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

[Micah Sweet]

Thing is that Greyhawk was never designed as a setting with a whole lot of integrity. It was a place where pretty much anything could and did happen. Greyhawk is a setting with about as much integrity as the English language – the only reason the old books aren't filled with planetouched, dragonborn, sorcerers, and whatever is that the books predate the invention of those things, and during the time those were invented no-one was making much stuff for Greyhawk.

This is different from a setting like Dark Sun. Dark Sun is defined by deliberate choices about what isn't there. Dark Sun doesn't have orcs, because all the orcs were victims of genocide millennia ago. And while Dark Sun predates tieflings and aasimar, I personally would feel that they were out of place there because Dark Sun has very limited planar contact (although that's a later addition to the setting).

All good points. The issues I have with WotC's treatment of their own IP really don't much apply to Greyhawk. I withdraw my complaint regarding this specific issue.

Well played sir.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nah

What I am saying is that a player will make a Dragonborn in Greyhawk and have characters that are not tied and have bonds to the setting. And there are drawbacks to that.

That's on the DM for not giving them bonds beyond 'people shapes like you exist somewhere for some reason'.

Ask the player about the character's family, friends and past. Dig into their backstory that THEY created.

Don't just grouse that the player is rearranging the Hummel figurines in grandma's china hutch.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unfortunately, the history of Greyhawk and its ties to Gary Gygax meant that it was replaced by Forgotten Realms. They both share the same space because the inclusion of FR was to remove Gygax’s influence from the company down to the very setting he used. TBH, I’m not sure that Gygax wasnt actually happy about this. I don’t think he ever really wanted Greyhawk to be a big deal. He never really understood the purpose of settings when he was the head honcho.

Clearly the purpose of settings remains an open, hotly debated question.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is this a problem of the rules, if they are willing (and the DM and the rest of the table goes along with it) to make a character with no ties to the setting, what is different from a dragonborn or a human?
Tying the dragonborn to the setting is as simple as saying that the character is descended from half dragons, or some dragon sorcerer did some breeding experiments with kobolds.
There lots of tables where the play is casual and the characters have little ties to the setting. That is a table issue, seems to me a weak reason to accept or reject a setting.

To be fair, it's a weak issue to you because it doesn't matter to you. It may very well matter to others, particularly the DM at the table where it's happening.

 

[TiQuinn]

Clearly the purpose of settings remains an open, hotly debated question.

Let’s just say he never really saw the value of publishing them.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To be fair, it's a weak issue to you because it doesn't matter to you. It may very well matter to others, particularly the DM at the table where it's happening.

Then it is the DMs job to make that clear from the get go. I do not believe it is the function of the rules or the publisher/designer to try and enforce playstyles. Other than, perhaps to note that such playstyles exist.
As you say it is not important to me but if I was playing at your table, I would respect your right to do so and make any house rules you wished as long as you communicated them up front. To join a table and not respect its playstyle would be the height of discourtesy.

 

[Minigiant]

Why is this a problem of the rules, if they are willing (and the DM and the rest of the table goes along with it) to make a character with no ties to the setting, what is different from a dragonborn or a human?

Player Agency and DM agency conflict

A human can point to the GH map and say "I'm from here. I known the history of this nation and have contacts here*

A Dragonborn doing the same invokes a Player Agency dilemma. They are creating a nation and people.

For some groups that's a easy fix. Not and issue.
For other groups oh boy that's a problem.

Tying the dragonborn to the setting is as simple as saying that the character is descended from half dragons, or some dragon sorcerer did some breeding experiments with kobolds.

Never said it what a hard fix.
I said it can occasionally cause problem.

There lots of tables where the play is casual and the characters have little ties to the setting. That is a table issue, seems to me a weak reason to accept or reject a setting

Again I am not rejecting Greyhawk as a setting.

I am seeing that Greyhawk is so old and has not been updated in so long that is a poor choice for introductory setting to teach DMs how to design and run a setting unless you're going to do additional guidance work which I do not expect Wizards to do.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I don't know. WotC had no issue changing high elf to elastin in the 4e era. And there wasn't even a good reason for that. As long as you keep the same distinctive look, and make sure to mention warforged in the species description, I think branding is safe. After all, we are specifically not talking about Eberron here.

And yet they reverted the high elf => eladrin change, to the point of us now having versions of both that are quite distinct from one another... Shrugs

The way I see it, changing warforged to, for the sake of argument, "ironforged" would be equivalent to changing tiefling to something like "fiendling". Sure, it would get the idea of what they are across just as well as, if not better than, the existing name, but the old names have years, nay decades, of brand recognition and player investment.

If the name's a problem in specific contexts, give an alternate to use for those contexts, but there's no reason that alternate has to take primacy, in my view, unless the old name has such extensive issues that it needs to be fully retired.

Heck, in the process of de-OGL-ifying Pathfinder 2e, tieflings and aasimar (and basically every other "outer" planetouched heritage) were unified under the name "nephilim", and despite understanding perfectly well why the change was made and it being an entirely separate game system/setting/cosmology, I still have a gut instinct to default to using the names tiefling and aasimar that is nigh impossible to overcome.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Player Agency and DM agency conflict

A human can point to the GH map and say "I'm from here. I known the history of this nation and have contacts here*

A Dragonborn doing the same invokes a Player Agency dilemma. They are creating a nation and people.

For some groups that's a easy fix. Not and issue.
For other groups oh boy that's a problem.

Never said it what a hard fix.
I said it can occasionally cause problem.

Well, reasonable minds can differ, but I do not believe it is an issue for designers or publishers to resolve. I mean DMs curate their games all the time. There are DMs that do not allow splat books, or Silvery Barbs or multiclassing. Does this mean that Wizards should not include multiclassing?

Again I am not rejecting Greyhawk as a setting.

I am seeing that Greyhawk is so old and has not been updated in so long that is a poor choice for introductory setting to teach DMs how to design and run a setting unless you're going to do additional guidance work which I do not expect Wizards to do.

The fact that it is old, not updated in a long time and was intended as an example of how-to world build strikes me as making it an ideal setting to demonstrate world building to new DMs.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it is now apparent the theme doesn't matter at all as long as everything from the latest books is added. It's really all that matters, GH is basically just one step away from worthless, it's just the new stuff that matters. "Sword & Sorcery in a world of danger and adventure" is dead, and buried, that is old, and should be destroyed in modern gaming. That is the prevailing message. Not for me, but that sure will get a lot more support than trying to add new stuff to a classic setting in a "respectful thoughtful" way. That idea is considered bad and must have ill intentions, because it's from "before", and "before" is all bad.

Greyhawk survived Unearthed Arcana with it cavaliers and PC drow. It survived 2e's From the Ashes with kits and specialty priests. It survived 3e with dwarf wizards and sorcerers. It will survive this.

And if you are right and Greyhawk is dead because of dragonborn warlocks, then if deserved to die and be harvested for parts. Let something new and glorious be born from the ashes of the old.