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

[Parmandur]

Okay, none of your friends and family have read the FR novels, seen Honor Among Thieves, or played Baldur's Gate 3.

But that doesn't mean that WotC wouldn't like you to. Or that others also abstain. WotC has clearly stated on multiple occasions that they want to grow the brand, sell more than just the TTRPG. So let's assume that something that makes sense business-wise isn't a lie. With that, we can assume that by what they are trying, many gamers do have familiarity with a setting.

For the point I'm saying it does not require that all gamers have preconceived notions of settings, or even a majority. As long as some significant number do, then making large changes to an existing setting that bring it out of what the players are expecting is a negative at any table they sit at. Even if that table is not your particular one.

They have seen HAT, but that doesn't really impact much or remove the value for me of the FR as a playground. It's too big for that.

 

[Parmandur]

To bring this back to the thread title question...we have like 5 threads now chatting about Greyhawk because of a paragraph in a magazine, and I have seen like a dozen posters say they might buy the DMG now specifically because of Greyhawk. That, plus being perfectly useful for new players, seems a pretty good metric explanation.

 

[Argyle King]

Personally, I've found that Greyhawk strikes a good balance between giving me information and also leaving blank spaces on the map to make it my own.

Greyhawk also tends to be built around a playstyle and aesthetic that I enjoy more.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Except if they weren't actually rather good, they would not have the staying power that they have had.

We are talking literal centuries, surmounting great historical, literary, musical, and cultural changes in the cases of Shakespeare, or Mozart.

William Harrison Ainsworth even outsold Charles Dickens at one time in his life. Yet Dickens works are what has endured to today, because his works have touched people in a more profound way.

I'm not saying that they are not actually good, especially from a technical angle. However, how many people have read original Dicken's work, and not seen the adaptations? A Christmas Carol might be one of the most adapted stories of all time. And it is one of the few Dicken's works that most people can name... because they've seen the movie adaptations.

And the only other one I can think that most people know is Oliver Twist... which is again because of the movie adaptation, and frankly, despite owning the book for several years, I don't even remember what happens in it.

The state and tastes of popular culture will naturally vary over time.

And I readily admit that in every era there are people that just don't like, or think very highly of 'the classics' for varying reasons.

Luckily, the long-standing classics don't care.

And neither does culture. Take for example, the ultimate expression of what I'm talking about.

Frankenstein and Dracula. I've read the original Frankenstein, and it is a very good work with very powerful theme... and the vast majority of people don't even realize the "monster's" name isn't Frankenstein, but Adam. What has survived and endured is only "Frankenstein by Mary Shelley" in the most shallow of senses.

Most Dracula adaptations look, act and contain next to nothing of the original work from Bram Stoker, and Bram's work was a rip-off to begin with.

Just as we know that just because something is popular doesn't make it good, just because something is old and well-known doesn't mean that the adaptation cannot be better or more appealing. What often holds adaptations back, in my opinion, is RELYING on the good-will and popularity of the original, of thinking "the story has been around for a hundred years, so surely the strength of the story alone will uphold it and make it good"

But, that isn't the case. Many of these stories hit on very common themes and tropes, and are only buoyed by technical craft. Many of the classics that the people who wrote these tales would have pointed to and said "this work shall live on forever" have been largely forgotten, buried under the work they inspired which achieved something greater than the original. Adaptations can be better and more impactful than the original, they can take the original to places it never could reach on its own. They can also crash and burn. The key is not "is it an adaptation" the key is "is it well-made and technically masterful"

 

[Belen]

I'm not saying that they are not actually good, especially from a technical angle. However, how many people have read original Dicken's work, and not seen the adaptations? A Christmas Carol might be one of the most adapted stories of all time. And it is one of the few Dicken's works that most people can name... because they've seen the movie adaptations.

And the only other one I can think that most people know is Oliver Twist... which is again because of the movie adaptation, and frankly, despite owning the book for several years, I don't even remember what happens in it.



And neither does culture. Take for example, the ultimate expression of what I'm talking about.

Frankenstein and Dracula. I've read the original Frankenstein, and it is a very good work with very powerful theme... and the vast majority of people don't even realize the "monster's" name isn't Frankenstein, but Adam. What has survived and endured is only "Frankenstein by Mary Shelley" in the most shallow of senses.

Most Dracula adaptations look, act and contain next to nothing of the original work from Bram Stoker, and Bram's work was a rip-off to begin with.

Just as we know that just because something is popular doesn't make it good, just because something is old and well-known doesn't mean that the adaptation cannot be better or more appealing. What often holds adaptations back, in my opinion, is RELYING on the good-will and popularity of the original, of thinking "the story has been around for a hundred years, so surely the strength of the story alone will uphold it and make it good"

But, that isn't the case. Many of these stories hit on very common themes and tropes, and are only buoyed by technical craft. Many of the classics that the people who wrote these tales would have pointed to and said "this work shall live on forever" have been largely forgotten, buried under the work they inspired which achieved something greater than the original. Adaptations can be better and more impactful than the original, they can take the original to places it never could reach on its own. They can also crash and burn. The key is not "is it an adaptation" the key is "is it well-made and technically masterful"

Dickens used to be required reading in high school.

 

[Jaeger]

A Christmas Carol ... Oliver Twist... Frankenstein and Dracula. ... Adaptations

The adaptations only exist because of the enduring qualities of the original works.

You may like some of the adaptations more than the original works. That's fine.

The original works will still be there for everyone else.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I read through it and it was extremely dry. Like reading a history textbook.

Depends on what you want in a product. I enjoyed every dry word of it!

 

[Demetrios1453]

Truly the Westminster Theatrical Universe

Southwark, actually.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Dickens used to be required reading in high school.

As a definite sign that each successive generation mostly desires the suffering of the generations that come after it.

I will never forgive the people who made me read the 90% paid padding of Great Expectations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends on what you want in a product. I enjoyed every dry word of it!

What product? "Like a history book" really works for me!