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

[Warpiglet-7]

That was the original Gygaxian approach.

He didn't think anyone would buy published modules or campaign settings, since everyone would make up their own.

It was only after he saw the success of Judge's Guild that he realized that a lot of people just want to buy someone else's stuff and run that.

Did not know this. Between arguing about which virtual faerie land is “correct” you occasionally learn something on here

 

[Chaosmancer]

Never said it did. I'm going by what the books say, what the culture I grew up prioritized, and my personal opinion. I never said other methods of worldbuilding are worse or better, and if the official books start saying that the whole table should be making the world together, and the DM is just some guy who runs the NPCs, well, I guess that's what WotC thinks the majority wants.

You just couldn't leave it at "the whole table can make a world together" could you? You had to throw in a parting shot about the DM "just being some guy" in that model. As if playing and running literally everyone else except the PCs is just some minor role if the DM cannot be the sole arbiter of the world.

 

[Remathilis]

That was the original Gygaxian approach.

He didn't think anyone would buy published modules or campaign settings, since everyone would make up their own.

It was only after he saw the success of Judge's Guild that he realized that a lot of people just want to buy someone else's stuff and run that.

And he learned that lesson well, considering the difference between OD&D in 74 and AD&D in 77.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I have a feeling that Greyhawk isn't going to be contained to one chapter... but entwined in all of the rules examples. From world-building to random encounter tables to major NPCs to artifacts, etc.

Oh, I completely agree. They are going to have an example adventure, and it will likely feature the Free City of Greyhawk, since they are providing a map for it.

Now, I'm not convinced it will be the sole place they draw NPCs or Magic Items from, because we know they are planning to have the PHB feature snippets and explanations of multiple settings for players to familiarize themselves with the various worlds of DnD, so I suspect the DMG will have a multiversal angle too, and just use Greyhawk for the specifics on world and adventure building.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure

But you should be teaching people who do want to engage in world building.

Giving people a plain cake and their choice of icing or frosting is not the same as teaching people to bake a cake.

If WOTC just ends up presenting a chapter of example Greyhawk, they haven't taught worldbuilding.

Respectfully, I don't think the Greyhawk chapter was supposed to be the "teach world building" chapter. I think it is the culmination of the lessons from the rest of the DMG. It will serve as an example of how you can put things together if you want. And if that's good enough, you never need to go farther. But if you do, the book will give you more ideas.

I point out yet again that this is a unique D&D to solve. Pathfinder doesn't have a chapter in the GMG to explain how to assemble a setting, it just presents Golarion and lets you use what you want and change the rest. Most RPGs are married to a single setting. If the DMG doesn't present more than a bunch of tables and advice on assembling a world and then gives us Greyhawk as an example, it's done more work than 90% of the RPGs on the market.

 

[Minigiant]

Respectfully, I don't think the Greyhawk chapter was supposed to be the "teach world building" chapter. I think it is the culmination of the lessons from the rest of the DMG. It will serve as an example of how you can put things together if you want. And if that's good enough, you never need to go farther. But if you do, the book will give you more ideas.

I point out yet again that this is a unique D&D to solve. Pathfinder doesn't have a chapter in the GMG to explain how to assemble a setting, it just presents Golarion and lets you use what you want and change the rest. Most RPGs are married to a single setting. If the DMG doesn't present more than a bunch of tables and advice on assembling a world and then gives us Greyhawk as an example, it's done more work than 90% of the RPGs on the market.

Sure

But D&D is D&D.

A large percentage of DMs, some speculate majority, run homebrew setting at one time or another

D&D should teach this

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, dwarfs have been in GH since it started, but goliaths are new. Dwarfs have several established kingdoms in GH, but goliaths don't. Dwarfs have had large amounts of text dedicated to explaining their culture, both in and out of GH-specific material, but goliaths haven't.

So there's three reasons why goliaths would be a problem.

Elves also have existed, have kingdoms and have large amounts of non-5e text dedicated to them. But in the post I was quoting you presented the challenges of Goliaths and Elves equally. After all, non-5e material doesn't count right? To teach someone they will have to present the dwarf lore as though they were new, because someone with no expeirence with Greyhawk and no expeirence worldbuilding, who is new to DnD as of 5e has no idea what kingdoms are in Greyhawk, or about their history.

So, by your own standards, there is no difference between them. Except we can count the 2e and 3e Dwarf Greyhawk material for some reason even if it isn't in the book, and we cannot count the 3e Goliath material... which is sounding like a double standard just because Goliaths used to be outside of the PHB and therefore no one cared about their established lore.

Good thing I said "sentence or two" and not "paragraph, right?

I will state that even a novice worldbuilder should be able to manage one sentence on each of their PC species. Assuming that the worldbuilder is going for the D&D standard of each species being a distinct people with their own language and distinct culture, that is.

It wouldn't even be difficult. The DMG could present a few questions to be answered, such as "how do they feel about outsiders/people of different species?" with a few examples given such as "welcoming,""friendly but cautious," "wary and distrustful, but willing to keep the peace until provoked," "usually hostile at the get-go," or "demands they prove themselves through trials." There could even be a table to roll on or choose from, or to use as examples should the DM want to make up their own answers.

A paragraph is 4 to 5 sentences. IF you have three questions for each race, and each question takes one to two sentences... you have 4 to 6 sentences.... which is a paragraph. You can't talk about ecology, government, species relations, and history all in a single sentence. Not if you want to have answers that can be used.

You are once again confusing worldbuilding with actual play. And funnily enough, you're actually making my point, except that because of that confusion you think you're not.

The writing in the world book or chapter or whatever--the book that WotC will be producing--will be showing how the Orc Empire is not evil (again, "not chaotic evil" does not have to mean "always good"; the orcs can be neutral). The DM will then, hopefully, show this in their own campaign by having the PCs interact with not CE orcs and orc societies.

Worldbuilding isn't telling because it's a different form of media from the actual play. It's a literary media, and more specifically, it's (usually) a wikipedia-esque listing of facts. If the entry on the Pomarj claims that it's not an evil empire, but there's nothing to support that in the text, then it gets a big fat <citation needed>.

Oh, world-building is a encyclopedic listing of facts. In written form. Like I keep saying.

Here, do me a favor. Look up the meaning of Show don't Tell. It is a writing rule, for the written word, that talks about not simply telling people things, like listing facts. Like a wikipedia-eqgue listing of facts. Like the literal thing you keep claiming that world-building IS.

Also, world-building is not a media. It is an action. There is an action verb there, "building". World-building is the act of building a world. This can be done through a characters actions (which would be SHOWING) or it can be done by listing facts of the world. Which is TELLING. The type of world-building we are talking about, which is making a reference document, is entirely TELLING, no showing. Yes, even if you tell people about actions of characters to reinforce an idea of "goodness" it is still telling. That is literally why people engage in telling so much, to tell people facts that support the idea they want. Which is why Show Don't Tell became a thing.

Were a lot of people upset when Nentir Vale was introduced? I admit that I wasn't paying attention to anything D&D during the 4e years, but the reactions I've seen to it have been between "high praise" and "it's OK," with most being towards the "praise" end of the scale.

Would a lot of people be upset if this world was created for the sole purpose of being used as an example of how to build a world and wasn't actually turned into a real setting? I don't think anyone here is saying that this hypothetical world must be used as a new setting--just that it would be a good idea.

Hard to tell if anyone was specifically upset about Nentir Vale, since they generally hated 4e as a whole. Couldn't tell you if anyone only hated the new setting, but I will guarantee MANY people complained about it.

And why would you waste time and resources on a setting that is never going to become real?

As for no one saying it must be a new setting, sure, but you also refuse to acknowledge there is literally any benefit at all to using Greyhawk, which is what is keeping this conversation churning. You are convinced that this chapter, which is likely already written and being finalized, is going to be horrible and without purpose, solely because they picked Greyhawk and if they had just decided to make a new setting instead, it would be wonderful and perfect.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure

But you should be teaching people who do want to engage in world building.

Giving people a plain cake and their choice of icing or frosting is not the same as teaching people to bake a cake.

If WOTC just ends up presenting a chapter of example Greyhawk, they haven't taught worldbuilding.

Good thing people never change, and if someone declares they are going to try teaching something you know that they aren't going to teach anything because they never did before.

I mean, it would just be silly if someone said "I am going to write a chapter to show people how to build their own worlds" and they actually did that. I could we trust anything if they did what they said they would do?

 

[Remathilis]

Sure

But D&D is D&D.

A large percentage of DMs, some speculate majority, run homebrew setting at one time or another

D&D should teach this

I'm sure it will, just not the way your expecting it to.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure

But you should be teaching people who do want to engage in world building.

Giving people a plain cake and their choice of icing or frosting is not the same as teaching people to bake a cake.

If WOTC just ends up presenting a chapter of example Greyhawk, they haven't taught worldbuilding.

The 5e DMG teaches world building.

Why would the 5.5e DMG not teach it?