D&D 5E Greyhawk: Pitching the Reboot

[Paul Farquhar]

With regard to 5e, why do think this. 5e, IMO, handles low magic games very well. You can play the game just wonderfully with all martial characters. In fact, I suggest the game might even work better if you do!

1) Are you actually saying to players: "you can't play a spellcaster"? I'm not sure that would go down well. And if you don't, how do you avoid having a party of Angel Summoners in the land of BMX Bandits?

2) Even so called "martial" classes - rogues and fighters - have the majority of their subclasses with magical abilities.

 

[dave2008]

Sure - "low magic" isn't necessarily well defined or has one definition.

But my point was - no matter how you define it - Greyhawk wasn't it. High powered spells, high powered magic items (with access to those items). Many, and varied spellcasters, heck most of the namedropped NPCs are wizards, clerics, fighter-mages etc. Lots of heavy magic locations etc.

It just REALLY doesn't vibe with low magic (at least to me).

And I think if you tried to remarket as a low magic setting - the feel would just be off. \

Could it be done? Possibly, but it would be easier with a new setting.



Sure, but if you're going to revive/remarket Greyhawk - I, personally, don't think low magic is the way to go.

I can respect that. I personally have no attachment to Greyhawk, and would like a reboot to have a different theme (from what we already have for 5e) and step away from the past a bit. Still be connected, but also different.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That doesn't actually answer my question, but as you will.

1. It did answer your question.

2. Your question was obnoxious and misread what I wrote, not to mention omitting the entire part where I explained why a rebooted Greyhawk was important for connecting the past and the future.

3. The original stuff was considered "good," which is why people still ask for it. However, something that is "good" or even "great" is not always appreciated by mass markets today. I like Citizen Kane and Vertigo; that doesn't mean that putting them in the theaters (when and if they fully open today) is the best way to convince the teens to go to the movies. La Jetee is a masterpiece, but it's a lot easier to get someone to watch 12 Monkeys.

 

[FrozenNorth]

A Greyhawk setting should add rules for ruling domains and waging war. And it shouldn't be boring book-keeping crap, nobody wants to keep track of annual crop yield.

Sadly puts away his abacus

 

[TwoSix]

That doesn't actually answer my question, but as you will.

He never stated that the old material wasn't good. The second point is indicating that newer "Greyhawk branded" material could be made more commerically viable by updating tropes, but the "quality" (which I assume to include polished writing and compelling art and presentation) is the most important factor in determining its overall commercial viability.

 

[dave2008]

1) Are you actually saying to players: "you can't play a spellcaster"? I'm not sure that would go down well. And if you don't, how do you avoid having a party of Angel Summoners in the land of BMX Bandits?

We* don't normally, but we have and it could be done. We only have one caster in my current group. If people understand from the get go of the setting that X, Y, & Z class/subclasses are not available or changed in some way, I don't see why it would be an issue (other than for sales).

2) Even so called "martial" classes - rogues and fighters - have the majority of their subclasses with magical abilities.

Yes, depending on what you are going for those could be banned too. There are still more than enough non-magic using classes & subclasses (I made a list in another thread not to long ago).

Now, personally I think you could do low magic easily with 1/3 casters. I think that works really well for a Witcher type setting. I also think you can do low magic and use all the classes, but maybe restrict some spells and/or have a downtime training requirement between levels, etc. The adventurers are supposed to be special after all.

*I say we because that is a decision we make as group, not just me (the DM).

 

[dave2008]

If the original stuff isn't considered "good", why try to resurrect it?

Who determines whether or not it was "good?" One person's trash is another's treason and all that.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I would be surprised if there isn't a sizeable group of players who would be interested in a Witcher / GoT type setting. The issue is less the interest in such a setting, but the interest in WotC in providing the restrictions (removing / revising magic classes) to make it work best.

I think in addition to the hurdle of “we’re restricting 50% of the classes in the PHB” (as people have described it, we would likely see nerfs to Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Wizards) but also the elimination of most races.

I just think there is enough of a mass audience for that sort of game.

EDIT: I meant “isn’t enough of an audience”.

 

[Mort]

Based on conversations I have had, I think that the majority of people that are Greyhawk fans find this to be an acceptable approach, and the main point is that newer players would find this to be a differentiating and interesting factor.

Interesting. I think a poll would be appropriate. Would it settle anything? Of course not, but it could at least show the feelings of this particular board, including does anyone even care enough to vote.

This is roughly similar to someone saying, "TNG isn't real Star Trek because Picard doesn't solve problems by either ripping his shirt and beating them with his fists or trying to sleep with them."

Pithy, but I could just as easily then say:

Firefly is star trek because it has a ship, a captain and a crew.

TNG is Star Trek expressly because it adheres to the tropes established by the original- not just the names. To the consternation of many of the writers who felt very constrained by many of those tropes (particularly the mandate against inter-crew conflict).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Interesting. I think a poll would be appropriate. Would it settle anything? Of course not, but it could at least show the feelings of this particular board, including does anyone even care enough to vote.



Pithy, but I could just as easily then say:

Firefly is star trek because it has a ship, a captain and a crew.

TNG is Star Trek expressly because it adheres to the tropes established by the original- not just the names. To the consternation of many of the writers who felt very constrained by many of those tropes (particularly the mandate against inter-crew conflict).

It's interesting, because I'm not trying to be pithy. IIRC, you've participated in many of the Greyhawk threads, and not ... well, not always in a positive manner.

Do I misremember? Have you been leading the charge for a Greyhawk reboot? A revisitation? A renewal?

If that's the case, if I do misremember, if you are not the same person who seems to argue against it (and it's possible, as my memory is not perfect), then why don't you provide your pitch?

Since you love Greyhawk enough to keep participating, explain how it should be rebooted. Be part of the solution. Sound good?

Let's hear what the @Mort pitch is!