D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

That's good to here. I got it on D&D Beyond when they had a sale. But unless there is a lot of adventure material for the setting on DMs Guild, it just don't feel fleshed out enough for me to want to run a campaign in it. Though I could see using it for a few sessions in a campaign that isn't primarily focused on Spelljammer. I think I would mix it with an Eberron campaign just to enjoy gnashing of teeth from certain Eberron fans.

Don't think we can't work with it.

Dragonmarks: Spelljammer in Eberron

The warforged captain stared at the great orange orb ahead of them. “This is it, my friends. We are about to be the first people to set foot on Olarune. Thanks to your courage and your tireless eff…

keith-baker.com

 

[MNblockhead]

Yeah, that was a bit too on the nose. Well a bit lower than the nose aaaand TMI.

"The wife and I played Greyhawk last night" has taken on a new meaning.

 

[MNblockhead]

Honestly, even if Greyhawk isn't it, there is value I think in a 5e setting adhering to the style of play prevalent when Greyhawk was released, with a focus on domain management, mass combat, maybe crafting. WotC won't do it, of course, but plenty of other content creators in the sea.

Crafting? I'm sure there were rules for it, but I don't remember every playing a game in the Basic D&D and AD&D in the 80s that involved crafting. Can't remember if the DMG had rules for this.

 

[MNblockhead]

And that's why I'm confused.

Welcome to D&D threads on ENworld. I'm frequently get confused by certain posts until I remind myself of the narcissism of small differences.

 

[MNblockhead]

Because people want to separate Greyhawk from Forgotten Realms, often because they find Faerun is the popular sellout setting that has everything. So to make Greyhawk something other than the older forgotten child, they have taken two small elements of the setting (Gary's love of S&S and the fact it was developed early into D&D life) and spun that into its personality. People want to emphasize that it's the old setting with old sensibilities rooted in the traditions of AD&D to contrast it with a gonzo, anything goes Forgotten Realms. Both are mischaractetizations of the settings but it's easier than saying Faerun got popular due to TSR pushing it with various media while Greyhawk was de-emphasized after Gary's ouster.

The difference between Faerun and Oerth is small. At heart, they are both kitchen sink settings that don't deviate from the D&D expectations. The difference is scope and small amounts of lore and tone.

Greyhawk is more gonzo than Forgotten Reams from what I've seen of FR in 5e. Had not familiarity with FR from prior editions, so I'm sure I missing a lot. But the mashup of genres and weirdness in just the adventures keyed to GH in the '83 box set might be overly gonzo for many modern tastes.

 

[MNblockhead]

I don't know how you teach would building in D&D without references to the base assumptions and base elements of the current game.

They will reference the core assumptions of the 2024 base game. That's what many Greyhawk fans would like. Whatever was in the 1e core books could be found in Greyhawk and the setting referenced those rules throughout. I expect the 2024 DMG will do the same, as it should be. Fans that don't like this should just play the edition they like.

You can understand how I can be skeptical of a publisher who didn't talk new DMs through other bigger systems like encounter building, monster design, and spell design carefully would be careful with a harder topic and subject.

I'm hopefully optimistic that they learned their lesson. The DMG felt rushed. A lot of the advice for encounter and monster building somehow feels overly complicated and anemic at the same time. There are a lot of good nuggets in the 2014 DMG, but it is hard to find, remember, and look up because of the organization. They've had 10 years to learn from their lessons, gather feedback, and more time and money to invest into the 2024 DMG.

Greyhawk fans make Greyhawk look like more work than WOTC is typically willing to put out in teaching these days.

It just isn't. Off all the past settings I can't think of an easier setting to work with for this purpose. But I'm saying this with the '83 boxed set material in mind.

 

[Minigiant]

Welcome to D&D threads on ENworld. I'm frequently get confused by certain posts until I remind myself of the narcissism of small differences.

It's just so weird that fans are so ProSkub and AntiSoub at the same time.

Greyhawk being just as generic kitchen sinks as FR and also 4000% not like FR because it is better and different and has X, Y, and Z that the yutes don't put in their games and removes A, B, and C that the young'ns don't realize they don't need.

So I'm like why put WOTC, who isn't known for their skill at nuance, in that position.

 

[Hussar]

It's just so weird that fans are so ProSkub and AntiSoub at the same time.

I have no idea what this means.

Greyhawk being just as generic kitchen sinks as FR and also 4000% not like FR because it is better and different and has X, Y, and Z that the yutes don't put in their games and removes A, B, and C that the young'ns don't realize they don't need.

So I'm like why put WOTC, who isn't known for their skill at nuance, in that position.

4000% Really? You don't think you might be overstanding things just a smidgeon? After all, you seem to be confusing a small, but rather loud, minority of gate keepy grognards with actual Greyhawk fans. It might be helpful if you stopped insisting that this very small, but rather loud, group of fans are the ones in the drivers seat?

You keep pointing to things about Greyhawk that just aren't true. And are only talking points for that self-same loud group.

Perhaps being just a smidgeon less judgemental (and this is ME saying this), might be a more productive approach?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm hopefully optimistic that they learned their lesson. The DMG felt rushed. A lot of the advice for encounter and monster building somehow feels overly complicated and anemic at the same time. There are a lot of good nuggets in the 2014 DMG, but it is hard to find, remember, and look up because of the organization. They've had 10 years to learn from their lessons, gather feedback, and more time and money to invest into the 2024 DMG.

It didn't just feel rushed, they have literally said on camera that it WAS rushed. That in 2013 when they were focusing on the PHB they misjudged their time and resources and and had to rush the DMG, and that none of them were really terribly happy with the end result.

That is why I feel a lot better about the potential of the new books, they know what went wrong before AND they are not making an entirely new system for the game, so they have more time to focus on the details and drill down into the other books.

Will it be flawless? ROFLOL... no. It is going to have flaws. But I believe the flaws will be smaller and much more manageable, because they figured out their mistakes from round 1.

 

[Hussar]

It didn't just feel rushed, they have literally said on camera that it WAS rushed. That in 2013 when they were focusing on the PHB they misjudged their time and resources and and had to rush the DMG, and that none of them were really terribly happy with the end result.

That is why I feel a lot better about the potential of the new books, they know what went wrong before AND they are not making an entirely new system for the game, so they have more time to focus on the details and drill down into the other books.

Will it be flawless? ROFLOL... no. It is going to have flaws. But I believe the flaws will be smaller and much more manageable, because they figured out their mistakes from round 1.

One would rather hope that after ten years and a bajillion hours of playtesting, that WotC might have at least an inkling of how to improve the DMG.