Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[Urriak Uruk]

So why do people keep asking for GH to be "redone" for 5e? What are they actually asking for? Why do they need to pay again to read the same stories they've already read?

Couple reasons why I'd like a GH 5E book.

1. To collate or "reboot" the setting for an easy starting timepoint for new groups. There have been a handful of threads here of people asking "What GH books do I buy?" or "What time period is the best to use?" or "What is X nation like?" There's a lot of printed GH material, a lot not good. It needs a good "reboot" into something a little more stable, so people have the history but a good year to start, the current political map, the good base stuff.

2. Something tonally different. There hasn't been a lot of setting material printed that gives a more realistic medieval world. The Sword Coast is the base one, but is much more "we always overcome the Saturday morning villain" in tone for 5E. Ravenloft (Curse of Strahd) is good but is wrapped in gothic horror tropes. Eberron and Ravnica are much more magic-tech. None of these are bad, but we've yet to see a setting that goes for a more realistic medieval fantasy tone (of the peasants being peasants, of humans being intolerant, of nations barely trusting each other on the edge of war).

3. The trappings of "Official." The OP has touched on this, but it's honestly so great to see an old setting get dusted off and getting a fresh coat of paint. A new official atlas of Greyhawk to match the quality of the Sword Coast would be great. Art and stats for Iuz the Evil, the Sorceress Iggwilv, and the god Kyuss would be great. Good design and layout, these things are just plain nice.

Anyway, that's my pitch. Not going to expect it before some other settings, but I'll keep my fingers crossed.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

realistic medieval fantasy tone

Isn't that pretty much a non-starter? Both in a descriptive sense - see the "d&d is anti-medieval" thread - and in a prescriptive sense? D&D, or at least D&D 5e, very much has a modernistic core with only a veneer or pre-modernity, and the better part of thr playerbase, at least from what I have observed, seems to prefer that, if only as a default. IMO, if you need a medieval fix, why not play Pendragon or Ars Magica?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Isn't that pretty much a non-starter? Both in a descriptive sense - see the "d&d is anti-medieval" thread - and in a prescriptive sense? D&D, or at least D&D 5e, very much has a modernistic core with only a veneer or pre-modernity, and the better part of thr playerbase, at least from what I have observed, seems to prefer that, if only as a default. IMO, if you need a medieval fix, why not play Pendragon or Ars Magica?

I think "baseline" D&D is anti-medieval, especially in Forgotten Realms. They're are big cosmopolitan cities, no racism, the peasants are mostly treated nicely, adventurers in every pub, not even that much feudalism...

But that's kind of my point. Medieval Fantasy is very much a thing, but it's not really a thing that D&D has properly tackled yet, and I think it's something Greyhawk did rather well. It's that world where adventurers are pretty uncommon and where medieval feudalism dominates the continent.

And come on, the stupid "You don't have this in D&D, so stop complaining and play this RPG instead" is a pretty condescending thing to say. I'm not complaining that Greyhawk isn't in 5E, just making a pitch for it. I fully don't expect it in the near future.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m not sure that’s even in the top third of insane arguments we had here.

....this week.

Okay that’s fair

 

[Fenris-77]

Anti-medieval and just plain not medieval aren't the same thing. Not only aren't they same thing, but saying the former assumes that the current edition of D&D was in any way attempting to simulate the actual medieval period, which I will submit it was not (regardless of the intent of previous editions). I don't think it's something that D&D wants to tackle. Not only would that be entirely counter to WotC's attempts at inclusivity in the game as regards women and the LGBTQ+ community, but the actual medieval period was flush to the gills with rampant racism and pretty much every other nasty -ism you care to mention, none of which is anything WotC wants anywhere near their game.

D&D's medieval fantasy is medieval only in the window dressing. Mind you, that's my favorite bit, so I'm ok with that.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Anti-medieval and just plain not medieval aren't the same thing. Not only aren't they same thing, but saying the former assumes that the current edition of D&D was in any way attempting to simulate the actual medieval period, which I will submit it was not (regardless of the intent of previous editions). I don't think it's something that D&D wants to tackle. Not only would that be entirely counter to WotC's attempts at inclusivity in the game as regards women and the LGBTQ+ community, but the actual medieval period was flush to the gills with rampant racism and pretty much every other nasty -ism you care to mention, none of which is anything WotC wants anywhere near their game.

D&D's medieval fantasy is medieval only in the window dressing. Mind you, that's my favorite bit, so I'm ok with that.

What I'm trying to say is that some trappings of "medieval" (feudalism, untrusting of other nations/cultures, low level of technology and magic) haven't really been adapted to D&D yet, and Greyhawk meets that niche. I don't actually want to play exactly like Medieval times; I can already do that, just ban everything but non-magic fighters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Anti-medieval and just plain not medieval aren't the same thing. Not only aren't they same thing, but saying the former assumes that the current edition of D&D was in any way attempting to simulate the actual medieval period, which I will submit it was not (regardless of the intent of previous editions). I don't think it's something that D&D wants to tackle. Not only would that be entirely counter to WotC's attempts at inclusivity in the game as regards women and the LGBTQ+ community, but the actual medieval period was flush to the gills with rampant racism and pretty much every other nasty -ism you care to mention, none of which is anything WotC wants anywhere near their game.

D&D's medieval fantasy is medieval only in the window dressing. Mind you, that's my favorite bit, so I'm ok with that.

I suppose when there’s a real chance a bullette might burst up through the earth and make off with your horse, or an illithid might eat your brain, things like having a female boss or foreigners moving in across the street don’t seem so scary.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I suppose when there’s a real chance a bullette might burst up through the earth and make off with your horse, or an illithid might eat your brain, things like having a female boss or foreigners moving in across the street don’t seem so scary.

In some cases I think this is true; however, I'll use the Witcher as an example (the Netflix version) for how to do this without stepping on people's toes.

Modern racism (by skin tone and culture) doesn't exist in this adaptation. People of different appearance seem to coexist just fine, regardless of their appearance (it is not even mentioned, ever).

But there is still plenty of intolerance. There are dwarves, and elves, and humans, and the three don't like each other. The humans often commit horrific atrocities against the elves. Having elven-blood is seen sometimes as a negative.

There is still plenty of intolerance, just different intolerance, despite there being actual monsters that can appear and kill the common peasant (hell that's what the Witchers are for!). The Witcher is a pretty good example of how to keep a lot of that medieval theme while maintaining a lot of actual fantasy (and without directly being Europe).

 

[Fenris-77]

Oh I agree about Greyhawk, I was more ranting about how goofy some people's understanding of the medieval period actually is (not you specifically).