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

[Yaarel]

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

PHB: "If your DM opts to include..."
View attachment 363323

DMG: "If you opt to include..."
View attachment 363324
DMG section on Gamma World cross-overs: "Unless AD&D psionic abilities are present..."
View attachment 363327

1e Psionics resembles 5e 2014 Feats. A core option.

 

[GarthS]

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

I understand the problematic nature of the evil Templar character class, but all they had to do was rename them to Pinkertons and they would have fit within WotC ethical guidelines.

 

[Gradine]

The Henriad would like a word.

Truly the Westminster Theatrical Universe

 

[Jaeger]

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.

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 think we get... stuck sometimes, when it comes to long-standing classics.

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.

 

[pemerton]

1e Psionics resembles 5e 2014 Feats. A core option.

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

<snip>

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.

I'm not confused. I first read Appendix I of the AD&D PHB 40 around 40 years ago. As @Cadence has pointed out, it expressly states that psionics are an option, to be included if the Dungeon Master so decides. In this respect it is no different from the Bard.

I don't really understand what your point is, in insisting that psionics are "core". The rulebooks in which the relevant rules are presented both describe them as optional (as per @Cadence's post). It is notorious that many if not most play groups did not use them. They are a largely peripheral mechanical system.

I don't think the comparison to 5e feats is remotely plausible or illuminating. Feats are a PC build element that introduce additional complexity, and detail/specification, into the build of any PC. They are optional, but they are widely used.

Psionics is simply an extra type of magic power that can be tacked onto any human, Dwarf or Halfling PC, with little rhyme or reason, based on a rather arbitrary roll of the percentile dice. There is a good reason they are in an appendix, whereas (for instance) spells, equipment, ability score charts, etc are not.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm not confused. I first read Appendix I of the AD&D PHB 40 around 40 years ago. As @Cadence has pointed out, it expressly states that psionics are an option, to be included if the Dungeon Master so decides. In this respect it is no different from the Bard.

I don't really understand what your point is, in insisting that psionics are "core". The rulebooks in which the relevant rules are presented both describe them as optional (as per @Cadence's post). It is notorious that many if not most play groups did not use them. They are a largely peripheral mechanical system.

I don't think the comparison to 5e feats is remotely plausible or illuminating. Feats are a PC build element that introduce additional complexity, and detail/specification, into the build of any PC. They are optional, but they are widely used.

Psionics is simply an extra type of magic power that can be tacked onto any human, Dwarf or Halfling PC, with little rhyme or reason, based on a rather arbitrary roll of the percentile dice. There is a good reason they are in an appendix, whereas (for instance) spells, equipment, ability score charts, etc are not.

In your eyes, are 5e Feats Core? Yes or no?

Most groups did use Psionics, at least on occasion.

Psionics are vital flavor that endures across decades of D&D since its origin and is alive today.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

And when Carl Sargent tried to expand and make it a quilt, it got tore apart by fans who were angry that he was changing Gygax’s work or that it didn’t match the vision in their heads. So Greyhawk became an incomplete setting - fine as a starter kit, great map, but not a whole lot of support.

 

[TiQuinn]

Most groups did use Psionics, at least on occasion.

You know this for a fact? Most groups used Psionics as a player facing character option (not simply something that Mind Flayers and some demons had)?

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'd like to re-request that the psionics discussion find a thread of its own.

If we're at the point of arguing that some appendices but not others -- in a book printed decades before the <TTRPG-gaming-fandom-jargon meaning of the> word core was coined -- are or are not 'core,' we are far too far into the subjective to end the debate, meaning it will bog down the Greyhawk discussion throughout. Please do at least move it to the psionics thread now made for something at least close to that purpose. Thanks.

 

[Blue]

My friends and family don't consume FR media, and I mean the ones who play D&D

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.