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

[Micah Sweet]

I am not sure if you are trying to make an argument, or just stating the most bland fact ever.

I made a character who was mechanically an autognome. I called them a Living Doll, because they were made by a crazy, immortal and creepy Toymaker instead of by any gnomes. Yeah, if you really want to get obsessive about the details, a warforged that wasn't forged for war would need a different name. And in Star Trek they called "Elves" Vulcans.

The point isn't "everything will exactly match up one to one with no errors". The point is the mechanical species (which in the rules is called warforged) can be easily put into any setting, because "magical construct people" is a rather common fantasy trope that needs little extra explanation. IF a DM wanted to insist to change the name to Cookieforged because they were all originally designed to be chefs in an endless cookie factory... fine, but that doesn't prevent the use of the species mechanics in the setting.

I am talking about published products, NOT what you do at the table. Anyone can do anything they want at the table. But what the books actually say matters to rather a lot of people.

I'm getting rather frustrated with the lack of charity here. My posts don't deliberately tear you down. I assume you mean what you say and had a reason for it. Perhaps you should do the same.

 

[Faolyn]

Because demonstration is an excellent way to teach others how to do something. A new setting, where the book itself walks through its creation, would empower DMs by showing them even as it tells them.

I'm a seasoned GM and long-time world/setting-builder and I would love something like this. I can't imagine how invaluable it would be for new GMs or people who've never worldbuilt before.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am talking about published products, NOT what you do at the table. Anyone can do anything they want at the table. But what the books actually say matters to rather a lot of people.

I'm getting rather frustrated with the lack of charity here. My posts don't deliberately tear you down. I assume you mean what you say and had a reason for it. Perhaps you should do the same.

The published books are going to call them Warforged, because that is the mechanical designation. If they even decide to officially add them into a new setting (which I don't think they will) then it will be under a heading like "Warforged across the Multiverse". And there, they MIGHT decide to call them something different, as in "warforged are called X in BLANK" but they just as likely won't.

And part of that is simply because... they are called Warforged. Just like we generally talk about Dhampir, despite one of the canonical ways a character can become a Dhampir being that they are a failed Mindflayer, which has nothing to do with the half-Vampire origin of the name. Or like we talk about the Hexblood, even though you don't need to have hexed blood to be one. Or like how the Reborn can be also be pure constructs who never lived before, and therefore would not be "reborn" anything. Or like how we have Samurai who were never Medieval Japanese nobles.

Yes, names matter, and in the setting you can decide that specific names need to change to make them make sense, but in the official published material, they need to make it clear what rules are being referenced when someone makes a Dhampir Samurai, even if the character in question is a Symbiotic Fungus growing inside a former bandit. The rules need to clearly point to the correct mechanics, any changes to names will be flavor added after the fact.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm a seasoned GM and long-time world/setting-builder and I would love something like this. I can't imagine how invaluable it would be for new GMs or people who've never worldbuilt before.

I honestly don't see how doing the same process with an established, well-built setting is any different. If you want to teach an art class about chiaroscuro, you don't start out by painting a new painting. You show them a finished painting, and talk about why the decisions that went into making it were made.

You CAN do it by also making a new painting, but in this instance with DnD, I could see a completely new setting causing a few headaches that they are trying to avoid. Namely support and ownership.

 

[Hussar]

I'm a seasoned GM and long-time world/setting-builder and I would love something like this. I can't imagine how invaluable it would be for new GMs or people who've never worldbuilt before.

There was an excellent series in Dungeon magazine way back when, where Ray Winneger (sp) did exactly this. Built a complete setting from the bottom up and presented how to do this in a really clear, step by step manner.

One would hope that the 5e DMG does the same thing, although I imagine in a much truncated form, for both building adventures and building campaigns and building worlds.

That would be my ideal DMG.

 

[Parmandur]

There was an excellent series in Dungeon magazine way back when, where Ray Winneger (sp) did exactly this. Built a complete setting from the bottom up and presented how to do this in a really clear, step by step manner.

One would hope that the 5e DMG does the same thing, although I imagine in a much truncated form, for both building adventures and building campaigns and building worlds.

That would be my ideal DMG.

Winninger was closely involved with planning the new DMG pretty hands on for a couple years.

 

[SkidAce]

There was an excellent series in Dungeon magazine way back when, where Ray Winneger (sp) did exactly this. Built a complete setting from the bottom up and presented how to do this in a really clear, step by step manner.

One would hope that the 5e DMG does the same thing, although I imagine in a much truncated form, for both building adventures and building campaigns and building worlds.

That would be my ideal DMG.

Fantastic articles, glad I saved them.

 

[Belen]

You know, it is always amazing to me that when people complain about players who want to play quirky characters, they never say something like "a pixie artificer who likes explosions" which is a character I could imagine a player actually coming up with. It is a Half-Grung half-sentient cheese sandwhich half-fiend with the powers of a god who fist-fought Chthullu!!

And it is always either the halfs or the sentient inanimate objects. No one ever seems to go "however, if a player wanted to play a Grue they would need to find a different group"

I just find it a really odd pattern.

I have not recruited players in a long time but the last time I sent a public call out I was forced to say "no" to someone who wanted to be a cleric centaur who worshiped a goddess of intimacy. I will not go into further detail.

I am not a fan of "quirky."

 

[TiQuinn]

There was an excellent series in Dungeon magazine way back when, where Ray Winneger (sp) did exactly this. Built a complete setting from the bottom up and presented how to do this in a really clear, step by step manner.

One would hope that the 5e DMG does the same thing, although I imagine in a much truncated form, for both building adventures and building campaigns and building worlds.

That would be my ideal DMG.

If I’m being honest, I want them to go back over the last several DMGs, consider what they’ve already done multiple times and please, for the love of god, just do something different for once, and NOT turn half the book into an essay.

 

[Mecheon]

I am not a fan of "quirky."

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