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

[JEB]

Does 5e D&D not have Xvarts? Now that is a travesty - how does Raxivort fit in without Xvarts?

Never fear, 5e brought back the xvarts way back in Volo's Guide to Monsters (and they carried over into the current zeitgeist through Monsters of the Multiverse).

 

[pemerton]

Never fear, 5e brought back the xvarts way back in Volo's Guide to Monsters (and they carried over into the current zeitgeist through Monsters of the Multiverse).

Excellent! Raxivort will not be bereft of followers in the new GH.

The impression that I get, being a mostly lurker on the Canonfire boards, is that that's really how much of the GH fanbase operates—you take bit you like and disregard the elements you don't like.

I've spent very little time on Canonfire, but what you describe is how I've always approached it, ever since I got the folio in 1985 (I think it was). It never occurred to me that I wasn't supposed to do the sort of setting creation/addition stuff that the authors of the D&D rulebooks talked about in those rulebooks, and that I saw discussed in the pages of White Dwarf and Dragon magazines.

It should be noted that the Greyhawk that was published in the 80' Folio and 83' Boxed Set, is rather loosely based upon Gygax's home setting and is distinct from it. So, we shouldn't conflate them. Regardless of what WotC chooses to do in the DMG, it will be miles better than the post-ouster/pre-From the Ashes material (like the not-very-well-received Castle Greyhawk module).

At least as best I recall, the only GH work from that period I own and have used (quite extensively) is the City of GH boxed set. I liked it a lot. I know the library beholders are frowned upon - I don't recall them ever figuring in our games.

 

[Staffan]

The thing about orcs in Greyhawk, or anywhere else: You can still have orc populations that don't get along with neighboring human/elf/dwarf/etc. populations without them being definitionally evil - just give historical/political reasons for the conflict, like generations-long competition over resources and the like. You can also still have purely evil orcs, just don't make them the only orcs the setting has to offer.

That's really all there is to it...

Right. I don't really give two hoots about Greyhawk, but look at how orcs are done in Eberron. You have multiple populations of them:

• The Jhorash'tar, in, around, and below the Ironroot mountains. These have very much been shaped by their constant conflicts with the dwarves in the same region.
• The Ghaash’kala who live near the Demon Wastes where they keep vigil and make sure that the fiends of the Wastes stay there. These worship the divine force humans know as "the Silver Flame", though their own religious background goes back much, much longer than the association the humans have with it.
• The Shadow Marches, which are colored by the ancient wars against a planar invasion of aberrations. Most of the clans here are associated with the Gatekeepers, a druidic order dedicated to fighting aberrations and maintaining the seals keeping them from running around free. But you also have many clans associated with the other side. This is also where the Mark of Finding originates, and where you have the most contact between humans and orcs (and thus the greatest number of half-orcs). Since the Mark of Finding originates here, and most orcs/half-orcs found in the rest of Khorvaire are associated with House Tharashk, these are generally what people think of when they hear "orcs".

Voilá, three distinct groups of orcs, one with significant internal differences. That way you can still have your "savage" orcs, either being traditional dwarf-haters or with the twist of being aberrant-cultists, but those are not all the orcs.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Sadly, all too true. The "mandatory 70% approval rating or it gets scrapped forever" policy just reinforces this.


Same. One of the reasons I put a fair amount of thought into what good rules would look like for playstyles I don't like, but which I know many people love.


Likely not, since SUF was a separate show, and thus if someone found the original not to their taste, they'd be unlikely to even know it exists.


But Chaosmancer, idealism and hope are for losers! Everyone knows you can only be a dumb-dumb baby idiot unless you embrace the mature, serious, adult characteristics, like being cynical, jaded, selfish, petty, violent, cruel, and manipulative.


Precisely why I have the fears I stated. Greyhawk is "safe" in WotC's eyes. Name and image recognition will guarantee the old hands are on board, so they can change whatever they like to get the new blood on board as well. I fear such thinking will blow up in their faces.


Er...you do remember the whole "Disneyfied" debacle, don't you? That hit both Witchlight and Radiant Citadel. The former got flak for both being too fae and not fae enough, which was...a little annoying to say the least. The latter also had more than a little bit of (more or less) "why do we even need this" as though past settings were somehow held up to a standard of vital necessity (they weren't), but this one featuring characters and creators of a variety of backgrounds, ethnicities, etc. was somehow suspect (it wasn't). And before that, Strixhaven had both anti-LGBTQ pearl-clutching and "but you're talking about SEX! In a game CHILDREN play!!!" non-troversies.

There has absolutely been major pushback against every single one of these things. On this very forum, even.

Honestly I wasn't aware of most of that.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

...

... I am now nervous, because I've never sat down and read the lyrics to that song... and I will probably do so now.

....

I have often wondered whether it was worse to hear "Roxanne" or "Every Breath You Take" at a wedding. I have heard both and wondered if the couple had ever actually listened to the lyrics.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Why doesn't WOTC just MAKE A NEW DANGNABBED SETTING with all the IP characters they want to push and all the themes the 5e audience likes?

It seems so much less risky and has the added benefit of being new so people have to buy the new book to learn about it in order to love or hate it.

Why should they? What will this add? This is a game where people should be doing this themselves, either with their own world building or their take on an existing template.

Consider what a WoTC new setting would be? It mostly likely be a lightly coloured take on some basic theme, like points of light. Well we have Nerath, and Greyhawk.
Gonzo kitchen sick = Mystara, Hight Fantasy Kitchen sink = Forgotten Realms. Ok, the latter two have a lot more detail, almost to the point of being off putting and some of Mystara may have issues and I could go on.
D&D pretty much already has any setting one could want, with out getting into third party settings. I do not believe that most DMs want or need a setting at most they need a map, preferably need an evocative map.
It is the lore nerds that want settings and their implied lore and would be better served with a novel line or TV series.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No, more like a traditional D&D setting with an Tiefling Emperor with Imperial Hell Knights, a Dragonborn Army, Good Orcs, and I guess Aaaimar, Sorcerers, and Goliaths being major aspects somehow.

I just want to have a fight start with 7 Dragon Breaths and it being lore appropriate.

Then make it so, you do not need anyone else's blessing.

 

[TiQuinn]

Player characters tend to need more framing and bonds to the setting than random monsters. They are going to be in every session and who that are in the setting matters a lot more than a random 4 armed blue gorilla that is killed in a fight.

In shocked that so many people are saying "Nah. It'll be fine" when not having a place in a setting is a Top 5 reasons DMs ban races and classes.

I’ve literally never heard this complaint unless the players specifically didn’t like a setting because of some restriction or quirk of the setting, i.e. someone who doesn’t like the sci-fi aspects of Spelljammer or Shadow of the Demon Lord was too dark for them. I’ve never heard a player complain that without a connection to the lore, they couldn’t get into the game. If anything, I’ve heard people complain about lore dumps.

 

[TiQuinn]

Whereas displaying how you create a new setting from scratch using themes, styles, and aspects of your choosing would be 1000x better for guiding a DM on how to make or use a setting.

Which they’ve already done.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Really looking forward to whatever tidbits they toss out about Greyhawk.

Realistically, they are not doing a full setting any time soon. So getting wound up about this sample setting makes as
Much sense to me as getting mad that Elkhorn is on the cover.

If you like it, it’s a fun blast of nostalgia. If you are not familiar, it’s a nothing burger. If you don’t like it…it’s a catastrophe? I don’t know man…