Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9261759" data-attributes="member: 7635">One man's respect is another man's betrayal. Greyhawk is one of the oldest "kitchen sink" settings in existence, and there are fans who howl at the thought of sorcerers, dragonborn, and tiefling PCs. (and they get real side-eyed at those short folk casting arcane spells). To them, it doesn't matter if they introduced a lore rationale for the change or not, its not "Gar-weeze vurshion" and therefore will never be accepted. The issue ends up a chicken-or-egg scenario: should a setting book support D&D (as it is for the edition the book is being written for) or should D&D change to accommodate the setting. A lot of people here would vote the latter and I'm sure would be happy if a 5e Greyhawk book came out with rule changes like dwarves can't be wizards and dragonborn is verboten, but that's because they still think of Greyhawk as a setting that was created with AD&D (or OD&D) ideas in mind. Whereas a player who came into the game even as early as 3e would not get the logic of banning magic from dwarves or no dragonborn because to them, Greyhawk (being the default 3e world) had those elements by virtue of the core rules. Whose version of Greyhawk is more true? Which deserves publication?Ultimately, Greyhawk (and all other D&D settings) should serve the D&D game, not vice versa. They are supplements to the D&D game and they should absoluetely be interpreted under the current zeitgeist of the game as it is currently published. Yes, that means things will change. Greyhawk isn't frozen in amber, its not defined by its lack of dragonborn and dwarven wizards. If a setting is designed in such a way it cannot be reinterpreted, then that setting gets left behind (sorry Dark Sun and Birthright fans). Evolve or die. Fit the meta or be left in the dust.</blockquote>

Verification