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

[Remathilis]

The only options and examples it gives is FR.

Does it help you run a low magic swords and sandals game? Nope.
Does it teach you to play an all elf game in an all elf continent? Nope.
Does it aid you in running super high magic gritty romp where the exemplars of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are the 9 major nations of the alignment chart? Nope.
Does it teach you how to run no magic medieval world where magic spells and magic races is just now returning? Nope.

Why should it bother with any of that. D&D is not GURPs, no matter how you wish it to be. D&D settings should teach D&D assumptions: all twelve PHB classes, the majority if not all the races, all the spells and magic items in the core, and all the Monsters in the Monster Manual. A first time DM should learn how to run the default assumption before they try to twist genes or muck around with class or magic assumptions.

No beginner DM should be trying to make Dark Sun. The DMG is not the place to try to go that far askew. It is sufficient enough to teach a starting DM how to create a map, some countries, a few cities and towns, basic background like deities and calendars, and some starter adventures.

You teach not by dropping a new DM into 300 options and telling them to go wild, you teach by starting them with the core assumptions and when they want, let them expand.

 

[Maxperson]

Again it talks about the idea. It doesn't teach.

Here's a quick example of what I mean.

"Races in your campaign.

Choosing The spread of races in your campaign setting is a major aspect of worldbuilding. Which intelligent species are in your world and which ones are available for players to play as creates the overall feel of your campaign. You should choose races that match the setting you decide to make and you are comfortable with.

Races in the PHB are typically seen as standard and available to players in most campaigns. You asked the DM have to final say of which races are available in your setting. However the restriction of races in the PHP should be carefully thought about. The spread of races chosen in the PHP was decided to give a wide array of character archetypes in phenotypical forms. Removal of one or two of these races might remove a kind of character which is very common in play. For example removing Orc and Goliath removes the "big man" trope from play. You may still remove them but it is a good idea to add back in the feeling of playing a big man in some other way. Perhaps allowing a custom feet to a human to allow them to be big and have access to the Powerful Build

Races, themes, styles and genres
You may also curate your races based on the theme

You may not want to include a very inhuman race like Trikeen as playable if your campaign has a theme about humanity fighting the weird of the wilderness.

In a swashbuckling campaign you might not want to include a race that has a swim speed or is able to breathe underwater like the Sea elf or Triton in order to keep the danger of drowning at sea always in the player's heads

If your campaign has a low Magic style you might not want to include elves or tieflings or aasimar who have natural magic.

The Rarity Tool
You can use rarity as a way to include races and species that do not completely match your style of setting. By making them rare but part of the world you can include them without warping the logic behind that setting. Perhaps the tritons control underwater empires and their rarity above sea level makes them a spectacle on swashbuckling boats. Perhaps your elf is the only elf within 20 mi as the elves do not share their magic with the wide community of non-magical intelligent beings.


Example
You might include all of the Players Handbook species except for the Goliath. In their stead you include the Powerful Feat and Runecaster feat seen below.

Orc might be available but orcs have a revulsion to seaborne travel so the played orc would be one of the few orcs anyone in the campaign ever sees and will be treated as such. No Orc NPCs should be expected and Orcish will be mostly a useless language to know.. Any stereotypical behavior and stories will be attributed to the player character orc.

For the player who desires to have an aquatic species, You include the sea elf and the Triton as playable options. You tell the player that the Sea Elf Kingdom and the Triton Empire have been at war for thousands of years and by picking either of these races, you have automatically chosen to have great animosity with the other side as well as the enemy of both major underwater powers the kraken cult who have ties to the Far Realm. In addition the player will now have to come up with a reason why their character is not underwater fighting the war under the sea and is instead above the oceans."

I get what you are saying, but you are wrong about it not teaching. Talking about options and how the DM might change things is in fact teaching the DM about how to change things. It may not be as in depth as your examples, but it teaches none the less.

What you are arguing for is better/different teaching.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Since you have a terrible habit of misinterpreting or misunderstanding what I write, I am pretty confident I didn't, and you just made something up.


Such as here, where you misinterpret me giving examples of what could be in that chapter so that new worldbuilders would have ideas of what to think about when making their world, as things that must be done.

The fact I mentioned elves doesn't mean that I am requiring or "demanding" elves be given any special treatment--or that we (or WotC, or new worldbuilders, or whomever) can't use elf lore from other editions, or anything else you're making up right now.

So why can't they use Goliath lore from the 3rd edition of the game when Goliaths were added to Greyhawk in Races of Stone? If they can just not write anything and use the lore of elves from previous editions, which include elves that no longer exist, why can't they do that exact same thing for Goliaths?

And you're misinterpreting or misunderstanding me here again. The few words or sentences are what the book would suggest new worldbuilders write, so they don't feel they have to write reams of in-depth information on every aspect of their setting.

Because certain other posters here have said that to them, worldbuilding means going into incredible amounts of depth regarding things that aren't actually important to the game, like detailing ten generations of the royal family. That's not important for either the game or for most players to use as background information. But writing a couple of sentences on where and how the various species live is something that a new worldbuilder can and should focus on.

So, the chapter just needs to say "You only need to write a few words or sentences on the races in your world" and give an example using two or three of the races and that's it? Okay. That could be done without mentioning Tiefling, Dragonborn, Orcs, or Goliaths so there is no reason to assume that those races being newer to Greyhawk would be a problem with that advice.

Also, while posters may have said something regarding the amount of depth, notably, those posters do not work for WoTC on writing the DMG. So their opinion on what it should say doesn't really amount to much of anything.

And you're misunderstanding me again. You must be doing this on purpose. Do you really not understand what I wrote? Or that those two different paragraphs referred to two different things?

Which one refers to Worldbuilding as done by a DM who would need the guidance of the DMG? Is that the one where you facepalmed at the idea of it being an action instead of a type of media? Or the one where you called it a type of action that can be taught?

See, because I was referring to the action of world-building, which might be taught in a chapter about how to world-build, which got me derided by you because CLEARLY it is a type of media that you consume and not an action. Except when you referring to something else called world-building which is an action people can do.

Nope! Another misunderstanding--or are you outright making stuff up now? What I have said is that it would be better for them to make a new world in this hypothetical chapter. "This would be better" =/= "not making this choice is a grave mistake."

You have repeatedly stated they are making a mistake.

Mostly because I doubt that WotC is going to lean into the things that make Greyhawk different from any other standard fantasy world, like having a crashed spaceship.

If they did, if they decided that not only were they going to emphasize the weirder or at least nonstandard aspects of the setting, but make them into the main focus of the setting--such as my thought (not demand, not requirement, just an idea) that they bring weird tech and radiation mutants and things like that into the world--then I would say that Greyhawk is a good choice. And so you don't misunderstand this, "is a good choice" is my personal opinion on the matter, not an objective measure of Greyhawk's worth, since I have no personal nostalgia for the setting and my favorite D&D settings have always been the non-standard ones.

Why do you doubt that? What reason do we have to think that they won't lean into the things that make Greyhawk different? Because, you just admitted there is a way for them to do this in a way that would be interesting and different, so it is a possibility. They may not, but they may do so.

Now, I will agree that they are unlikely to make Greyhawk full of irradiated mutants. But they could quite easily have the Barrier Peaks in the books and talk about them and what is there. Since there are pistols and rifles being added the PHB, they could take the time to talk about Murlynd the Cowboy God and how these items are blessed tech based off ancient wonders.

There are things they could do, so why not just wait to see if they do them, instead of declaring this a mistake and that they will clearly not do anything good with the setting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Again it talks about the idea. It doesn't teach.

Here's a quick example of what I mean.

"Races in your campaign.

Choosing The spread of races in your campaign setting is a major aspect of worldbuilding. Which intelligent species are in your world and which ones are available for players to play as creates the overall feel of your campaign. You should choose races that match the setting you decide to make and you are comfortable with.

Races in the PHB are typically seen as standard and available to players in most campaigns. You asked the DM have to final say of which races are available in your setting. However the restriction of races in the PHP should be carefully thought about. The spread of races chosen in the PHP was decided to give a wide array of character archetypes in phenotypical forms. Removal of one or two of these races might remove a kind of character which is very common in play. For example removing Orc and Goliath removes the "big man" trope from play. You may still remove them but it is a good idea to add back in the feeling of playing a big man in some other way. Perhaps allowing a custom feet to a human to allow them to be big and have access to the Powerful Build

This isn't a bad example, and if I take it to mean "the DMG chapter should talk about the importance of Species in the Game World" it is fine, though I find it notable you only mention how to remove options, not add them.

But, more importantly.... why do you think they won't talk about that sort of thing?

Races, themes, styles and genres
You may also curate your races based on the theme

You may not want to include a very inhuman race like Trikeen as playable if your campaign has a theme about humanity fighting the weird of the wilderness.

In a swashbuckling campaign you might not want to include a race that has a swim speed or is able to breathe underwater like the Sea elf or Triton in order to keep the danger of drowning at sea always in the player's heads

If your campaign has a low Magic style you might not want to include elves or tieflings or aasimar who have natural magic.

1) How is this different than the first thing?
2) Why would you mention options that the DM doesn't have access to? Tritons, Thri-Kreen, Sea Elves all of these are things the person who just bought the DMG won't have. Why are you telling them to consider these options?
3) Again, you are only mentioning taking things away.
4) There is a difference between teaching someone, and treating them like an idiot. Telling someone "if you want a world where the focus is on humans, non-human species can ruin that feeling" is kind of a no duh. If they wanted to go this in-depth, and I'm not sure they do or should, it would be better advice to talk about how to reconcile these things, rather than "don't put things in that don't match your vision". Everyone knows that. Not everyone might be able to figure out that you could reflavor Elves as Transcendental Enlightened Immortal Humans to keep your human only vibes, while allowing the elvish options in the game.

The Rarity Tool
You can use rarity as a way to include races and species that do not completely match your style of setting. By making them rare but part of the world you can include them without warping the logic behind that setting. Perhaps the tritons control underwater empires and their rarity above sea level makes them a spectacle on swashbuckling boats. Perhaps your elf is the only elf within 20 mi as the elves do not share their magic with the wide community of non-magical intelligent beings.

This is a nothing burger. There is no advice here, no guidance.

Example
You might include all of the Players Handbook species except for the Goliath. In their stead you include the Powerful Feat and Runecaster feat seen below.

Is the DMG going to offer advice on creating feats? Are you going to interrupt the World Building lessons to talk feat creation? Are you going to offer a list of every possible feat to replace every possible race? This seems like a bad idea.

For the player who desires to have an aquatic species, You include the sea elf and the Triton as playable options. You tell the player that the Sea Elf Kingdom and the Triton Empire have been at war for thousands of years and by picking either of these races, you have automatically chosen to have great animosity with the other side as well as the enemy of both major underwater powers the kraken cult who have ties to the Far Realm. In addition the player will now have to come up with a reason why their character is not underwater fighting the war under the sea and is instead above the oceans."

Again, why are you offering examples to GMs that they don't have access to? How is this useful to someone who is now questioning if they need to go and buy more books, but they are clearly expected to have these Sea Elves and Tritons in their game which they do not have the stats or rules for.

 

[Autumnal]

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.

Cormac McCarthy has entered the chat.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I was thinking more

1. Tone and Genre
   1. Tone
   2. Genre
   3. How Greyhawk does it
2. Choosing Races of your World
   1. Common Races
   2. Rare Races
   3. How Greyhawk does it
3. Choosing Classes of your Worl
   1. Classes
   2. Subclasses
   3. How Greyhawk does it
4. Your World and Magic
   1. Magic Spells
   2. Magic Items
   3. How Greyhawk does it
5. Your World's Governments
6. Factions
   1. Sample Factions
   2. Factions of Greyhawk
7. Major NPCs
   1. Example NPCs
   2. Major Figures of Greyhawk
8. Your PC and their place

You forgot:
0. Time
1. First quit your job.

Frankly, this is a pretty thorough list of what NOT to do.

 

[Minigiant]

I get what you are saying, but you are wrong about it not teaching. Talking about options and how the DM might change things is in fact teaching the DM about how to change things. It may not be as in depth as your examples, but it teaches none the less.

What you are arguing for is better/different teaching.

The style and voice of teaching the 2014 DMG is that of someone reminding an already experienced DM of what they already should know and how to convert it to 5e.

So yes, it technically is teaching but to an advanced DM and not a beginner.

 

[Minigiant]

This isn't a bad example, and if I take it to mean "the DMG chapter should talk about the importance of Species in the Game World" it is fine, though I find it notable you only mention how to remove options, not add them.

But, more importantly.... why do you think they won't talk about that sort of thing?

I only talked about removing because I was being quick and recovering from a party.

"Sometimes you might need to add a race that is not in the array available in the Players Handbook. This could be For many reasons.

You might want to add Genasi to your roster of available races to match your themes of elemental power seeping in to your world from the Inner Planes, the Elemental Chaos, Jotunhiem, or the Eyrie.

You might want to add Tabaxi and Leonin to emphasize the dangers of the wilds in your setting.

Be careful when adding races to your roster of species available to players and also those unavailable two players. Racist feel more natural when they have a strong identity within your setting. Each addition should have an iconic story that drive them in your setting. Be wary of adding too many races that feel the same niche. Once you get past 3 races that furfill the same tropes either stop adding new races that have that same style or add to the included races traits that separates them from each other. If you include a race in your setting of your choice or requested by a player, one of you should decide how that race fits in the setting: they're placing the world, their relationship to one other race, and how they factor into dungoenering."

This is a nothing burger. There is no advice here, no guidance

That's advice I literally gave 2 real DMs.

Is the DMG going to offer advice on creating feats? Are you going to interrupt the World Building lessons to talk feat creation? Are you going to offer a list of every possible feat to replace every possible race? This seems like a bad idea.

Was every nonPHB race included in the last DMG or did they give just an example?

It better offer advice on creating feats if feats are core. Just like Race, Subrace, and Subclass the last time.

Seriously.
How low of a standard do we want for the DMG?

I'm beginning to see why the DMG was done so late and rushed cuz it sounds like few care if the dang thing is any good.

Again, why are you offering examples to GMs that they don't have access to? How is this useful to someone who is now questioning if they need to go and buy more books, but they are clearly expected to have these Sea Elves and Tritons in their game which they do not have the stats or rules for.

Why shouldn't the book be offering examples?

Sea elf and Triton would be my examples of race and subrace like how Aasimar and Eladrin war before .

It's not that hard. It doesn't take that much space.

Why is so much hostility towards teaching new DMs in this community?

There really is a string of "#$@& dem kids" dug deep in the D&D Zeitgeist.

 

[Minigiant]

You forgot:
0. Time
1. First quit your job.

Frankly, this is a pretty thorough list of what NOT to do.

Why? All of that is 3 pages max.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why? All of that is 3 pages max.

1. Your World's Governments

So, that's 195 governments for your would be beginner worldbuilder to design.

And that's just the start of the ridiculousness. Just what purpose do you think all this garbage serves?