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

[Parmandur]

If you want what I think the mini Gazetteer is going to resemble, don't look to the 83 folio, look to the 2000 D&D Gazetteer that came out as the primer to the LGG. It's about 32 pages with a poster map and hits the highlights a DM needs.

View attachment 364655View attachment 364656View attachment 364657View attachment 364658View attachment 364659

So, similar to the 1980 Folio.

 

[Remathilis]

So, similar to the 1980 Folio.

Less heraldry and troop formations.

 

[Parmandur]

Less heraldry and troop formations.

Right, but basically the same thing otherwise. And I would expect a reset to the original Gygaxian geopolitical situation and chronology, based on Saltmarsh.

 

[Reynard]

But, having experience MANY conversations on these boards about how I was completely wrong for doing that, and how the players must not be allowed to see how the sausage is made,

Have you, really? I have been here since near the beginning and never have I ever seen people claim that rotating GMs is a Bad Thing (tm).

 

[Hussar]

Have you, really? I have been here since near the beginning and never have I ever seen people claim that rotating GMs is a Bad Thing (tm).

Yes. I have. There are multiple people here who have sworn up and down that players should not be privy to the rules. Heck in THIS THREAD, we've got people saying that players should not be involved in world building of the setting. That there is a sharp divide between the DM and the players and players cannot be trusted to world build - they'll create ridiculous characters, or they will try to charter a sailboat in the desert. On and on and on.

So, yes, I have.

Really.

 

[Cadence]

Yes. I have. There are multiple people here who have sworn up and down that players should not be privy to the rules. Heck in THIS THREAD, we've got people saying that players should not be involved in world building of the setting. That there is a sharp divide between the DM and the players and players cannot be trusted to world build - they'll create ridiculous characters, or they will try to charter a sailboat in the desert. On and on and on.

So, yes, I have.

Really.

I would guess virtually everyone on here would say there is a huge difference between wanting/not-wanting the players involved in the world building and wanting the players to know/not-know the rules.

I also bet that most if not all on here would distinguish between contributing ideas outside of actual play time (for DM consideration) and doing it during play (with no DM over site). I think former has been pretty widely done since the 80s (Gygaxian exhortations not withstanding) and even encouraged at times in various editions.

In 1e actual play, would players when they got to the right level often design their own strongholds and stat up there own henchmen (and share them with the DM) or was that just us? In any cases,

I don't recall the later (player world building during game play with no DM veto) ever being a thing in any edition's rules (happy to be corrected). It is a key part in many other games though.

I am sometimes flabbergasted that more folks who want more active player involvement in world building during play, a less heavy handed feeling DM, like DnD, and especially like 4e but not necessarily the grid based combat, don't flock to 13th Age.

I understand for many that they would have a hard time finding players or DMs -- but I'm not sure that's worse than only finding DnD DMs that continually disappoint. I know in our group, the 13A fan who sold it as DnD adjacent got us to try it, and even those of us who didn't like some of what it did could still have a good time and will still play when they want to run it.

 

[CleverNickName]

I would guess virtually everyone on here would say there is a huge difference between wanting/not-wanting the players involved in the world building and wanting the players to know/not-know the rules.

I want world-building input from my players. When I am putting a new campaign together, I always ask them for the following stuff at a minimum.

What races/ancestries are you going to play? This tells me which races are going to be important in the setting. I need to focus on these, but I can ignore or remove the rest. If nobody wants to play a drow or a tiefling, I don't need to include them in the campaign lore (unless I need them as NPCs.)

What classes/subclasses are you going to use? Same as above, but it's a deeper cut. If nobody is interested in playing a cleric, paladin, or warlock, for example, it means I can remove them from the game without causing problems....heck, I could even remove gods and religion entirely if I wanted. But if they do want to play a cleric or paladin, that will inform me of which gods/temples/faiths need the most focus.

What is your background and origin story? I probably already have the starting point of the campaign written--the town they all live in, a few NPCs they will meet, a dungeon to explore--but their characters' own histories will shape it. The soldier background is popular with my group, so I usually have to add a military presence nearby. The pirate background is also popular, so I try to also put that town near the sea. Or I combine them into a naval presence.

So anyway. I don't get player input on where to put different kingdoms, or where the mountains are, or the shape of the world. But I rely on their character choices to help me focus the world.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

We all rotated too...

I was noticing how the relative sizes of the PHB and DMG completely changed between 1e and 2e with most of the sausage shifting from the DMG to the PHB.

Given how (relatively) few active players started during 1e, you'd think that at some point that keeping the rules secret would have died.

After an initial bout with a main DM, we all began taking turns too and still do so.

I am working on a system now for linked mini campaigns in which the dm of the week(s) makes some choices about the campaign that are established before the handoff!

I don’t know what kind of Frankenstein will develop but I like the fun of taking weeks as a player and not exactly knowing what events/themes will be added to my portion.

I am going to make some
Tables for choices each dm will make /add during their turn whether it’s a new betrayal etc.

The shared fiction will matter and we will make sure to fit our new addition into the ongoing work.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Skub is a minor thing.

ProSkub and AntiSkub is fans promoting something minor to a major aspect then fighting brutally about it

Greyhawk fans emphasize it's unique elements are the highlights of the setting. However if they overemphasize these elements, they create a Greyhawk far out the range of WOTC's current level of commitment to quality. But if they go too much in the other direction Greyhawk becomes a boring Alt-FR.

My argument is that since 5e doesn't have a setting design specifically for it, a new setting designed specifically for it or a more recent setting offers an option that lacks this delicate balance.

Good thing the Greyhawk fandom isn't in charge, and the point of the chapter isn't to present Greyhawk, but to teach people how to build their own settings. So there is no reason to suspect that the fans clamoring to make it way too far out of the WoTC niche were able to force that to happen.

Also, if you want to talk options that lack this balancing act... why not Forgotten Realms then? It is drenched in 5e stuff, top to bottom.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Again I'm not saying that a sanitized redundant Greyhawk is a bad setting.

I'm saying putting it in the DMG isn't ideal and is being done to bait old fans and get Greyhawk out the way.

I want a Greyhawk book
Putting Greyhawk in the DMG almost guarantees that there never will be a Greyhawk stay alone book. And it means that the version in the DMG will be either barely fleshed out and too different for new DMs OR morphed into looking like a smaller Forgotten Realms which loses most of its uniqueness. Because it's only getting a chapter in a guidebook.

Okay, that is a completely different argument from Greyhawk being a bad fit. I mean, you've spent the past week trying to convince us that Greyhawk and 5e are incompatible, and now it is that you don't want it in the DMG because you want a more robust 5e source book?

Well, if it gets a good reception in the DMG... why wouldn't they make something more robust? There is nothing stopping them from doing so.