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

[Faolyn]

Okay, so these are not literally the lines from your logic train I just responded to?

"My belief is that a setting designed to teach world building in the DMG should either
-Have the same base assumptions as the PHB and MM without needing variant rules
IMHO, Greyhawk is not currently ready for either option.
Reprint the 40year old version and to the usually throw the DM in the wild and say "You're the DM you fix it"


Because, I am not sure how you can say that Greyhawk is compatible with 5e, then also state that Greyhawk is not in-line with the Player's Handbook of 5e, and that if they simply put the old version into the game, that it it would be telling the DMs to fix it.

I don't get how you can keep arguing that Greyhawk does not align with the most basic elements of 5e, yet also declare that you aren't saying that they are incompatible, Which is it? Does Greyhawk not align? Or does it align?

Um, that's not saying that Greyhawk isn't compatible with 5e. That's saying that Greyhawk isn't useful as a teaching tool because it has too many base assumptions that are different from the base game.

Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Planescape, and Eberron are all clearly compatible with 5e, but they're also not suitable as teaching tools because they are very different than baseline D&D.

Greyhawk is much closer to base 5e then any of those, but still fairly different since it hasn't been updated in a long time and there are plenty of people who will freak if you add non-standard species and classes to Greyhawk without a suitable explanation (or even then).

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, so these are not literally the lines from your logic train I just responded to?

"My belief is that a setting designed to teach world building in the DMG should either
-Have the same base assumptions as the PHB and MM without needing variant rules
IMHO, Greyhawk is not currently ready for either option.
Reprint the 40year old version and to the usually throw the DM in the wild and say "You're the DM you fix it"


Because, I am not sure how you can say that Greyhawk is compatible with 5e, then also state that Greyhawk is not in-line with the Player's Handbook of 5e, and that if they simply put the old version into the game, that it it would be telling the DMs to fix it.

I don't get how you can keep arguing that Greyhawk does not align with the most basic elements of 5e, yet also declare that you aren't saying that they are incompatible, Which is it? Does Greyhawk not align? Or does it align?

It's not Do or Not.

It's a scale. Greyhawk is maybe at 75%. But there are WOTC setting at have compatibility over 75%>

And WOTC has not in this edition shown to be willing to boost compatibility or increase DM education much UNLESS to avoid controversy.

Greyhawk is not Dark Sun or Ravenloft were they are forced to put their whole foot in the pot to make it work

When WOTC is allowed to half-ass, they full-ass.

 

[Hussar]

It would need to explain where the dragonborn came from and why there are so many tiefling and why all the orcs aren't evil and why the psionics is different and where the crashed space ships came from and why evrrrrbody and dey mama has Cantrips and spells and why feats let everyone tap into there classes so easily and why the game is "Big Damn Heroes storm Iuz's castle" over "Plucky Jerks influencing Local Politics"

No.

They really don’t.

 

[Minigiant]

No.

They really don’t.

They dont.

But it would be a better educational tool if they did.

Or if they described and explained the world building choices in crafting Greyhawk.

But I expect neither one.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And that's the crux. Are you designing the DMG to teach new DMs or to convert and get purchases from old DMs.

If they have never played old greyhawk, have no idea anything about old greyhawk, and only know greyhawk as the old setting that was the original setting.... then they won't have the questions you keep insisting that the DMG must answer.

"Why are Psionics different than a version of the game I never played and have never read the rules for?" is literallya question they will never ask.

And for old DMS.... sorry to burst your bubble, but old DMs have ALREADY, sight unseen, said they are more interested in the new DMG because it features Greyhawk. If they get pissed because it includes Tielflings but doesn't go in-depth about why tieflings were never utilized in the Greyhawk wars during 3rd edition... well they are only going to know that AFTER they buy the book.

You are trying to present a catch-22, but neither side is going to react like you keep insisting they will

 

[Chaosmancer]

Um, that's not saying that Greyhawk isn't compatible with 5e. That's saying that Greyhawk isn't useful as a teaching tool because it has too many base assumptions that are different from the base game.

Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Planescape, and Eberron are all clearly compatible with 5e, but they're also not suitable as teaching tools because they are very different than baseline D&D.

Greyhawk is much closer to base 5e then any of those, but still fairly different since it hasn't been updated in a long time and there are plenty of people who will freak if you add non-standard species and classes to Greyhawk without a suitable explanation (or even then).

Baseline assumptions like... what? Tieflings, Dragonborn and Goliaths? We have show repeatedly that Greyhawk is compatible with those ideas. Sure, they might need a single sentence "Goliaths live with Giants", but do we really need to explicitly state that Sorcerers are in Greyhawk? Sorcerers have been in Greyhawk since 2000.

Warlocks? They were also in 3.5, so since 200X.

Good Orcs? Since the 80's

And, let us say that you are right, people will freak out if these things are added without extensive coverage on how this happened... who are those people? Are they new DMs how have never built a world before, but are also deeply attached to a setting that has been without a publication for nearly 25 years? Who is that? The people who will freak out, are not the same people who need basic worldbuilding advice. And, if you are showing how to build a world, and you "need" to explain something like Dragonborn... then you can do that as part of teaching how to world-build. It isn't difficult. I've done it myself. Multiple times. Even in this thread.

Yet, this is a death knell showcasing that the choice of Greyhawk is completely unsuitable?

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not Do or Not.

It's a scale. Greyhawk is maybe at 75%. But there are WOTC setting at have compatibility over 75%>

And WOTC has not in this edition shown to be willing to boost compatibility or increase DM education much UNLESS to avoid controversy.

Greyhawk is not Dark Sun or Ravenloft were they are forced to put their whole foot in the pot to make it work

When WOTC is allowed to half-ass, they full-ass.

So, this is all based on "greyhawk isn't a perfect fit for 5e, and I expect WotC to fail at everything, because I say they have always failed, so this will be a failure and they should have picked something else they wouldn't fail at."

Yeah, you are just not going to convince me that WoTC is so incompetent that they cannot possibly do this right, but if they had decided to make an entirely new setting and spit in the face of people who want something rooted in the 50 year history of the game, for the anniversary, that they would have succeeded.

If they could succeed with a new setting, they can do it with Greyhawk, Especially since the majority of your 25% incompatibility isn't even actually incompatible. It is just people declaring that WotC is incompetent, or that somehow the setting that is the source of most of the BBEGs in DnD 's history was not built for people to fight BBEGs.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

@Micah Sweet @TiQuinn

How about the two of you disengage from each other- maybe even using y’all’s ignore lists- instead of bringing down the tone of the discussion with your bickering.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The majority of 5e playerbase are under 45.

Making a DMG for 40+ year old is a mistake.



The majority of 5e fans never played another edition



Again

The majority of the 5e base is under 45 and never played another edition.

And most have never DMed a world of their own

And that's the crux. Are you designing the DMG to teach new DMs or to convert and get purchases from old DMs.

As an old DM, I know which one I'd want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In mid/late 2e, there was that series of adventures re: that prophecy thing, that led to the Grand Conjunction, which caused the Core to be rewritten and literally reshaped, added tons of lore to the domains, and even went so far as to alter existing classes and add new classes. This meant that anyone who had made their own lore had TSR, and WotC just tell them that all that lore was pointless garbage. 3e/Swords & Sorcery continued with this altered lore rather than going back to the more bare-bones, pre-Conjunction state.

If you like Ravenloft primarily for the lore (as you have said repeatedly in the past), you are almost certainly liking it for this post-Conjunction lore, which means you're doing to the 1e/early 2e fans what you think 5e is doing to the later 2e/3e lore. And you have also said in the past that you feel bullied (or words to that extent) by people who accept or even prefer 5e lore.

The very first published adventure for Ravenloft, Feast of Goblyns, was the first part of the series that ends in the Grand Conjunction. The metaplot of Ravenloft began as soon as there was a setting and more than one product. Early on in 2e in fact, not late.

Furthermore, all the setting products for Ravenloft, from the original module through 2e and Arthaus' 3.0/3.5 products, added material to the setting, as opposed to VRG, which changed and replaced it. Do you not see the difference?

Finally, there is a difference between official material and an individual group's table game. I am not doing anything to a DM's personal campaign by preferring pre-VRG Ravenloft.