D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

Remathilis said:

Last I checked, 3e's default setting was Greyhawk and nothing was off the table. People expecting Greyhawk to adhere only to the Folio already lost that battle 25 years ago.

Click to expand...

Hell, they lost that battle with whatever the next game book published was after the Folio. If it was in the AD&D rules, it was in Greyhawk.

Parmandur said:

So, some Bloggers and influences have been doing the "Gygax 75 Challenge" fir the past half decade, based on a 5 step campaign setting development program laid out by Gary Gygax in an article in the fanzine Europa in 1975...an article that WorC is actively printing and selling next month.

The 5 steps as outlined by Gygax:

That's right, folks.
The referee of the campaign must structure the game so as to have
something to play. He must decide upon these things:
1) The overall setting of the campaign;
2) The countryside of the immediate area;
3) The location of the dungeon where most adventures will take
place;
4) The layout and composition of the nearest large town; and
5) Eventually the entire world - and possibly other worlds, times,
dimensions, and so forth must be structured, mapped and added.

Gary Gygax in Europa Newsletter 1975: On D&D and Castle Greyhawk

Extracted From Europa WEB ARCHIVE, issues 6-8, April 1975. Page 20 E 6,8, page 18 GABT GÏGAX: D&D HPV TO SET UP YOUR DÜNGEONS & DRA...

lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

Interesting. Speaking as someone who is just about to run a by-the-book OD&D game this Saturday, I can tell you that Gygax offers fairly similar advice in the original boxed set (minus step 1 and with a watered-down version of 5).

GarthS said:

I read the 8 page spread and didn't see Dark Sun mentioned once in all the nostagia bait settings

Click to expand...

Wizards pretty heavily implied a year or so ago that they perceived Dark Sun as more trouble than it's worth.

I'm A Banana said:

The Henriad would like a word.

Click to expand...

I was going to say that was the "for the most part", but holy cow do I always forget how many of them there were!

Jaeger said:

You could get shakespeare in bookstores long before it became universal for american schools.

You can find him in the bookstores of countries where he is not. Same with Tolkien.

And there are several authors that we can say the same.




Never said it was.

Just that the original work is what truly endures, and it is their universal appeal that is the reason why people choose to do adaptations.

Not the other way around.

Click to expand...

And yet... I can't say that I agree.

I have never read a single original Sherlock Holmes story. Yet, I have dabbled in making Sherlock Holmes inspired stories, based off of the adaptation. Sherlock Holmes gets adapted or re-imagined because he is the Ur-archetype of the detective. Everyone thinks of him, because they have been told he is the Greatest detective.

I've read a decent amount of Shakespeare, most notably Romeo and Juliet "the greatest love story ever told" and frankly the original is... not a good love story. It isn't a badly written comedy, but it certainly isn't a love story. Yet, we are told it is the greatest love story, Romeo and Juliet is synonmous with star-crossed lovers. I don't think that is because of the power of the original work. I think it is because our culture has consistently pointed people who consume very little media to that work and SAID it is powerful and good.

And I've certainly had to explain a Victorian Era joke to a class of kids, who just don't have any idea why it is supposed to be funny.

This isn't to say that the original works are badly done, but they are not the pinnacle I think. We tend to have this habit of looking to the things that culture has told us are "the greatest" and just... accepting that. Tolkien is good, but I don't think he was the pinnacle of all fantasy forever. In fact, I've found the movie adaptations far better stories. Much more streamlined and easier to get through. Which makes sense, Tolkien was a professor and writing a mythology, but mythologies aren't written to be compelling novels. I wouldn't even categorize Romeo and Juliet as a Love Story, let alone the greatest love story. I've read FAR better. Far better comedies too. And none of Shakespeare's tragedies ever hit me as hard as some of the best tragedies I've ever read.

I think we get... stuck sometimes, when it comes to long-standing classics. Mozart and Beethoven are not the greatest music ever written, but they are the names of composers who have been listened to for centuries, that we are told are the greatest music, that we see the classiest people who we are told have excellent taste listening to... and they are great... but do we hold them up as the greatest because no one has done better, or because everyone says they are the greatest and the old stuff is always better than the new stuff?

And, we have absolutely seen adaptations that are better than the original, in music, in movies, in books, in comics. It has been done. So I think we do ourselves a disservice by declaring not only that something that has stood for centuries will continue to do so, but that it will also continue to be better than anything that came afterwards. Because then if something does come along... no one will be able to see it.

Reynard said:

I find it fascinating that people talk about how much they love Greyhawk and its lore, and then also tout its undeveloped nature. It makes me think people love Greyhawk for what they brought to it (awesome) but that seems like it will lead to disappointment in whatever WotC does with it in the DMG.

Click to expand...

Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, even Eberron are like fancy quilts. They are beautiful and lovingly crafted by talented artisans who are masters of their craft. You may not like the pattern, but you can't deny the artistry.

Greyhawk is like a DIY kit with the first fifth of the pattern started and a collection of yarns and instructions included. Enough to get you started, but you have to finish it yourself. The problem is that a lot of people have extrapolated from that starter portion and instructions there is a right and a wrong way to finish that quilt or that certain types of yarn should not be used (or that only the stuff in the kit should count). In essence, trying to turn it into a fancy quilt like the others.

pemerton said:

It's presented as an option, in an Appendix of the PHB.

Click to expand...

In the 1e Players Handbook, Psionics is D&D core.

Appendix 1 Psionics, Appendix 3 Character Alignment Graph, and Appendix 4 Known Planes of Existence, are all core.

In the same way that Alignments and the Astral Plane and Ethereal Plane are D&D core, Psionics is D&D core.


Confusion happens because the Appendix 2 Bard is noncore, explicitly "supplemental". This Appendix 2 instructs the DM to decide if the Bard is part of the game. "As this character class subsumes the functions of two other classes, fighters and thieves, and tops them off with magical abilities, it is often not allowed by Dungeon Masters. ... It is offered as supplemental to the system, and your DM will be the final arbiter as to the inclusion of bards in your campaign." The Bard is the first "prestige class" sotospeak in the D&D game. The DM needs to decide whether to allow a prestige class.


Of course, in 1e, the DM is supposed to pick and choose what parts of D&D they want and what parts they do not want. Creating "house rules" is how one plays 1e.

Among the official rules that 1e offers, psionics, alignments, and the multiverse are all core.

JEB said:

Wizards pretty heavily implied a year or so ago that they perceived Dark Sun as more trouble than it's worth.

Click to expand...

I don't expect we will see Dark Sun for a long, long time.

Remathilis said:

Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, even Eberron are like fancy quilts. They are beautiful and lovingly crafted by talented artisans who are masters of their craft. You may not like the pattern, but you can't deny the artistry.

Greyhawk is like a DIY kit with the first fifth of the pattern started and a collection of yarns and instructions included. Enough to get you started, but you have to finish it yourself. The problem is that a lot of people have extrapolated from that starter portion and instructions there is a right and a wrong way to finish that quilt or that certain types of yarn should not be used (or that only the stuff in the kit should count). In essence, trying to turn it into a fancy quilt like the others.

Click to expand...

Exactly so, so perfect for what they are doing with the DMG.

Yaarel said:

In the 1e Players Handbook, Psionics is D&D core.

Appendix 1 Psionics, Appendix 3 Character Alignment Graph, and Appendix 4 Known Planes of Existence, are all core.

In the same way that Alignments and the Astral Planes and Elemental Planes are D&D core, Psionics is D&D core.

Confusion happens because the Appendix 2 Bard is noncore, explicitly "supplemental". This Appendix 2 instructs the DM to decide if the Bard is part of the game. "As this character class subsumes the functions of two other classes, fighters and thieves, and tops them off with magical abilities, it is often not allowed by Dungeon Masters. ... It is offered as supplemental to the system, and your DM will be the final arbiter as to the inclusion of bards in your campaign." The Bard is the first "prestige class" sotospeak in the D&D game. The DM needs to decide whether to allow a prestige class.

Of course, in 1e, the DM is supposed to pick and choose what parts of D&D they want and what parts they do not want. Creating "house rules" is how one plays 1e.

Among the official rules that 1e offers, psionics, alignments, and the multiverse are all core.

Click to expand...

Could be, but I'm guessing others read it differently...

PHB: "If your DM opts to include..."


DMG: "If you opt to include..."

DMG section on Gamma World cross-overs: "Unless AD&D psionic abilities are present..."