't want them back across the board or all the time but yeah I would sign up for that.