• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Greyhawk setting material

Zardnaar

Adventurer
We're not supposed to swear, a lot of those words apply to Lorraine Williams.

Seems to unify the player base it's almost universal.
 
Not much on this planet in this life which can shock me anymore.
And for once I total agree with you, if they bring out greyhawk at all they will not alter it to be incompatible with their other stuff these days, and since most of wotc staff is promoting the modern play style (at least if you watch their public PAX sessions on youtube) I would expect the same.
That is why I would be content with them focusing on other campaigns if they go for a change, especially since there is stuff missing for DS and DL on how to officially adapt these to 5e or convert old stuff properly.
And by this I mean mechanical stuff that is missing, not the coloring.

But my prediction is that they will focus a bit on eberron next, maybe some additional planar stuff and if it all runs well then maybe something else but I bet it is not high at all on their priority list.
I think I'm the end that is the price to be paid for Official Support.
 

Hussar

Legend
Blurg?

After all the arguing, you guys are ok with the notion that a rereleased Greyhawk will incorporate modern sensibilities? Then what the heck have you been arguing with me for for the past twenty pages?
 

Wolfpack48

Explorer
If you want to make any of the old TSR guard Flinch mention Buck Rogers. A lot of the damage was because Williams wanted everything that was Gygax related or inspired, as well as anyone that was friends with him, gone. That's the primary reason why greyhawk was left to flounder as badly as it was at least until we got a new life in 3rd Edition
Interesting that with such concerted effort to kill it, here we are talking animatedly about Greyhawk in 2019.
 
Blurg?

After all the arguing, you guys are ok with the notion that a rereleased Greyhawk will incorporate modern sensibilities? Then what the heck have you been arguing with me for for the past twenty pages?
Im not actively opposed to it. Not for it either. Tbh though "sensibilities" is usually weasel speak for politic or world view. I find sensibilities to be the leadt important part of the game. Imo no edition should prioritize it any higher than is legally required. It doesnt add ro gameplay. It is ok to allow it to be acknowledged up to the limit of not quite reducing the potential of the game and no further. That said im not actively opposed to modern sensibilities being added to the game (as my maximum). Im perfectly ok with it. So long as it stays the heck out of the way and in its little corner labled "least important part of the game". But yeah. Fundementally there is no problem with it.

:)
 

Wolfpack48

Explorer
Im not actively opposed to it. Not for it either. Tbh though "sensibilities" is usually weasel speak for politic or world view. I find sensibilities to be the leadt important part of the game. Imo no edition should prioritize it any higher than is legally required. It doesnt add ro gameplay. It is ok to allow it to be acknowledged up to the limit of reducing the potential of the game and no further. That said im not actively opposed to modern sensibilities being added to the game (as my maximum). Im perfectly ok with it. So long as it stays the heck out of the way and in its little corner labled "least important part of the game". But yeah. Fundementally there is no problem with it.

:)
My least favorite gaming forum phrase: “modern sensibilities.”
 
Ive been told i have a hot head at times

Really thays not the case i just hate censorship with homicidal fervor and pressure to conform arbitrarily

This might be part of why i played that one character that killed slaadi any time they could once they learned what slaadi were all about.

D&d borg are much worse than normal borg.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
Im not actively opposed to it. Not for it either. Tbh though "sensibilities" is usually weasel speak for politic or world view. I find sensibilities to be the leadt important part of the game. Imo no edition should prioritize it any higher than is legally required. It doesnt add ro gameplay. It is ok to allow it to be acknowledged up to the limit of not quite reducing the potential of the game and no further. That said im not actively opposed to modern sensibilities being added to the game (as my maximum). Im perfectly ok with it. So long as it stays the heck out of the way and in its little corner labled "least important part of the game". But yeah. Fundementally there is no problem with it.

:)
I am going to disagree vehemently with this sentiment. The bad old days of D&D as an all white boys club are thankfully being put behind us and I really, really hope they never come back. Sorry, but, the notion that things like inclusivity in art or writing is the "least important part" of the game is something I will never agree with. I've seen the hobby FINALLY, after decades, finally start to drag itself out of the dark ages basement that it started in and that's a very, very good thing. The fact that we're seeing such immense growth in the market as women are finally starting to game in significant numbers is FANTASTIC. You can call it "weasel speak" all you like, but, for me, the fact that "weasel speak" has doubled or even tripled the market size in the past five years means that you are demonstrably wrong when you think that it's the "least important part of the game".

Those "weasel words" are a major reason we're having this conversation right now. Without those "weasel words" we're stuck with a dying hobby that was on an ever lasting downward spiral into obscurity.

So, give me those "weasel words" and I'll take a healthy growing hobby over the alternative any day of the week.
 
Im not actively opposed to it. Not for it either. Tbh though "sensibilities" is usually weasel speak for politic or world view. I find sensibilities to be the leadt important part of the game. Imo no edition should prioritize it any higher than is legally required. It doesnt add ro gameplay. It is ok to allow it to be acknowledged up to the limit of not quite reducing the potential of the game and no further. That said im not actively opposed to modern sensibilities being added to the game (as my maximum). Im perfectly ok with it. So long as it stays the heck out of the way and in its little corner labled "least important part of the game". But yeah. Fundementally there is no problem with it.

:)
"Modern sensibilities" is why we no longer have race/class restrictions, level limits, and ability score min/max based on race and gender, just to name a few things.
 
Lol. Say you dont want the sensibilities part to be absolutely necessary while making clear that you also dont care if it is included and that you would like to focus on making the game mechanics and other important aspects as robust as possible (very big difference between that and demanding that everything be arbitrarily restricted on racial bases. Dont know where that came from) saying that you want less censorship and if anything more choice in the matter and everyone assumes you are racist white male and restrictive. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Also you guys are way off the deep end at the moment.
 
Ad hominen much?

Assume this is meant to be a part of the most recent comment. Refering to the ad hominen used to attempt to imply i was racist or sexist or that i supported either. Very ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
"Modern sensibilities" is why we no longer have race/class restrictions, level limits, and ability score min/max based on race and gender, just to name a few things.
Also those are generally speaking changes to mechanics. Like i said. Something i think is a great OPTION lol for people to opt into. Not really what im talking about. Less assumption is a good thing.
 

Wolfpack48

Explorer
"Modern sensibilities" is why we no longer have race/class restrictions, level limits, and ability score min/max based on race and gender, just to name a few things.
The reason I dislike the phrase “modern sensibilities” is that everyone misinterprets what it means. It’s a “weasel” phrase because everyone projects their personal agenda onto it. For example, I happen to agree with your point about open race/class abilities, but the way you are using “modern sensibilities” has nothing to do with why I dislike the phrase.
 
Last edited:
that is exactly why i think its a weasel phrase actually.

And i stay away from talking like that for that exact reason. Because people assume a lot.

I just want high player enfranchisement and minimal censorship with maximal attention to mechanics and story quality.

Some how that translates to THEY WANT A BOYS CLUB and HE WANTS MANDATORY RACE/SEX RESTRICTION. Thats a leap. I never said those things.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
After all the arguing, you guys are ok with the notion that a rereleased Greyhawk will incorporate modern sensibilities? Then what the heck have you been arguing with me for for the past twenty pages?
So, let me address and expand on this. As a long-time fan of Greyhawk, there is nothing I like more than having a new generation appreciate Greyhawk for what it is.

But part of the issue is what, exactly, modern sensibilities entails. Just as you chafe if someone says, "That's canon," I think it's fair to say that I'd push back if someone said, "Dragonborn are modern sensibilities" as if it's the cudgel of truth that cannot be reasonably disputed. :)

To give you some more concrete examples- I love the old line art (B&W) used in early AD&D; some of it remains breathtakingly gorgeous! But it's very much "of its time." I can certainly understand and appreciate someone saying that the 70s-style fantasy art is unwelcoming to young female players. Not only understand- that's an argument I've made many times myself.

So if someone demanded that Greyhawk would require 70s-style cheescake art, I'd push back on that. Or gender-based restrictions on ability scores. Greyhawk isn't trapped in the 1970s or 80s.

But that doesn't mean you have to include optional and rare PHB (or Volo's, or whatever) races "just because." As many people have stated, it's fine to include them (exotic travelers from a strange land, perhaps) but I don't want to see them retconned in (A plaguesundering put a Kingdom of Dracony where Ratik was).

Also? No gnomes. I mean, I need to be consistent, right? Darn anklebiters.
 

grodog

Adventurer
I'm not sure why you seem to think that those of us who don't enshrine canon are not actually playing in Greyhawk. I mean, good grief, that's @grodog in this thread. He's forgotten more about Greyhawk than I'll ever know, and even he isn't having too much of a problem with the notion of adding dragonborn.
To be clear: I see the options for races and classes in a campaign as tools to shape that campaign and what makes it different from other campaigns in the same setting, or in different settings:
  • If I run a Lankhmar-style campaign in the Free City of Dyvers, where the PCs are all members (or adjunct members) of the thieves guild, then most of the PCs will be larcenous bastards in demeanor/personality, even if they're not all members of the Thief PC class.
  • If I run an Game-of-Thrones style campaign in Erelhi Cinlu where all of the PCs are demon-worshipping drow in-fighting amongst themselves in order to be Queen of the Vault, that's a very different campaign in tone and focus compared to the one above, even if both are ostensibly "evil Greyhawk campaigns"
So, if using a dragonborn or tielfling or whatever race (or winged folk or valley elves, or whatever) works in a that campaign, I use them. If not, I don't.

And yes for my part I have got enough greyhawk material and I also love and use @grodog stuff
Thanks!---it's always nice to know that folks use my work in their games here and there =)

@Hussar imo the trick with older settings is to add new things that seem like they have a natural way of popping up there (like gh adjacent things or things that were involved in events that had a tie in to gh) as that would revitalize it while maintaining its gh flavor. Its sort of something i wish they would do more on both ends when it comes to some settings. Its a balancing act, sure but it makes the setting new while robust and not just bloated.
Empahsis above added by me, for two points:
  1. I think that juggling that balancing act is tricky, especially for settings like GH and FR with lots of material to master, but that adding new worthwhile content to them is essential to keeping the setting fresh and not to be caught in a Nidus' Endless Repetition of seeing the same plots, villains, and heroes being recycled, reprinted, updated, and cannibalized with each new edition of the game. @Rob Kuntz 's Maure Castle adventures are a great example of this enrichment process.
  2. While maintaining a setting's tone and distinct flavor is key, there's also nothing about an older setting that inherently requires revialization either---that's part of the exercise of design restraint that I feel like often gets neglected, and what creates too much sameness across D&D's fantasy settings. Part of what made DS, RL, PS, and other 2e settings more distinctive in comparison to GH and FR was that they had unique baseline worlds as play environments. If you add all of the same classes and races and gods and spells and magic items to every setting, they all become the same, in which case then there's no point in having any of them at all (a la The Incredibles). So maintaining each setting's uniqueness seems important to me as a way to show why and how we play D&D differently in Krynn vs. in Spelljammer vs. in Blackmoor, et al.
Allan.
 

Rob Kuntz

Adventurer
To be clear: I see the options for races and classes in a campaign as tools to shape that campaign and what makes it different from other campaigns in the same setting, or in different settings:
  • If I run a Lankhmar-style campaign in the Free City of Dyvers, where the PCs are all members (or adjunct members) of the thieves guild, then most of the PCs will be larcenous bastards in demeanor/personality, even if they're not all members of the Thief PC class.
  • If I run an Game-of-Thrones style campaign in Erelhi Cinlu where all of the PCs are demon-worshipping drow in-fighting amongst themselves in order to be Queen of the Vault, that's a very different campaign in tone and focus compared to the one above, even if both are ostensibly "evil Greyhawk campaigns"
So, if using a dragonborn or tielfling or whatever race (or winged folk or valley elves, or whatever) works in a that campaign, I use them. If not, I don't.



Thanks!---it's always nice to know that folks use my work in their games here and there =)



Empahsis above added by me, for two points:
  1. I think that juggling that balancing act is tricky, especially for settings like GH and FR with lots of material to master, but that adding new worthwhile content to them is essential to keeping the setting fresh and not to be caught in a Nidus' Endless Repetition of seeing the same plots, villains, and heroes being recycled, reprinted, updated, and cannibalized with each new edition of the game. @Rob Kuntz 's Maure Castle adventures are a great example of this enrichment process.
  2. While maintaining a setting's tone and distinct flavor is key, there's also nothing about an older setting that inherently requires revialization either---that's part of the exercise of design restraint that I feel like often gets neglected, and what creates too much sameness across D&D's fantasy settings. Part of what made DS, RL, PS, and other 2e settings more distinctive in comparison to GH and FR was that they had unique baseline worlds as play environments. If you add all of the same classes and races and gods and spells and magic items to every setting, they all become the same, in which case then there's no point in having any of them at all (a la The Incredibles). So maintaining each setting's uniqueness seems important to me as a way to show why and how we play D&D differently in Krynn vs. in Spelljammer vs. in Blackmoor, et al.
Allan.
Bottom line is the BOTTOM LINE. and that is always, for sales, slanted to the median view and thus median use. So specificity and uniqueness will fall to the sword of the market bottom line almost each and every time. Wotc should just license the darn thing and take a cut from the proceeds but, then again, there's bottom line issues (via competition) involved with that, even.
 
I would also like to posit that the world is becoming EXTREMELY all about opt in customizability in more and more products of entertainment. This is why i keep going on and on about having opt in features. I think we will actually get the most people if there is a way to, instead of making the game the fruit salad whos list of ingredients never ends, OR the oposite, the sandwich shop which only sells grilled cheese, make a system in which you can add or subtract the restrictions easily. Add or subtract the variance of involved effects. We are moving more than anything else toward a world who wants customizability. Both in restriction and in diverse games. And if you dont think you will see many people who will want the option for opt in restrictions then you havent seen people who play on single life no resurrection survival servers for a game that is normally not single life. Thats an extremely common thing for some types of gamers. Thats why i keep saying we need options for it all. Its a choice that every table should have as an option. It makes the game their game.

Also what grodog said i can get behind too. There is a difference between a setting experiencing new events advancing growing changing all that versus bloat and polution. Part of painting a picture is knowing where you want to put the paint and where you dont. At least in so much as to actually get the image in your mind onto the canvas. Restraint is a part of the artists tool kit.
 

The Glen

Explorer
Each of the traditional D&D settings had a different theme. You have Pulp Fiction, Gothic horror, interdimensional Freak Show, D&D in space, hi politics, low politics, world-building and exploration, kitchen sink High fantasy, Epic Quest and post-apocalypse. the beauty of them is they offer something different for people with varying tastes Rob is right if they don't want to make a birth rate setting for example license it out or just open it up on the guild and let other people make money for you.
 

Advertisement

Top