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

[Minigiant]

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

Buddy. Pal. Friend.

There is an unnecessary two pages on fantasy governments in current DMG. How many D&D DMs need to understand what it's a Satrapy and Gerontocracy is compared to how many need to know how to have an interesting spread of classes and subclasses in a low magic game?

I'm suggesting shortening that down.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just what purpose do you think all this garbage serves?

Mod Note:

Q: How is this in accord with keeping things civil?

A: It isn’t.

I shouldn’t have to remind you- an ENWorld veteran- about the basics.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Buddy. Pal. Friend.

There is an unnecessary two pages on fantasy governments in current DMG.

I'm suggesting shortening that down.

Sure, I agree with that. But that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

The time it takes to read the chapter is insignificant compared to the time to actually create the world. So what you need to be telling players is to only do the governments the players are going to come into contact with - the one they start in and it’s immediate neighbours (who are also it’s enemies and allies).

Of course before you get to that stage, you should decide if it is a world of nation-states at all. It might be a monolithic empire or a monster infested wilderness with only tiny isolated communities.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure I agree with that. But that has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

The time it takes to read the chapter is insignificant compared to actually create the world. So what you need to be telling players is to only do the governments the players are going to come into contact with - the one the start in and it’s immediate neighbours (who are also it’s enemies and allies).

You see how many comments I made about making the DMG and educational tool for new DMs and think that "Only make the governments that your characters will interact with" not be at the beginning of the government subchapter?

Isn't that obvious?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You see how many comments I made about making the DMG and educational tool for new DMs and think that "Only make the governments that your characters will interact with" not be at the beginning of the government subchapter?

Isn't that obvious?

It’s not obvious - first rule of teaching is never assume something is obvious. The way you phrased it, it sounded like you were talking about the entire planet. This is were Greyhawk can serve as an example of what not to do. It has too many countries, so as a consequence many of them are samey and uninteresting.

A major thrust of the advice has to be what not to do. The biggest difficulty for beginners is to try and do to much then they get overwhelmed.

 

[Minigiant]

It’s not obvious - first rule of teaching is never assume something is obvious. The way you phrased it, it sounded like you were talking about the entire planet. This is were Greyhawk can serve as an example of what not to do. It has too many countries, so as a consequence many of them are samey and uninteresting.

A major thrust of the advice has to be what not to do m. The biggest difficulty for beginners is to try and do to much then they get overwhelmed.

I was talking about me.
Isn't it obvious that I know that.
Isn't it obvious that a poster who has been talking about DM education for over five pages in this thread would know that and would write that if they will be the person who is writing the DMG.

I have shown passion in the desire to teach new DMs.
WOTC has not.
That's one of the main criticisms for 5e. The entire addition was written for experienced DMs at the detriment of new DMs.

For example, the monster manual is full of boring sacks of hip points because you as an experienced DM is supposed to know how to make those interesting.

That's the crux of my worry about choosing Grayhawk over other setting be in the DMG. Wizards of the Coast have said they're going to do better but they have yet to show us anything. So for me, until I see something they won't get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[pemerton]

I think talking about your world's governments is not crucial to worldbuilding for FRPGing. Most of the world, for most of human history, has got by without governments in the contemporary sense of that concept.

Furthermore, governments figure very little in classic fantasy fiction.

What are the governments in JRRT's Middle Earth? No idea. Does the The Shire have any public officials other than a Mayor and some Shirriffs? We're not told. It's modelled on England, but does it have JPs? Are Shirriffs, among other things, analogous to JPs? We're not told. Does The Shire have a system of criminal justice? We're not told.

Gondor is an important kingdom. How is it administered? Who rules Osgiliath, when it is not being sacked by Sauron's forces? We don't know.

What is the government of Bree? Are tariffs levied on imported goods? We don't know.

Or consider Earthsea. This world provides an engaging backdrop for multiple, highly-regarded fantasy stories. How are the lands of Earthsea governed? How are taxes collected, and who commissions public works? Almost nothing about these things is said.

In REH's Hyborian Age, what are the duties of the King of Aquilonia, other than to lead the military defence of the kingdom? We don't know.

My advice to a new GM would be to identify/invent a couple of prominent local officials, and to make a few decisions about them, having some regard to what sorts of themes or adventures they might connect to: they're a wealthy land-owner whose power is owed to that fact (much of mediaeval Europe); they're an elected official whose power is due to their ability to command popular support (classical Athens); they are an urban oligarch whose tremendous wealth grants them tremendous informal power, which then demands that they be granted some official position of authority (a Roman Senator or early modern Italian oligarch); etc.

If that seems like too much work, and too much worrying about political sociology, then my follow-up advice would be to do less work, not more! Grab a title from Gygax's handy list in his DMG (or whatever contemporary version of that is available) and just stick it onto an important NPC.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It's teaching to everyone. If I knew nothing about creating a world, I could do so easily with what is in the DMG. It wouldn't be the best most shining example of one, but I could do it. It teaches well enough to do that.

What you are looking for will never, ever happen in a DMG, because it can't be done in the number of pages a DMG has. There simply isn't enough room to get that detailed with all aspects of world creation, and that that's if they don't devote any pages to teaching how to run the game, offer up any optional rules, or offer up any extras like magic items.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's teaching to everyone. If I knew nothing about creating a world, I could do so easily with what is in the DMG. It wouldn't be the best most shining example of one, but I could do it. It teaches well enough to do that.

What you are looking for will never, ever happen in a DMG, because it can't be done in the number of pages a DMG has. There simply isn't enough room to get that detailed with all aspects of world creation, and that that's if they don't devote any pages to teaching how to run the game, offer up any optional rules, or offer up any extras like magic items.

I actually think that the 5e DMG is really good, with lots of valuable information .... but it is really poorly organized. Most people aren't aware of all the good stuff in the DMG because they haven't really ... um ... you know what's coming ... read it.

In terms of world-building, I think that they do a great job of laying out lots of different options. I think that the biggest fault is that they go too far in trying not to be prescriptive- in other words, the strength of 5e is that it worked very hard to say, "Do what you want. It's okay!" The DMG is a reflection of that ethos.

But while that helped heal a lot of rifts, it can also be frustrating for newer players who want to be told what to do (at least at first).

I think that what the new DMG is going to do is to provide the options, and then show the concrete example (Greyhawk), which will be a little easier to grok. Of course, we won't know for certain until we see it. But generally, people do better when they are shown an application, and not just the theory.

 

[Maxperson]

I actually think that the 5e DMG is really good, with lots of valuable information .... but it is really poorly organized. Most people aren't aware of all the good stuff in the DMG because they haven't really ... um ... you know what's coming ... read it.

This is exactly what I said up thread before I was told that the DMG has nothing at all in it that teaches any world building.

In terms of world-building, I think that they do a great job of laying out lots of different options. I think that the biggest fault is that they go too far in trying not to be prescriptive- in other words, the strength of 5e is that it worked very hard to say, "Do what you want. It's okay!" The DMG is a reflection of that ethos.

I agree that they went out of their way to not be prescriptive. I'm not sure that it's a big fault, though. It was amusing to get told that the section we are discussing forces the Forgotten Realms on the reader, though. As you note and I noted upthread, it's the opposite.

But while that helped heal a lot of rifts, it can also be frustrating for newer players who want to be told what to do (at least at first).

I think that what the new DMG is going to do is to provide the options, and then show the concrete example (Greyhawk), which will be a little easier to grok. Of course, we won't know for certain until we see it. But generally, people do better when they are shown an application, and not just the theory.

That could work. What I think would be better would be to lay out the options in the non-prescriptive way that they do it, but then to say something like, "If you pick X option for your game, Y and Z options go very well with X, but A, B and C don't really go well with it."

Teach the DMs to look at how various options fit together and impact one another. Examples from Greyhawk could be used to illustrate those points.