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

[Older Beholder]

You and I got real different definitions of quirky, even if it was a sex thing. Centaurs are basic fantasy 101 and BG3 reminded folks FR in particular is unrepentantly horny

I played an Aasimar paladin that worshiped a God a wine and festivals, I referred to him as a 'party paladin'. It was so much fun to play.

 

[Hussar]

What you're talking about is building the first adventures, not worldbuilding. For worldbuilding, you need to go deeper than that. "Put the village of Hommlet here" isn't helpful. Why put the village in this location? How much detail and depth should this first location have? How much is too much and how much is too little? How big an area should you map out? What relation does this village have to the big cities around it? Is this important for the adventures you have in mind? Do you want to include every species in your world, or just some of them? What do they think of each other? Do some classes have a particular meaning in your world? How important is alignment for your setting? What sort of evil forces do you have in your setting? Where on the realistic-to-fantastic scale do you want to go?


Again, those are adventure building tips--which are, in fact, very helpful!--but they're not worldbuilding tips.

There are plenty of DMs who build a world that exists only so far as the adventure needs it to. And there are plenty of DMs who build a world first and the adventures later. Neither of those is superior to the others.

But my question to you is, why is it so important that an existing world be used for this, rather than creating a new one "with" the players?

This is the ages old debate - top down or bottom up world building.

I would prefer they go bottom up for teaching players because top down can very quickly become overwhelming, whereas bottom up is far more practical, even if it does have weaknesses, such as the things you outline - stuff can get contradictory when you are building bottom up.

 

[pemerton]

stuff can get contradictory when you are building bottom up.

That's what a no-prize is for!

 

[TiQuinn]

I don't buy people who try to distinguish the two on the basis of high vs low magic or GH being more gritty than FR. Greyhawk may not be as high magic as FR, but it is certainly not low magic based on the tables, history, and area descriptions in the '83 boxed set (or the adventures TSR published set in Greyhawk). It is only remembered as more gritty because AD&D was more gritty than 5e.

Yeah, nothing of Greyhawk ever screamed “low magic”, “gritty” or even “swords and sorcery” to me, at least not in the Conan the Barbarian of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser vein of it. The Vancian magic was the most overt part. If one’s to judge what the setting entailed based on the adventures of the time, it’d largely be silly. Anecdotally, it got even sillier. There was a slide in Castle Greyhawk that took characters all the way to Gygax’s version of Fantasy China.

I hardly picture Conan falling down a chute and landing in China in a Howard short story.

 

[Parmandur]

We are talking about a chapter. Even if it is a full 10% of the book, we are talking only a little over thirty pages

Not to harp on it, but...that's much info as Greyhawk had at all for years. The chapter can easily provide a full Gygaxian treatment of the Setting...which does not require Realmsoan focus on detail.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, nothing of Greyhawk ever screamed “low magic”, “gritty” or even “swords and sorcery” to me, at least not in the Conan the Barbarian of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser vein of it. The Vancian magic was the most overt part. If one’s to judge what the setting entailed based on the adventures of the time, it’d largely be silly. Anecdotally, it got even sillier. There was a slide in Castle Greyhawk that took characters all the way to Gygax’s version of Fantasy China.

I hardly picture Conan falling down a chute and landing in China in a Howard short story.

I think this is the difference between the setting, taken at face value as published, and the scenarios and dungeons that Gygax ran in the setting. The "connective tissue" between these two things might be Zagyg as a god, and the associated quasi-deities, especially Murlynd.

 

[Parmandur]

I guess it was down to the personal enthusiasms of the author, since it didn't really relate to the fantasy I was reading at the time (REH, Moorcock).

That is extremely curious, because those particular influences are pretty large in Gygax's Greyhawk.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think this is the difference between the setting, taken at face value as published, and the scenarios and dungeons that Gygax ran in the setting. The "connective tissue" between these two things might be Zagyg as a god, and the associated quasi-deities, especially Murlynd.

That and also in the early versions of D&D, the rules of the game itself were also the setting. They were indistinguishable because they were being built almost side by side.

 

[TiQuinn]

That is extremely curious, because those particular influences are pretty large in Gygax's Greyhawk.

It makes sense to me - I know all about Appendix N but having a read a few of the books and stories, sometimes actually finding those inspirations in the actual setting is hard unless one looks at the Vancian magic system, or just the pure existence of a thief class or a barbarian class, etc.

 

[deganawida]

That and also in the early versions of D&D, the rules of the game itself were also the setting. They were indistinguishable because they were being built almost side by side.

That’s the big thing to me. In order to understand the AD&D branch of D&D, or which 5e is a descendant, one must also understand Greyhawk, and vice versa. At least, that’s my opinion.