D&D (2024) How Does Greyhawk Fit In To The New Edition?

Dungeon Master’s Guide contains a sample setting—and that setting is, indeed, Greyhawk.

IMG_3568.webp


According to Game Informer — “the surprising importance and inclusions of what is arguably the oldest D&D campaign setting of them all – Greyhawk.”

So how does Greyhawk fit in? According to GI, the new 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide contains a sample setting—and that setting is, indeed, Greyhawk. Not only that, but the book will come with a double-sided poster map with the City of Greyhawk on one side and the Flannaes on the other—the eastern part of one of Oerth’s four continents.
IMG_3569.jpeg

Even as the multiverse of D&D worlds sees increased attention, the Dungeon Master's Guide also offers a more discrete setting to get gaming groups started. After very few official releases in the last couple of decades, the world of Greyhawk takes center stage. The book fleshes out Greyhawk to illustrate how to create campaign settings of your own. Greyhawk was the original D&D game world crafted by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax, and a worthy setting to revisit on the occassion of D&D's golden anniversary. It's a world bristling with classic sword and sorcery concepts, from an intrigue-laden central city to wide tracts of uncharted wilderness. Compared to many D&D campaign settings, it's smaller and less fleshed out, and that's sort of the point; it begs for DMs to make it their own. The book offers ample info to bring Greyhawk to life but leaves much undetailed. For those eager to take the plunge, an included poster map of the Greyhawk setting sets the tone, and its reverse reveals a map of the city of the same name. "A big draw to Greyhawk is it's the origin place for such heroes as Mordenkainen, Tasha, and others," Perkins says. "There's this idea that the players in your campaign can be the next great world-hopping, spell-crafting heroes of D&D. It is the campaign where heroes are born."
- Game Informer​

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vaalingrade

Legend
I'm not at all surprised, just disappointed.

As I've pointed out in previous threads many times, WotC has consistently shown, for the whole time they've owned the D&D property, an irrational and fannish obsession with Greyhawk, and have repeatedly tried to "make it happen". To be fair, TSR did the same thing. In both cases, it just failed and failed because fundamentally, Greyhawk is one of the worst and most boring D&D settings.

No doubt it won't be updated meaningfully either, because it's nostalgia nonsense and trying to "bring back" something rather than an astute rational analysis that now is the time or the like.
I feel like someone with a 'fannish obsession' would like... try?

WotC have Greyhawk be technically the default in 3e but only in terms of the gods and important NPCs in spell names. Then they pretty much just set ISO Standard fantasy adventures there in Dungeon and not much else.

I also thought it was the most boring setting, but then I talked to people who like the setting and learned that there's a LOT of cool stuff that just hasn't seen the light of day for the past 25 years.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Greyhawk never was anything BUT a kitchen sink. And if it exists in D&D, there's a place for it in Eberron. You can make valid arguments that Dragonlance or Dark Sun aren't kitchen sinks, but those are two of the biggest sinks that WotC has next to the Realms. Those are kitchen sink in a 5 star restaurant big!

The reason people don't want dragonborn or goliaths in Oerth is just a subtle form of edition warring. The fight is to keep those dirty new options from soiling their memories of D&D before TSR went splat. That's also why people argue to bring back race class restrictions despite those being gone for half the game's lifespan. It's the same "get off my lawn" argument that gets people to complain when the classic rock channel plays those new rock bands like Nirvana.
And is there a problem with feeling that way? Are we required to pleasantly accept every new thing whether we like it or not? Can we not express dissatisfaction if in our opinion the new doesn't equal the old, or doesn't fit with it?

I'm not saying that's how I feel here, but its a legitimate sentiment.
 





This is the best sell I've seen for Greyhawk for a long time, I must say.
But the thing is, that has nothing to do with Greyhawk - it's just how D&D was played in the 70s when Greyhawk came out (you can see a lot of the same vibe in City State of the Invincible Overlord, and early Warhammer). You could try and make a modern setting like that, but it wouldn't be Greyhawk, because Greyhawk always has been core rules generic. And sure, that's boring, which is why they are putting it as an example in the DMG, not publishing a book or boxed set.
 
Last edited:

Remathilis

Legend
And is there a problem with feeling that way? Are we required to pleasantly accept every new thing whether we like it or not? Can we not express dissatisfaction if in our opinion the new doesn't equal the old, or doesn't fit with it?

I'm not saying that's how I feel here, but its a legitimate sentiment.
It IS when people already assume Greyhawk is ruined because the sample setting in the DMG isn't going to do "ackshullay..." to remove options in the game simply because Gary didn't think of them in the 70s. Especially since the setting was already used as such in 3e.

You are allowed to feel what you want. But if you are pitching a fit that the sample setting isn't going to ban one third of the species options in the core books, you are no longer being reasonable.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top