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

[pemerton]

We want the DMG to get people excited to be DMs. Don’t we?

Absolutely not! I mean, heaven forbid!

 

[pemerton]

The point is that you don't place specifics but you have a general idea and vibe in your mind of how the world works so you can provide a consistent and engaging world to the players when they ask or interact with it.

You think about how dwarf Npcs acts or where druid might be or how the hobgoblin villains fight so both you and the players have a similar mindset of how the world works.

Why not have the player do this, as part of their PC building?

 

[pemerton]

I look at the Moldvay Expert book as the gold standard here. The entire description of the Known World is limited to what, 10 pages? That was it. That was the whole Known World. Gods? Don't need 'em. You're a cleric? You tell me who your god is. You're a Warlock? You tell me who your patron is. Get the players to get off their asses and do the work for a change. Make sure that world building is a group effort and the work can be shared around. That's what I hope they will teach the next batch of DM's and players. Not this horrid idea that there is a sharp divide between DM and player and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Generally agreed.

My pedantic contributions are (i) it is Cook/Marsh Expert, and (ii) the presentation of the Known World is in X1 rather than the rulebook itself, and I reckon is closer to two pages (plus map) rather than ten. Though I've not pulled it off the shelf to double-check.

 

[pemerton]

Religion is super-important in a setting. Even if it's a mostly typical D&D pantheon of gods, at least knowing who those gods are is important for the players and their characters.

Yet B/X say virtually nothing about religion. B2 touches on religion only in the form of an evil cult, which anyone can make up after having read one Conan comic or Lovecraft story or whatever the more contemporary versions of these are. X1 doesn't touch on religion at all as best I recall, except (from memory) to mention that Glantri outlaws is (but maybe that's in the Gazetteer?).

There are some approaches to D&D and FRPGing that centre religion, but it is not essential.

 

[pemerton]

Even if everyone is from the same town or village, where did the wizard study? If the answer is anything other than "I found a book and studied at home," suddenly you have to think about things outside the home area, like wizard schools. If you have a monk, do they have a monastery, and if so, where is it? If you have a paladin, do they belong to an order, and if so, where is it? Where did the warlock meet their patron? If it's here in town or its surroundings, what does it mean for it that there's a way for townsfolk to come under the sway of this eldritch being?

To me, these all seem like questions for the players to answer as part of the process of building their PCs.

 

[pemerton]

Really the purpose of world building in D&D is establishment of base assumptions that both the DMs and players know and using that information to run and roleplay in adventures.

I dunno - it seems to me that the main purpose of setting in D&D is to provide material to resolve action declarations like We travel east - what do we find? and (relatedly) to suggest new situations that might arise - As you travel east the mountains come more clearly into view - they're rumoured to be the home of giants.

There is also a side conversation that needs to be had about consistency. World consistency helps create the tone and mood in a game. That is why the established settings often work for everyone, because it creates a consistent tone and mood. If you ask a player to make up their god, and the cleric states: "Hunla, Goddess of stars and moons; bringer of nature magic and good harvests." And then the paladin answers the same question with: "BooBerry, God of ghosts and anything My Little Pony." You might have a consistency problem for certain players at the table.

This isn't a problem arising from player authorship, though: it's a problem arising from the group not having a discussion and reaching some consensus on style and tone.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

@Not a Decepticon said:

"And now consider people who liked the Ravenloft in 1st and early 2e consider the Ravenloft you love a travesty, you guys just bullied them into silence."

What does that mean?

Before the Ravenloft you loved started, Ravenloft was a setting for in-and-out "weekend in hell" adventures DM could drop into their campaign. And once it was developed into a larger setting, one where you could build and run entire Ravenloft/Demiplane of Dread campaigns for PCs native to it, with its own metaplot, not everyone liked that, but their complaints were eventually drowned out or they felt unwelcome and pushed against by new Ravenloft fandom, they stopped complaining. Probably left the fandom, I know it's no fun being part of a fandom when you know everyone will jump you if you speak your hoest opinion (I'm a comicbook fan who hates Batman). Then Van Richten's Guide in 5e decided to be more of a throwback to the old Ravenloft in new package, rather than continuing new Ravenloft you liked. And people who were there and remembered old Ravenloft shared their stories in discussions we had about the book.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nope. Way too much emotional investment in Ravenloft over the last 30+ years to accept the travesty of VRG with a pleasant lack of comment, as you seem to want (unsurprisingly given your fondness for the product). I didn't like it, and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

Sure it’s fine for you not to like it. But, unless you are the only person on the planet, that’s not a reason not to do it. Plenty of people did like it, including some (like myself) who have been Ravenloft fans for longer than you.

 

[Faolyn]

Yet B/X say virtually nothing about religion. B2 touches on religion only in the form of an evil cult, which anyone can make up after having read one Conan comic or Lovecraft story or whatever the more contemporary versions of these are. X1 doesn't touch on religion at all as best I recall, except (from memory) to mention that Glantri outlaws is (but maybe that's in the Gazetteer?).

There are some approaches to D&D and FRPGing that centre religion, but it is not essential.

We're not talking about games written in the 70s, before D&D really even had settings; we're talking about games being produced today.

And no, not anyone can make one up. Not everyone knows how to make up a religion and integrate it into the campaign in a way that feels realistic. In fact, based on the fact that the default D&D religion is "Greek pantheon with different names and fewer associated stories," I'd say that very few gamers actually know how to make a religion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not have the player do this, as part of their PC building?

Because those aren't choices the PC makes in the world?