OneD&D Setting is Greyhawk?

[Trask]

https://gameinformer.mydigitalpublic...p=18&ver=html5

Saw this link shared on Enworld, Gameinformer states:

"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 occasion 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, is 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 world-hopping, spell-crafting heroes of D&D. Its the campaign where heroes are born."

Pretty interesting! And unexpected. I think WotC lays out some good points in Greyhawk's favor here, that original, slim, 32 page volume packs a lot of info, including stats for iconic characters, that could easily be updated to 5e and serve as a very serviceable starting point. Although much would depend on where exactly they start in Greyhawk's timeline. I would probably go with the original and forget the Greyhawk Wars.

Thoughts and opinions? Like it? Hate it and want to go back to the realms? Like it but don't think it'll "stick"?

[JonBeowulf]

I like it. Not enough to jump into One D&D, but I like it. I'm pretty burned out with the FR and I want my players to experience something new. They frequently compare my worlds to Faerun and I've had about enough of that. Heck, I even started a world based on 4th age Middle Earth and it got compared to Faerun.

[Kurald Galain]

I'd say the FR has waaay too much lore and this is a barrier to entry; and in addition FR suffers from being rather unoriginal due to its "everything included" kitchen sink nature, and from having too many overpowered NPCs or DMPCs around (which leads to the question of why they don't just fix whatever the PCs are troubled with).

So yeah, going back to Greyhawk sounds like a good move to me. I think that was also the setting for 1E and 3E, wasn't it? I'm not sure whether 4E's "points of light" is in Greyhawk but I think they used their pantheon as the default, too.

[Beelzebub1111]

Greyawk was the first campaign I played in and it's the setting I always run my games in. It is an absolute favorte of mine with many of my two favorite adventures: Temple of Elemental Evil and Return to Whiteplume Mountain.

Oc course hearing that the current WotC writers are going to write there is a bit like hearing the Disney Star Wars Universe is going to include a beloved legends character like Grand Admiral Thrawn or Talon Karrde. Just complete and utter dread for what is to come. And the nagging feeling that it will undermine everything that drew me to it in the first place.

As far as timeline wise I think They would have to set it after their "Die Vecna Die 2: Electric Boogaloo" grand adventure and whatever changes they make in that will be done.

[Amnestic]

Thoughts and opinions? Like it? Hate it and want to go back to the realms? Like it but don't think it'll "stick"?

I have zero interest in Greyhawk and never have. I think it's a dull setting eclipsed by those that came after, serving only as a reminder of what foundations were built on to bigger and better things. Its planet is called Oerth. Like come on.

So yeah, not a fan.

I understand why they've chosen it - FR has a lot of baggage - but also "Hey, here's our default setting: It's boring!" isn't exactly a great selling point.

[Schwann145]

WotC already butchered The Forgotten Realms, deleting everything that made it a unique place and twisting it into the epitome of homogeneous drivel (if you think the Realms is boring, bland, and kitchen sink, you can directly blame WotC's bad care-taking). So with that under their belt, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned their attention to Greyhawk and began more of the same.

That classic sword and sorcery feel? Kiss it goodbye as Greyhawk becomes the new "kitchen sink" for all things D&D.

As for the setting on it's own merits? I've never been a huge fan. It's clearly always been a place for Gygax's group to do their D&Ding, and not a truly established setting (like the Realms or Eberron are). I feel like the folks who would prefer Greyhawk wouldn't use it anyway, because they're the same people who would just do their own world/setting in the first place.

Long story short, I have zero faith in WotC when it comes to writing, lore, or giving two poops about anything more specific than "D&D" and that, unfortunately, includes all of the settings.
Their track record in the past couple decades has been absolute garbage.

[Warlock'sFriend]

I am excited for it. I started with Greyhawk in 3.5e way back and think it's a lot cleaner than the FR lore. I just hope that Nerul isn't replaced by the Raven Queen again.

That being said and I am ready for all the hate about this, but I hope they bring back the world axis as the main cosmology since they're doing away with alignments. I never much cared for how gamey the outer wheel feels.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have zero interest in Greyhawk and never have. I think it's a dull setting eclipsed by those that came after, serving only as a reminder of what foundations were built on to bigger and better things.

FR is/was hardly an improvement.

Its planet is called Oerth. Like come on.

You can change the name when you GM.

"Hey, here's our default setting: It's boring!" isn't exactly a great selling point.

FR seems to have sold well enough for 5e.

The key is to leave a lot of it unfinished so that the players fill it in through play.

[Millstone85]

4e's default setting was Nentir Vale, yet people kept saying it was Forgotten Realms.
5e's default setting is "the multiverse", yet people keep saying it is Forgotten Realms.
5.5's default setting may be Greyhawk, yet people will keep saying it is Forgotten Realms.

And perhaps these people were, are and will be right. If FR has cemented itself as the great big kitchen sink, then that's where every new subclass, creature, etc. most easily fits by default.

[Unoriginal]

A surprising decision.

I wonder if this what they meant when they talked about including classic characters like Kelek and Warduke in more adventures.

And perhaps these people were, are and will be right.

These people were, are and will always be wrong. At least for 4e and 5e.

I wouldn't be surprised if WotC decides to ditch Greyhawk as the default after a while, if the corporate suits decide it is the reason why the new edition doesn't bring enough money for their taste.

If FR has cemented itself as the great big kitchen sink, then that's where every new subclass, creature, etc. most easily fits by default.

FR has never been an unconditional kitchen sink, so it never cemented itself as "the great kitchen sink" outside of the stereotypical version spoken about by those who dislike the setting.

[Psyren]

That's not quite what the article is saying. 5.5e's true setting is the Multiverse, but they're using Greyhawk as the "sample setting" in the DMG specifically for new DMs who want an established place to build from, because it's much more mutable and has a lot less lore baggage than places like FR, Eberron, and Ravenloft. You get the benefits of a set of ready-made locations and gods to start from, without having to worry about your resident FR or Eberron loremaster "um actually"-ing every plot hook you come up with.

[Amnestic]

FR is/was hardly an improvement.

And yet, "hardly" an improvement is still an improvement.

It got left by the wayside for a reason. Frankly astounded they'd shift away from FR given the popularity of the recent movie and the blowout success of Baldur's Gate 3.

You can change the name when you GM.

Yeah, I know I can. You know that I know I can.

[Psyren]

Frankly astounded they'd shift away from FR given the popularity of the recent movie and the blowout success of Baldur's Gate 3.

They're "shifting away" from all of them, and using Greyhawk in the DMG for the reasons in my post.

[Arkhios]

Considering that the first setting I've ever played in was Greyhawk (due to Living Greyhawk), I'm more than hyped about it. As much as I love Salvatore's books, I've longed to return to the Greyhawk ever since the dawn of 4th edition era.

If it's going to be the official default setting, it makes it that much easier to accomplish.

[Trask]

I agree with Psyren that they're mostly shifting to the "multiverse" and not Greyhawk. But the sample setting of a game tends to linger as the "default", especially if they start producing adventure paths set in Greyhawk.

I think the setting has several strategic advantages, besides the one outlined in the excerpt.

1. It might help them recoup some interest from the old school crowd that they regained and then lost again with 5e. At least it might be some free publicity and hype from the growing old school scene. It's been a tradition all the way back from WotC's acquisition of D&D to extend a symbolic olive branch to the old school crowd (Greyhawk default with 3e, Dark Sun in 4e, more old school inspired design philosophy with 5e). That last one was more than symbolic.

2. The success of Baldur's Gate 3 might actually be a reason to move away from FR, WotC is very possessive of the D&D brand these days and may want to try and distinguish their products more going forward. It also contains the most iconic D&D characters and, as outlined in the excerpt, that's a strong selling point.

3. While I think Greyhawk does have more depth than some give it credit for, it is very much a "broad strokes" world that they can monkey with and Disney-ify as much as they please, and without as vociferous a fan base as FR to complain about it. It's a setting that they completely control, without Ed Greenwood putting his name on 3rd party products or Larian creating deciding how their customers see the D&D world.

4. The Flanaess as a setting originally outlined by Gygax has a lot more inherent diversity than the Sword Coast. Not just euro influences, but west Asian, native American, and African inspired peoples are more tightly woven in.

[Kurald Galain]

4e's default setting was Nentir Vale, yet people kept saying it was Forgotten Realms.
5e's default setting is "the multiverse", yet people keep saying it is Forgotten Realms.

To be fair, the popular public campaign settings for both 4E and 5E (and for that matter 2E) are explicitly the Forgotten Realms.

As opposed to 3E's public campaign, which was called Living Greyhawk.

[JackPhoenix]

Unlike Ed Greenwood, Garry Gygax is dead and can't protest when WotC defiles his creation's corpse. Give it few years....
And it's easier and quicker to abuse existing setting than creating their own better suited for the rules and what they want to do with them, like in 4e.
The multiverse lie will never be true, no matter how much will WotC keep repeating it. It'a meaningless buzzword and a stupid excuse to avoid doing actual work, not a setting.

[Mastikator]

I like the focus away from FR. I like the focus on "you can play any setting, and many tables homebrew their setting". And I do think Greyhawk is a fine "default" since you basically have to homebrew it to make it work.

Personally I have no opinions on Greyhawk and will never run it, Eberron and Dark Sun are the two settings that draw my attention (also maybe Gamma World?). But again, I do like the "homebrew first" approach.

[KorvinStarmast]

Garry Gygax is dead and can't protest when WotC defiles his creation's corpse. Give it few years....

Wait, isn't he a lich? Did someone get ahold of his phylactery?

The multiverse lie will never be true, no matter how much will WotC keep repeating it. It's a meaningless buzzword and a stupid excuse to avoid doing actual work, not a setting.

No disagreement there.

Nitpick on what's quoted in the OP:
Strictly speaking, the first ever D&D world was the Blackmoor campaign (and campaign world), with Gary's Greyhawk campaign (and then campaign world) being set up next once his Lake Geneva group started playing this thing that they had been doing up in the Twin Cities area ... before the game was even published.
When the game was first published, there was no default setting.

I got the World of Greyhawk boxed set shortly after it came out at the FLGS. It was the second RPG game world I'd purchased rather than invented, the first being Tekumel/Empire of the Petal Throne. I ran a lot of groups in various places therein.

A buddy of mine used my maps as a reference when he ported Keep on the Borderland into AD&D 1e.

My Salt Marsh group has been mostly in the western part of the world of Greyhawk, and have two possible quests further east to include a possible intervention in the civil war in The Great Kingdom of Aerdi.

Not sure what hooks they'll bit on next, though.

[Psyren]

The multiverse lie will never be true, no matter how much will WotC keep repeating it. It'a meaningless buzzword and a stupid excuse to avoid doing actual work, not a setting.

1) Fleshing out settings is the province of setting books, not the PHB.

2) When they inevitably mention multiple settings in the new PHB, you're free to pick your favorite one and Sharpie out all mentions of the rest. (Or stick with 2014 I guess.)

[GloatingSwine]

2. The success of Baldur's Gate 3 might actually be a reason to move away from FR, WotC is very possessive of the D&D brand these days and may want to try and distinguish their products more going forward. It also contains the most iconic D&D characters and, as outlined in the excerpt, that's a strong selling point.

The success of Baldur's Gate 3 is a reason to sell Forgotten Realms in a separate book. Never ask for money once when you can ask for it twice. That's probably one of the Rules of Acquisition.

[JackPhoenix]

When they inevitably mention multiple settings in the new PHB, you're free to pick your favorite one and Sharpie out all mentions of the rest. (Or stick with 2014 I guess.)

I think I've made it abundantly clear I don't intend to give the trashy corporation any of my money, for the lazy cashgrab that's D&Done, or anything else.

[Psyren]

I think I've made it abundantly clear I don't intend to give the trashy corporation any of my money, for the lazy cashgrab that's D&Done, or anything else.

Sure, and that's your right - I just find the desire to actively seek out OneD&D threads in which to reiterate that announcement ad nauseam to be questionable.

The success of Baldur's Gate 3 is a reason to sell Forgotten Realms in a separate book. Never ask for money once when you can ask for it twice. That's probably one of the Rules of Acquisition.

If putting the FR stuff in a dedicated FR book means both more time spent on it and less clutter in my PHB, I consider that a win-win.

[Atranen]

1. It might help them recoup some interest from the old school crowd that they regained and then lost again with 5e. At least it might be some free publicity and hype from the growing old school scene. It's been a tradition all the way back from WotC's acquisition of D&D to extend a symbolic olive branch to the old school crowd (Greyhawk default with 3e, Dark Sun in 4e, more old school inspired design philosophy with 5e). That last one was more than symbolic.

...

3. While I think Greyhawk does have more depth than some give it credit for, it is very much a "broad strokes" world that they can monkey with and Disney-ify as much as they please, and without as vociferous a fan base as FR to complain about it. It's a setting that they completely control, without Ed Greenwood putting his name on 3rd party products or Larian creating deciding how their customers see the D&D world.

There's some tension here; the old school crowd will like Greyhawk, but not like the "Disneyfication" of it, in a way that will end up driving them away from the new edition. I'm more active in those communities than 5e these days, and I see a mix of both; some people are happy to see Greyhawk get another pass, others are dreading what will be done to it.

I expect the old school crowd is far enough removed (or alternatively, WotC far enough down their own path), both in game mechanics and culture, for overtures to have much success.

[Trask]

There's some tension here; the old school crowd will like Greyhawk, but not like the "Disneyfication" of it, in a way that will end up driving them away from the new edition. I'm more active in those communities than 5e these days, and I see a mix of both; some people are happy to see Greyhawk get another pass, others are dreading what will be done to it.

I expect the old school crowd is far enough removed (or alternatively, WotC far enough down their own path), both in game mechanics and culture, for overtures to have much success.

I totally agree, they are on different paths and I don't expect them to connect any time soon or ever. I'm not under any illusions that it will actually bring hard core Old Schoolers back to the game, but it be some. Dragonsfoot for example has far more 5e discussion than 3e or 4e by a wide margin, and I've seen more than a few attempts (of varying professionalism) to Old-Schoolify 5e, more than I ever saw for 3e or 4e. If nothing else, it might be free marketing and interest generation.

But as for Greyhawk content, as a Greyhawk enjoyer myself (if not an old-schooler) I think a WotC Greyhawk is still better than no Greyhawk, and I think at least some voices in that space will be happy to revisit that world, even if there are tieflings and full-blooded orcs in ever small tavern. Because really, that's what happened to the FR. The original Realms was very different in tone, which I'm sure a lot of you guys know. It might not be the same, but it's still an enjoyable world to play D&D in.

[ZRN]

Greyhawk seems like an ideal choice for a setting to detail in the DMG for the reasons they stated: it's not overwhelmingly huge and detailed (like FR or Dragonlance), but it has classic D&D cred and ties nicely into the golden-anniversary vintage vibe they're subtly putting into elements like the PHB cover.

IMHO saying that WOTC will "ruin" a campaign setting is even sillier than saying Disney will "ruin" Star Wars. The old stuff isn't going anywhere, and you get potentially worthwhile new stuff to check out too! Just the artwork in that Game Informer article is more Greyhawk content than I've seen since... the 3e PHB? If you're a Greyhawn fan you're getting tons of new art and other content related to your favorite setting, and you can take or leave whatever you want.

[Atranen]

IMHO saying that WOTC will "ruin" a campaign setting is even sillier than saying Disney will "ruin" Star Wars. The old stuff isn't going anywhere, and you get potentially worthwhile new stuff to check out too! Just the artwork in that Game Informer article is more Greyhawk content than I've seen since... the 3e PHB? If you're a Greyhawn fan you're getting tons of new art and other content related to your favorite setting, and you can take or leave whatever you want.

Eh, I see this argument. When you're into a setting, you share a common parlance and common expectations for what a "Greyhawk" campaign will look like with other fans. When there's new content that doesn't jive with the old, you have to ask: "New Greyhawk or old Greyhawk?" or "OT game or prequel game or sequel game or tv show game?" It dilutes the brand in a meaningful way.

[Schwann145]

The old stuff isn't going anywhere, and you get potentially worthwhile new stuff to check out too!

Actually it is going somewhere; the bookshelf, where it will sit and collect dust, never to be used again, because new players won't know about or care to engage with it, especially as the people in charge of managing said setting are actively running and promoting it differently.

Forgotten Realms has some saving grace with the largest creators (Eric L. Boyd, Ed Greenwood, etc) being directly involved in 3rd Party material. Now... how well does 3rd Party material do? In my experience, not well. For most tables, it's "official stuff or bust."

[Blatant Beast]

Greyhawk seems like an ideal choice for a setting to detail in the DMG for the reasons they stated: it's not overwhelmingly huge and detailed (like FR or Dragonlance), but it has classic D&D cred and ties nicely into the golden-anniversary vintage vibe they're subtly putting into elements like the PHB cover.
.

Greyhawk has a huge repository of lore, just like Dragonlance and the Realms.

There is the Original Paper Booklet and the Original Box set, the fact that the Flanaess, even in the OG Set is a huge area, and all the Gygax written modules had Greyhawk locations, so the modules themselves tie into lore.

There are Gygax’s Gord the Rogue Novels.

Then we have the next wave of TSR Greyhawk products, including the New Box set, and the Greyhawk Wars, the Circle of Eight Revision/internecine fights, Vecna Lives, and From the Ashes, and probably more products that I am not familiar with.

After that we have the Paizo Greyhawk of 3e, Erik Mona loves Greyhawk, and Dragon/Dungeon + the WotC product Return to Castle Greyhawk all showcased the setting.

A few dozen pages in the DMG is not going to bring the Setting to life, but the intent seems to be not to do a setting book, but use location names from the Setting as examples on how to customize stuff as a DM.

[Beelzebub1111]

Unlike Ed Greenwood, Garry Gygax is dead and can't protest when WotC defiles his creation's corpse. Give it few years....

Don't want another Dragonlance debacle where the original author says "Do not buy this product, they messed up my work"