Hussar
Legend
Fair enough I suppose @lowkey13. To me, it sounds like you want everyone to be forced to play YOUR version of Greyhawk, and anything you happen not to like should be excised from the base set, not because it happens to be a bad idea but because YOU don't like it.
I mean, it's a tad hyperbolic to argue that adding Dragonborn to Greyhawk turns it into Forgotten Realms. Then again, you've already compared it to adding an ocean and vampiric giant squid to Dark Sun, so, I guess hyperbole is the standard response.
I mean, you've talked at length about how interesting the Scarlet Brotherhood is. But, if we go back to boxed set, the SB is a couple of paragraphs buried in the back of a book. No details, not information, nothing. They don't feature in a single module or any GH material until 1998. How could they be considered iconic to the setting? They are iconic to the setting NOW. But, that's because you've got SK Reynold's fingerprints all over them.
I totally agree that one of the main draws of GH is the open nature of the setting. That it's a bare bones framework that DM's should be filling in. FANTASTIC. My GoS campaign is set after the GH wars. Is it canon? Nope. Not even remotely and that's great. Others want to run it earlier? That's also fantastic and not terribly difficult to do.
But good grief. If the only way we get a 5e Greyhawk is if they eject everything after 1983? No thanks. I don't mind a bit more detail in my setting than a pretty thin softcover book that gives more details about the bloody trees you find in Greyhawk than to the organizations that move and shake the political landscape. And, frankly, if someone's mental idea of Greyhawk is so fragile that adding Dragonborn (oh noes, 4e cooties!) breaks the setting? Well, sorry, but, too freaking bad. I'd rather WotC bury the setting and never look at it again than appease fans like that. Why should everyone else get screwed over just because you cannot say no to your players? You don't want Dragonborn in your game? Cool, not a problem. But, stop telling me I can't have them in my game. One of us is going to have to do some work, and, well, I'm selfish enough that I WANT the lore of the last thirty years to be used rather than all that fantastic work by writers like Erik Mona, SK Reynolds and others to get left on the cutting room floor just because someone can't wrap their head around something that didn't come out of the 80's.
I mean, it's a tad hyperbolic to argue that adding Dragonborn to Greyhawk turns it into Forgotten Realms. Then again, you've already compared it to adding an ocean and vampiric giant squid to Dark Sun, so, I guess hyperbole is the standard response.
I mean, you've talked at length about how interesting the Scarlet Brotherhood is. But, if we go back to boxed set, the SB is a couple of paragraphs buried in the back of a book. No details, not information, nothing. They don't feature in a single module or any GH material until 1998. How could they be considered iconic to the setting? They are iconic to the setting NOW. But, that's because you've got SK Reynold's fingerprints all over them.
I totally agree that one of the main draws of GH is the open nature of the setting. That it's a bare bones framework that DM's should be filling in. FANTASTIC. My GoS campaign is set after the GH wars. Is it canon? Nope. Not even remotely and that's great. Others want to run it earlier? That's also fantastic and not terribly difficult to do.
But good grief. If the only way we get a 5e Greyhawk is if they eject everything after 1983? No thanks. I don't mind a bit more detail in my setting than a pretty thin softcover book that gives more details about the bloody trees you find in Greyhawk than to the organizations that move and shake the political landscape. And, frankly, if someone's mental idea of Greyhawk is so fragile that adding Dragonborn (oh noes, 4e cooties!) breaks the setting? Well, sorry, but, too freaking bad. I'd rather WotC bury the setting and never look at it again than appease fans like that. Why should everyone else get screwed over just because you cannot say no to your players? You don't want Dragonborn in your game? Cool, not a problem. But, stop telling me I can't have them in my game. One of us is going to have to do some work, and, well, I'm selfish enough that I WANT the lore of the last thirty years to be used rather than all that fantastic work by writers like Erik Mona, SK Reynolds and others to get left on the cutting room floor just because someone can't wrap their head around something that didn't come out of the 80's.
Is that the point you're trying to make, because it sure looks like it. And, of course, we can add Tieflings, because... reasons? But, Dragonborn? No, totally a bridge too far. 
