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

Remathilis said:

I want the third edition flavor. We are at an impasse because my vision of Greyhawk is no less valid than yours. The difference being the third edition flavor is a lot more compatible with the 5th edition rules than the first edition flavor, where you would have to tell people who just got the new PHB that half of it is invalid because of a book written 40 years ago.

Click to expand...

I’ve played and/or run Greyhawk campaigns from 1e to 5e, including a lot in 3e. And I’m really trying to pick out the real difference in flavor between 1e and 3e… and about all I can think of is class and level restrictions on demihumans. And those aren’t even significant to any of the setting publications. For example, I can’t think of any instances where dwarves are specifically called out as not being able to be wizards in the 1e era GH setting or how that directly affects their relationships as written in those books.
So, flavor differences - not that much from where I’m setting.

Paul Farquhar said:

It's problematic if it's an insensitive characterature of a real world people or culture. Since the Radiant Citadel does not resemble any real world culture it is not problematic.

Click to expand...

But this is the exact argument people defending inherently evil monsters use. It's just so arbitrary. Nobody has been able to show orcs represent any real culture.

This is why people call the "racist if using inherently evil things" a very long stretch.

AstroCat said:

There is nothing wrong with adding to your world in an organic way over time. That sounds awesome because it is.

Click to expand...

I feel like we're quibbling over an ant hill.

So far, the 5e PHB is adding five new species that weren't in 3e: tieflings, aasimar, goliaths, dragoborn, and promoting orcs. Aasimar and tieflings are planetouched and emulate their parent species (and fill in nicely in Iuz's lands as well). Goliaths were always reclusive mountain dwellers, and Good orcs fill the role previously filled by half-orcs. At best, we have to account for dragonborn and as people have said, its a big map outside the Flanaess. "Dragonborn migrated en masse after a major cataclysm in their homeland" is about all I need.

As for all the optional MotM races? Well, those were always DMs call but most of them are fairly minor bit players. There isn't going to be a tabaxi nation anymore than there is going to be a gnoll or minotaur nation. Isolated villages scattered here and there and occasional NPCs in major metropolitan areas.

I think a lot of the pearl clutching about "the Furrys are coming" is overblown because people can't let go that D&D isn't just Tolkien races anymore. But the fact goliaths walk around the Free City doesn't mean Greyhawk is ruined. If Greyhawk's theme is "Sword & Sorcery in a world of danger and adventure", then it doesn't matter if I'm an elf or a dragonborn. If Greyhawk's theme is really "D&D using only what existed in 1983" well, then maybe is should have stayed dead.

billd91 said:

I’ve played and/or run Greyhawk campaigns from 1e to 5e, including a lot in 3e. And I’m really trying to pick out the real difference in flavor between 1e and 3e… and about all I can think of is class and level restrictions on demihumans. And those aren’t even significant to any of the setting publications. For example, I can’t think of any instances where dwarves are specifically called out as not being able to be wizards in the 1e era GH setting or how that directly affects their relationships as written in those books.
So, flavor differences - not that much from where I’m setting.

Click to expand...

The only major difference I can tell is that 3e Greyhawk was a little less gritty. But otherwise, you are right, and that's why this whole debate is a tempest in a teapot.

AstroCat said:

Yeah you said rules, and I was talking about settings, but that also includes races and deities and major factors like that could be considered "rules". You can reflavor/tweak certain mechanical rules, like spells and whatnot to make it work. Sometimes that does mean different versions, like halflings are across, DL, DS and FR... they exist but are different with different rules, like race features and what not.

Click to expand...

I don’t know - you’re gonna have to show me where I referred to the rules.

I’m not a stickler for strict rules either so

AstroCat said:

I guess I disagree, all of sudden having Tieflings and Dragonborn and Bunny/Cat people walking around everywhere with no rhyme or reason and no connection or interplay with the world breaks it for me on many levels. It makes it not that world but a different one, so why not just use the different one you already got, like FR. Just use that if that is what you really want?

Click to expand...

For my Greyhawk, Tieflings aren't going to be a large group. They're an extremely uncommon sight, most people having never seen one, and because of their demonic appearance they often face some prejudice until people get to know them. And even they some people just don't want to get to know them.

AstroCat said:

There is nothing wrong with adding to your world in an organic way over time. That sounds awesome because it is, most of the time, well at least some of the time. No guarantees the new content will be great but nothing wrong with trying. All of sudden changing a ton with no rhyme or reason, not so great.

Click to expand...

"All of a sudden"?

It's been thirty freaking years since Greyhawk got a serious update to keep it in line with all the material that has been released for D&D.

There is no "all of a sudden" here. The only reason that Greyhawk hasn't gotten these things added to it over teh years is because Greyhawk is a dead setting as far as TSR or WotC was concerned. But the idea that anything D&D doesn't have a place in Greyhawk? That's just revisionist history and wishful thinking.

Snarf Zagyg said:

That's right. I take full credit. My ceaseless shilling for Greyhawk, and continued dropping of #GREYHAWKCONFIRMED are solely responsible for this. I mean ... have I written about Greyhawk before? YOU TELL ME?

Click to expand...

Yup, all your fault.

Snarf Zagyg said:

Greyhawk is D&D before people thought they needed to color within the lines. Greyhawk is D&D your way. It's the infinite multiverse and crashed spaceships, it's ninja nazi monks and demon-possessed emperors, it's endless black ice and dead civilizations blasted by colorless fire.

It's a mechanical bejeweled songbird from two millennia ago with powers that amaze and terrify, and an ancient computer designed by a long-ago Baron driven insane by his creation. It's a dark nameless god dreaming within a crystalline cyst, and demi-gods raised from the ranks of mere mortal adventurers.

It's a land that contains both the hospitable and brave free people of the Yeomanry who regularly elect their leaders from amongst their ranks, as well as the infamy of Vlek, the Stonefist, who acquired power through the slaughter of the Coltens Feodality under cover of negotiation.

Click to expand...

Extremely well stated.

Mournblade94 said:

But this is the exact argument people defending inherently evil monsters use. It's just so arbitrary. Nobody has been able to show orcs represent any real culture.

This is why people call the "racist if using inherently evil things" a very long stretch.

Click to expand...

The main question is “how are these races described”? Are they described in a way that is similar to how American Indians or Africans have been described by European colonists? And are those descriptions related to their inherent evilness? Both of those latter two questions are generally answered yes. THAT’s how inherently evil races tie into real world racism and that’s a significant part of why WotC is moving away from that.

There’s nothing stopping you from keeping orcs evil and aggressive in your home campaign, but think about how you describe them and their society. Notice any parallels that are uncomfortable? Maybe try to avoid those.
And for god’s sake DON’T QUOTE CHIVINGTON like Gygax did. That was incredibly stupid of him.

Remathilis said:

The only major difference I can tell is that 3e Greyhawk was a little less gritty. But otherwise, you are right, and that's why this whole debate is a tempest in a teapot.

Click to expand...

I dunno about grit, but 3E Greyhawk has a much higher buvkle and pockets to character ratio.