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

[Parmandur]

It is what it is right now. And it's different from what I've run. Different from yours. And most importantly, it's very different from what it will be in the future because some designer in ten years from now is going to have new ideas.

That's how Greyhawk should be.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Would it, though?

It’s got these other races and mechanics not previously mentioned. Okay. Did settings get rewritten when there were weapon proficiencies? No. Did settings get rewritten for skill systems? No. 4e listed where gods fit in the new alignment zorro and carried on. And so on. I would genuinely surprised if there are more than dozens to low hundreds of people who would otherwise be satisfied with the DMG but won’t be if it lacks in-setting rationales for all that stuff.

FR had to explain stuff because The Weave is terrible.

IMO just because I know people here.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

And many fans would hate a new setting. If that's the case, why bother?

Many fans will hate the release of any DnD book. If that's the case, why bother?

Many fans hate the existence of WoTC. If that's the case, why bother?

...

Because the majority of fans of DnD aren't going to be tearing down everything for not being like it was 40 years ago. And the company is full of people who want to see their beloved favorite game succeed, instead of be buried forever because they could not make everyone happy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You misunderstand me because there are steps to it all. So let me me explain

1. My belief is that a setting designed to teach world building in the DMG should either
   1. Have the same base assumptions as the PHB and MM without needing variant rules
   2. Have vastly different assumptions as the PHB and MM but have a very detailed explanation of the difference and information how to run this different setting
2. IMHO, Greyhawk is not currently ready for either option.

Currently as in "before being written for 5e"? Of course not, because the last time Greyhawk was written to match a PHB and MM was 3.5, not 5th edition. However, let me challenge this. What base assumptions make the 3.5 version of the setting completely incompatible with the 5e version? I haven't found any yet. So, your #2 immediately stops. You honest opinion is your opnion, but it isn't backed by any facts.

1. IHO, I don't think WOTC is going to do option 2
   1. It's not their style
   2. They literally ran out of time last time
   3. WOTC is very hands off this edition on telling people what to do or even explaining the situation
2. I believe WOTC is either going to
   1. Reprint the 40year old version and to the usually throw the DM in the wild and say "You're the DM you fix it"
   2. Update Greyhawk buly stripping out it's nongeographic uniqueness and make a alternate FR-like redundant setting which would technically count as education because they'd have to explain the new version of it.

I agree, they aren't going to have the DMG example setting be completely different than the baseline game. But... you seem to forget that there is a third option between "change absolutely nothing from the 80's" and "strip everything out of the setting and leave nothing but bare rock behind"

They can start with the setting from the 2000's, and adapt it without stripping anything out and blowing up the setting. You can believe they will fail at this, but I don't understand why you think it is not possible to do. What are these baseline assumptions that are both so baked into the setting that they cannot be removed, yet also so incompatible with the frankly generic 5e base assumptions of "be the hero, beat the villain, use magic sometimes"?

• So in my opinion it would be better to pick another setting that is already close to the PHB and MM or a setting that already has a book.
• Then Greyhawk can get a whole book instead of a reprinted or updated version of the setting squished in a chapter with little world building education.

But your opnion is still based on the same thing you keep saying it isn't based on. That Greyhawk cannot be in 5th edition, and align with 5th edition PHB and MM assumptions. But you haven't shown why that is. You just keep saying it.

 

[Minigiant]

But your opnion is still based on the same thing you keep saying it isn't based on. That Greyhawk cannot be in 5th edition, and align with 5th edition PHB and MM assumptions. But you haven't shown why that is. You just keep saying it.

I will say it again.

I did not say Greyhawk is not compatible with 5e.

I said other settings or a brand new setting are a lot more compatible with 5e than Greyhawk.

Those other settings would better than Greyhawk for education purposes with the style of education that WOTC does.

The only advantage Greyhawk has is nostalgia and IP.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is what it is right now. And it's different from what I've run. Different from yours. And most importantly, it's very different from what it will be in the future because some designer in ten years from now is going to have new ideas.

The last times the setting was touched upon,, the designers added new things to Ravenloft when they wanted more and different; they didn't just retcon the world with no explanation. VRG is not the same kind of change as other setting updates and expansions; even the changes to the Realms and Dark Sun in the 4e era didn't retroactively change the past and make the setting a different place. Nothing you say is going to make me feel that VRG is fine for Ravenloft. As far as I'm concerned, it was a re-make that refused to label itself as such in order to manipulate long-time fans for profit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And many fans would hate a new setting. If that's the case, why bother?

Many fans will hate the release of any DnD book. If that's the case, why bother?

Many fans hate the existence of WoTC. If that's the case, why bother?

...

Because the majority of fans of DnD aren't going to be tearing down everything for not being like it was 40 years ago. And the company is full of people who want to see their beloved favorite game succeed, instead of be buried forever because they could not make everyone happy.

I'm not talking about the game. I'm talking about settings; you know, the places the game takes place in. My issue has nothing to do with the game succeeding. And as I've said before, I don't care about Greyhawk personally, and I agree with others that it is fundamentally another kitchen sink setting and it doesn't really matter what they do with it. The only reason I came back into this is because people starting talking about VRG again, and I have an opinion about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Currently as in "before being written for 5e"? Of course not, because the last time Greyhawk was written to match a PHB and MM was 3.5, not 5th edition. However, let me challenge this. What base assumptions make the 3.5 version of the setting completely incompatible with the 5e version? I haven't found any yet. So, your #2 immediately stops. You honest opinion is your opnion, but it isn't backed by any facts.



I agree, they aren't going to have the DMG example setting be completely different than the baseline game. But... you seem to forget that there is a third option between "change absolutely nothing from the 80's" and "strip everything out of the setting and leave nothing but bare rock behind"

They can start with the setting from the 2000's, and adapt it without stripping anything out and blowing up the setting. You can believe they will fail at this, but I don't understand why you think it is not possible to do. What are these baseline assumptions that are both so baked into the setting that they cannot be removed, yet also so incompatible with the frankly generic 5e base assumptions of "be the hero, beat the villain, use magic sometimes"?



But your opnion is still based on the same thing you keep saying it isn't based on. That Greyhawk cannot be in 5th edition, and align with 5th edition PHB and MM assumptions. But you haven't shown why that is. You just keep saying it.

Quick question: what about the 3.0/3.5 core books made them Greyhawk, as opposed to wholly generic? Are we really just talking about a pantheon and the names of some spells?

 

[TiQuinn]

Nothing you say is going to make me feel that VRG is fine for Ravenloft. As far as I'm concerned, it was a re-make that refused to label itself as such in order to manipulate long-time fans for profit.

Again, you do not have to use anything out of VRGtR. What can be retconned once can be retconned again. YOU can retcon whatever you like for your own purposes. There are dozens of 3PP on DMSGuild that still use old versions of domains. You are ranting about a book that other people thought was excellent including long time fans.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, you do not have to use anything out of VRGtR. What can be retconned once can be retconned again. YOU can retcon whatever you like for your own purposes. There are dozens of 3PP on DMSGuild that still use old versions of domains. You are ranting about a book that other people thought was excellent including long time fans.

This is a temper tantrum at this point.

So if some people like something and others don't, the ones who don't are supposed to shut up about it?

Also, I don't appreciate the rudeness.