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

[Chaosmancer]

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

That's the one I have, and the format I absolutely do not want. It presents a lot of information, but it is so condensed I never felt like I could actually grasp it. Now, to be fair, I was fairly young when I got it, and I never had a chance to actually play until years and years later, but it just does not appeal to me at all.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

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.

For all the complaints 5e Ravenloft gets from old-school Ravenloft fans, Curse of Strahd's success is what opened the door to us getting Van Richten's down the road - I'd even argue it may well have kickstarted the entire "classic settings revival" effort that got us 5e Spelljammer, Dragonlance, and Planescape as well.

I see no reason a one-chapter Greyhawk setting in the DMG couldn't lead towards a more substantial Greyhawk setting guide sometime in the future, if they think there's enough of a market for it. Likewise not convinced Shadow of the Dragon Queen being an adventure module won't ultimately do the same for Krynn.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I didn't say greyhawk is a bad fit.
I said several other settings are better fits.
I also said that Greyhawk is skipping the better settings for education for nostalgia reasons.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

A question to Greyhawk fans - if you could name 7 unique traits of Greyhawk as a setting, what would they be?

 

[Autumnal]

Bohemian ear spork
Brogit
Jeddart
East-Northeast Scottish halberd
Haggis-on-caber
Phalanx glaive trident
Trident glaive falx lance

I’d just like to note that kids today have it easy. Wikipedia makes it so much easier to be a smartass. In my day we had to trudge fourteen miles to the central library reference section, on foot, while fending off creatures of dubious alignment because Brother Useless couldn’t be bothered to ask his gods for that spell, no, he had to go get Read Magic, like he can read anyhow, both ways, on fire, in the smoggy snow.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I didn't say greyhawk is a bad fit.
I said several other settings are better fits.
I also said that Greyhawk is skipping the better settings for education for nostalgia reasons.

But your reasons for those settings being "better" was that Greyhawk would need remade, because it can't handle the themes and direction of modern DnD. IE, it is a bad fit for the game. A point that you couldn't really defend beyond "5e has a lot of magic, and Greyhawl only had high level magic" which is just false since Greyhawl was the default in 3.X.

And now you've said your real argument is that if we get this chapter, we won't get a Greyhawk book, which is just pure speculation, with the Ravenloft example given above being a counter-point to that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But your reasons for those settings being "better" was that Greyhawk would need remade, because it can't handle the themes and direction of modern DnD. IE, it is a bad fit for the game. A point that you couldn't really defend beyond "5e has a lot of magic, and Greyhawl only had high level magic" which is just false since Greyhawl was the default in 3.X.

And now you've said your real argument is that if we get this chapter, we won't get a Greyhawk book, which is just pure speculation, with the Ravenloft example given above being a counter-point to that.

VRG was not, in the eyes of many fans, Ravenloft. In a similar way, a Greyhawk book for 5.2 would likely not be Greyhawk in the eyes of many of it's fans. And if that's the case, why bother?

 

[TiQuinn]

VRG was not, in the eyes of many fans, Ravenloft. In a similar way, a Greyhawk book for 5.2 would likely not be Greyhawk in the eyes of many of it's fans. And if that's the case, why bother?

Some fans.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some fans.

Ok. Some fans. Your point, other than implying how much you liked VRG?

 

[TiQuinn]

Ok. Some fans. Your point, other than implying how much you liked VRG?

Same point as yours.