Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[Fenris-77]

I still don't understand how you think that a problem that results from multiple publications by multiple authors and editors over multiple years is going to be resolved by yet another publication 20-odd years later by new authors and editors.

Or why those new authors and editors would even be interested in trying to fix it.

 

[pemerton]

This doesn't solve the issue of my not getting 5e Greyhawk playtested setting specific crunch to go with the fluff. One of my first posts on this topic mentioned that.

That's a different issue than what you were discussing in the post I quoted, but okay. Wanting some crunch support is fair enough. Though, as someone that has run and played Greyhawk in 5e, what exactly are you looking for crunchwise? I'm not really seeing anything that can't be handled by the options we already have (unless you're really trying to shoehorn something extremely niche)—except in the case of some monsters (and I'm always open to new monsters) or new backgrounds.

On this I agree 100% with Azzy. What setting specific crunch is need to run a 5e campaign in GH? GH = default, out-of-the-box D&D.

If you wanted to ban sorcerers and warlocks that would obviously be a possibility, although I think these can very easily be fitted into GH - sorcerers are children of dragons (esp GH dragons!) and warlocks are dark cultists which tend to be fairly rife in the pulpy world of GH.

 

[pemerton]

I've found that to be the case more and more.....that running published material is actually more time consuming for me than just making my own.

I mean, my game ostensibly takes place primarily in the Forgotten Realms and Sigil, both published settings, but other than the points on the maps, everything else is largely stuff I've made up, or cobbled from the interesting bits of lore I've retained over the years.

What you're describing here is what I take to be the norm for using published material. You start with whatever is there that is interesting and/or useful - personally I find maps, names and basic backstory especially helpful - and then play around and build out of that.

 

[pemerton]

It's not that players will know his level. It's that mechanically, a difference in level provides additional capability that a DM may need to take into account.

Let's say for argument's same that the PCs end up fighting this guy.

I'll ask again - how often do you think this has come up in the history of GH play, that the PCs end up in combat with the king of Keoland?

And if it really does come up, what again is the problem with the GM making a decision? Given that any hardcore players will know that the published material is inconsistent, what would their complaint be?

 

[pemerton]

Specific subclasses like maybe Scarlet Brotherhood, maybe a feat or two, some specific backgrounds like the FR book has, etc.

Why do Scarlet Brotherhood monks need a special sub-class? They're monks of the open hand. That's their whole thing!

 

[pemerton]

...Your argument is don't add new options because people have disagreements about the current options? Wtf?

No. My argument is that (1) you and @3catcircus are asserting that a new version of GH will cure problems that result from their being mutiple versions (in your case, disagreement over which is the best; in 3catcircus's case, contradictions between those published sources), and (2) I don't understand how publsihgin yet another version is going to be a solution to the problem of too many versions.

Also your examples are all the rulers of various places. Compared to FR, where practically every other NPC you meet can do magic or is a good fighter (literally in Dragon Heist one of the detectives has spells, and it's assumed most detectives do), rulers having magic is incredibly tame.

I also pointed to the Village of Hommlet.

I just pulled Treasures of Greyhawk - a collection of mini-scenarios - off my shelf.

The first adventure, for 4th level PCs, has a knight errant said to be of "level as PC fighter +1" and a 6th level gnome illusionist. An adventure for 6th level PCs has a 9th level fighter barbarian princess from the north. The adventure Terror in the Tropics, for 9th level PCs, includes a local tribesman named Malabar who is an 8th level fighter. On the Town, an adventure for PCs of the same level, includes an inn called The Weary Traveller where "a huge man dominates the common room", William of the Axe who is a 12th level fighter. There is also a party of 5 mercenaries, each a 6th level fighter; and is a band of four Nerrul cultists who are fighter/clerics of levels 5/4. In the temple of Kelanen in the same adventure the worshippers are said to be 5th level fighter and the 4 sentries 7th level fighters.

This is of course a 2nd ed AD&D publication, but it is quite consistent with the city encounter matrix in Gygax's DMG, which has mid-to-high level fighters (whether as guards, watchmen, rarkes, gentry, or just passing through) as common as dirt; and his patrol encounter rules - both in his DMG and the GH boxed set - which likewise are full of mid-to-high level fighters (and plenty of others too, especially on the GH tables).

My reading of all these materials is that the level of NPCs who are likely to serve as antagonists is set more by reference to the demands of play (mid-to-high level PCs need mid-to-high level antagonists) than by reference to considerations of "world building".

That may be a good or bad thing, but I don't think it makes GH especially distinctive as a setting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What you're describing here is what I take to be the norm for using published material. You start with whatever is there that is interesting and/or useful - personally I find maps, names and basic backstory especially helpful - and then play around and build out of that.

Yeah, for sure. I’ve never been beholden to the lore as written. There’s plenty to like about any campaign setting. And plenty that can be done without.

Having run a few published adventures as part of my 5E campaign in order to save time, I’ve come to the realization that it’s more work for me. Which I wouldn’t have thought would be the case, but it’s become very clear.

So although I’ll continue to used some published materials as references, I don’t plan on running any published adventures in full.

 

[Maxperson]

The issue that @3catcircus raised id not a lack of detail. It is about conflicting details.

Sure, but I'm not arguing his thing. I'm arguing my thing.

A GM who has only one sourcebook isn't going to be bothered by those conflicts - s/he won't even no about them - and so they aren't a problem. Any GM who has bought multiple sourcebooks and has noticed the conflict is already committed enough that I'm sure s/he can spare the extra 15 seconds to make a decision should it be required.

As far as running GH, the point I have repeatedly made is that any 5e GM who wants to run GH can do so. All s/he needs to do is buy a copy of the boxed set of DM's Guild for about $10. That has evertyhting s/he needs: maps, descriptions, history, etc. The information about the levels of the leaders is all usable, because every class mentioned is a class or subclass in 5e. The only mechanical detail that can't just be used in 5e is the information about the gods and clerics - but 5e has its own well-developed rules for specialised priests (ie cleric subclaasses) and so my hypothetical GM will be able to use those in lieu.

I want the same level of support as FR. End of story. It can be done, since it was done for FR and FR isn't any more specialized that GH is.

If people are declining to run GH because they won't do so until WotC tells them which 5e cleric subclass they should use for each GH god, well, I would think that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

Okay, but I don't think anyone has made that argument.

 

[Maxperson]

On this I agree 100% with Azzy. What setting specific crunch is need to run a 5e campaign in GH? GH = default, out-of-the-box D&D.

The same kinds as FR. They came up with backgrounds and subclasses for FR, they can just as easily do it for GH.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

No. My argument is that (1) you and @3catcircus are asserting that a new version of GH will cure problems that result from their being mutiple versions (in your case, disagreement over which is the best; in 3catcircus's case, contradictions between those published sources), and (2) I don't understand how publsihgin yet another version is going to be a solution to the problem of too many versions.

I also pointed to the Village of Hommlet.

I just pulled Treasures of Greyhawk - a collection of mini-scenarios - off my shelf.

The first adventure, for 4th level PCs, has a knight errant said to be of "level as PC fighter +1" and a 6th level gnome illusionist. An adventure for 6th level PCs has a 9th level fighter barbarian princess from the north. The adventure Terror in the Tropics, for 9th level PCs, includes a local tribesman named Malabar who is an 8th level fighter. On the Town, an adventure for PCs of the same level, includes an inn called The Weary Traveller where "a huge man dominates the common room", William of the Axe who is a 12th level fighter. There is also a party of 5 mercenaries, each a 6th level fighter; and is a band of four Nerrul cultists who are fighter/clerics of levels 5/4. In the temple of Kelanen in the same adventure the worshippers are said to be 5th level fighter and the 4 sentries 7th level fighters.

This is of course a 2nd ed AD&D publication, but it is quite consistent with the city encounter matrix in Gygax's DMG, which has mid-to-high level fighters (whether as guards, watchmen, rarkes, gentry, or just passing through) as common as dirt; and his patrol encounter rules - both in his DMG and the GH boxed set - which likewise are full of mid-to-high level fighters (and plenty of others too, especially on the GH tables).

My reading of all these materials is that the level of NPCs who are likely to serve as antagonists is set more by reference to the demands of play (mid-to-high level PCs need mid-to-high level antagonists) than by reference to considerations of "world building".

That may be a good or bad thing, but I don't think it makes GH especially distinctive as a setting.

First, that wasn't really my argument. My point was that right now, there a lot of different versions of Greyhawk, and newbies aren't sure where is a good starting point. My point was that by making a 5E book that defines "this is a good year, with this political map, etc. etc." I'm not saying this is going to stop disagreements over what is best (I don't care what people think "best" Greyhawk is), I'm saying the new DMs and players will know exactly where to start if they just want to pick GH up and play.

If the old players want to disagree with that starting point? Let them, they'd ban paladins and warlocks if they had the chance.

I'll concede the Hammlet example, though as you say it is 2e. And again, I'm not saying Greyhawk doesn't have any adventurers in it, it obviously has some. What I am saying is that in comparison to the current default setting, Forgotten Realms, it has far less. And Gygax's DMG doesn't change that, as it is largely showing encounters of fighters as opposed to wizards and other magic-users.

And to be clear, we can find examples that prove our respective points if we comb through all GH printed material. You don't think GH is distinctive; fine. I'm saying that GH can be made distinctive if made with a certain tone and theme, a theme that I feel is represented in some GH material. You can argue it's not consistent in all GH material (and I think that's correct), but that doesn't make my POV wrong.