# Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product



## lowkey13 (Jan 21, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## prabe (Jan 21, 2020)

Something you might have missed (or you might consider it to be included in what you have) is availability. As a DM, I strongly prefer for my players to be able to go to roughly any convenient game store and find the books I'm allowing options from. While there are some third-party sources that are pretty easy to find, they're more the exception than the rule. I've found a few things online that I'm allowing in, but I've found it easier to put the player options or other rules into a GDrive folder and share it, as opposed to trying to point them at the specific sources. Which I guess also suggests efficiency as a reason, for lack of a better word, so the players have fewer places they need to look. One could also say something about being playtested with similar premises and expectations, but that's probably included in your consistency and quality points.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

There is certainly a particular type of player who wants official product because there's an expectation that anything from the canon is 'allowed' which frees their inner munchkin to power game and optimize the crap out of something, thereby proving their system mastery and fitness as gatekeepers to the one true way.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 21, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> There is certainly a particular type of player who wants official product because there's an expectation that anything from the canon is 'allowed' which frees their inner munchkin to power game and optimize the crap out of something, thereby proving their system mastery and fitness as gatekeepers to the one true way.



Speaking as a powergamer, this is absolutely true.  When I want to go with a strong build, I pull out the PHB.  When I want to self-police my power level and play more to concept, I use 3PP.  

This isn't to say there isn't plenty of problematic 3PP (there is!), but when I've gone to the trouble of finding something I like and getting DM buy-in, I'm going to make extra sure I'm not being a donkey-hole about it.


----------



## jasper (Jan 21, 2020)

Quality. Have you seen the binders on some the books?
Consistency. Did you every look at Rise of Tiamat vs Tomb? The writing and encounters are not consistent.
Interoperability. HMM What book changed how counterspell worked? It when from counterspell to using an action to know what spell. So WOTC now uses Apple interoperability. We have upgraded our OS you must upgrade too.
Authority. I was sick of this argument back in 2E. It is an official product the DM must allow it.
Canon. ONLY TRUE FAN GIVE A DARN ABOUT CANON. And some of those should be shot out of air cannon at the next convention and have no catch net.
Convenience can’t snark or argue with that.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 21, 2020)

prabe said:


> Something you might have missed (or you might consider it to be included in what you have) is availability. As a DM, I strongly prefer for my players to be able to go to roughly any convenient game store and find the books I'm allowing options from. While there are some third-party sources that are pretty easy to find, they're more the exception than the rule.




Go to a store for RPG stuff? This is 2020! We have DriveThruRPG.com! It's all right there, man!


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 21, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> *Canon. *This is always a touchy issue, but fans care deeply about this. What is, and isn't, "true" within the setting of the story? What is canon for the Buffyverse? For Star Trek? For Star Wars? For the Orville? Given the distinction between "official product" and "fan product" (and the hazy area of 3PP) the desire for official product that will provide more (and updated) "canon" is always there.



First off, great post.

I think somewhat related to the idea of "canon" is the idea of a "shared experience".  Official material is really the only material you can be sure you have discussion points on with other D&D fans and nerd out over.  I can think of several homebrew products I like much more than the current WotC artificer, for example, but I can't really log onto ENWorld and ask for advice about how to best use them in the campaign or for shared play experience.  I have to go onto custom Discords for that kind of discussion.


----------



## prabe (Jan 21, 2020)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Go to a store for RPG stuff? This is 2020! We have DriveThruRPG.com! It's all right there, man!




Well, since the tables I run are *in game stores*, the players are arguably already there. It's not as though I'm expecting them to get out of the basement when they're not playing ...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Speaking as a powergamer, this is absolutely true.  When I want to go with a strong build, I pull out the PHB.  When I want to self-police my power level and play more to concept, I use 3PP.
> 
> This isn't to say there isn't plenty of problematic 3PP (there is!), but when I've gone to the trouble of finding something I like and getting DM buy-in, I'm going to make extra sure I'm not being a donkey-hole about it.



Yup, pretty much. I've mostly gotten bored with 5e optimization honestly. It's not that complicated, and I really don't find it immensely fun any more. Now, if I have a new idea about how to power some awesome synergy that's different, but I'm pretty done pairing GWM and PAM to max DPR and a bunch of other three letter acronyms. My concept builds are generally acronym free.

Last night for example, I had a ton of fun discussing with my son how we could take a Loxodon Artificer Alchemist and have the most fun possible with Poison Spray and using Catapult to huck things like acid and oil. Optimized? Not at all. Fun? Hell yeah.


----------



## jayoungr (Jan 21, 2020)

It even goes beyond desire for official product:  there has also been a sense that a product doesn't "count" unless it's a printed, hardcover book.  I remember before _Tales from the Yawning Portal_ came out, there were frequent complaints that WotC had not published any short, stand-alone adventures.  Whenever I or someone else pointed out that WotC had published dozens of short, stand-alone adventures in the form of AL modules, it never seemed to make the complainers happy.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

There is still some lingering idea that it's not really official unless it's hard copy. A very interesting anachronism in this digital age.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 21, 2020)

I cut my teeth on the Black Box, and one of the things I loved about it was that it taught newbie DMs how to D-I-Y. You'd stock part of your first dungeon... and then you were given a map with almost everything (except the dragon and the treasure hoard) to stock... and then given pages of directions on how to brew your own.

I've been doing the same since with everything. I have yet to meet an RPG system I haven't wanted to hack in some way... to me that's as much fun as actually playing the game. And with 28 years experience and a background in stats, probability, writing and publishing, I consider myself as "qualified" as anyone at TSR/WotC to create my own materials. Maybe someday I'll make something for publication.

Some third-party materials are as good or better than WotC. Kobold Press - run by ex-WotC/TSR guys - is a mark of quality above WotC in my book. Sandy Petersen's 5e Cthulhu Mythos book is a masterpiece. Several others I could name too.

Darn kids! You want everything handed to you in a shiny book! Don't you realize that making it up - or at least editing it, combining it, messing around with it to see what happens - is all part of the fun?


----------



## prabe (Jan 21, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> There is still some lingering idea that it's not really official unless it's hard copy. A very interesting anachronism in this digital age.




Sure, it's an anachronism. OTOH, I run everything pencil-and-paper, and I've found that when I'm putting together adventures the stuff I've downloaded sits on my powered-off computer and falls out of my head, while the stuff in books goes in. If I have to print out all the PDFs I want to use, so I remember to use them, why wouldn't I prefer to purchase actual books?


----------



## Undrave (Jan 21, 2020)

jayoungr said:


> It even goes beyond desire for official product:  there has also been a sense that a product doesn't "count" unless it's a printed, hardcover book.  I remember before _Tales from the Yawning Portal_ came out, there were frequent complaints that WotC had not published any short, stand-alone adventures.  Whenever I or someone else pointed out that WotC had published dozens of short, stand-alone adventures in the form of AL modules, it never seemed to make the complainers happy.




Yeah but the AL modules kinda stink


----------



## jayoungr (Jan 21, 2020)

Undrave said:


> Yeah but the AL modules kinda stink



They do vary wildly in quality, although some of them are awesome.  But that was never anyone's complaint on the board; the complaint was always "WotC _doesn't make short adventures."_


----------



## MonkeezOnFire (Jan 21, 2020)

It may also be worth bringing up how the current media landscape seems absolutely obsessed with nostalgia. The Marvel and Star Wars movies feature characters originally created in the 60s and 70s. When is the last time a hit new tv series wasn't based on a novel? And any time we get a new video game console you know that Skyrim and Resident Evil 4 will soon be available for it. Basically our media currently loves reboots and remakes of old properties that have proven to be reliable. So I don't think it's odd that some people expect the same sort of treatment in their RPGs, even if it doesn't quite make sense business wise.

Wizards holds the IP to Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Greyhawk, Mystara, etc. and are unlikely to just release them to the public domain. So only they are able to release that nostalgic content that people crave. Sure there are probably third party settings that are based on the settings of old. But based on doesn't give us the same comfort as the real thing.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 21, 2020)

prabe said:


> Sure, it's an anachronism. OTOH, I run everything pencil-and-paper, and I've found that when I'm putting together adventures the stuff I've downloaded sits on my powered-off computer and falls out of my head, while the stuff in books goes in. If I have to print out all the PDFs I want to use, so I remember to use them, why wouldn't I prefer to purchase actual books?




Well, being a laptop-using DM I find PDF more convenient - particularly for adventure modules and monster books - I often can't resist the lure of print, either, especially when such beautiful books are being produced today. For my 38th birthday on Sunday, I just treated myself to the print editions of 5e Cthulhu Mythos and the Warlock Grimoire - while I have all of the materials in PDF, and usually wouldn't get a hardcopy of a book that is mostly DM's-eyes-only, I just found them too attractive to pass up.

(And it's always fun to intimidate my players by slapping two big, heavy books filled with pure NOPE on the table.)


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

I do love pure NOPE when it comes in the 500+ page flavor. No one is intimidated when you slap down a handful of post-it notes and a napkin with a crayon map on the back.


----------



## jayoungr (Jan 21, 2020)

MonkeezOnFire said:


> It may also be worth bringing up how the current media landscape seems absolutely obsessed with nostalgia. The Marvel and Star Wars movies feature characters originally created in the 60s and 70s. When is the last time a hit new tv series wasn't based on a novel?



That is partly due to the fact that high-quality movies and TV series are so expensive to make that those with the money to invest are reluctant to shell out for something that doesn't already have a proven, built-in audience.  Which probably also applies to WotC and published books.  

I'm not convinced that the actual consumers are so focused on nostalgia that they would reject something new just because it's new.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 21, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> ...and if you go to McDowell's instead of McDonald's, you're going to miss out on the sesame seeds.



Just wanted to give the thumbs-up to the prime _Coming To America_ reference.


----------



## prabe (Jan 21, 2020)

jayoungr said:


> I'm not convinced that the actual consumers are so focused on nostalgia that they would reject something new just because it's new.




I'm kinda convinced consumers are eating the nostalgia because it's what they're being served. Of course, I tend more toward novelty-seeking, so my POV on this is ... atypical.


----------



## oreofox (Jan 21, 2020)

jasper said:


> Quality. Have you seen the binders on some the books?
> Consistency. Did you every look at Rise of Tiamat vs Tomb? The writing and encounters are not consistent.




That's because WotC didn't make Rise of Tiamat. Other than Phandelver, the first WotC made adventure path was Curse of Strahd. HotDQ + RoT were made by Kobold Press. PotA was made by Sasquatch Game Studio. OotA was made by Green Ronin (in collaboration with WotC). Those adventures were published by WotC, but weren't made by them. So, that really just reinforces the Consistency portion of Lowkey's post.


----------



## MonkeezOnFire (Jan 21, 2020)

jayoungr said:


> I'm not convinced that the actual consumers are so focused on nostalgia that they would reject something new just because it's new.



I would agree in the general sense that the average consumer probably doesn't tunnel vision in on nostalgia. My post was more about rationalizing the viewpoint of the small, but vocal groups on the internet that will inevitably react to any announcement with "If it's not setting X it is worthless to me." A viewpoint that I do not share so I must admit that I am projecting here.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

You're not projecting, you're pointing out the sadly commonplace.


----------



## Haffrung (Jan 21, 2020)

oreofox said:


> Those adventures were published by WotC, but weren't made by them.




They weren't written by WotC, but I'm pretty sure they were edited, laid out, and formatted by the professionals at WotC. There's a lot more that goes into producing a professional-quality RPG book than writing it. And some of us value those elements.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 21, 2020)

oreofox said:


> That's because WotC didn't make Rise of Tiamat. Other than Phandelver, the first WotC made adventure path was Curse of Strahd. HotDQ + RoT were made by Kobold Press. PotA was made by Sasquatch Game Studio. OotA was made by Green Ronin (in collaboration with WotC). Those adventures were published by WotC, but weren't made by them. So, that really just reinforces the Consistency portion of Lowkey's post.




Though HotDQ + RoT were primarily written by Wolfgang Baur, longtime TSR/WotC designer and writer, so they weren't exactly going far from home.

(And given everything else I've ever seen by Baur has been fire, I'm not sure what went wrong there. Perhaps he tried to constrain himself to creating something as "5e RAW" as possible, given it was the first adventure path of the new edition... and sticking to the rules isn't really what he does best.)


----------



## Salthorae (Jan 21, 2020)

For me, my preference for "Official" product has much more to do with potential game balance and "keeping it small" for rules to know/reference/etc. 

While I know that WotC isn't 100% on game balance, they are often much more internally balanced that 3PP just because of the level of playtesting that is available to them vs. smaller 3PP. 

I also adore the 5e PHB+1 rule that is in AL and use it in my home game. With that there is no reason to go outside of the "official" products for character building. 



Tyler Do'Urden said:


> (And given everything else I've ever seen by Baur has been fire, I'm not sure what went wrong there. Perhaps he tried to constrain himself to creating something as "5e RAW" as possible,




HotDQ + RoT were written before the 5e rules were finished.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 21, 2020)

Salthorae said:


> HotDQ + RoT were written before the 5e rules were finished.




Well, that probably just made him even more conservative in his approach...


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I think somewhat related to the idea of "canon" is the idea of a "shared experience".  Official material is really the only material you can be sure you have discussion points on with other D&D fans and nerd out over.  I can think of several homebrew products I like much more than the current WotC artificer, for example, but I can't really log onto ENWorld and ask for advice about how to best use them in the campaign or for shared play experience.  I have to go onto custom Discords for that kind of discussion.




Shared experience is definitely a thing. How many of us older gamers have experienced the Against the Giants/Demon Queen of Spiders adventures? The Slavelords series? Desert of Desolation? Ravenloft (in various editions - I've run it in 3 so far)?

Even though all of our experiences with these adventures will vary because of different DMs, groups, styles - they all have the same foundation. How often can we say that with homebrew? We can't with anything like the same level of familiarity. This helps develop D&D gamer culture in a positive way of stronger shared experiences (compared to the negative way of gatekeeping the community).


----------



## Arilyn (Jan 21, 2020)

Interesting post with good insights. 

I appreciate 3rd party companies a lot. They are often willing to stretch the game in more original directions. A lot of my favourite product comes from 3rd party, and I would never wasn't to stick with just "official" stuff.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 21, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Shared experience is definitely a thing. How many of us older gamers have experienced the Against the Giants/Demon Queen of Spiders adventures? The Slavelords series? Desert of Desolation? Ravenloft (in various editions - I've run it in 3 so far)?



Well, none, actually (I've never run a published adventure in 30 years of playing), but I see your point.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 21, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> *Quality. *When you go to the store, and you see a "name brand" as opposed to a "store brand," you assume a certain amount of quality associated with the name brand. It's the same with anything else; after all, that's one reason brands advertise; to give you the belief that they are big enough to provide a quality product. Even when the products are the same (store-brand ibuprofen or Advil, for example) there are those that will gravitate toward the "official" product solely on the basis of assumed quality. Which leads to the next issue ...



Ironically, most brand items and store brand items are made in the very same factories on the very same production lines. Only the labels at the end are different. The reason you think name brands are "better" is you've been conditioned to do so by advertising.



> *Consistency. *A primary driving factor for many brands is consistency; both consistency within products (a Coke is a Coke is a Coke; a Big Mac in Seattle will taste the same as a Big Mac in Miami) and consistency between products (similar styling cues, like terribly ugly grills, for the Toyota and Lexus cars). If you buy a store-brand "Cola," you won't get the exact same corn-syrupy taste that Coke has, and if you go to McDowell's instead of McDonald's, you're going to miss out on the sesame seeds.



Actually, they aren't identical. The Coke purchased on the west coast is made with tap water from the west coast and east coast Coke is made with east coast tap water. The flavor is probably slightly different. I know Big Macs do not taste the same in Europe as they do in the US. The local source of meat is fed differently and thus the meat tastes different.



> *Interoperability. *This might be a mouthful, but it's pretty easy to understand. If you buy an HP printer, you know that HP ink will work. If you buy a Ford car, you know that Ford parts will work. Purchasing official products ensures interoperability. Sure, maybe that off-brand ink will work in your printer .... but maybe it won't. Or maybe it won't work as well.



The difference here though is using an off-brand gaming element in your game isn't going to cause physical damage to your game. There's a difference between adding third party parts to a device and adding third party IDEAS to shared experience.



> *Authority. *"If you use anything other than official Apple parts or Apple service, you will void your Apple warranty." Official products carry with them the authority of the brand.



D&D is sold without warranty, I believe.  And I've already said brands have value only if the advertising has convinced you it has value.



> *Prestige. *And finally there is the most important factor. This is what brands spend the big bucks on; associating their brand with prestige, with a good life, with a luxury lifestyle. Why buy off-brand sugar water when you can buy Coca Cola? But we see this more with true luxury goods; if you've ever been in the market for an expensive car, bottle of booze, handbag, or anything, you know that you are paying partly for the increased cost to make it, but partly because you can now say that you can spend that much for the good. Prestige matters. And buying an off-brand Rolex is cheaper than the real thing.



Generally, higher income people by off-brand stuff because it is cheaper and good enough. Expensive brands are designed to fleece the wannabe rich. Whether you believe that or not, I don't see how prestige applies here. WotC is a tiny, relatively unknown, subdivision of a larger company. And it doesn't have any cache' like Rolex does, does it?


----------



## jasper (Jan 21, 2020)

oreofox said:


> That's because WotC didn't make Rise of Tiamat. Other than Phandelver, the first WotC made adventure path was Curse of Strahd. HotDQ + RoT were made by Kobold Press. PotA was made by Sasquatch Game Studio. OotA was made by Green Ronin (in collaboration with WotC). Those adventures were published by WotC, but weren't made by them. So, that really just reinforces the Consistency portion of Lowkey's post.







__





						The Rise of Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons): Wizards RPG Team: 8601410707941: Amazon.com: Books
					

The Rise of Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons) [Wizards RPG Team] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Rise of Tiamat (Dungeons & Dragons)



					www.amazon.com
				



author Wizards RPG Team and an OFFICAL  WoTC product. and*Publisher:* Wizards of the Coast (November 4, 2014)


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Generally, higher income people by off-brand stuff because it is cheaper and good enough. Expensive brands are designed to fleece the wannabe rich. Whether you believe that or not, I don't see how prestige applies here. WotC is a tiny, relatively unknown, subdivision of a larger company. And it doesn't have any cache' like Rolex does, does it?




I'm not convinced. How many rich people drive Kia? How many buy JCPenney suits? How many shop at Walmart or get their Mossimo jeans at Target? In some areas, I'm sure they do. But upscale designer brands, stores, and everything else exist for far more than the wannabes.

As far as prestige goes for WotC, it's a small company in the broader world - but not within the gamer subculture, and *that's* where the signals of prestige will matter. What looks better on display on the gaming shelves? WotC materials with the slick art and higher production values or some of the 3pp stuff? Some of the 3pp may have been lavish, but at significant expense. Most that I'm familiar with had less lavish art, less glossy paper, in part because they're small and can't rely on an economy of scale to defray that expense over more units sold. Plus, *Knights of the Dinner Table* has been lampooning "official" prestige material mania for decades now and I doubt Jolly would have been doing so if he too hadn't noticed it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 21, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> There is still some lingering idea that it's not really official unless it's hard copy. A very interesting anachronism in this digital age.




well, it’s partly that. A lot of people do not like reading on a screen for any in depth reading. That includes kids raised with screens. All the “screens will completely replace books” futurism of the last 20 years appears to have simply been wrong, much to my surprise.


----------



## prabe (Jan 21, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> well, it’s partly that. A lot of people do not like reading on a screen for any in depth reading. That includes kids raised with screens. All the “screens will completely replace books” futurism of the last 20 years appears to have simply been wrong, much to my surprise.




Indeed, though the screens do seem to have mostly replaced periodicals.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 21, 2020)

prabe said:


> Indeed, though the screens do seem to have mostly replaced periodicals.



Periodicals, yes. I think that small single issue type products just don’t seem worth buying to most people now.
I know a lot of folks who love comics but see buying individual issues as a waste of money (and added clutter, etc) compared to a subscription in digital form.


----------



## Haffrung (Jan 21, 2020)

billd91 said:


> What looks better on display on the gaming shelves? WotC materials with the slick art and higher production values or some of the 3pp stuff? Some of the 3pp may have been lavish, but at significant expense. Most that I'm familiar with had less lavish art, less glossy paper, in part because they're small and can't rely on an economy of scale to defray that expense over more units sold.




I think we should remember that those of us who buy lots of stuff on DriveThru and the DMs Guild, or use kickstarter, are a hardcore minority in the RPG market. Hard copy books sold on the shelves of brick and mortar stores are the big part of the market. WotC and Paizo, who can fill whole shelves with their uniform and high-quality books, have a big advantage there.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 21, 2020)

I do feel it's a bit of a shame that this particular edition of D&D seems to be the most "official canon only!" edition in terms of player opinions. I'm not sure why that is; even 3.x was much more DIY. My favourite thing about D&D is home-brew; to me that's what D&D is.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 21, 2020)

Haffrung said:


> Most that I'm familiar with had less lavish art, less glossy paper, in part because they're small and can't rely on an economy of scale to defray that expense over more units sold.




The economy of scale effect is enormous. If you get a print run for a few hundred book printed, it might cost you $7 per book to print. If you do a few thousand, it will cost you half that. If you print a few hundred thousand, you're paying pennies per book.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I do feel it's a bit of a shame that this particular edition of D&D seems to be the most "official canon only!" edition in terms of player opinions. I'm not sure why that is; even 3.x was much more DIY. My favourite thing about D&D is home-brew; to me that's what D&D is.




Is that based on your observations here on ENWorld or more broadly? I think it's not unreasonable to see 5th edition be a bit less DIY-ish considering the large numbers of new players testing the waters.


----------



## Beleriphon (Jan 21, 2020)

On shared experience being mentioned I think its an important point. As the D&D brand grew it expanded to be more than just a game, it became a media generator. So, if we look at comic books people are very attached to Marvel Comics and DC Comics.

I don't think most folks are overly concerned about the mechanics of a setting per se (I'll get to that), but if they are clamouring for an update on Forgotten Realms as an overall gazateer type thing they're looking at it as an update on the setting the same way somebody who last read Batman in 1999 might want to know the current state of DC Comics and Batman in particular as of Detective Comics issue 1007 (or not, I know what's up and I'm feeling heartbroken over recent events).

In a lot of ways people want to have, and continue to have that shared experience. Ever wished a TV show was still on the air so you could talk about the newest absurdities with your friends? Same feeling, but for a D&D setting.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 21, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## generic (Jan 21, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Um ... wow. Okay. Whatever, dude.



So uh... in short, what @jmucchiello said is what you said, except, not what you said.

Wait.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 21, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## oreofox (Jan 21, 2020)

jasper said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Credits for the 1st 5 D&D adventures, straight from the books themselves. HotQ/RoT: Kobold Press. PotA: Sasquatch. OotA: Green Ronin. CoS: WotC. They are official WotC products, because they were *published* by WotC.


----------



## generic (Jan 21, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Yeah, except no. To use the part that I was specifically responding to:
> 
> 1. It flies in the face of what we see. In other words, people with large amounts of disposable income are MORE likely to purchase luxury brands (whether it's cars, clothes, watches, booze, or anything). That is, in fact, the entire point of luxury brands.
> 
> ...



Yes, my post was a joke.  I understood what you were trying to say.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I do feel it's a bit of a shame that this particular edition of D&D seems to be the most "official canon only!" edition in terms of player opinions. I'm not sure why that is; even 3.x was much more DIY. My favourite thing about D&D is home-brew; to me that's what D&D is.




This is just a theory, but I do think the slow-drip of content Wizard's releases, and the level of consistency between their books, seems to be the big source of that opinion.

It's odd, because Wizard's also always states that what they write is just the default version, but that anybody can change it if they want. But that big Eberron debate over gods and the place in the multiverse is that big example of how people debate that stuff.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 21, 2020)

I'd go primarily with "quality"/"consistency" and convenience".

And by "quality"/"consistency" I don't mean just the consistent quality of the raw rules text (although also that). I mean the whole experience of owning and reading a Dungeons & Dragons book: art, layout, lovely lovely tables, all of it. Different people attach significance to different physical artifacts of this hobby. Some people obsess over their dice or their miniatures, which I couldn't care less about. But I like books.

As for "convenience", I'd emphasize the value of shared experience. I can talk to my friends, or post a thread here, about what's up with the Samurai or whatever and expect everyone to be on the same page and many people to have actually spent time with the class in question. That conversation is a little more difficult when it's "What's up with the Stormstrike Armiger -- here, let me link you to the $1 pdf I found buried in the DrivethruRPG catalog". It's the same reason it's usually much more rewarding to talk about Star Wars than that obscure 1-season cartoon from your childhood that only you watched.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 21, 2020)

Can’t speak for others, but this has been my experience.

1) Because Gygax said to buy official D&D only.  Don’t laugh.  This was straight from the 1E DMG, and in the day (I was merely 15 or so), I took it to heart that “the other guys” didn’t make stuff as good as TSR.  Of course, back in those days, I hadn’t seen anything from the “other guys” nor know who was being referred to (judges Guild, Aurduine, etc.). Even in 2E I shied away from 3PP products from the likes of Rolemasters because their product just didn’t seem to have the same quality or polish as “official” D&D.  By 3E and the SRD/d20 glut, I had kicked that habit.

2) Most home brew material/3PP is poorly balanced (most especially my own).  Years of listening to what other DMs/Players have made up for their own games have made me suspicious of anything that doesn’t come from WotC/TSR.  I mostly got over that when the Complete Book of Elves was published in 2E And proved that even “official” products could be trash.  Still, I tend to cast a darkly discerning eye on anything that doesn’t have the official 5E imprint on it’s cover - even stuff from Unearthed Arcana is suspect.

3) Reduce Bloat.  After the glut of books in 2E and then 3E, I’ve settled down to make peace that the fewer books I use in the game, the easier it is to run said game.  I try to restrict my games nowadays to the core rulebook(s) and whatever adventure I’m running.  I actively try to discourage players from pulling bits and pieces from beyond that small pool and declaring “official only” let’s me sneakily do that.


----------



## Seramus (Jan 21, 2020)

I've had so many players try to let them use unbalanced third party crap that my first reaction is to always say no to third party. At this point it is irrational.

Also the chip issue. If I let you use third party material, other players jump on it and want to use their own third party material.

And yes, quality is a concern. I assume blindly that most third party material has not been playtested for a hundreds of hours.

I've started to relax that position and allow things like Critical Role, mostly because it really does have thousands of people playing those classes for hundreds of hours to playtest.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 21, 2020)

I allow 3pp stuff but only if I've vetoed/own it. 

 A player is going to run an EN5ider circle of life Druid. I'm using the Midgard setting. 

So it's not open the floor gated but I allow select 3pp stuff.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

Open the floodgates for any and all 3PP products? My mind shudders as it gazes into the abyss of powergaming and depravity that would ensue. I'm going to go cry in a corner now.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 21, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> I allow 3pp stuff but only *if I've vetoed*/own it.




‘That’s some Catch-22 level of DMing to keep it out of a game.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 21, 2020)

Stormonu said:


> ‘That’s some Catch-22 level of DMing to keep it out of a game.




 Yeah didn't word it right. Say some turns up with a small DMGuild PDF. I'll look through it and ok parts or all of it. 

 For the most part I'll supply a small amount of extra options. I'm allowing the Midgard Heroes Handbook (odd banned spell), a PDF of 10 extra feats and other stuff by request. 

 It's Egyptian themed and people still want Samurai and Viking type stuff.

 Heroes Handbook has more archetypes than the phb.

 Two many options just leads to options paralysis. I allow an extea 60 archetypes, 30 off feats and spells from Midgard are generally restricted to feats and archetypes  /domains and can't be taken via magical secrets.


----------



## Haffrung (Jan 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I do feel it's a bit of a shame that this particular edition of D&D seems to be the most "official canon only!" edition in terms of player opinions. I'm not sure why that is; even 3.x was much more DIY. My favourite thing about D&D is home-brew; to me that's what D&D is.




There are three sources of D&D content:

A) Official WotC
B) Third-party
C) Homebrew

You can use both A and C without being interested in B.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 21, 2020)

Haffrung said:


> There are three sources of D&D content:
> 
> A) Official WotC
> B) Third-party
> ...



You can, but that’s not what I was talking about.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 21, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Open the floodgates for any and all 3PP products? My mind shudders as it gazes into the abyss of powergaming and depravity that would ensue. I'm going to go cry in a corner now.



One can both be open to 3PP and still be discerning.  I've absolutely tossed stuff that players have suggested to me as unsalvagable.  Just don't tell players that they can make their characters sight unseen.  Ideally, you're providing guidance during a session zero, both at the table and electronically.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 21, 2020)

I'm going to rotate what I allow. Run themed games, players pick the theme and I allow stuff that fits the theme. Next one probably pirates or Eberron.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> One can both be open to 3PP and still be discerning.  I've absolutely tossed stuff that players have suggested to me as unsalvagable.  Just don't tell players that they can make their characters sight unseen.  Ideally, you're providing guidance during a session zero, both at the table and electronically.



I wasn't suggesting otherwise, just shuddering at the thought of _not_ running things that way.


----------



## Haffrung (Jan 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> You can, but that’s not what I was talking about.




So you weren't talking at all about third-party publishers? I guess my question then is how do you know DIY (which I interpret to mean homebrew) D&D content is used less today than it was in the past?


----------



## generic (Jan 21, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I wasn't suggesting otherwise, just shuddering at the thought of _not_ running things that way.



All homebrew is no allowed.

"The Egg Elemental takes the Sword of Decks of Many Things out of it's trans-dimensional pocket, that's a void-lord ability..."


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> All homebrew is no allowed.
> 
> "The Egg Elemental takes the Sword of Decks of Many Things out of it's trans-dimensional pocket, that's a void-lord ability..."



Yeah, it's all Gnome Paladins with Vorpal rapiers past that point.


----------



## generic (Jan 21, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, it's all Gnome Paladins with Vorpal rapiers past that point.



But, that's just base D&D...

I though everyone was supposed to be playing Gnome Paladins...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 21, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> But, that's just base D&D...
> 
> I though everyone was supposed to be playing Gnome Paladins...



Vorpal Rapiers! The first time you cut someone's head off with a piercing weapon at my table you get a slap and a time out.

Sword of Many Things could be a great cursed item. It changes form every round, roll on the d100 table to see what you're wielding this turn. A zucchini! Three goldfish in a sock! A Gnome Paladin on a Stick!! Solid gold baby, I'm using it.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 21, 2020)

Haffrung said:


> So you weren't talking at all about third-party publishers? I guess my question then is how do you know DIY (which I interpret to mean homebrew) D&D content is used less today than it was in the past?



I don’t. The words I used were “seems to be”.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 21, 2020)

I sometimes wonder why the 3rd party publishers are bothering with additional player material.  I bought the Scarred Lands players guide a while ago because I loved the setting back in 3rd edition.  I bought it as a GM but it's chock full of players options, almost none of which I would be inclined to encourage players to use (A barbarian with 1/3 druid casting, a Feat for Spiked Chain users - really?) and it really just highlights that there's not really all that much space really for player material.

Where there would be space is if you were able to tie all the options you gave to specific setting elements or organisations.  But that doesn't work too well and if it does, it limits broad appeal anyway - (which supposedly is the reason why setting books are chocked full of player stuff). 

There's also the fact that official D&D material is easily referenced online whether through D&D Beyond all one of the many other probably non-legal wikis that spring up.  This means that I don't actually have to haul my copy of Xanathar's guide along to the game with me just in case I need to check something.  Similarly spells - not only is it easy to look them up online you can also get those handy spell card packs which make everything a lot easier.  Once you start mixing and matching 3pp material this becomes a lot harder (and really there is NOT a lack of spells in the game alreay).

I think 3pp subclasses and feats need to be setting specific and intensely flavourful.  A lot of publishers just seem to look for gaps, many of which exist for a reason, and then fill them.  The most useful material for them to publish is probably GM material - there's always space for magic items and monsters.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> I don’t. The words I used were “seems to be”.



I’d be a case study.  I built a lot of my own stuff up through D&D 3E, but at some point it became difficult enough for me just to keep up with “official” options, and while I‘d like to convert my old stuff to 5E or brew some new stuff up, I just don’t have the time to bother - especially playtesting it.  It’s plain easier to pick something off a shelf, as long as you feel comfortable someone’s already vetted it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 21, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> The most useful material for them to publish is probably GM material - there's always space for magic items and monsters.



And the audience for that is at least 1/4 of the audience for player material. In a niche market, diving into a niche of a niche is not wise.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 21, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I sometimes wonder why the 3rd party publishers are bothering with additional player material.




Maybe they hang out around here? Where lots of are people are hoping\wanting that WOTC put out more player material? Maybe they saw that and thought, "Maybe I can fill that void?"


----------



## Morrus (Jan 21, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I sometimes wonder why the 3rd party publishers are bothering with additional player material.



Because people seem to like them. 1000 people subscribe to our Patreon, and our last Kickstarter for 5E classes raised over $100K.


----------



## Salthorae (Jan 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Because people seem to like them. 1000 people subscribe to our Patreon, and our last Kickstarter for 5E classes raised over $100K.




Agreed.

I mean... MCDM raised almost $3.5M over 2 Kickstarter's for Followers & Strongholds + Kingdoms & Warfare. I guess it's debatable if those are "player options", but yeah. 

Kobold Press' Deep Magic 5e compilation conversion garnered almost $250k and it is all player's option stuff basically. 

The market is there regardless of what the perception of 3PP seems to be online. 

While I shy away from most 3PP material, I tend to give MCDM and Kobold Press more latitude in allowing. Hence I've Kickstarted both the Deep Magic and the Kingdoms & Followers in recent months.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 21, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I sometimes wonder why the 3rd party publishers are bothering with additional player material.  I bought the Scarred Lands players guide a while ago because I loved the setting back in 3rd edition.  I bought it as a GM but it's chock full of players options, almost none of which I would be inclined to encourage players to use (A barbarian with 1/3 druid casting, a Feat for Spiked Chain users - really?) and it really just highlights that there's not really all that much space really for player material.
> 
> Where there would be space is if you were able to tie all the options you gave to specific setting elements or organisations.  But that doesn't work too well and if it does, it limits broad appeal anyway - (which supposedly is the reason why setting books are chocked full of player stuff).
> 
> ...



Yea, everything you said is pretty much something I disagree with.    Barbarian with druid-based EK casting sounds cool.  Feats for specific weapons is exactly the sort of mechanical specificity I'm looking for 3PP to fill.  

Pretty much all the 3PP I have is electronic, so the weight/bulk issue seems immaterial.  And, for me, flavor comes easily; just give me new material that's mechanically interesting and I'll reskin it to fit whatever character or world concept I need.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 21, 2020)

Morrus said:


> Because people seem to like them. 1000 people subscribe to our Patreon, and our last Kickstarter for 5E classes raised over $100K.



Well deserved, my groups really like the book!


----------



## Gadget (Jan 21, 2020)

Well, I think part of the reason that would go along with "quality" in the original post is the bad reputation many 3pp got during the 3x glut.  Though I'm not sure how most new players would take on that particular view.  Even in the 'glut' days a lot of the stuff was printed and bought off of physical shelves.  It took quite a bit of publishing know how and connections to produce even a relatively poor print book.  I don't think the barrier to entry for third parties is quite that high in the digital age.  This can be both a good and a bad thing; as it allows more people's great ideas to get out there, but it also requires less investment and possibly less quality control.  Besides, there's so many "ideas" being put out there on the internet for free, the line has become very thin between do-it-yourself homebrew and 3pp.

Case in point, the 3pp supplement mentioned earlier in the thread sounds like they were really trying to publish something with 3.x aesthetics for 5e, with a few numbers massaged.  With the surface similarities of of the two systems, such as feats, class names, spells and such, it can be tempting to just present warmed over 3.x stuff as 5e, and that can cause problems with some groups, as the balance and design goals are different in the two systems.


----------



## Retreater (Jan 21, 2020)

First off, I don't like campaign settings, whether published by 3pp or Wizards. I have my own homebrew world that I am very comfortable running, and I can't ever be familiar enough with hundreds of pages of lore. And honestly, most of the stuff in campaign settings never comes up in my games anyway (i.e.: nations hundreds of miles away, thousands of years of history, nobility who will never be interacted with, etc.) 

What I do like are published adventures. I love the shared community experience of them - the war stories that bond groups who have never sat at a table together.  

I ran my fiancée through a couple levels of Rappan Athuk (published by the 3pp Frog God Games) last night, and we had a blast. Give me something like that instead of a Critical Role Campaign Setting, and I'll be happy.


----------



## Arilyn (Jan 22, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Well deserved, my groups really like the book!



Mine too.


----------



## Weiley31 (Jan 22, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Open the floodgates for any and all 3PP products? My mind shudders as it gazes into the abyss of powergaming and depravity that would ensue. I'm going to go cry in a corner now.




I mean, it's not like I haven't legit gone off my rocker before. So put it all in 3pp/UA material!!


----------



## Todd Roybark (Jan 22, 2020)

I would expect Hasbro to go the freelance route like Vox media eventually.
Half the published Sandbox Adventures were third party written.  Assuming the spells in PotA were written in part by the third party, then the greater portion (page countwise) of XGE was thus 3rd party written.

New design done internally is not a Hasbro goal in 5E.  Never has been it would seem to me.


----------



## jgsugden (Jan 22, 2020)

3 factors for me:

1.) D&D Beyond - I like the materials to be in this handy reference and character management tool.  I can hunt and peck to add a lot of other content, but man does that get annoying.
2.) History - I want official D&D content - because it updates material I've been using for decades.  This is true for settings, classes, adventures, spells, etc...   I have NPCs that have existed since 1981 that use psionic rules... and I want to be able to update them into a new edition with the official rules so that when new players meet them, they have an idea what they can do.
3.) Balance - WotC tries to consider their prior game contributions to the edition when considering balance.  If they introduce a feat, they'll be on the lookout to make sure a class feature does not form a 'power combo' with that feat that is abusive.  If the feat is 3rd party, WotC doesn't consider it when making new elements for the game.


----------



## gyor (Jan 22, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I had a recent exchange with @Hussar and he asked a question, which, roughly paraphrased, was this:
> 
> _Why is it that people keep saying that they want official campaign settings that reflect what they want? There are so many great third-party campaign settings already out there! _
> 
> ...




 I have much simpler reason, emotional attachment,  favourite settings are a happy place for a lot of folks,  and they aren't interchangeable. This takes nothing away from 3rd party settings,  Arcadia and Odyssey of the Dragonlords  for example are amazing,  but they can't fill that Forgotten Realms shaped hole in my heart,  only FR can do that.


----------



## generic (Jan 22, 2020)

gyor said:


> I have much simpler reason, emotional attachment,  favourite settings are a happy place for a lot of folks,  and they aren't interchangeable. This takes nothing away from 3rd party settings,  Arcadia and Odyssey of the Dragonlords  for example are amazing,  but they can't fill that Forgotten Realms shaped hole in my heart,  only FR can do that.



Is your heart boring and bland?


----------



## gyor (Jan 22, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Is your heart boring and bland?




 You fool no one,  we both know I'm slowly turning you into a huge realms fan, one realms lore factiod at a time. Soon you will be one of us. Chants: "One of us,  One of us,  One of us... "


----------



## generic (Jan 22, 2020)

gyor said:


> You fool no one,  we both know I'm slowly turning you into a huge realms fan, one realms lore factiod at a time. Soon you will be one of us. Chants: "One of us,  One of us,  One if us... "



Never! Never! I have seen the light, yes, but to follow its path is something I shall deny!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 22, 2020)

If Aebir-Toril won't come to the light...


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 22, 2020)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Go to a store for RPG stuff? This is 2020! We have DriveThruRPG.com! It's all right there, man!



Fifth edition DnD, which this thread is about, is not right there at all, man!


----------



## Shiroiken (Jan 22, 2020)

Despite the negative view placed on "one true way" D&D, everyone feels their way is best. If an official product supports this view, this gives them a sense of superiority in addition to validation. I know my way is well outside of the mainstream, despite being the best way, which probably makes me a D&D hipster


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 22, 2020)

Why are people complaining about balance in 3rd party product? Didn't we have huge arguments during 4E that balance wasn't as important as feeling or immersion? That worrying about balance was bad because the DM would make it all work somehow? That people would rather be distinctive then balanced? Where are those people now?


----------



## Retreater (Jan 22, 2020)

MichaelSomething said:


> Why are people complaining about balance in 3rd party product? Didn't we have huge arguments during 4E that balance wasn't as important as feeling or immersion? That worrying about balance was bad because the DM would make it all work somehow? That people would rather be distinctive then balanced? Where are those people now?



"Balance" to me isn't the same as being identically designed. 
Having played through many iterations of the game (not only editions of D&D, but also many "D&D-adjacent" rulesets), I wonder now if the answer hasn't been looking at us since the beginning of the game: different XP tables for different classes. Require more XP to level up more powerful classes instead of trying to make all characters fit a power level like a Procrustean bed.


----------



## gyor (Jan 22, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Never! Never! I have seen the light, yes, but to follow its path is something I shall deny!




 Bawhahaha, they all say that at first. My Dad used to to hate, Deep Space Nine, now it's his favourite Star Trek. I'm patient,  me and FR always win in the end. Mawhahahaha.


----------



## gyor (Jan 22, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> If Aebir-Toril won't come to the light...




 We'll have to strap him to a rocket at fire him at it?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 22, 2020)

MichaelSomething said:


> Why are people complaining about balance in 3rd party product? Didn't we have huge arguments during 4E that balance wasn't as important as feeling or immersion? That worrying about balance was bad because the DM would make it all work somehow? That people would rather be distinctive then balanced? Where are those people now?



There's a difference between _balance_ and _quality_. Yes, 3rd-party products can be imbalanced, but beyond that they can be overly complicated, confusingly written, or literally broken.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 22, 2020)

Retreater said:


> Having played through many iterations of the game (not only editions of D&D, but also many "D&D-adjacent" rulesets), I wonder now if the answer hasn't been looking at us since the beginning of the game: different XP tables for different classes. Require more XP to level up more powerful classes instead of trying to make all characters fit a power level like a Procrustean bed.



Philosophical question: what is a "level" supposed to represent, beyond "a quantum of experience and power"?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 22, 2020)

gyor said:


> We'll have to strap him to a rocket at fire him at it?



Exunctly. It's like you read my mind.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 22, 2020)

Retreater said:


> "Balance" to me isn't the same as being identically designed.
> Having played through many iterations of the game (not only editions of D&D, but also many "D&D-adjacent" rulesets), I wonder now if the answer hasn't been looking at us since the beginning of the game: different XP tables for different classes. Require more XP to level up more powerful classes instead of trying to make all characters fit a power level like a Procrustean bed.



And simultaneous multiclassing to prevent dipping! 1. E. 1. E. 1. E.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 22, 2020)

mach1.9pants said:


> Fifth edition DnD, which this thread is about, is not right there at all, man!




Most of the 3pp stuff is... and the rest is at their sister site, DMs Guild...


----------



## caudor (Jan 22, 2020)

jgsugden said:


> 1.) D&D Beyond - I like the materials to be in this handy reference and character management tool. I can hunt and peck to add a lot of other content, but man does that get annoying.



Yes, I run up against this as well.  Some things are easy to add, while other stuff like classes is really not feasible.


----------



## StormbringerAUS (Jan 22, 2020)

There is also a difference (at least in my mind) or homebrewing using 3PP for adventuring and settings but not for the 'rules'.  I run as close to the 5E rules as presented in the books for classes, archetypes, spells, feats etc - I do not allow anything outside the WOTC published books.  A few modifications (homebrew) were made by me at the beginning of the campaign and if I was going to change anything I would only do so with consolation with my players (this campaign started just after the release of Xanthar's.  New classes (the Artificer) I will almost certainly be allowed once I have a close look at this.

But as for the settings - mine is completely homebrewed but I do use modules at times from any source I can get them though they usually receive a working over to fit my world.

So I guess my point in all of this I use official products for the players (to control bloat and to be sure they have been tested with the rules that we use) - but for the DM anything goes.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jan 22, 2020)

Retreater said:


> "Balance" to me isn't the same as being identically designed.
> Having played through many iterations of the game (not only editions of D&D, but also many "D&D-adjacent" rulesets), I wonder now if the answer hasn't been looking at us since the beginning of the game: different XP tables for different classes. Require more XP to level up more powerful classes instead of trying to make all characters fit a power level like a Procrustean bed.



I'm guessing a LOT of tables have switched from using XP to "Everyone levels up now".  I think this was stongly pushed when Adventure Paths started rolling in during 3e since each segment of the path was earmarked for characters of a certain level band.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jan 22, 2020)

TheCosmicKid said:


> There's a difference between _balance_ and _quality_. Yes, 3rd-party products can be imbalanced, but beyond that they can be overly complicated, confusingly written, or literally broken.




All of those, and, there were so many 3e 3rd party books that shovelled in garbage to fill their book out.  Want to publish the Big Book of 1001 feats?  Just write crap down to get to 1001.

Alluring: Gain +2 to Persuade and Knowledge (chivalry)

Gold Tongue: Gain +2 to Persuade and Bargain

Convincing: Gain +2 to Persuade and Animal Handling

_Snip 365 other feats just giving you +2 to two different skill checks_

I look at 3p stuff, but only that which is in print.  I feel like in the 5e days print is a barrier that weeds out a lot of the garbage unlike the 3e ones.


----------



## Todd Roybark (Jan 22, 2020)

Retreater said:


> I wonder now if the answer hasn't been looking at us since the beginning of the game: different XP tables for different classes. Require more XP to level up more powerful classes instead of trying to make all characters fit a power level




This _is_ the answer only to the  Jeopardy  question of _” What prior D&D rules do you not want to see implemented again”_ 

It also would not help that much.  Take the Arcane Trickster subclass for the Rogue.  Upon initial release many considered the subclass to be weak.  Add in Booming Blade, the ‘Killer App’ of 5e, and sprinkle in a pinch of Warcaster Feat and Elven Accuracy Feat, and suddenly the  Invisible Arcane Trickster is the 5e equivalent of a tactical nuke in Minesweeper.

Also 2e Bards were often better casters than M/Us due to being 1-2 levels higher than a M/U because of the decreased XP requirements to level.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 22, 2020)

Suppose it's true that people want "official" products. A further question is *why do they want them to be continually reprinted?*

I just checked DM's Guild and the GH boxed set is on sale there for US $9.99. I've used (bits of) that boxed set for games using AD&D, Rolemaster and Burning Wheel. About the only mechanical information in it is stats for gods (which I've never used), variant abilities for clerics (which I've found are easily adapted to other systems) and class and levels for ruling NPCs. A 5e GM could use those classes and levels basically as written, given that all the AD&D classes are found in 5e. And the 5e cleric subclasses + backgrounds could easily sub for the variant cleric abilities.

*So why do people keep asking for GH to be "redone" for 5e? *What are they actually asking for? Why do they need to pay again to read the same stories they've already read?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 22, 2020)

It's an interesting question.  I mean, sure, there are crap products on DM's Guild.  Sturgeon's Law applies.  But, there's some fantastic stuff there too.  The really niche stuff is probably better served honestly.  You could use the naval rules from Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but, those are VERY basic and quick and dirty.  Or, you could saunter over to DM's Guild, find someone's labour of love product (there are several on the topic) and find one that is perfect for you.

Is it likely to have the level of art in it as a WotC book?  Probably not.  But, with a tiny bit of effort, you can find a book that will dovetail what you want pretty much perfectly.

At least in the current era, WotC is going out of its way to promote 3pp through Dragon+.  That's gotta be hugely helpful.  And it's good to see.  The Guild Adepts program seems to be working quite well.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 22, 2020)

Undrave said:


> Yeah but the AL modules kinda stink




I found the first module of the Avernus season a much more entertaining way to start my BG: DiA campaign then the “do what I want or die” approach found in the hardcover. They do need some curation, though.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 22, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> "That's not irony, Alanis," he said sardonically.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




arguments become difficult when you make even good analogies and people attack the analogy and Not the argument.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 22, 2020)

jgsugden said:


> 3 factors for me:
> 
> 1.) D&D Beyond - I like the materials to be in this handy reference and character management tool.  I can hunt and peck to add a lot of other content, but man does that get annoying.
> 2.) History - I want official D&D content - because it updates material I've been using for decades.  This is true for settings, classes, adventures, spells, etc...   I have NPCs that have existed since 1981 that use psionic rules... and I want to be able to update them into a new edition with the official rules so that when new players meet them, they have an idea what they can do.
> 3.) Balance - WotC tries to consider their prior game contributions to the edition when considering balance.  If they introduce a feat, they'll be on the lookout to make sure a class feature does not form a 'power combo' with that feat that is abusive.  If the feat is 3rd party, WotC doesn't consider it when making new elements for the game.




If they don’t update it they can’t mess it up. Think about that for a bit.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 22, 2020)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Go to a store for RPG stuff? This is 2020! We have DriveThruRPG.com! It's all right there, man!



My biggest issue with 3rd party stuff is that I can't browse the entire product like I can a WotC release.  A lot of 3rd party stuff isn't good, so if I can't look at the whole thing, I'm not about to spend money on it and hope I get one of the good ones.  My second biggest issue is that even on the off chance that I can browse the whole 3rd party product, it's often PDF only which I don't use for running games.  I like a nicely bound physical product to carry with and open when I need it.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jan 22, 2020)

I rely upon 3rd party material because WOTC is slow to put out pdfs, which is all I use.

And WOTC seems focused upon trendy junk lately.


----------



## ChaosOS (Jan 22, 2020)

I think this is a really interesting question, because from my POV I feel like this is a high water mark for 3PP - not only is the hobby bigger than ever, but dmsguild makes everything super accessible. Is the definition of "real" 3PP just what goes into print? Which is still more accessible due to POD. But I'm involved in the dmsguild community, so maybe I'm biased and part of what's actually a small group of people jerking each other off.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 22, 2020)

pemerton said:


> *So why do people keep asking for GH to be "redone" for 5e? *What are they actually asking for? Why do they need to pay again to read the same stories they've already read?




They're asking for their favorite setting to be *kept alive*. It's a lot easier to recruit new players if there's a widespread product that revitalizes the existing community or brings in a new one. There's always places like Canonfire and a zillion other places on the internet, but that's very different from having a glitzy, new product from the publisher. The reach on the internet may, theoretically, be farther, but the prominence is really much lower.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 22, 2020)

It's funny that people keep asking for rehashes of old stuff.  Especially when we have a posting that the pre-orders for Wildemount are better than for any other previous publication put out by WOTC.  Does anybody really believe any of the older settings would generate that kind of excitement?  Really?

It's kind of like the kids complaining about how "their" band was cool until they sold out and went lamestream.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 22, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 22, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 22, 2020)

That's a great point. You can't go home, can you? Mostly I'd be excited about reboots of settings I love, but I'm also not adverse to change.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 22, 2020)

billd91 said:


> They're asking for their favorite setting to be *kept alive*. It's a lot easier to recruit new players if there's a widespread product that revitalizes the existing community or brings in a new one.



I though most D&D campaigns were homebrew with a bit of FR mash-up. Assuming that's true, is it really that hard to recruit players for a GH campaign? That sounds odd to me, but I'm not part of the player recruitment scene so perhaps there's something I'm missing.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 22, 2020)

Oofta said:


> It's funny that people keep asking for rehashes of old stuff.  Especially when we have a posting that the pre-orders for Wildemount are better than for any other previous publication put out by WOTC.  Does anybody really believe any of the older settings would generate that kind of excitement?  Really?
> 
> It's kind of like the kids complaining about how "their" band was cool until they sold out and went lamestream.



I think the only older setting that has the potential to rival this would be Planescape.  The others were popular, but not as popular.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 22, 2020)

billd91 said:


> They're asking for their favorite setting to be *kept alive*. It's a lot easier to recruit new players if there's a widespread product that revitalizes the existing community or brings in a new one. There's always places like Canonfire and a zillion other places on the internet, but that's very different from having a glitzy, new product from the publisher. The reach on the internet may, theoretically, be farther, but the prominence is really much lower.



I think more than keeping it alive, since if you have the 1e fluff you can run a Greyhawk game with it just fine, is that people want mechanical support for that fluff.  A few feats, magic items and subclasses that have been built and play tested.  As well as perhaps 5e stat blocks for some prominent NPCs.


----------



## Sadras (Jan 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I think the only older setting that has the potential to rival this would be Planescape.  The others were popular, but not as popular.




Sadly that is true and that is due to the passage of time that has elapsed since the last time those settings were published (i.e. old fans have died, moved on and new D&D players have settled in with the newer settings).


----------



## Retreater (Jan 22, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I'm guessing a LOT of tables have switched from using XP to "Everyone levels up now".  I think this was stongly pushed when Adventure Paths started rolling in during 3e since each segment of the path was earmarked for characters of a certain level band.



This is true, and I use milestone rather than traditional XP awards in my games as well. 
However, this could be handled by awarding flat XP awards in chunks. For example, after completion of this chapter, characters will receive 1,000 XP* (or whatever number). That amount could be enough for a level for a rogue or fighter, but halfway there for a wizard or cleric. 
As long as we move away from tracking XP for each monster, trap, etc., and give it out in chunks, I'm okay.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 22, 2020)

As much as I love planescape (Faction War never happened) I have modified it almost beyond recognition (except for the use of the original factions plus a few more and keeping the lady of pain as very enigmatic). I am curious what they will do. Mine is much more high tech and I know that will never happen. I see alot of merging spelljammer and planescape online. I’ll buy and scavenge the things I like from whatever they do and ignore the rest. I love the guvners!!!


----------



## MarkB (Jan 22, 2020)

One reason the OP doesn't really touch on is "popularising". Just because you're longing to play in a classic setting, that doesn't necessarily mean that you can gather a whole table of like-minded players. If it gets published by WotC, that makes it the new big thing, and thus a much easier sell.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I think more than keeping it alive, since if you have the 1e fluff you can run a Greyhawk game with it just fine, is that people want mechanical support for that fluff.  A few feats, magic items and subclasses that have been built and play tested.  As well as perhaps 5e stat blocks for some prominent NPCs.



But all the magic items and artifacts that go back to 1e ARE Greyhawk specific magic items. What fluff exists in GH that isn't just in the PHB by default?


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> My biggest issue with 3rd party stuff is that I can't browse the entire product like I can a WotC release.  A lot of 3rd party stuff isn't good, so if I can't look at the whole thing, I'm not about to spend money on it and hope I get one of the good ones.  My second biggest issue is that even on the off chance that I can browse the whole 3rd party product, it's often PDF only which I don't use for running games.  I like a nicely bound physical product to carry with and open when I need it.




Those are good points. I just stick to ones that look interesting and are popular - or preview it on The Trove (though if I'm going to use something in a game that isn't out of print, I always pay hard cash for it).

Also I'm a laptop DM, and I can't imagine DMing without one at this point - being able to have all my resources right there at my fingertips without piles of books (plus having the ability to use Google to answer rules questions on the fly!) is just too important to me. (And I never have to show any of my players the cover of an adventure module or book, so they never have any idea what might be coming...  )


----------



## Anoth (Jan 22, 2020)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Those are good points. I just stick to ones that look interesting and are popular - or preview it on The Trove (though if I'm going to use something in a game that isn't out of print, I always pay hard cash for it).
> 
> Also I'm a laptop DM, and I can't imagine DMing without one at this point - being able to have all my resources right there at my fingertips without piles of books (plus having the ability to use Google to answer rules questions on the fly!) is just too important to me. (And I never have to show any of my players the cover of an adventure module or book, so they never have any idea what might be coming...  )



I can’t imagine using a laptop. I try to be so prepped that I don’t need references outside my notes to play. I hate holding up the game to lookup anything. I won’t do it. I’m sure your laptop skills make those things quick. But that would never work for me.


----------



## generic (Jan 22, 2020)

gyor said:


> We'll have to strap him to a rocket at fire him at it?



How can you strap me to a rocket if you're living in the Forgotten Realms?  The Forgotten Realms has been stuck in a state of perpetual non-advancement for the last thousand years.


----------



## schneeland (Jan 22, 2020)

One thing that's missing in the list at the start of this list: translations. Official WotC publications are typically translated into all major languages, at least after a while. That's typically not the case for 3rd party books or content on DM's Guild.
To be fair: this could be listed under "convenience", but for some people English books are quite hard to grok.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 22, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 22, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 22, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> How can you strap me to a rocket if you're living in the Forgotten Realms?  The Forgotten Realms has been stuck in a state of perpetual non-advancement for the last thousand years.



It’s a Shou Lung rocket made by Gond Wondermakers - get with the times!


----------



## Anoth (Jan 22, 2020)

How much did the world change between 500ad and 600ad. How much did the world change between 2000bc and 1000bc. Yeah. There were changes. But people still fought with swords, spears, and shields. What is it you want? Do you want them to invent cars?   I once played a forgotten realms game that took place in the 1990s dale reckoning time and we did just that. Orc biker gangs were badass.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 22, 2020)

Stormonu said:


> It’s a Shou Lung rocket made by Gond Wondermakers - get with the times!



Shou Lung of course meaning_ Aebir-Toril's Final Reward_. It's expensive bought separately, but it comes in the value pack too, which is a fine deal at 100gp. Exploding fun for the whole party. Buy yours today, supplies are limited.


----------



## generic (Jan 22, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Shou Lung of course meaning_ Aebir-Toril's Final Reward_. It's expensive bought separately, but it comes in the value pack too, which is a fine deal at 100gp. Exploding fun for the whole party. Buy yours today, supplies are limited.



Hey!  Even I know what Shou Lung means!  It's an FR ethnicity... right?  

I'll fight off every FR goon with my plasma rifle.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 22, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Hey!  Even I know what Shou Lung means!  It's an FR ethnicity... right?
> 
> I'll fight off every FR goon with my plasma rifle.



Yep, the Shou are FR’s equivalent to China’s warring states.



Spoiler



The Shou philosopher Pan Hu had a fascination with astronomy and was extremely vocal that the Shou people should “reach for the stars”, defying the conventional wisdom of the time that the heavens were the perview of the gods themself.  After being denied a royal grant to build a vessel to travel to the heavens and viewing a fireworks celebration at the capital, Pan Hu developed his own vessel to make a trip to the skies above.  Strapping 99 rockets to a sturdy throne-like chair, he launched himself into the predawn sky as the moon loomed high above him.  Pan Hu’s brazen flight allowed the chair to escape Amber-Toril’s orbit, but the rockets were not of sufficient power for him to reach the nearby moon.  He had come prepared though, and escaped the pyrotechnic destruction of his seat via a bamboo kite he brought along for just such an emergency.  However, he had not accounted for the severe cold beyond the safety of Aber-Toril, and had a passing Giff vessel not been attracted by the pyrotechnic display, he would have frozen before he could be safely returned home.  Upon his return, he took his findings to the Emperor, who then bestowed a grant upon Pan Hu to continue his research, which eventually led to the first Spelljammer Helm, based on his rocket-chair design.  Gond, the wonder-maker, was so impressed with Pan Hu’s work that he passed the knowledge to western Toril, where Spelljamming Tradesmen were devised, with rocket-propelled throne-like shuttles became popular ways to travel between ship and surface


----------



## generic (Jan 22, 2020)

Stormonu said:


> Yep, the Shou are FR’s equivalent to China’s warring states.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dang it, rockets that can escape the 'atmosphere' of Abeir _cough_ -Toril...


----------



## Oofta (Jan 22, 2020)

Stormonu said:


> Yep, the Shou are FR’s equivalent to China’s warring states.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I assume that was probably inspired by the story of Wan Hu?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 22, 2020)

Stormonu said:


> Yep, the Shou are FR’s equivalent to China’s warring states.




I would argue that's T'u Lung. Shou Lung is based on China of a more civilized age - particularly the Han Dynasty.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 22, 2020)

I think that when it comes to settings a lot of it is about hoping to recapture that feeling of excitement and wonder that comes with discovering that stuff for the first time.

That moment when your imagination lit up as you thumbed through those pages and the ideas were just popping.

People tend to associate that feeling with the content of what they were reading rather than the time on their life in which they were reading it.

So they think that some updated version of Greyhawk or Dark Sun will give them that feeling again. 

But how can they? It’s more about the moment....and the moment’s passed. 

Then, when they see others who are experiencing that magic moment, they look at the content of what triggered it and dismiss it. “Wildemount? That’s ridiculous!!!”

I don’t think that this is the sole reason to want to see updated material from old settings. There are others that are reasonable. But I think this is the biggest reason for the demand for official material of this sort, the seemingly inevitable disappointment when they get it, and the resistance to newer things.


----------



## Stormonu (Jan 22, 2020)

Oofta said:


> I assume that was probably inspired by the story of Wan Hu?
> 
> 
> View attachment 117716




Yep, though I think I read this account in Spelljammer - Realmspace.


billd91 said:


> I would argue that's T'u Lung. Shou Lung is based on China of a more civilized age - particularly the Han Dynasty.




Thanks for the correction, it’s been years since I’ve read through Kara-Tur material (I’m more enamored with L5R’s Rokugan).

which brings me to Hawkeyefan’s comments - there’s a lot of people who are familiar with old material and are hoping for a current update - often because they don’t access to the old material (or it’s dated and could use some modernization).  Some people just don’t know how or what they should do to update old campaigns, and an “official” product can do that for them.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Jan 22, 2020)

Some people might think laziness as a factor. It's a lot of work to port something over. But a lot of people don't have the time, energy, or talent to do it themselves. That's understandable.

More important to consider, however, is gaining an official consensus. D&D is very easily the most open and accessible system to play. You can get a random group of players to sit at the table at a moment's notice, or gather publicly in random groups during events, like AL. In these cases, it can be much less of a hassle to have an officially sanctioned set of rules and options to ensure everyone is on a similar page from the start.

For a home or private game, however, house rules and interpretations are much easier to pass for a small group. But then again, it could go back to a lack of time, talent, and energy.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 22, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that when it comes to settings a lot of it is about hoping to recapture that feeling of excitement and wonder that comes with discovering that stuff for the first time.
> 
> .
> .
> ...




This sounds like Star Wars fans, too. You just can't recapture the magic, because a big part of it is the newness, and how it hit you at a certain time in your life. I can't really recreate getting my D&D Black Box and Rules Cyclopedia when I was 9, watching the Star Wars trilogy for the first time when I was 12, playing through Final Fantasy VII when I was 17, or reading The Magus when I was 25. All I can do is be open to new possibilities... beginner's mind, as they say in Zen...


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 22, 2020)

Stormonu said:


> which brings me to Hawkeyefan’s comments - there’s a lot of people who are familiar with old material and are hoping for a current update - often because they don’t access to the old material (or it’s dated and could use some modernization).  Some people just don’t know how or what they should do to update old campaigns, and an “official” product can do that for them.




Sure, I get that. I don’t know if not having the old material is a significant obstacle given how easily and cheaply all that material can be had. But the question of how to update it is the question. 

Honestly, I think that’s more of a challenge for WotC than for any individual fan. I mean, I’ve used many of the settings in my 5E game (there’s a lot of world hopping) and I just present the settings in a way that I consider best. 

WotC will have to somehow please a myriad of fans for each setting, each with their own take on what matters most to the setting, and what should or should not be included. That’s gonna be tough to pull off. 




Jacob Lewis said:


> Some people might think laziness as a factor. It's a lot of work to port something over. But a lot of people don't have the time, energy, or talent to do it themselves. That's understandable.
> 
> More important to consider, however, is gaining an official consensus. D&D is very easily the most open and accessible system to play. You can get a random group of players to sit at the table at a moment's notice, or gather publicly in random groups during events, like AL. In these cases, it can be much less of a hassle to have an officially sanctioned set of rules and options to ensure everyone is on a similar page from the start.
> 
> For a home or private game, however, house rules and interpretations are much easier to pass for a small group. But then again, it could go back to a lack of time, talent, and energy.




Yeah, AL play and similar games benefit from having set materials to use. This is one of the stronger reasons for the request for old settings, in my opinion. 

And I agree that it’s not about laziness. I’d never say that someone is lazy for asking for a setting guide rather than doing all that work themselves. 

But, in the absence of an official setting guide, I think people can manage without needing to do as much work as it seems, if they really want to play in a specific setting.

It doesn’t need to be a 300 page book, when you get down to it.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 22, 2020)

Really what I think WotC should do with settings that they really have no intention of republishing (that is, if they don't), is set up "fan committees" that can be in charge of establishing standard rules, canon, and vetting DMsGuild fan products for the settings. They did something rather like this back in the 3e days, but that seems to have gone away at some point...


----------



## generic (Jan 22, 2020)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Really what I think WotC should do with settings that they really have no intention of republishing (that is, if they don't), is set up "fan committees" that can be in charge of establishing standard rules, canon, and vetting DMsGuild fan products for the settings. They did something rather like this back in the 3e days, but that seems to have gone away at some point...



That sounds great... can I be on the Forgotten Realms committee?

For... uh... the good of the setting.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 22, 2020)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Really what I think WotC should do with settings that they really have no intention of republishing (that is, if they don't), is set up "fan committees" that can be in charge of establishing standard rules, canon, and vetting DMsGuild fan products for the settings. They did something rather like this back in the 3e days, but that seems to have gone away at some point...




If there are any settings that they’ve decided for certain they’ll not support, then I could see them opening the setting on DMs Guild and maybe doing something like the Guild Adept program to do the “core” material for that setting.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 22, 2020)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> This sounds like Star Wars fans, too. You just can't recapture the magic, because a big part of it is the newness, and how it hit you at a certain time in your life. I can't really recreate getting my D&D Black Box and Rules Cyclopedia when I was 9, watching the Star Wars trilogy for the first time when I was 12, playing through Final Fantasy VII when I was 17, or reading The Magus when I was 25. All I can do is be open to new possibilities... beginner's mind, as they say in Zen...




Yeah, you see this with Star Wars and Marvel and DC and similar franchises. I think this initial connection...that magic moment....also connects to gatekeeping and fandom, which has come up in a lot of other threads lately.


----------



## The Green Hermit (Jan 22, 2020)

Retreater said:


> This is true, and I use milestone rather than traditional XP awards in my games as well.
> However, this could be handled by awarding flat XP awards in chunks. For example, after completion of this chapter, characters will receive 1,000 XP* (or whatever number). That amount could be enough for a level for a rogue or fighter, but halfway there for a wizard or cleric.
> As long as we move away from tracking XP for each monster, trap, etc., and give it out in chunks, I'm okay.




I prefer to get XP for individual things instead of for chapters or milestones. That way, different characters can level at different paces depending upon what they (or their players) do.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

The Green Hermit said:


> I prefer to get XP for individual things instead of for chapters or milestones. That way, different characters can level at different paces depending upon what they (or their players) do.



I'm the opposite. It's a team effort. Milestone leveling.


----------



## Salthorae (Jan 23, 2020)

The Green Hermit said:


> I prefer to get XP for individual things instead of for chapters or milestones. That way, different characters can level at different paces depending upon what they (or their players) do.




If my group had any semblance of people showing up regularly, I'd love to track individual XP. Alas...


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> I'm the opposite. It's a team effort. Milestone leveling.



I'd just as soon do away with leveling altogether.  It never made any sense that you suddenly are going up in power as a step function. 

Once 3e established a standardized skill system for D&D, it is easy enough to establish that _everything_ is a skill (Spycraft Shadowforce Archer used this approach to psionics, using feats as the entrance ticket).  Also easy enough to establish that your skills improve more quickly the more you use them rather than being given a chunk of skill points at each level where you could add to a skill even if you didn't use it at all at your previous level


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I think more than keeping it alive, since if you have the 1e fluff you can run a Greyhawk game with it just fine, is that people want mechanical support for that fluff.  A few feats, magic items and subclasses that have been built and play tested.  As well as perhaps 5e stat blocks for some prominent NPCs.



This.  Ask 10 people to convert some type of mechanical info from prior editions to 5e and you'll get 10 different results.  Even worse ask them to progressively convert from 1e -> 2e -> 3e -> 4e -> 5e and watch the analysis paralysis set in.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 23, 2020)

Honest question, why in the nine hells would you ever convert something progressively? That's silly.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> Once 3e established a standardized skill system for D&D, it is easy enough to establish that _everything_ is a skill (Spycraft Shadowforce Archer used this approach to psionics, using feats as the entrance ticket).  Also easy enough to establish that your skills improve more quickly the more you use them rather than being given a chunk of skill points at each level where you could add to a skill even if you didn't use it at all at your previous level



This is Runequest circa 1988. And if you noticed, 5e reduced the customization of skills compared to 3e. It was "too fiddly."


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Honest question, why in the nine hells would you ever convert something progressively? That's silly.



Take a look at something that WotC has provided stats for across editions - a random monster, one of the famous NPCs, etc.  Tell me they're self-consistent in all cases...

Or look at the 3e time of horrors 3pp conversion of older edition monster stats and compare to a later WotC product that finally got around to doing the conversion.

And those are done by the "professionals" as opposed to some random DM for their home campaign.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> This.  Ask 10 people to convert some type of mechanical info from prior editions to 5e and you'll get 10 different results.  Even worse ask them to progressively convert from 1e -> 2e -> 3e -> 4e -> 5e and watch the analysis paralysis set in.



The real problem with progressive conversion is age. To do the conversions, you should have experience with all 5 editions. Aside from us old timers, most people don't have that experience. And some of us skipped 2e or 4e (inverse Star Trek movie rule).

Regardless, as I say for all conversion projects (whether between editions of a game or between different game systems), never attempt to convert mechanics directly. Convert the fluff and assign mechanics using the target game based on the fluff you wish to achieve.

You don't find a stat block of Mordenkainen and convert it. You create a 5e "powerful, infamous wizard" and create a stat block using the 5e rules.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> Take a look at something that WotC has provided stats for across editions - a random monster, one of the famous NPCs, etc.  Tell me they're self-consistent in all cases...
> 
> Or look at the 3e time of horrors 3pp conversion of older edition monster stats and compare to a later WotC product that finally got around to doing the conversion.
> 
> And those are done by the "professionals" as opposed to some random DM for their home campaign.



I wouldn't tell you that because it's not true. Lots of things ebb and flow form edition to edition. But it's also not one person, or even the same team of people making the edition to edition changes. If it were the same person the results would be a lot more linear. I'm not sure what the example of progressive conversion was supposed to prove. Maybe I'm missing something about the conversation upstream....


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> This is Runequest circa 1988. And if you noticed, 5e reduced the customization of skills compared to 3e. It was "too fiddly."



Too fiddly if all you are doing is cataloging academic type skills (do we need rhetoric and oratory as separate skills)?

Now do it with combat skills...  I'd broadly group weapons, use feats as the entrance to becoming skilled in that group, and allow advancement of them as skills.  This would allow say, a Gandalf with Glamdring that doesn't suck, or a Fafhrd that can actually fight, type of PC.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

That's still Runequest.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I wouldn't tell you that because it's not true. Lots of things ebb and flow form edition to edition. But it's also not one person, or even the same team of people making the edition to edition changes. If it were the same person the results would be a lot more linear. I'm not sure what the example of progressive conversion was supposed to prove. Maybe I'm missing something about the conversation upstream....



Sometimes, arbitrary decisions need to be made on a conversion, and differences in stats and abilities in different editions illustrates that.   Something coming from WotC may have more "authority" than whatever your DM decides in doing a conversion.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> That's still Runequest.



Not arguing that, except it's not a d20-based system. 

Only issue I potentially see is the less granularity of a d20 vs d100, but it's still possible to do this with a d20 system.

Actually if i got to decide 6e D&D mechanics, I'm partial to a d20 dice pool, attribute+skill as the target number, roll under system, where skill ranks give you more dice to roll.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> Sometimes, arbitrary decisions need to be made on a conversion, and differences in stats and abilities in different editions illustrates that.   Something coming from WotC may have more "authority" than whatever your DM decides in doing a conversion.



Yeah, I'd agree, generally that's the case. It doesn't mean it's always better, but you weren't suggesting that.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 23, 2020)

Gotta love in these discussions how folks who seem to be calling for official support always seem to look down on the “professionals” that would provide that support.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> Not arguing that, except it's not a d20-based system.
> 
> Only issue I potentially see is the less granularity of a d20 vs d100, but it's still possible to do this with a d20 system.



Yes but that's the value of the d100 system. You can increase in ability slowly. +1 in d20 is +5 in d100.



> Actually if i got to decide 6e D&D mechanics, I'm partial to a d20 dice pool, attribute+skill as the target number, roll under system, where skill ranks give you more dice to roll.




And why abandon 10 + ability modifier = DC. What is +skill? I thought skill ranks increases the dice rolled. Why are you double dipping skill? What do multiple successes do?


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Gotta love in these discussions how folks who seem to be calling for official support always seem to look down on the “professionals” that would provide that support.



Who said anything about looking down on them?  I pointed out that if they aren't always self-consistent, at least having a definitive "current edition of this thing" is more consistent than expecting every DM to do their own.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Yes but that's the value of the d100 system. You can increase in ability slowly. +1 in d20 is +5 in d100.
> 
> 
> 
> And why abandon 10 + ability modifier = DC. What is +skill? I thought skill ranks increases the dice rolled. Why are you double dipping skill? What do multiple successes do?




So, let's say you have a Dex of 10 and 3 skills ranks in "bows." You roll a d20 and try to get under 10.  Someone with a higher Dex is naturally more "talented." But unless they increased in the skill they can only roll the one die.  Let's say someone with a Dex of 10 puts 8 ranks into the skill.  Maybe that means they roll 3 dice.  3 dice have a better chance of rolling under 10 than one die. 

Each additional successful die roll could add to your success.  Use of dice pools and margins of success/failure, with additional successful dice adding to a margin of success.  Is take existing weapon damage averages and add margin of success to the damage.  So let's say you need to roll under Dex 10 and get a 7, 9 and 12.  So you would do  (arrow avg dmg) + 3 +2 more for the second success for a total of 8.  If you succeed by a large enough margin, it's a crit.  Fail by a large enough margin and it's a fumble.  

You could also do this unskilled by rolling 2 d20s and being forced to pick the higher of the two results.

You could then instead of rolling against a Dex score (with situational modifiers), use an opposed roll (let's say the enemy uses a Dodge skill with a margin of success of 3, so you'd have to roll less than 7, but you're at point blank range, so it Bumps it back up to a 9 u need to roll under).

More fiddly than d20 vs DC?  Yes, but infinitely more tuneable.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> More fiddly than d20 vs DC?  Yes, but infinitely more tuneable.



My total made up guess is that 90% of D&D players don't need "more tuneable."


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> The real problem with progressive conversion is age. To do the conversions, you should have experience with all 5 editions. Aside from us old timers, most people don't have that experience. And some of us skipped 2e or 4e (inverse Star Trek movie rule).
> 
> Regardless, as I say for all conversion projects (whether between editions of a game or between different game systems), never attempt to convert mechanics directly. Convert the fluff and assign mechanics using the target game based on the fluff you wish to achieve.
> 
> You don't find a stat block of Mordenkainen and convert it. You create a 5e "powerful, infamous wizard" and create a stat block using the 5e rules.




Absolutely. Sometimes I think people get so caught up in conversion that they miss this more simple approach. 

Use the source material, whether it’s a novel or past edition, as inspiration to then create what you’re looking for.




3catcircus said:


> Who said anything about looking down on them?  I pointed out that if they aren't always self-consistent, at least having a definitive "current edition of this thing" is more consistent than expecting every DM to do their own.




Well, typically when people use quotes around a title or description, it’s meant to be ironic. Why use “professionals”?

If I misinterpreted, then my apologies, but that’s how it read.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Absolutely. Sometimes I think people get so caught up in conversion that they miss this more simple approach.
> 
> Use the source material, whether it’s a novel or past edition, as inspiration to then create what you’re looking for.
> 
> ...



No worries. Pros could be a WotC or a 1-person writer/artist/editor.  If you sell it and get paid, you're a pro, in my book.


----------



## ChaosOS (Jan 23, 2020)

Still surprised people aren't talking about dmsguild, but I think there's another point related to it - the only way to legally publish content for 5e that's not OGL compliant (aka using wizards IP, which old setting conversions necessarily do) is through the dmsguild. But, WOTC only unlocks settings that have official books. Anything you publish to convert a setting like Dark Sun is legally risky, and you certainly can't be financially compensated for your time.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

ChaosOS said:


> Still surprised people aren't talking about dmsguild, but I think there's another point related to it - the only way to legally publish content for 5e that's not OGL compliant (aka using wizards IP, which old setting conversions necessarily do) is through the dmsguild. But, WOTC only unlocks settings that have official books. Anything you publish to convert a setting like Dark Sun is legally risky, and you certainly can't be financially compensated for your time.



Yep - and there is no 5e content for GH showing up under the 5e AND Greyhawk filters, for example.  And the DMs resource for Ghosts of Saltmarsh is under the 5e AND FR filters...


----------



## pemerton (Jan 23, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> in the absence of an official setting guide, I think people can manage without needing to do as much work as it seems, if they really want to play in a specific setting.
> 
> It doesn’t need to be a 300 page book, when you get down to it.



So much this! Especially if we're talking about GH, or Dragonlance, or the Known World/Mystara.



3catcircus said:


> This.  Ask 10 people to convert some type of mechanical info from prior editions to 5e and you'll get 10 different results.



But why is this a problem?

When I wanted to run an Alien scenario in my Traveller game I statted up an alien using the available system resources. It took me 10 to 15 minutes. Having done it once, I statted up a larval state alien at the table in less than five. What does it matter that, at another table, or even at my table at a different time if I were in a different mood, it would be done differently?

When I posted my thread, another poster informed me that there had been stats for the various life stages of an alien published in an early number of the Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society. Having subsequently looked at those ones, they're different from (more vicious than) mine. Once I'd acquired the PDF from DriveThru RPG it was interesting to make the comparison, but that has no effect on the (successful) play experience at my table.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> So much this! Especially if we're talking about GH, or Dragonlance, or the Known World/Mystara.
> 
> But why is this a problem?
> 
> ...



It's exactly the fact that your player pointed out the discrepancy that may be of concern to some.  For others (like me), I don't have the time to do the conversions myself.  I want to be able to, for example, select an old edition module and not have to do the conversion for monsters that had stats in older editions but not the current edition.  

I'm not necessarily talking about basic NPCs, but unique monsters from iconic (or not so iconic) products.  For example the Abomination of Diirinka in the 2e module Axe of the Dwarvish Lords.  How would you convert it?


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> But all the magic items and artifacts that go back to 1e ARE Greyhawk specific magic items. What fluff exists in GH that isn't just in the PHB by default?



Besides the Sea of Dust, the Great Kingdom, Circle of Eight, Scarlet Brotherhood and more?  There's a lot of Greyhawk Fluff that isn't in the PHB.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Besides the Sea of Dust, the Great Kingdom, Circle of Eight, Scarlet Brotherhood and more?  There's a lot of Greyhawk Fluff that isn't in the PHB.



Locations and kingdoms are fluff. They don't require any information in the PHB. If you have one of the old Greyhawk boxes/books, you have have the fluff. You might say there should be a scarlet brotherhood monk path but there doesn't have to be.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Locations and kingdoms are fluff. They don't require any information in the PHB. If you have one of the old Greyhawk boxes/books, you have have the fluff. You might say there should be a scarlet brotherhood monk path but there doesn't have to be.



But the fans would want one.  As well as perhaps a subclass dealing with the sea of dust and maybe a barbarian subclass for the north, and so on.  

No, they don't have to make these things, but then they don't have to make any settings at all.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

And what good is a book that is 95% "reprint" with a few timeline updates and 5% a few subclasses here and there.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> And what good is a book that is 95% "reprint" with a few timeline updates and 5% a few subclasses here and there.



Plenty to someone who wants some crunch and doesn't have the time to create and playtest it.  Or to the many thousands of D&D players who don't have the old books and want, you know, books.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 23, 2020)

For me it’s also the following; 

*1) A unified core* means the same starting point. Related to shared experiences, but it relates to things like building new options. I don’t want to worry about anything but what’s official when homebrewing for my own game, or collaborating with people online.

*2) Balanced enough for table work*. At least in 4e and 5e, the game is simply balanced. It works, out of the box. In 4e, the math was clear enough that I could just eyeball new stuff and know where it sat in “normal optimization” terms. In 5e, I know what the basic boundaries of balance are, and they’ve yet to put out anything that escapes the power bandwidth of the PHB.
I got a humble bundle of kobold press stuff, and half their deep magic books (especially the earlier ones) simply aren’t balanced. At all. There are many spells in the clockwork magic book that are just “themed variant of X spell, but obviously inferior”. And that’s Kobold Press, who I love dearly and have backed the Deep Magic Kickstarter.

*3) Convenience at session 0*. Is the thing you wanna make a sensible concept (as in, can I make sense of it), using official player options? Cool, let me know if you have questions about how to make the build do what you want.
Basically, I can focus 90% of my time and energy during character creation, as a DM, on concepts and narratives. I’d 4e, I literally only wanted to know the narrative elements, and what role they were taking up. And even role wasn’t that important outside of figuring out healing if no one picked a leader. 


the biggest thing for me is just not having to worry about player options borking my game unexpectedly. I didn’t run games before 4e because I found the experience utter and complete garbage in older editions. I DM more than run games now because I love DMing In a balanced system that doesn’t need me to hack it in order to run.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Plenty to someone who wants some crunch and doesn't have the time to create and playtest it.  Or to the many thousands of D&D players who don't have the old books and want, you know, books.



Seriously.  I wish I could buy a POD copy of the Basic, Expert, Companion, and Masters boxed sets.  If WotC were to ever reprint them, I would probably buy them without even looking at the price tag.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 23, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> Seriously.  I wish I could buy a POD copy of the Basic, Expert, Companion, and Masters boxed sets.  If WotC were to ever reprint them, I would probably buy them without even looking at the price tag.



I still have some of them.  A lot of my old stuff is gone, though.  I'd like to have it back.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

Ebay? 

As someone who was there, I never saw the Campanion or Masters boxed sets on sale in my local stores ever. They were entirely hypothetical to me.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Ebay?
> 
> As someone who was there, I never saw the Campanion or Masters boxed sets on sale in my local stores ever. They were entirely hypothetical to me.



I have them all.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> And what good is a book that is 95% "reprint" with a few timeline updates and 5% a few subclasses here and there.



This is why I want a book that hits the following notes, at a page count around the size of the PHB.

*Guide to Worldbuilding and campaign crafting

*Guide to The Multiverse (ie, to a handful of settings) with some expansion on the planes if there’s room

*Xanathars style expansion of player options

*Xanathar’s style expansion of game rules and tools for the DM

*Mini-bestiary

*Eberron/Ravnica style adventure/campaign seeds and a small intro adventure for each example world

it would use the worlds shown to guide DMs on building worlds, creating custom player options, enemies, items, and rules, and expand on existing guidelines and advice for building campaigns and worlds, managing multiversal campaigns, etc.

I’d nominate: 

Lower Magic Epic Fantasy: Dragonlance
*introduce a few race options, couple subclasses, variants for robed wizards, and a martial support class

Wildly Advanced High Magic Adventure: Kaladesh
*new artificer subclass and infusions, new races, advanced vehicle rules and stats. Vehicle spells and magic items. Vehicle as Spellcasting focus.

Dark/Gothic Fantasy: Innistrad
Rules for playable gothic monsters, rework some of the gothic heroes UA stuff. Alternate vampirism and lycanthropy rules

Sword and Sorcery Fantasy: Greyhawk
@lowkey13 what even would be here?

Apocolyptic Fantasy: Dark Sun
*Psionic options expansion, couple race options and subclasses. Variant features for replacing Spellcasting in a couple different classes, including bards. Optional rules for defiling magic.

something new, like Modern Urban Fantasy: New World
*variant spells, vehicle spells, expanded spell armor options, new subclasses and expanded proficiencies, new items.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 23, 2020)

I want a pocket size edition of the Player's Handbook to make transport easier.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> It's exactly the fact that your player pointed out the discrepancy that may be of concern to some.



No one pointed out a discrepancy. A poster on these boards whom I've never met outside of this context (@dragoner) let me know that about 49 years ago another Traveller player wrote up stats for Alien aliens. 



3catcircus said:


> For others (like me), I don't have the time to do the conversions myself.  I want to be able to, for example, select an old edition module and not have to do the conversion for monsters that had stats in older editions but not the current edition.
> 
> I'm not necessarily talking about basic NPCs, but unique monsters from iconic (or not so iconic) products.  For example the Abomination of Diirinka in the 2e module Axe of the Dwarvish Lords.  How would you convert it?



I'm not familiar with that module.

But given that it's almost certain that WotC will never republish it in a 5e form, if you want to use it you will have to write your own stats. @Tony Vargas on these boards has said that he runs pre-3E material by just converting the AC from low-is-good to high-is-good. I'm guessing he uses the THACO number, damage and hit points as written.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sword and Sorcery Fantasy: Greyhawk
> @lowkey13 what even would be here?



I own nearly every pre-3E Greyhawk book/boxed set, and some 3E ones as well.

You don't need special rules to run or play GH. It's just D&D. (Or Rolemaster. Or Burning Wheel. Or . . ..)

If anyone wants to play GH, just buy a copy of the boxed set from DM's Guild and start playing!



doctorbadwolf said:


> Apocolyptic Fantasy: Dark Sun
> *Psionic options expansion, couple race options and subclasses. Variant features for replacing Spellcasting in a couple different classes, including bards. Optional rules for defiling magic.



Psionics is its own thing - though a sorcerer might be used to approximate it.

Athasian bards, without spellcasting, can be done as assassin rogues. The actual 5e bard is a spellcasting class - I don't think we're going to see it rebuilt as a non-caster.

Defiling magic can presumably be done the same as in the 2nd ed books, or else using the 4e variant. In 2nd ed AD&D, the rules for the effects of defiling can be ported wholesale to 5e (I just reread them to make sure). Being a defiler rather than a preserver gives, in effect, a bonus to earned XP (approx +40%, meaning that quite a bit of the time from 2nd through name level the defiler will be a level ahead of the preserver). In 5e you could just do the same thing, or if in the hard cold light of 30 years of D&D experience that seems too broken or ad hoc you could do something else - eg +1 to save DCs and attack rolls for the defiler.

I'm not meaning to cast aspersions on your imagined book. Just trying to point out that so much of this material is already able to be used in 5e with minimal fuss and effort.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 23, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> No one pointed out a discrepancy. A poster on these boards whom I've never met outside of this context (@dragoner) let me know that about 49 years ago another Traveller player wrote up stats for Alien aliens.




I would imagine there are about as many different sets of stats for alien xenomophs as there where groups playing Traveller in 1986!


----------



## jasper (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> ..ns they roll 3 dice.  3 dice have a better chance of rolling under 10 than one die.
> 
> .......
> 
> ...



SBEEEEEEEP Half my players can't even keep both d20 twenties on the table. Now you want 3 or more. How about you go create your own game. All this would do is add more rolling and SLOW down the game.


----------



## jayoungr (Jan 23, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> So, let's say you have a Dex of 10 and 3 skills ranks in "bows." You roll a d20 and try to get under 10.  Someone with a higher Dex is naturally more "talented." But unless they increased in the skill they can only roll the one die.  Let's say someone with a Dex of 10 puts 8 ranks into the skill.  Maybe that means they roll 3 dice.  3 dice have a better chance of rolling under 10 than one die.



The Dark Eye does something like that.



lowkey13 said:


> Use it as a sourcebook for more "Swords and Sorcery" style campaigns.



Honest question because I don't have a lot of experience with this type of play, but does it really need a whole book?  It seems like 2-5 pages apiece to expand on each of the points you made would be enough, making a document about the size of one of the longer "Plane Shifts."  It looks to me like most of getting "vanilla" D&D to sword & sorcery is subtractive, and it doesn't take a lot of page space to eliminate or restrict things from the base game.

However, as I said, I don't know much about the genre, so maybe you or others can tell me what I'm missing here.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 23, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> So this is something I've thought a bit about. My initial impulse is generally that WoTC shouldn't touch it, because it is unlikely to go well.
> 
> That said, the question I would ask before making a Greyhawk book is- why? If they just want to do the lore, then there are more than sufficient sources from people to pull from. Whether you're a 3e Greyhawk fan and love the Gazeteers, or a real Greyhawk fan (ahem, couldn't resist) and think anything after the '83 Box Set isn't Scottish (if you know what I mean), there is sufficient material to purchase or peruse (Canonfire, for example).
> 
> ...



Yep! That’s exactly the sort of thing I’d want in a guide to multiverse. “Here is Greyhawk. Here are the themes of it, and here is how to run games in this sort of world.”

And hey, after the book is out, ask people what they loved most in the book, and maybe do a full book for the settings in the book people loved best.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I own nearly every pre-3E Greyhawk book/boxed set, and some 3E ones as well.
> 
> You don't need special rules to run or play GH. It's just D&D. (Or Rolemaster. Or Burning Wheel. Or . . ..)
> 
> ...



I don’t care. Go through out your own ideas.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 23, 2020)

jayoungr said:


> The Dark Eye does something like that.
> 
> 
> Honest question because I don't have a lot of experience with this type of play, but does it really need a whole book?  It seems like 2-5 pages apiece to expand on each of the points you made would be enough, making a document about the size of one of the longer "Plane Shifts."  It looks to me like most of getting "vanilla" D&D to sword & sorcery is subtractive, and it doesn't take a lot of page space to eliminate or restrict things from the base game.
> ...




I think it mostly can be done with just the options that exist in the DMG. Maybe "Slow Natural Healing" or "Gritty Realism" rest options to mitigate the resiliency of 5E characters. This will slow things down a bit, but also makes combat less assured.....PCs will have to carefully consider every combat. Combine this with XP for gold rather than for killing monsters, and you've pretty much got the crunch down.

The rest is really just removing the races, classes, backgrounds, spells, and items that you don't think are a proper fit for such a campaign. Then you're pretty much good to go. 

The amount of guidance this would take would likely be 1 to 2 pages of text.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep! That’s exactly the sort of thing I’d want in a guide to multiverse. “Here is Greyhawk. Here are the themes of it, and here is how to run games in this sort of world.”



I can't imagine there are themes exclusively available in Greyhawk. Just about any 'kind' of adventure you can run in Greyhawk will run in Forgetten Realms or Mystara just as well. These settings are generic. They are designed for ease of use by all players. Now, a place like Dark Sun or Dragonlance will have themes specific to it. I'm not sure what you mean by "how to run games in this sort of world" when you refer to a world with no restrictions.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> But given that it's almost certain that WotC will never republish it in a 5e form, if you want to use it you will have to write your own stats. @Tony Vargas on these boards has said that he runs pre-3E material by just converting the AC from low-is-good to high-is-good. I'm guessing he uses the THACO number, damage and hit points as written.



At low levels, yes.  In the olden days you'd often get really abbreviated stats.  AC, att/dam and hit points, sometimes going to the trouble of a individual hps, like the writer had rolled their HD.  At low level, just inverting AC and using the damage and hps given works - they can be a tad whimpy, I suppose, but numbers might well make up for it.  At higher levels it wouldn't hold because hp/damage scale faster in 5e.  Pre-THAC0, you can just arbitrarily assign an attack bonus.  Doable on the fly.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 23, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I want a pocket size edition of the Player's Handbook to make transport easier.



So, a tablet and D&D Beyond?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 23, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> I can't imagine there are themes exclusively available in Greyhawk. Just about any 'kind' of adventure you can run in Greyhawk will run in Forgetten Realms or Mystara just as well. These settings are generic. They are designed for ease of use by all players. Now, a place like Dark Sun or Dragonlance will have themes specific to it. I'm not sure what you mean by "how to run games in this sort of world" when you refer to a world with no restrictions.



Dude I don’t care. I’m not going to get into a discussion about whether Greyhawk should be included. Find someone else.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 23, 2020)

MarkB said:


> So, a tablet and D&D Beyond?



It's much faster to find things in a book.

Although, it would be nice if they at least fixed the index so that entries pointed you to the actual page you need and didn't just send you to other entries.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t care. Go through out your own ideas.



What do you mean "go through out your own ideas". I do use my own ideas. Others are welcome to also. They're even free!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> What do you mean "go through out your own ideas". I do use my own ideas. Others are welcome to also. They're even free!



I mean I don’t care. I’m not here to defend Greyhawk’s place in a hypothetical dnd book. I can’t imagine very many more inane and useless arguments to have.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jan 23, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> It's much faster to find things in a book.
> 
> Although, it would be nice if they at least fixed the index so that entries pointed you to the actual page you need and didn't just send you to other entries.




It would actually be one of the better RPG indexes of all time if they had.  Almost everything I look up has an entry in the index....and more than half of them tell you to look something else up rather than just give you a page number.  I don't get it.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 23, 2020)

pemerton said:


> *So why do people keep asking for GH to be "redone" for 5e? *What are they actually asking for? Why do they need to pay again to read the same stories they've already read?




Couple reasons why I'd like a GH 5E book.

1. To collate or "reboot" the setting for an easy starting timepoint for new groups. There have been a handful of threads here of people asking "What GH books do I buy?" or "What time period is the best to use?" or "What is X nation like?" There's a lot of printed GH material, a lot not good. It needs a good "reboot" into something a little more stable, so people have the history but a good year to start, the current political map, the good base stuff.

2. Something tonally different. There hasn't been a lot of setting material printed that gives a more realistic medieval world. The Sword Coast is the base one, but is much more "we always overcome the Saturday morning villain" in tone for 5E. Ravenloft (Curse of Strahd) is good but is wrapped in gothic horror tropes. Eberron and Ravnica are much more magic-tech. None of these are bad, but we've yet to see a setting that goes for a more realistic medieval fantasy tone (of the peasants being peasants, of humans being intolerant, of nations barely trusting each other on the edge of war).

3. The trappings of "Official." The OP has touched on this, but it's honestly so great to see an old setting get dusted off and getting a fresh coat of paint. A new official atlas of Greyhawk to match the quality of the Sword Coast would be great. Art and stats for Iuz the Evil, the Sorceress Iggwilv, and the god Kyuss would be great. Good design and layout, these things are just plain nice.

Anyway, that's my pitch. Not going to expect it before some other settings, but I'll keep my fingers crossed.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Jan 23, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> realistic medieval fantasy tone



Isn't that pretty much a non-starter? Both in a descriptive sense - see the "d&d is anti-medieval" thread - and in a prescriptive sense? D&D, or at least D&D 5e, very much has a modernistic core with only a veneer or pre-modernity, and the better part of thr playerbase, at least from what I have observed, seems to prefer that, if only as a default. IMO, if you need a medieval fix, why not play Pendragon or Ars Magica?


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 23, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 23, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> Isn't that pretty much a non-starter? Both in a descriptive sense - see the "d&d is anti-medieval" thread - and in a prescriptive sense? D&D, or at least D&D 5e, very much has a modernistic core with only a veneer or pre-modernity, and the better part of thr playerbase, at least from what I have observed, seems to prefer that, if only as a default. IMO, if you need a medieval fix, why not play Pendragon or Ars Magica?




I think "baseline" D&D _is _anti-medieval, especially in Forgotten Realms. They're are big cosmopolitan cities, no racism, the peasants are mostly treated nicely, adventurers in every pub, not even that much feudalism...

But that's kind of my point. Medieval Fantasy is very much a thing, but it's not really a thing that D&D has properly tackled yet, and I think it's something Greyhawk did rather well. It's that world where adventurers are pretty uncommon and where medieval feudalism dominates the continent.

And _come on_, the stupid "You don't have this in D&D, so stop complaining and play this RPG instead" is a pretty condescending thing to say. I'm not complaining that Greyhawk isn't in 5E, just making a pitch for it. I fully don't expect it in the near future.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 23, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I’m not sure that’s even in the top third of insane arguments we had here.
> 
> ....this week.



Okay that’s fair


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 23, 2020)

Anti-medieval and just plain not medieval aren't the same thing. Not only aren't they same thing, but saying the former assumes that the current edition of D&D was in any way attempting to simulate the actual medieval period, which I will submit it was not (regardless of the intent of previous editions). I don't think it's something that D&D _wants_ to tackle. Not only would that be entirely counter to WotC's attempts at inclusivity in the game as regards women and the LGBTQ+ community, but the actual medieval period was flush to the gills with rampant racism and pretty much every other nasty -ism you care to mention, none of which is anything WotC wants anywhere near their game.

D&D's medieval fantasy is medieval only in the window dressing. Mind you, that's my favorite bit, so I'm ok with that.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 23, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Anti-medieval and just plain not medieval aren't the same thing. Not only aren't they same thing, but saying the former assumes that the current edition of D&D was in any way attempting to simulate the actual medieval period, which I will submit it was not (regardless of the intent of previous editions). I don't think it's something that D&D _wants_ to tackle. Not only would that be entirely counter to WotC's attempts at inclusivity in the game as regards women and the LGBTQ+ community, but the actual medieval period was flush to the gills with rampant racism and pretty much every other nasty -ism you care to mention, none of which is anything WotC wants anywhere near their game.
> 
> D&D's medieval fantasy is medieval only in the window dressing. Mind you, that's my favorite bit, so I'm ok with that.




What I'm trying to say is that some trappings of "medieval" (feudalism, untrusting of other nations/cultures, low level of technology and magic) haven't really been adapted to D&D yet, and Greyhawk meets that niche. I don't actually want to play _exactly_ like Medieval times; I can already do that, just ban everything but non-magic fighters.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 23, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Anti-medieval and just plain not medieval aren't the same thing. Not only aren't they same thing, but saying the former assumes that the current edition of D&D was in any way attempting to simulate the actual medieval period, which I will submit it was not (regardless of the intent of previous editions). I don't think it's something that D&D _wants_ to tackle. Not only would that be entirely counter to WotC's attempts at inclusivity in the game as regards women and the LGBTQ+ community, but the actual medieval period was flush to the gills with rampant racism and pretty much every other nasty -ism you care to mention, none of which is anything WotC wants anywhere near their game.
> 
> D&D's medieval fantasy is medieval only in the window dressing. Mind you, that's my favorite bit, so I'm ok with that.




I suppose when there’s a real chance a bullette might burst up through the earth and make off with your horse, or an illithid might eat your brain, things like having a female boss or foreigners moving in across the street don’t seem so scary.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 24, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I suppose when there’s a real chance a bullette might burst up through the earth and make off with your horse, or an illithid might eat your brain, things like having a female boss or foreigners moving in across the street don’t seem so scary.




In some cases I think this is true; however, I'll use the Witcher as an example (the Netflix version) for how to do this without stepping on people's toes.

Modern racism (by skin tone and culture) doesn't exist in this adaptation. People of different appearance seem to coexist just fine, regardless of their appearance (it is not even mentioned, ever).

But there is still plenty of intolerance. There are dwarves, and elves, and humans, and the three don't like each other. The humans often commit horrific atrocities against the elves. Having elven-blood is seen sometimes as a negative.

There is still plenty of intolerance, just different intolerance, despite there being actual monsters that can appear and kill the common peasant (hell that's what the Witchers are for!). _The Witcher_ is a pretty good example of how to keep a lot of that medieval theme while maintaining a lot of actual fantasy (and without directly being Europe).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 24, 2020)

Oh I agree about Greyhawk, I was more ranting about how goofy some people's understanding of the medieval period actually is (not you specifically).


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 24, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Oh I agree about Greyhawk, I was more ranting about how goofy some people's understanding of the medieval period actually is (not you specifically).




Yeah I was finding it difficult to see who you were directing it at, so I just wanted to be clear.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 24, 2020)

The only feudal about D&D is the common depiction of royalty and lands owned by barons and counts. There's the suggestion of guilds with apprentices and journeymen. But there's really no squires or pages. 

More importantly, there's no serfs. There's not a single word about pledging fealty to anyone, about needing to runaway for a year and a day to escape serfdom.

People own property and there are shops that sell goods. Every edition of D&D has made most of these assumptions. D&D takes place in lands that vaguely resemble Western European earth in medieval times. That's about as medieval as it gets.


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist (Jan 24, 2020)

Speaking personally, I want official supplements because I mostly only get to play Adventurer's League games.

So, for me, 3rd party products, OR EVEN 1st Party Products that AREN'T AL legal are, essentially, useless.

Now of course I know my experience isn't universal, or probably even fairly common, but that's why I always want new 1st party stuff including new settings.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 24, 2020)

jasper said:


> SBEEEEEEEP Half my players can't even keep both d20 twenties on the table. Now you want 3 or more. How about you go create your own game. All this would do is add more rolling and SLOW down the game.




They can't do basic maths?  In actual play, its extremely fast since you only have to roll to hit and not roll damage dice and add them up.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Plenty to someone who wants some crunch and doesn't have the time to create and playtest it.  Or to the many thousands of D&D players who don't have the old books and want, you know, books.



Its not even _just_ the crunch.  It is a chance to adjudicate (whether we like their adjudication results or not) all of the inconsistencies across different published products (i.e. the canon) for the campaign setting.

Just as a very simple example:

1e Greyhawk Folio states that the Kingdom of Keoland's King Tavish III was killed in battle in 453CY.  With Tavish IV succeeding him.  They mention the king is a lvl 14 Ranger.  Ok.  Who is the current king since it is now 576CY?  The subsequent boxed set identifies the king as Kimbertos Skotti, but no info on his class or level.

From the Ashes doesn't provide any of this info other than that Kimbertos Skotti is the king.

I don't have Greyhawk the Adventure Begins, so I'll skip to the 3e LGG (if anything I mention in 3e LGG is in GtAB, that's on me).

We get a lot more info in the 3e LGG - that a regent rules until 414CY.  Ok _that's_ new info - no mention of a regent until now.  Now we also know Kimbertos Skotti ascended the throne in ~565CY.  But, he is now listed as a lvl 15 Ranger.  we also get info on the local barons in each of Keoland's provinces (with stats).

So - why is it important to adjudicate any discrepancies?  Well - an AD&D Rgr14 gets 3/2 attacks per round and a Rgr15 gets 2/round.  In 3e, a 15th level ranger gets access to 4th level spells beyond bonus spells for a high WIS score, an additional favored enemy, and bonuses against one of his favored enemies increases.

So - which do we convert to 5e?  The AD&D 1e Rgr14 or the 3e Rgr15?  Its the difference of one additional ranger archetype feature and one additional 4th level spell.  That feature is actually pretty good - evasion, uncanny dodge or stand against the tide - something that a 14th level ranger doesn't have.

Does this difference matter?  For some people, the difference between a Rgr14 and a Rgr15 may be, in their home campaign, of significance.

WotC's conversion document says that for 1e-3.5 stuff, class levels convert directly (up to 20th level).  So - do we convert the 1e Rgr14 or the 3e Rgr15?

And - this is a simple example from a not-all-that-detailed set of 1e-3e info.  Imagine a DM trying to sort out stats and lore for the far more complex Forgotten Realms...  It can quickly become overwhelming.

It's that sense of being overwhelmed that, for me at least, means I'd prefer to have an adjudicated set of info.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 24, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> snip




This seriously such a non-issue. Use whichever works for you. Choose which era you want to play in and go from there. Choose 14th or 15th depending on your mood and treat it as a ranger as per whatever edition you're currently using. This is issue is so unimportant that it's not going to stop any reasonable DM in their tracks.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 24, 2020)

Azzy said:


> This seriously such a non-issue. Use whichever works for you. Choose which era you want to play in and go from there. Choose 14th or 15th depending on your mood and treat it as a ranger as per whatever edition you're currently using. This is issue is so unimportant that it's not going to stop any reasonable DM in their tracks.



Except apparently it is stopping the OP.  While I agree with Azzy, I think what he said could be said respectfully.

The simplest solution, IMO, is not the easiest solution. But the simply advance the timeline beyond the books you have. Maybe that new guy is dead and the new leader is a 12th level Druid. It is your world. It stops being canon Greyhawk as soon as the party does anything that alters the landscape.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Except apparently it is stopping the OP.  While I agree with Azzy, I think what he said could be said respectfully.
> 
> The simplest solution, IMO, is not the easiest solution. But the simply advance the timeline beyond the books you have. Maybe that new guy is dead and the new leader is a 12th level Druid. It is your world. It stops being canon Greyhawk as soon as the party does anything that alters the landscape.



That works for a lot of DMs.  It also fails to work for a lot of DMs.  Not everyone wants to figure out all the missing pieces to an older campaign setting.  Others don't have time.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> That works for a lot of DMs.  It also fails to work for a lot of DMs.  Not everyone wants to figure out all the missing pieces to an older campaign setting.  Others don't have time.



Yep.

Explain why Mysteries of the Moonsea and Sons of Gruumsh aren't consistent in describing who the city of Melvaunt's leaders are even though they were published lead than a year apart from each other.  The only way to know which is closer to "authoritative" is to go back and read the 2e The Moonsea.  A DM may not have time, access to the info to _know_ which older products to look at, or the older products may also need to be adjudicated to get to ground truth.

If your players are casual, maybe not a problem.  If your players are hard-core into the setting, it can lead (and has led) to disputes at the table.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 24, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Couple reasons why I'd like a GH 5E book.
> 
> 1. To collate or "reboot" the setting for an easy starting timepoint for new groups. There have been a handful of threads here of people asking "What GH books do I buy?" or "What time period is the best to use?" or "What is X nation like?" There's a lot of printed GH material, a lot not good. It needs a good "reboot" into something a little more stable, so people have the history but a good year to start, the current political map, the good base stuff.



If people have different views on what's good out of the current options, I'm not sure how introducing yet another option will change that. It just creates another thing that people might like or dislike compared to the other options.



Urriak Uruk said:


> 2. Something tonally different. There hasn't been a lot of setting material printed that gives a more realistic medieval world.





Urriak Uruk said:


> I think "baseline" D&D _is _anti-medieval, especially in Forgotten Realms. They're are big cosmopolitan cities, no racism, the peasants are mostly treated nicely, adventurers in every pub, not even that much feudalism..



I personally don't see where this image of GH comes from. As I already posted I own nearly every pre-3E GH book (all the campaign guides, all or nearly all the modules). The first village published is Hommlet, and it does have adventurers in the pub. Greyhawk City is big and pretty cosmopolitan. There is no indication that peasants in places like Furyondy or Nyrond or Keoland aren't treated nicely. There is very little presentation of feudalism - rather there are a lot of Counts and Dukes Palatine, independent Princes, etc.

The rulers of the pseudo-vikings all have levels in illusionist as well as fighter. The king of Furyondy is a paladin. The ruler of the City of Greyhawk is a thief (in the D&D sense, ie a pickpocket and second-story man), and has a guildmaster thief and assassin on his town council. None of this is terribly realistic. It's pulp through-and-through.



3catcircus said:


> Its not even _just_ the crunch.  It is a chance to adjudicate (whether we like their adjudication results or not) all of the inconsistencies across different published products (i.e. the canon) for the campaign setting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





3catcircus said:


> If your players are casual, maybe not a problem.  If your players are hard-core into the setting, it can lead (and has led) to disputes at the table.



I was recently re-reading the Watchmen graphic novel. There is a continuity error in the final issues - at one point one of the clocks on Veidt's wall in his Antarctic base is labelled Paris, and then in a later panel in the next issue it is labelled Moscow.

This is one of the most renowned comics of all time, written and illustrated by great storytellers, with some of the best editing in the business. And within the space of two issues there is an inconsistency.

The idea that WotC would publish a book _to resolve the question of whether the King of Keoland is a 14th or 15th level ranger _is just too bizarre for words. Even if they were to publish a new GH book, this wouldn't be something they worried about. Maybe this time around he'll be 16th! Or 13th.

And the idea that it would affect play is also, to me at least, pretty unbelievable. If someone is really hardcore into the setting then they'll know the sources don't all agree, and so will recognise that the GM has to make a call! (Assuming play has even got to the point where it matters how many attacks per round the king of Keoland can make. How often has that come up in the history of GH play?)


----------



## Oofta (Jan 24, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> Yep.
> 
> Explain why Mysteries of the Moonsea and Sons of Gruumsh aren't consistent in describing who the city of Melvaunt's leaders are even though they were published lead than a year apart from each other.  The only way to know which is closer to "authoritative" is to go back and read the 2e The Moonsea.  A DM may not have time, access to the info to _know_ which older products to look at, or the older products may also need to be adjudicated to get to ground truth.
> 
> If your players are casual, maybe not a problem.  If your players are hard-core into the setting, it can lead (and has led) to disputes at the table.



Here's a radical concept.  In the unlikely chance that it comes up make a decision.  Done.

In the case of succession, pick a likely NPC.  Use a random name generator if you can't think of one.  Make it an ex PC.  Maybe the old king didn't really die and you have a fun side quest to figure out why he faked his own death.

It's your campaign, make it your own. You don't just run pre-published adventures do you?  So you're already "making stuff up".


----------



## jasper (Jan 24, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> They can't do basic maths?  In actual play, its extremely fast since you only have to roll to hit and not roll damage dice and add them up.



SBEEEEEEEP Half my players can't even keep *both d20 twenties on the table*. Now you want 3 or more. How about you go create your own game. All this would do is add more rolling and SLOW down the game.         
Some have difficulty. BUT YOU MISS THE PIONT. They* roll off the table *lots and lots of times. Standard closing practice at the game store before I leave is to remove chairs way away from the table and check for runaway dice. Currently I have two in my glove compartment waiting to get back home.


----------



## jasper (Jan 24, 2020)

MarkB said:


> So, a tablet and D&D Beyond?



Stone, sand stone, wax tablet.  I want to know!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 24, 2020)

GH is almost a special case. It exists in a state of veneration unlike Dark Sun, or some of the other settings that come up as prime for reissue. The problem WotC faces is that hardcore Greyhawk players don't really need the setting book. They are probably already playing in the setting and may or may not be playing 5e. The veneration for the setting also derives from it's Ur status as the first D&D setting, written and developed by the man himself. So between the enormously diehard fans and the setting's status, I think that for GH the internet shouting would be magnified no matter what the 5e book looked like. On top of that GH doesn't really have anything to offer new players, or at least anything new. Don't get me wrong, I love Greyhawk, but there's nothing different about it, or at least IMO different enough that the rules or crunch would be enough to sell the book to people not interested in the setting, and the setting itself perhaps isn't different enough to attract enough new players. Anyway, my point is that I think GH presents some additional difficulties for WotC and as a result may not be as high in the design queue as people would like.


----------



## jasper (Jan 24, 2020)

Jasper grabs an anchor and throws to @3catcircus a lifejacket. OOPS.
…So - which do we convert to 5e? The AD&D 1e Rgr14 or the 3e Rgr15….AD&D Rgr14 gets 3/2 attacks per round and a Rgr15 gets 2/round. In 3e, a 15th level ranger gets access to 4th level spells beyond….
First what is Sam Heck is LGG. Oh Living greyhawk gazette. You totally missed the point of Greyhawk.
1.Jasper never hearing of LGG and doing a straight convert of AD&D would make him a 14th ranger and move on.
2.Doctorbadwolf who started in 3e would straight convert the ranger 15.
3. 3Catcircus is wasting time deciding which to use.
4. Bob my original DM who has never purchase the folio but knows the name will use 14 fighter assassin monk thief with a +8 to AC braces. (converting the ac 2 bracers to 5E)
Choices 1 to 4 are totally correct.
And even if we all played together and rotated through each campaign, we wouldn’t have a problem. Ok so I left my green trapper keeper at home which contains my DoctorBadWolf PCs. Hey wolf give 10 minutes while i covert bob my 12 level barbarian from 3catcircus to bob my 10 level barbarian in your campaign. What you mean you have a copy. Oh yea. You took a photo of it on your phone last month.

.. Explain why Mysteries of the Moonsea and Sons of Gruumsh aren't consistent in describing who the city of Melvaunt's leaders are even though they were published lead than a year apart from each other. The only way to know which is closer to "authoritative" is to go back and read the 2e The Moonsea…..
Because the writers and production crew did not do their jobs and edit the works together. You’re the DM choose one. And since I never heard of them. Rick and Morty are the leaders. Or you want an in game reason. The people giving you the names are lie. Or the names are alias. Or as flying babe in the Simpson said, “A wizard did it!”


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Oofta said:


> Here's a radical concept.  In the unlikely chance that it comes up make a decision.  Done.
> 
> In the case of succession, pick a likely NPC.  Use a random name generator if you can't think of one.  Make it an ex PC.  Maybe the old king didn't really die and you have a fun side quest to figure out why he faked his own death.
> 
> It's your campaign, make it your own. You don't just run pre-published adventures do you?  So you're already "making stuff up".



Here's the thing.  I have very, very limited time and I don't even had time to prepare everything for my adventures, let alone the rest of the game world.  If you do, great.  Now, I'm very good at improvisation, so it doesn't bother me to make something up on the fly.  However, many DMs are not good at improvisation and need those details figured out in advance.  

I generally only have time to create an outline for my adventures with some encounters and have to improvise everything in-between.  Were I one of the many DMs who wasn't good at improvisation, I wouldn't be able to DM a game that wasn't pre-made.  Having an updated version of Greyhawk with those details filled in by WotC would allow those DMs to run Greyhawk.  

You can't just expect those sorts of DMs to just "make a decision" when it comes up.  Creativity is not the same as making a ruling on a rule.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

jasper said:


> 4. Bob my original DM who has never purchase the folio but knows the name will use 14 fighter assassin monk thief with a* +8 to* *AC braces*. (converting the ac 2 bracers to 5E)




If he smiles that much,  he probably should have been made a bard.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Here's the thing.  I have very, very limited time and I don't even had time to prepare everything for my adventures, let alone the rest of the game world.  If you do, great.  Now, I'm very good at improvisation, so it doesn't bother me to make something up on the fly.  However, many DMs are not good at improvisation and need those details figured out in advance.



Time is frequently the biggest obstacle for a DM. In which case, here are some tips:

A small, simple campaign world is preferable than something big, epic and sprawling.

NPCs are ignorant. If the PCs ask who the king is, the peasant hasn't the foggiest notion.

History is unreliable: true in the real world, should certainly be true in a fantasy world.

It's faster to make something up than look something up. Using a homebrew setting can actually be a timesaver.


----------



## jasper (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> If he smiles that much,  he probably should have been made a bard.



Shht, Bob will blue blot you if you bring that up. Remember he got them when he was 15 and they came off when he was 19.


----------



## jasper (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> .....
> 
> It's faster to make something up than look something up. Using a homebrew setting can actually be a timesaver.



That is crazy talk.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

jasper said:


> Shht, Bob will blue blot you if you bring that up. Remember he got them when he was 15 and they came off when he was 19.



So basically the amount of time it takes a PC to go from levels 1-20


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Time is frequently the biggest obstacle for a DM. In which case, here are some tips:
> 
> A small, simple campaign world is preferable than something big, epic and sprawling.
> 
> ...



The DM not having those details can work for some groups, but other groups are going to be unsatisfied with a bunch of clueless NPCs.  Have a pre-written campaign setting which the DM knows is very helpful.  The DM doesn't even have to read it all.  He can read the portion where the PCs are at and read small bits of the rest as they travel.

The point is that there are different strokes for different folks, and D&D has many different folks playing it.  A new Greyhawk setting would do well for a myriad of reasons, even if you wouldn't buy it because you can make stuff up.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 24, 2020)

Homebrew isn't simply a matter of time, it's also a matter of cognitive load.  I'm aces at improvisation, but that doesn't mean I want to have to make everything up. I like having a purchased product to use as a framework. I have a busy job and four kids, I don't have the time or the mental resources to homebrew _everything_.


----------



## prabe (Jan 24, 2020)

I find homebrew to be quick at the table, and I have an advantage in that when I need to be consistent with what I've improvised in a previous session I can go back and look at my wife's copious notes. Also, I more or less can't make sense of published adventures or settings anyway--they simply do not work in my brain--so I have to write my own stuff anyway.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The DM not having those details can work for some groups, but other groups are going to be unsatisfied with a bunch of clueless NPCs.




If you want authentic pseudo-medieval, most of NPCs should be clueless. No schools, no TV, no newspapers, last bard came through 5 years ago. They might know the ruler's name, if it hasn't changed recently, but they won't know what they look like, never mind what level ranger they are.



> Have a pre-written campaign setting *which the DM knows* is very helpful.




And the easiest way to _know _the setting is to have written it yourself (it doesn't have to be big - the local peasants probably don't know what lies beyond the nearest town, so the DM doesn't need to either). Learning a new setting from a book is time consuming and hard work. Learning is from a myriad of books is nigh on impossible.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you want authentic pseudo-medieval, most of NPCs should be clueless. No schools, no TV, no newspapers, last bard came through 5 years ago. They might know the ruler's name, if it hasn't changed recently, but they won't know what they look like, never mind what level ranger they are.




I you want that, sure.  In my experience, most people don't want that level of realism.  



> And the easiest way to _know _the setting is to have written it yourself (it doesn't have to be big - the local peasants probably don't know what lies beyond the nearest town, so the DM doesn't need to either). Learning a new setting from a book is time consuming and hard work. Learning is from a myriad of books is nigh on impossible.



Which brings us back to the time that a great many DMs, myself included, just don't have.  I created settings when I was in high school and my 20's when I had the time.  I couldn't even begin to write even a small one now.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Which brings us back to the time that a great many DMs, myself included, just don't have.  I created settings when I was in high school and my 20's when I had the time.  I couldn't even begin to write even a small one now.



I know, a friend of mine had to give up DMing because of it. Creating a campaign setting is time consuming. But learning one from a book isn't less so.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I know, a friend of mine had to give up DMing because of it. Creating a campaign setting is time consuming. But learning one from a book isn't less so.



Yes it is, if you learn it in the parts the PCs are adventuring in and learn the rest slowly as they travel, or not, depending on the campaign.

It's also less time consuming to just read a 300 page campaign setting in its entirety.  I can read bits here and there and be done with it in far less time than I could create a 300 page campaign setting.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Yes it is, if you learn it in the parts the PCs are adventuring in and learn the rest slowly as they travel, or not, depending on the campaign.
> 
> It's also less time consuming to just read a 300 page campaign setting in its entirety.  I can read bits here and there and be done with it in far less time than I could create a 300 page campaign setting.



There is a big difference between _reading_ something and _knowing_ something well enough to use it in a game.


----------



## oriaxx77 (Jan 24, 2020)

The most important thing to me that official settings can give us a common world. I can go to any RPG club and all the players know the setting immediately. They know the major NPCs, movers and shakers, history, geography, cultures etc... It makes creating a new party already immersed in the world very easy.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

oriaxx77 said:


> The most important thing to me that official settings can give us a common world. I can go to any RPG club and all the players know the setting immediately. They know the major NPCs, movers and shakers, history, geography, cultures etc... It makes creating a new party already immersed in the world very easy.



Which is a major problem if the players know the setting better than the DM.


----------



## prabe (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Yes it is, if you learn it in the parts the PCs are adventuring in and learn the rest slowly as they travel, or not, depending on the campaign.




Not trying to pick on you, but ...

Isn't that more or less what you'd do if you were homebrewing the setting, though? Write the parts where the PCs are and work outward from there? I mean, it's what I did. The two campaigns I'm running are both on the same continent (different times) but there are places outside of that that are ... a couple paragraphs of notes each, I guess, and some places that I know exist that I haven't worked out names or anything for.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> There is a big difference between _reading_ something and _knowing_ something well enough to use it in a game.



I guess if you have the memory capacity of a slug, sure.  It doesn't take much time at all to read and know the small region the party is adventuring in.

Why are you fighting so hard to keep DMs who need a pre-written campaign from having one?  Why can't both you and they have fun?


----------



## prabe (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Which is a major problem if the players know the setting better than the DM.




That's a major part of the reason I don't want to run a game with a published canon. There will be players who know it better than I do, and there will be ... struggles over ownership is how I guess I want to put it.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

prabe said:


> Not trying to pick on you, but ...
> 
> Isn't that more or less what you'd do if you were homebrewing the setting, though? Write the parts where the PCs are and work outward from there? I mean, it's what I did. The two campaigns I'm running are both on the same continent (different times) but there are places outside of that that are ... a couple paragraphs of notes each, I guess, and some places that I know exist that I haven't worked out names or anything for.



Sure, if I had around 200x the time that I have.  It takes a lot more time to create even a small area, with inns, castles, ruins, NPCs, etc., than it does to just read about it.

It's far, FAR more than a couple paragraphs of notes.  While a couple paragraphs would work for me, since I'm really good at improvising as I mention above, the many DMs not good at improvising would need a great deal more pre-written.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

prabe said:


> That's a major part of the reason I don't want to run a game with a published canon. There will be players who know it better than I do, and there will be ... struggles over ownership is how I guess I want to put it.



I've heard that suggested before by other people, but haven't experienced it myself.  Of course, I let my players know that I do change things about the setting that I don't like.  For example, I run the forgotten realms, but as I really like King Azoun, he didn't die in my game.  Even players who know more will generally happily deal with changes to canon.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I guess if you have the memory capacity of a slug, sure.




Then I have the memory capacity of a slug. Thanks.



> It doesn't take much time at all to read and know the small region the party is adventuring in.




That depends on which campaign setting you are using and how it is set out. If it is, for example, the 3rd edition FR book, it takes about 10 minutes to read about a region, and then 3 hours to flesh it out with the detail you need to run a game set there. If it's the new Eberron book, you have to know the whole 320 page book, because the info about organisations, items etc is scattered across multiple sections. I've been reading it since it came out, and I still don't know it well enough to avoid having to look things up mid-session.



> Why are you fighting so hard to keep DMs who need a pre-written campaign from having one?  Why can't both you and they have fun?



Seems to me we have plenty of pre-written settings already.


----------



## prabe (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Sure, if I had around 200x the time that I have.  It takes a lot more time to create even a small area, with inns, castles, ruins, NPCs, etc., than it does to just read about it.
> 
> It's far, FAR more than a couple paragraphs of notes.  While a couple paragraphs would work for me, since I'm really good at improvising as I mention above, the many DMs not good at improvising would need a great deal more pre-written.




Fair enough, if you want that kind of detail. I tend more toward just-enough. They're only staying at the one inn, for instance, how many more do they need? The parties are more goal-oriented than locaton-oriented, so I haven't needed to work out every single location within three days' travel of a given city (which it sounds as though you feel you need to do).


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Sure, if I had around 200x the time that I have.  It takes a lot more time to create even a small area, with inns, castles, ruins, NPCs, etc., than it does to just read about it.



You don't need that much information though.

One inn, one town and one dungeon is enough to start with.


----------



## prabe (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I've heard that suggested before by other people, but haven't experienced it myself.  Of course, I let my players know that I do change things about the setting that I don't like.  For example, I run the forgotten realms, but as I really like King Azoun, he didn't die in my game.  Even players who know more will generally happily deal with changes to canon.




Sure. Most of the players are buying in at least that much. I'm at least as worried about breaking their suspension of disbelief as anything else, especially as regards non-D&D stuff.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

prabe said:


> Fair enough, if you want that kind of detail. I tend more toward just-enough. They're only staying at the one inn, for instance, how many more do they need? The parties are more goal-oriented than locaton-oriented, so I haven't needed to work out every single location within three days' travel of a given city (which it sounds as though you feel you need to do).



Hah!  Yeah.  My players want to know where all the inns are, what the names are, what sort of clientele goes there, and so on.  They use the inns to gather info,  hang out and more.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You don't need that much information though.
> 
> One in, one town and one dungeon is enough to start with.



Don't tell me what I need.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Seems to me we have plenty of pre-written settings already.



Seems to me that people like different things. There may only be one or even no current pre-written settings that a DM likes.  

I'm okay with them having their fun and me having mine.  I don't need to have more settings to run and 0 for them in order to be happy.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Hah!  Yeah.  My players want to know where all the inns are, what the names are, what sort of clientele goes there, and so on.  They use the inns to gather info,  hang out and more.



Then I would suggest your players are rather inconsiderate. _My _players understand that I only have limited time, and don't waste too much time asking about incosequentials.

But I don't know of any campaign setting books that would give you that level of detail anyway. You would still have to make it up.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Then I would suggest your players are rather inconsiderate. _My _players understand that I only have limited time, and don't waste too much time asking about incosequentials. *important parts of the game.*
> 
> But I don't know of any campaign setting books that would give you that level of detail anyway. You would still have to make it up.



Fixed that for you.  Don't tell me or my players what's consequential or inconsequential for us, either.  You have a really bad habit of trying to apply what you think and like to other people.  You don't get to decide for others what they need or has meaning.


----------



## prabe (Jan 24, 2020)

As someone whose first campaign in the world I'm running in now didn't have anything like a dungeon (an underground base, really) until the party were ... 7th level, I think, I'm inclined to say you don't even need a dungeon, just something (or things) for the party to engage with. Obviously, YMMV.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Fixed that for you.  Don't tell me or my players what's consequential or inconsequential for us, either.  You have a really bad habit of trying to apply what you think and like to other people.  You don't get to decide for other what they need or has meaning.



The second point still apples - maybe that stuff is important to your players, but since it isn't in any campaign setting book that I know of, there is no point in having the book.


----------



## prabe (Jan 24, 2020)

I think those of us who homebrew our settings (at whatever level of detail) are always going to think there's too much being published in the way of setting material. We don't need it or really want it.

That doesn't mean other people don't want or need it, and it doesn't mean WotC shouldn't publish it. It just means that I won't be buying as many 5E books as I did 3.x. I'd rather see the game (and WotC) do well, though, so I try to keep my grumbling in check.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 24, 2020)

When it comes to stuff like the inns in a town, I actually lean on the players to fill in those elements. If they ask if there's a seedy inn, then I just say yes. When they ask the name, I say, "I don't know, you tell me."

No reason for the DM to have to come up with every single detail when there are a few other imaginations available to assist.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 24, 2020)

prabe said:


> I think those of us who homebrew our settings (at whatever level of detail) are always going to think there's too much being published in the way of setting material. We don't need it or really want it.
> 
> That doesn't mean other people don't want or need it, and it doesn't mean WotC shouldn't publish it. It just means that I won't be buying as many 5E books as I did 3.x. I'd rather see the game (and WotC) do well, though, so I try to keep my grumbling in check.




The other thing about homebrew is that it is (should be) consistent because you are the only developer and your players are the only ones who influence it.  It is easy to fill out what details you need and when  - if you have the time to develop a homebrew setting.

For those of us who don't have that time, the issue is that existing settings that don't have a 5e update were developed by multiple developers and influenced across multiple Gencons or multiple in-house TSR campaigns.  The source gets corrupted in a whisper-down-the-lane across later publications.  

Greyhawk is relatively clean in comparison to Forgotten Realms, but it is still in need of a good scrub.  I'm not talking about RSEs that may not be popular amongst those with experience in prior products (such as the Greyhawk Wars or the 4e FR treatment), but basic failure to do research when writing a new product or failure of the publisher to maintain continuity of the lore.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Here's the thing.  I have very, very limited time and I don't even had time to prepare everything for my adventures, let alone the rest of the game world.  If you do, great.  Now, I'm very good at improvisation, so it doesn't bother me to make something up on the fly.  However, many DMs are not good at improvisation and need those details figured out in advance.
> 
> I generally only have time to create an outline for my adventures with some encounters and have to improvise everything in-between.  Were I one of the many DMs who wasn't good at improvisation, I wouldn't be able to DM a game that wasn't pre-made.  Having an updated version of Greyhawk with those details filled in by WotC would allow those DMs to run Greyhawk.
> 
> You can't just expect those sorts of DMs to just "make a decision" when it comes up.  Creativity is not the same as making a ruling on a rule.




I've been running my own home campaign for decades.  I've never figured out all the details ahead of time.  I simply have a list of random names sorted by race and gender that (nowadays) I get off the internet.

But I don't understand how anyone would run an ongoing campaign unless rely solely on published mods.  The moment you go off the rails in my game, you have the possibility of changing the world.  The Purple Pony?  Yeah, that burned down after an idiot wizard cast fireball.  The king? Well, unfortunately the PCs didn't stop that assassination attempt.  And so on.

As far as details of taverns and the like, there are plenty of generators out there.  But how much of that is in any source book to begin with?

Last, but not least, I simply don't care about details until they matter.  Personally I find running a published mod much more time consuming.

But how to do a home campaign is a separate topic.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 24, 2020)

Oofta said:


> I've been running my own home campaign for decades.  I've never figured out all the details ahead of time.  I simply have a list of random names sorted by race and gender that (nowadays) I get off the internet.
> 
> But I don't understand how anyone would run an ongoing campaign unless rely solely on published mods.  The moment you go off the rails in my game, you have the possibility of changing the world.  The Purple Pony?  Yeah, that burned down after an idiot wizard cast fireball.  The king? Well, unfortunately the PCs didn't stop that assassination attempt.  And so on.
> 
> ...




I've found that to be the case more and more.....that running published material is actually more time consuming for me than just making my own. 

I mean, my game ostensibly takes place primarily in the Forgotten Realms and Sigil, both published settings, but other than the points on the maps, everything else is largely stuff I've made up, or cobbled from the interesting bits of lore I've retained over the years.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 24, 2020)

My question about the ranger who is both 14th and 15th level: How will the players find out his level? Why are they talking to this ruler? Are they actually in combat with him? Where's his army of soldiers to protect him? Why would his class/level matter? When do PCs ever know the class/level of an NPC?


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Oofta said:


> I've been running my own home campaign for decades.  I've never figured out all the details ahead of time.  I simply have a list of random names sorted by race and gender that (nowadays) I get off the internet.




Nobody can ever figure out all the details.  When I was younger, though, I did my darnedest to detail as much as I could about how many guilds were in town, what sort they were, who was in charge, plots, inns, yada yada.  I just can't come close to matching that time, now. 



> But I don't understand how anyone would run an ongoing campaign unless rely solely on published mods.  The moment you go off the rails in my game, you have the possibility of changing the world.  The Purple Pony?  Yeah, that burned down after an idiot wizard cast fireball.  The king? Well, unfortunately the PCs didn't stop that assassination attempt.  And so on.




I think that the party altering the game world is simply accepted.  When people talk about players knowing canon better than they do, it's concerning the back story of the campaign setting, not about changes wrought by the players and DM during game play. 



> As far as details of taverns and the like, there are plenty of generators out there.  But how much of that is in any source book to begin with?




At this point in my life, I make use of those generators and I just bought Remarkable Inns & Their Drinks from Nordgamesllc.com.  I saw the creator's stuff at an event and it's good quality.  The inns are fantastic.  



> Last, but not least, I simply don't care about details until they matter.  Personally I find running a published mod much more time consuming.




I've actually started using them sometimes.  It gives me something to fall back on so that I can create my own adventures in the limited amounts of time that I have.  It takes the players several sessions to get through the pre-written one and I can have a few of my own ready when they finish.  Then if life gets busy for me and the go through my stuff, I can whip out another pre-written one down the road.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> My question about the ranger who is both 14th and 15th level: How will the players find out his level? Why are they talking to this ruler? Are they actually in combat with him? Where's his army of soldiers to protect him? Why would his class/level matter? When do PCs ever know the class/level of an NPC?



Even if the PCs did end up fighting the ruler I wouldn't tell them their class and level.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 24, 2020)

I'm still making what I like, I'm just plugging it all the bits from a published book that I like first, and then padding it out with homebrew and additional elements in whatever way seem to make sense for what I want out of it,


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> jmucchiello said:
> 
> 
> > My question about the ranger who is both 14th and 15th level: How will the players find out his level? Why are they talking to this ruler? Are they actually in combat with him? Where's his army of soldiers to protect him? Why would his class/level matter? When do PCs ever know the class/level of an NPC?
> ...



That's my point. How do these players find out the ranger is NOT the required level for their head-canon?


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 24, 2020)

pemerton said:


> If people have different views on what's good out of the current options, I'm not sure how introducing yet another option will change that. It just creates another thing that people might like or dislike compared to the other options.
> 
> 
> I personally don't see where this image of GH comes from. As I already posted I own nearly every pre-3E GH book (all the campaign guides, all or nearly all the modules). The first village published is Hommlet, and it does have adventurers in the pub. Greyhawk City is big and pretty cosmopolitan. There is no indication that peasants in places like Furyondy or Nyrond or Keoland aren't treated nicely. There is very little presentation of feudalism - rather there are a lot of Counts and Dukes Palatine, independent Princes, etc.
> ...




...Your argument is don't add new options because people have disagreements about the current options? Wtf?

Also your examples are all the rulers of various places. Compared to FR, where practically every other NPC you meet can do magic or is a good fighter (literally in Dragon Heist one of the detectives has spells, and it's assumed most detectives do), rulers having magic is incredibly tame. Hell it's practically _expected _that the ruler and his close advisers all have stats more similar to PCs; _they're in charge_.

Greyhawk City is explicitly described as the _exception _in the world, that most nations do not follow. It's the equivalent of Venice or something.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 24, 2020)

jasper said:


> Stone, sand stone, wax tablet.  I want to know!



That is, of course, a matter of personal preference, but I'd favour stone. Wax tends to go squidgy when left in a pocket, and while sandstone has its place I've never really favoured it for D&D. It feels more appropriate to a grittier rule system.


----------



## jasper (Jan 24, 2020)

oriaxx77 said:


> The most important thing to me that official settings can give us a common world. I can go to any RPG club and all the players know the setting immediately. They know the major NPCs, movers and shakers, history, geography, cultures etc... It makes creating a new party already immersed in the world very easy.



Polishes my geek badge.
Answer these questions 3. Use the Realms, 5E and Season 8
1. Who is the blood baron.
2. What is masked lord job?
3. What is the stats of the Blood Baron.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 24, 2020)

jasper said:


> Polishes my geek badge.
> Answer these questions 3. Use the Realms, 5E and Season 8
> 1. Who is the blood baron.
> 2. What is masked lord job?
> 3. What is the stats of the Blood Baron.



Did you spit on your geek badge before polishing it? I ask because I may have, inadvertently _of course_, spat on it again. Her, let me lend you a hanky...


----------



## Azzy (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Here's the thing.  I have very, very limited time and I don't even had time to prepare everything for my adventures, let alone the rest of the game world.  If you do, great.  Now, I'm very good at improvisation, so it doesn't bother me to make something up on the fly.  However, many DMs are not good at improvisation and need those details figured out in advance.
> 
> I generally only have time to create an outline for my adventures with some encounters and have to improvise everything in-between.  Were I one of the many DMs who wasn't good at improvisation, I wouldn't be able to DM a game that wasn't pre-made.  Having an updated version of Greyhawk with those details filled in by WotC would allow those DMs to run Greyhawk.
> 
> You can't just expect those sorts of DMs to just "make a decision" when it comes up.  Creativity is not the same as making a ruling on a rule.




The problem here, though, can easily be solved by just choosing which sourcebook and era you're using: the Folio, the Boxed Set, From the Ashes, The Adventure Begins, or the Living Greyhawk Gazateer. If you're using the LGG, go by that and ignore everything else. If you're using the boxed set, go by that and ignore everything else. The thing with tiny inconsistentcies like this is that they are so easy to resolve—just choose one and move on with it. No creativity or effort required.

Greyhawk, after all, was originally designed as a bare skeleton for the DM to dress up and make their own (unlike the Forgotten Realms which will tell you Elminster's favorite tea or who the Mullhorondi's favorite top pop stars are). If you want something not in the setting books to happen (like including warforged), make it happen (say that they were created by the Shield Lands to bolster their forces to combat the legions of Iuz). Certainly don't sweat the small stuff like the levels or name of a country's ruler (especially when you can just choose which source you're considering authoratative).


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 24, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Anti-medieval and just plain not medieval aren't the same thing. Not only aren't they same thing, but saying the former assumes that the current edition of D&D was in any way attempting to simulate the actual medieval period, which I will submit it was not (regardless of the intent of previous editions). I don't think it's something that D&D _wants_ to tackle. Not only would that be entirely counter to WotC's attempts at inclusivity in the game as regards women and the LGBTQ+ community, but the actual medieval period was flush to the gills with rampant racism and pretty much every other nasty -ism you care to mention, none of which is anything WotC wants anywhere near their game.
> 
> D&D's medieval fantasy is medieval only in the window dressing. Mind you, that's my favorite bit, so I'm ok with that.




Seems like a cowardly reason. Just because a text includes -isms doesn't mean its creators ascribe to them.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Azzy said:


> The problem here, though, can easily be solved by just choosing which sourcebook and era you're using: the Folio, the Boxed Set, From the Ashes, The Adventure Begins, or the Living Greyhawk Gazateer. If you're using the LGG, go by that and ignore everything else. If you're using the boxed set, go by that and ignore everything else. The thing with tiny inconsistentcies like this is that they are so easy to resolve—just choose one and move on with it. No creativity or effort required.
> 
> Greyhawk, after all, was originally designed as a bare skeleton for the DM to dress up and make their own (unlike the Forgotten Realms which will tell you Elminster's favorite tea or who the Mullhorondi's favorite top pop stars are). If you want something not in the setting books to happen (like including warforged), make it happen (say that they were created by the Shield Lands to bolster their forces to combat the legions of Iuz). Certainly don't sweat the small stuff like the levels or name of a country's ruler (especially when you can just choose which source you're considering authoratative).



This doesn't solve the issue of my not getting 5e Greyhawk playtested setting specific crunch to go with the fluff.  One of my first posts on this topic mentioned that.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 24, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Seems like a cowardly reason. Just because a text includes -isms doesn't mean its creators ascribe to them.



It's a list if reasons why D&D isn't and shouldn't be a full medieval simulation. Nothing cowardly going on, just good decisions by WotC.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 24, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> It's a list if reasons why D&D isn't and shouldn't be a full medieval simulation. Nothing cowardly going on, just good decisions by WotC.



OK. Based on your posting history, I don't think we're going to agree on much. D&D as art > D&D as business.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This doesn't solve the issue of my not getting 5e Greyhawk playtested setting specific crunch to go with the fluff.  One of my first posts on this topic mentioned that.




That's a different issue than what you were discussing in the post I quoted, but okay. Wanting some crunch support is fair enough. Though, as someone that has run and played Greyhawk in 5e, what exactly are you looking for crunchwise? I'm not really seeing anything that can't be handled by the options we already have (unless you're really trying to shoehorn something extremely niche)—except in the case of some monsters (and I'm always open to new monsters) or new backgrounds.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 24, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> OK. Based on your posting history, I don't think we're going to agree on much. D&D as art > D&D as business.



Whether or not D&D is, or should be, a full medieval simulation has nothing to with D&D as art. D&D as your preference maybe, but not as art. Moreover, while the fact that WotC is actually a business might rub some people's rhubarb the wrong way, it is and business decisions will affect how they publish. I point this out pretty frequently, but that has nothing to do with my personal appreciation for the game.

In my personal aesthetic appreciation for the game, past and current, I would agree that it shouldn't be a full medieval simulation. Not for any kind of business reasons, but because the stories I want to tell have very little to do with the realities of the medieval period. I'd appreciate it if you didn't straw man my D&D  aesthetics without having the first idea what they are.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 24, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> My question about the ranger who is both 14th and 15th level: How will the players find out his level? Why are they talking to this ruler? Are they actually in combat with him? Where's his army of soldiers to protect him? Why would his class/level matter? When do PCs ever know the class/level of an NPC?




It's not that players will know his level.  It's that mechanically, a difference in level provides additional capability that a DM may need to take into account. 

Let's say for argument's same that the PCs end up fighting this guy.  The party wizard casts a fireball.  The Rgr14 takes half damage on a save.  The Rgr15 who takes Evasion as his archetype feature at lvl 15 takes no damage on a save.

A good DM isn't going to say "he made the save.". He'll say something like "you watch as the fireball explodes.  As you see the flames dissipate, Kimbertos casually puts out a small fire that erupted on his shirt sleeve but is otherwise unscathed.  He doesn't look amused."

Do the players go "uh oh this guy is unstoppable" or do they do their research, knowing that the king started out as a ranger before being crowned king and realize that more powerful rangers have the ability to shrug off such attacks?

Yes, yes the DM can fudge things, but the more you handwave without a valid reason, the more it comes back to bite you.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 24, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Seems like a cowardly reason. Just because a text includes -isms doesn't mean its creators ascribe to them.




Given the blowback WotC has received from people complaining about efforts to be inclusive and complaining about it "not being realistic" to be so progressive by default, I think it's a pretty effing brave reason.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 24, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> It's not that players will know his level.  It's that mechanically, a difference in level provides additional capability that a DM may need to take into account.
> 
> Let's say for argument's same that the PCs end up fighting this guy.  The party wizard casts a fireball.  The Rgr14 takes half damage on a save.  The Rgr15 who takes Evasion as his archetype feature at lvl 15 takes no damage on a save.
> 
> ...



So make him the appropriate level to challenge the players. If you think the fight will be more interesting if he has evasion give him evasion. NPCs tend not to have class levels in 5e anyway, just give him whatever stats and abilities will make for and interesting battle.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 24, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> It's not that players will know his level.  It's that mechanically, a difference in level provides additional capability that a DM may need to take into account.



The DM should always take the foes' capabilities. I'm not getting it. The DM picks a level for this foe. If he thinks the PCs will fight him, he better prepare a stat block for him. You make it sound like the DM is surprised the king has evasion or not.



3catcircus said:


> Let's say for argument's same that the PCs end up fighting this guy.  The party wizard casts a fireball.  The Rgr14 takes half damage on a save.  The Rgr15 who takes Evasion as his archetype feature at lvl 15 takes no damage on a save.



Again, I say so. If you players are so up to date on game mechanics that they know, because they read a book 20 years ago, that the character they are fighting may or may not have evasion, they are not playing inside the rules. They are metagaming.

When the DM says, "he twists supernaturally and takes no damage from the fireball," they can react out of character "hey he has evasion" but in character, they just have to roll with it and try a different way to defeat him.

But now I'm not excepting your argument's sake. How are the PCs in one-on-one combat with a king? When the wizard casts fireball, a volley of 50 crossbow bolts should come flying at him from the balcony as the king's guard make a pin cushion out of him. He can merrily go to his grave having been "right" that the king did not have evasion because he was 14th level.

The characters should not know the class/level of their opponents. And complaining "Hey, in that book released in 1989, this guys is only 7th level" should be responded to with "He's gained a few levels since 1989." (Or, if you're really surly, "Who's the DM again?")


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Azzy said:


> That's a different issue than what you were discussing in the post I quoted, but okay. Wanting some crunch support is fair enough. Though, as someone that has run and played Greyhawk in 5e, what exactly are you looking for crunchwise? I'm not really seeing anything that can't be handled by the options we already have (unless you're really trying to shoehorn something extremely niche)—except in the case of some monsters (and I'm always open to new monsters) or new backgrounds.



Specific subclasses like maybe Scarlet Brotherhood, maybe a feat or two, some specific backgrounds like the FR book has, etc.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 25, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> It's not that players will know his level.  It's that mechanically, a difference in level provides additional capability that a DM may need to take into account.
> 
> Let's say for argument's same that the PCs end up fighting this guy.  The party wizard casts a fireball.  The Rgr14 takes half damage on a save.  The Rgr15 who takes Evasion as his archetype feature at lvl 15 takes no damage on a save.
> 
> ...




Can't you just decide which level he is? If you're adverse to deciosion making, got with the lasted printed level (and treat it as errata to the previous material). This isn't a big deal, just make a choice and go with it—you don't need a new setting book to fix this for you.


----------



## ChaosOS (Jan 25, 2020)

...This King's level discussion is the weirdest thing to me. Are people seriously arguing that different levels _across different editions of the game, where "facts" about the world like the XP curve and class features per level_ need a canon answer that is objective and differentiated from just designing a highly powerful King that emulates some cool features in an appropriately challenging manner for the player characters?


----------



## The Green Hermit (Jan 25, 2020)

prabe said:


> I have an advantage in that when I need to be consistent with what I've improvised in a previous session I can go back and look at my wife's copious notes.




I'm jealous. While I am slowly getting my teens to be more consistent note takers, they usually leave out the most important bits. At least they have finally figured out that they need to write down quests, quest givers, and any stated rewards.



Paul Farquhar said:


> I know, a friend of mine had to give up DMing because of it. Creating a campaign setting is time consuming. But learning one from a book isn't less so.




Honestly, it depends upon how you learn/create. I am fairly creative and now that I know more about D&D than when I started, I am fairly positive I could homebrew -- if I never had to go to work. On the other hand, I can quickly read and absorb published material, leaving me room to adapt it as needed. I was reading Shakespeare in Kindergarten, though. My reading and comprehension level has always been extremely high. For other people (possibly even yourself) mapping is much easier (and I agree a good map makes it much easier to plot things out). Everybody plays to their strengths -- especially when they start really adulting.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Specific subclasses like maybe Scarlet Brotherhood, maybe a feat or two, some specific backgrounds like the FR book has, etc.



Backgrounds seem like a natural fit. What kind of (5e-style) feats would be Greyhawk specific, though? Feats in 5e are kind of funky, and don't fill some of the same design space as they did in 3x (so regional feats would seem amiss), so I trouble seeing how they'd expand the list meaningfully. Scarlet Brotherhood? They've always been standard monks, assassins and thieves, and the PHB already covers that handily. At this point, the design space of subclasses is becoming fairly niche (if the past several UA are any indication), there's really little that can be done that would really be representative of Greyhawk. I guess we can look towards 3.x prestige classes for inspiration: The Silent Ones, Fists of Zuoken, Masks of Johydee I guess you could make sublasses out of, but they'd need to have applicability outside the setting (like Ravnica's Order Clerics and Spore Druids, SCAG's Purple Dragon Knight, Sun Soul Monk, Bladesinger, etc.) to entice those that aren't fans of the setting to buy it. Fortunately, there are all sorts of monsters that can be added to a bestiary chapter.

Mind you, I'd like a Greyhawk setting sourcebook (if they don't screw it up) but it's the easiest setting (along with the Forgotten Realms) to run out of the box as it doesnt _need_ or warrant any mechanical support at all. I'd love it they used the very noob-friendly approach that they used in the Eberron book (which I think is the best setting book format in D&D's history), but to make it have wider appeal, they need to add some mechanical geegaws to sweeten the deal. That's where I get hung up on—what do you do for a setting that the core rules already cover?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Here's the thing.  I have very, very limited time and I don't even had time to prepare everything for my adventures, let alone the rest of the game world.  If you do, great.  Now, I'm very good at improvisation, so it doesn't bother me to make something up on the fly.  However, many DMs are not good at improvisation and need those details figured out in advance.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Maxperson said:


> The DM not having those details can work for some groups, but other groups are going to be unsatisfied with a bunch of clueless NPCs.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A new Greyhawk setting would do well for a myriad of reasons, even if you wouldn't buy it because you can make stuff up.



The issue that @3catcircus raised id _not_ a lack of detail. It is about conflicting details.

A GM who has only one sourcebook isn't going to be bothered by those conflicts - s/he won't even no about them - and so they aren't a problem. Any GM who has bought multiple sourcebooks and has noticed the conflict is already committed enough that I'm sure s/he can spare the extra 15 seconds to make a decision should it be required.

As far as running GH, the point I have repeatedly made is that _any 5e GM who wants to run GH can do so_. All s/he needs to do is buy a copy of the boxed set of DM's Guild for about $10. That has evertyhting s/he needs: maps, descriptions, history, etc. The information about the levels of the leaders is all usable, because every class mentioned is a class or subclass in 5e. The only mechanical detail that can't just be used in 5e is the information about the gods and clerics - but 5e has its own well-developed rules for specialised priests (ie cleric subclaasses) and so my hypothetical GM will be able to use those in lieu.

If people are declining to run GH because they won't do so until WotC tells them which 5e cleric subclass they should use for each GH god, well, I would think that's a pretty sad state of affairs.



Fenris-77 said:


> GH is almost a special case. It exists in a state of veneration unlike Dark Sun, or some of the other settings that come up as prime for reissue. The problem WotC faces is that hardcore Greyhawk players don't really need the setting book. They are probably already playing in the setting and may or may not be playing 5e. The veneration for the setting also derives from it's Ur status as the first D&D setting, written and developed by the man himself. So between the enormously diehard fans and the setting's status, I think that for GH the internet shouting would be magnified no matter what the 5e book looked like. On top of that GH doesn't really have anything to offer new players, or at least anything new. Don't get me wrong, I love Greyhawk, but there's nothing different about it, or at least IMO different enough that the rules or crunch would be enough to sell the book to people not interested in the setting, and the setting itself perhaps isn't different enough to attract enough new players. Anyway, my point is that I think GH presents some additional difficulties for WotC and as a result may not be as high in the design queue as people would like.



GH is one of the few published setting I've ever used, and over the years I've run close to two decades worth of games in it. I own nearly everything published for it pre-3E, and some of the 3E material also. That probably makes me a hardcore GH player.

I don't care what WotC publish in future in respect of the setting, though I probably won't buy it given that I would be unlikely to use it. Most recently I've been using GH for a Burning Wheel game, using the amps and the basic lore, but certainly not worrying about what level ranger the king of Keoland might be. My existing material - which tells me that Hardby is a tributary city to Greyhawk and is ruled by a magic-wielding Gynarch; and that the Bright Desert is a place where (to quote one of my BW players who was hoping to round some up) "Suel tribesmen are as common as fleas on a dog" - is eminently suitable for these purposes.

If WotC _does _decide to publish a GH setting book I am very confident it won't be in order to authoritatively resolve the question of the king of Keoland's class and level. Nor will it be to tell people that their battle-axe wielding bear barbarians should come from the north and their open hand monks should come from the Scarlet Brotherhood: anyone can work that out!

It will be because they think there is a significant market among new players for whatever new mechanics they've written up, and for the setting in which they;re locating them. It seems unlikely to me that that would be anything which is _distinctively_ Greyhawk or aimed particularly at existing GH players.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> But I don't know of any campaign setting books that would give you that level of detail anyway. You would still have to make it up.



The City of Greyhawk boxed set has this sort of detail on inns and taverns. And, as it happens, it is available from DM's Guild for US $9.99, or more if you want it in hard copy. Problem solved!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> the issue is that existing settings that don't have a 5e update were developed by multiple developers and influenced across multiple Gencons or multiple in-house TSR campaigns.  The source gets corrupted in a whisper-down-the-lane across later publications.
> 
> Greyhawk is relatively clean in comparison to Forgotten Realms, but it is still in need of a good scrub.  I'm not talking about RSEs that may not be popular amongst those with experience in prior products (such as the Greyhawk Wars or the 4e FR treatment), but basic failure to do research when writing a new product or failure of the publisher to maintain continuity of the lore.



I still don't understand how you think that a problem that results from multiple publications by multiple authors and editors over multiple years is going to be resolved by yet another publication 20-odd years later by new authors and editors.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> I still don't understand how you think that a problem that results from multiple publications by multiple authors and editors over multiple years is going to be resolved by yet another publication 20-odd years later by new authors and editors.



Or why those new authors and editors would even be interested in trying to fix it.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This doesn't solve the issue of my not getting 5e Greyhawk playtested setting specific crunch to go with the fluff.  One of my first posts on this topic mentioned that.





Azzy said:


> That's a different issue than what you were discussing in the post I quoted, but okay. Wanting some crunch support is fair enough. Though, as someone that has run and played Greyhawk in 5e, what exactly are you looking for crunchwise? I'm not really seeing anything that can't be handled by the options we already have (unless you're really trying to shoehorn something extremely niche)—except in the case of some monsters (and I'm always open to new monsters) or new backgrounds.



On this I agree 100% with Azzy. What setting specific crunch is need to run a 5e campaign in GH? GH = default, out-of-the-box D&D.

If you wanted to ban sorcerers and warlocks that would obviously be a possibility, although I think these can very easily be fitted into GH - sorcerers are children of dragons (esp GH dragons!) and warlocks are dark cultists which tend to be fairly rife in the pulpy world of GH.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I've found that to be the case more and more.....that running published material is actually more time consuming for me than just making my own.
> 
> I mean, my game ostensibly takes place primarily in the Forgotten Realms and Sigil, both published settings, but other than the points on the maps, everything else is largely stuff I've made up, or cobbled from the interesting bits of lore I've retained over the years.



What you're describing here is what I take to be the norm for using published material. You start with whatever is there that is interesting and/or useful - personally I find maps, names and basic backstory especially helpful - and then play around and build out of that.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> It's not that players will know his level.  It's that mechanically, a difference in level provides additional capability that a DM may need to take into account.
> 
> Let's say for argument's same that the PCs end up fighting this guy.



I'll ask again - how often do you think this has come up in the history of GH play, that the PCs end up in combat with the king of Keoland?

And if it really does come up, what again is the problem with the GM making a decision? Given that any hardcore players will know that the published material is inconsistent, what would their complaint be?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Specific subclasses like maybe Scarlet Brotherhood, maybe a feat or two, some specific backgrounds like the FR book has, etc.



Why do Scarlet Brotherhood monks need a special sub-class? They're monks of the open hand. That's their whole thing!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> ...Your argument is don't add new options because people have disagreements about the current options? Wtf?



No. My argument is that (1) you and @3catcircus are asserting that a new version of GH will cure problems that result from their being mutiple versions (in your case, disagreement over which is the best; in 3catcircus's case, contradictions between those published sources), and (2) I don't understand how publsihgin yet another version is going to be a solution to the problem of too many versions.



Urriak Uruk said:


> Also your examples are all the rulers of various places. Compared to FR, where practically every other NPC you meet can do magic or is a good fighter (literally in Dragon Heist one of the detectives has spells, and it's assumed most detectives do), rulers having magic is incredibly tame.



I also pointed to the Village of Hommlet.

I just pulled Treasures of Greyhawk - a collection of mini-scenarios - off my shelf.

The first adventure, for 4th level PCs, has a knight errant said to be of "level as PC fighter +1" and a 6th level gnome illusionist. An adventure for 6th level PCs has a 9th level fighter barbarian princess from the north. The adventure Terror in the Tropics, for 9th level PCs, includes a local tribesman named Malabar who is an 8th level fighter. On the Town, an adventure for PCs of the same level, includes an inn called The Weary Traveller where "a huge man dominates the common room", William of the Axe who is a 12th level fighter. There is also a party of 5 mercenaries, each a 6th level fighter; and is a band of four Nerrul cultists who are fighter/clerics of levels 5/4. In the temple of Kelanen in the same adventure the worshippers are said to be 5th level fighter and the 4 sentries 7th level fighters.

This is of course a 2nd ed AD&D publication, but it is quite consistent with the city encounter matrix in Gygax's DMG, which has mid-to-high level fighters (whether as guards, watchmen, rarkes, gentry, or just passing through) as common as dirt; and his patrol encounter rules - both in his DMG and the GH boxed set - which likewise are full of mid-to-high level fighters (and plenty of others too, especially on the GH tables).

My reading of all these materials is that the level of NPCs who are likely to serve as antagonists is set more by reference to the demands of play (mid-to-high level PCs need mid-to-high level antagonists) than by reference to considerations of "world building".

That may be a good or bad thing, but I don't think it makes GH especially distinctive as a setting.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> What you're describing here is what I take to be the norm for using published material. You start with whatever is there that is interesting and/or useful - personally I find maps, names and basic backstory especially helpful - and then play around and build out of that.




Yeah, for sure. I’ve never been beholden to the lore as written. There’s plenty to like about any campaign setting. And plenty that can be done without. 

Having run a few published adventures as part of my 5E campaign in order to save time, I’ve come to the realization that it’s more work for me. Which I wouldn’t have thought would be the case, but it’s become very clear. 

So although I’ll continue to used some published materials as references, I don’t plan on running any published adventures in full.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> The issue that @3catcircus raised id _not_ a lack of detail. It is about conflicting details.




Sure, but I'm not arguing his thing.  I'm arguing my thing.    



> A GM who has only one sourcebook isn't going to be bothered by those conflicts - s/he won't even no about them - and so they aren't a problem. Any GM who has bought multiple sourcebooks and has noticed the conflict is already committed enough that I'm sure s/he can spare the extra 15 seconds to make a decision should it be required.
> 
> As far as running GH, the point I have repeatedly made is that _any 5e GM who wants to run GH can do so_. All s/he needs to do is buy a copy of the boxed set of DM's Guild for about $10. That has evertyhting s/he needs: maps, descriptions, history, etc. The information about the levels of the leaders is all usable, because every class mentioned is a class or subclass in 5e. The only mechanical detail that can't just be used in 5e is the information about the gods and clerics - but 5e has its own well-developed rules for specialised priests (ie cleric subclaasses) and so my hypothetical GM will be able to use those in lieu.




I want the same level of support as FR.  End of story.  It can be done, since it was done for FR and FR isn't any more specialized that GH is.



> If people are declining to run GH because they won't do so until WotC tells them which 5e cleric subclass they should use for each GH god, well, I would think that's a pretty sad state of affairs.




Okay, but I don't think anyone has made that argument.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> On this I agree 100% with Azzy. What setting specific crunch is need to run a 5e campaign in GH? GH = default, out-of-the-box D&D.




The same kinds as FR.  They came up with backgrounds and subclasses for FR, they can just as easily do it for GH.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> No. My argument is that (1) you and @3catcircus are asserting that a new version of GH will cure problems that result from their being mutiple versions (in your case, disagreement over which is the best; in 3catcircus's case, contradictions between those published sources), and (2) I don't understand how publsihgin yet another version is going to be a solution to the problem of too many versions.
> 
> I also pointed to the Village of Hommlet.
> 
> ...




First, that wasn't really my argument. My point was that right now, there a lot of different versions of Greyhawk, and newbies aren't sure where is a good starting point. My point was that by making a 5E book that defines "this is a good year, with this political map, etc. etc." I'm not saying this is going to stop disagreements over what is best (I don't care what people think "best" Greyhawk is), I'm saying the new DMs and players will know exactly where to start if they just want to pick GH up and play.

If the old players want to disagree with that starting point? Let them, they'd ban paladins and warlocks if they had the chance.

I'll concede the Hammlet example, though as you say it is 2e. And again, I'm not saying Greyhawk doesn't have any adventurers in it, it obviously has some. What I am saying is that _in comparison_ to the current default setting, Forgotten Realms, it has far less. And Gygax's DMG doesn't change that, as it is largely showing encounters of fighters as opposed to wizards and other magic-users.

And to be clear, we can find examples that prove our respective points if we comb through all GH printed material. You don't think GH is distinctive; fine. I'm saying that GH can be _made _distinctive if made with a certain tone and theme, a theme that I feel is represented in some GH material. You can argue it's not consistent in all GH material (and I think that's correct), but that doesn't make my POV wrong.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Jan 25, 2020)

What do the people who want official product do versus the people who don't want stuff to be published?


----------



## Azzy (Jan 25, 2020)

MichaelSomething said:


> What do the people who want official product do versus the people who don't want stuff to be published?



Give them sporks and have them fight to the death in gladitorial combat.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 25, 2020)

Azzy said:


> Give them sporks and have them fight to the death in gladitorial combat.




 Creampies. Death by cream pie.

Round 1 FIGHT.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Whether or not D&D is, or should be, a full medieval simulation has nothing to with D&D as art. D&D as your preference maybe, but not as art. Moreover, while the fact that WotC is actually a business might rub some people's rhubarb the wrong way, it is and business decisions will affect how they publish. I point this out pretty frequently, but that has nothing to do with my personal appreciation for the game.
> 
> In my personal aesthetic appreciation for the game, past and current, I would agree that it shouldn't be a full medieval simulation. Not for any kind of business reasons, but because the stories I want to tell have very little to do with the realities of the medieval period. I'd appreciate it if you didn't straw man my D&D  aesthetics without having the first idea what they are.




I'm not arguing for D&D to become a medieval  simulation, I'm arguing that it would be braver for WotC to stop thinking about the market and make whatever products they think are cool - whatever that means. If that includes a a medieval  simulation, great. But saying a medieval  simulation should not be made because it is inclusive is cowardly. I'm not arguing they shouldn't be inclusive if that is what they want and fits within their image of the setting they want to design. I'm saying, they should make what they want - everyone else be damned.

Poor business advice, but I have no attachments to Hasbro as a company. I'd rather see designer's creations that are a labor of love than a mass produced product. Many aspects of D&D today, such as the way errata had been handled, reek of corporatism.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 25, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Creampies. Death by cream pie.
> 
> Round 1 FIGHT.




The male combatants remove their pants.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 25, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> The male combatants remove their pants.




 Derp I didn't go there.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 25, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Derp I didn't go there.




Always take it to the next level.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> it would be braver for WotC to stop thinking about the market and make whatever products they think are cool



There are RPG designers doing this. My personal recommendations would be Burning Wheel and anything by Vincent Baker or Greg Stafford

But WotC is a subsidiary of a public company. The market is where it's at.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I want the same level of support as FR.  End of story.  It can be done, since it was done for FR and FR isn't any more specialized that GH is.





Maxperson said:


> The same kinds as FR.  They came up with backgrounds and subclasses for FR, they can just as easily do it for GH.



But GH has never had "support" remotely on the level of FR. I don't think that's about to change.

As far as sub-classes et al are concerned, as I said upthread I don't think they will be distinctly Greyhawk. Any more than the Purple Dragon Knight is distinctly FR. (I mean, the name is, but its abilities aren't.)


----------



## pemerton (Jan 25, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> You don't think GH is distinctive; fine. I'm saying that GH can be _made _distinctive if made with a certain tone and theme, a theme that I feel is represented in some GH material. You can argue it's not consistent in all GH material (and I think that's correct), but that doesn't make my POV wrong.



If I had to identify anything distinctive about GH I would say that it is pulp-y. It mixes elves, dwarves and orcs into "an age undreamed of".


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> There are RPG designers doing this. My personal recommendations would be Burning Wheel and anything by Vincent Baker or Greg Stafford
> 
> But WotC is a subsidiary of a public company. The market is where it's at.




So WotC is made of cowardly sell-outs?


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 25, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> So WotC is made of cowardly sell-outs?


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Or why those new authors and editors would even be interested in trying to fix it.




Ideally there would be an author(s) who is heavily invested in the setting who would be given the opportunity to develop the 5e version of the setting.

It was completely obvious that the 3e LGG was a labor of love, even though they had to go with a post-Greyhawk Wars timeline.

The difficulty is that can't go to Gygax like FR folks can go to Greenwood for advice on informing how to add/fix/expand the existing lore.


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I think the only older setting that has the potential to rival this would be Planescape.  The others were popular, but not as popular.



Add Dark Sun to the very popular list, maybe Ravenloft (the setting not just Barovia).


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 25, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> But all the magic items and artifacts that go back to 1e ARE Greyhawk specific magic items. What fluff exists in GH that isn't just in the PHB by default?



One example would be the Scarlet Brotherhood who are essentially fantasy Nazis. THAT is not in the PHB. I also recall the Aztec/Olmec flavoured nation in the jungle terrain to the south; that doesn't get covered. How about the crashed spaceship in the Barrier Peaks? The DMG covers futuristic weapons but where are my homicidal physical exercise Androids?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 25, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> Ideally there would be an author(s) who is heavily invested in the setting who would be given the opportunity to develop the 5e version of the setting.
> 
> It was completely obvious that the 3e LGG was a labor of love, even though they had to go with a post-Greyhawk Wars timeline.
> 
> The difficulty is that can't go to Gygax like FR folks can go to Greenwood for advice on informing how to add/fix/expand the existing lore.



I would hope that any potential GH author is that guy for sure. My point was more that writing GH for 5e and providing a new setting that appeals to both old and new fans of the game might not have as it's focus the rationalization of disparities in previous lore. I'm pretty sure they'd do their best to make GH veterans happy though, as much as possible anyway given the range of veteran opinions out there.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 25, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> So WotC is made of cowardly sell-outs?



No offense, but this seem far more like an opinion than a fact, one based in some way on a personal aesthetic. Which is fine, we all appreciate the game in different ways, but I don't know how useful it is to try and reframe the narrative from sensible business to cowardice. You do you though.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 25, 2020)

pemerton said:


> But GH has never had "support" remotely on the level of FR. I don't think that's about to change.



Not in quantity, but in quality.  2e had a number of Greyhawk supplements.  



> As far as sub-classes et al are concerned, as I said upthread I don't think they will be distinctly Greyhawk. Any more than the Purple Dragon Knight is distinctly FR. (I mean, the name is, but its abilities aren't.)




Nothing in D&D is distinctly anything, then.  You can have defiler and preserver abilities in any setting you feel like.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 25, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> Add Dark Sun to the very popular list, maybe Ravenloft (the setting not just Barovia).



They were popular, but in my experience, not as popular as Planescape.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 25, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> How about the crashed spaceship in the Barrier Peaks? The DMG covers futuristic weapons but where are my homicidal physical exercise Androids?



Well, WotC did rewrite that for 5e, it's called _The Lost Laboratory of Kwalish_. No homicidal exercise androids i'm afraid, but it is still a crashed 'planar craft'.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 25, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> I'm not arguing for D&D to become a medieval  simulation, I'm arguing that it would be braver for WotC to stop thinking about the market and make whatever products they think are cool - whatever that means. If that includes a a medieval  simulation, great. But saying a medieval  simulation should not be made because it is inclusive is cowardly. I'm not arguing they shouldn't be inclusive if that is what they want and fits within their image of the setting they want to design. I'm saying, they should make what they want - everyone else be damned.
> 
> Poor business advice, but I have no attachments to Hasbro as a company. I'd rather see designer's creations that are a labor of love than a mass produced product. Many aspects of D&D today, such as the way errata had been handled, reek of corporatism.



And when the division's performance tanks and Hasbro shuts it down. Then there's no office D&D anything for the rest of time. (Hasbro never sells IP it has hoarded.) Then what?


----------



## Henry (Jan 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, WotC did rewrite that for 5e, it's called _The Lost Laboratory of Kwalish_. No homicidal exercise androids i'm afraid, but it is still a crashed 'planar craft'.




whats funny is that you just reminded me that someone did release a 3rd party conversion of Barrier Peaks on DMsGuild. Not related to the thread, but now I have a VERY strong desire to run a 5e version of Barrier Peaks for a group as a limited series. Limited because I don’t want to deal with the consequences of releasing all those tech items into a long campaign.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 25, 2020)

Henry said:


> Limited because I don’t want to deal with the consequences of releasing all those tech items into a long campaign.



"Batteries" aren't a thing. Instead they are broadcast power amplifiers. So they still have charges and need recharging but they don't work more than a mile from the ship's broadcast antenna.

Simple.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 25, 2020)

The WotC version doesn't have the crazy sci-fi tech, some of it's gone and the rest has been reskinned into more fantasy friendly stuff. I believe the 3PP version does keep the tech level though, so you have your pick of which you want to run. I'm going to run it as the third module in a campaign I'm running for my kids, I'll run them through Keep on the Borderlands and Isle of Dread first, and set them loose on the barrier peaks. Very old school, kind of.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 25, 2020)

I was assuming @Henry meant converting it to 3E themselves.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jan 25, 2020)

You have to notice high-tech breaks the balance of power. You should imagine how it would be if your players are the barbarian or triben facing alien invaders. A sniper from the top of a tree or a window, a remote-controll turret or a flying drone with canons are fatal for PCs without ranged weapons. Its rating challenge should be more as surviving a trap than facing a monster. If you can use a ray gun to kill a monster with only one shot then the most of creatures become walking free XPs. Even a simple civilian vehicle could be used to rune over an enemy, for example a horde of zombies. 

Do you remember when PCs are saving the best consumable magic item for the final fight against the dungeon boss? Well, the firearms are the cheaper version. Try to imagine a Savage Coast/Red Steel adventure about pirates vs jungle men and a character is an artificier crafting "upgraded" firearms from d20 Past. 

Let's imagine you are playing the postapocalypse Gamma World. If you are a one-man-army gunner then the ammo are spent too soon, but if you use a melee-fighter or martial artist (because you don't want to worry about saving bullets), then the GM will use enemies with ranged attacks.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 25, 2020)

3catcircus said:


> For those of us who don't have that time, the issue is that existing settings that don't have a 5e update were developed by multiple developers and influenced across multiple Gencons or multiple in-house TSR campaigns.  The source gets corrupted in a whisper-down-the-lane across later publications.
> 
> Greyhawk is relatively clean in comparison to Forgotten Realms, but it is still in need of a good scrub.  I'm not talking about RSEs that may not be popular amongst those with experience in prior products (such as the Greyhawk Wars or the 4e FR treatment), but basic failure to do research when writing a new product or failure of the publisher to maintain continuity of the lore.




So use the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. That should count as a 3e era "good scrub". Why would doing it again in 5e be a better "good scrub"  than that one?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 25, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> I think "baseline" D&D _is _anti-medieval, especially in Forgotten Realms. They're are big cosmopolitan cities



The largest cities in medieval Europe were much bigger than those in either Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.

Rel Astra* - 63 900
Waterdeep** - 100 000+

Constantinople (1000) - 500 000
Constantinople (1100) - 300 000
Constantinople (1200) - 400 000
Paris (1300) - between 228 000 and 300 000
Paris (1400) - 280 000

Source

*1983 World of Greyhawk boxed set
**1987 Forgotten Realms boxed set


----------



## Azzy (Jan 25, 2020)

billd91 said:


> So use the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. That should count as a 3e era "good scrub". Why would doing it again in 5e be a better "good scrub"  than that one?



Right? There's virtually no mechanics in the LGG, so it is pretty evergreen and usable for any edition (or game system) you want to play. The authors also scoured all the prior GH material in an effort to reconcile any issues from prior books. It's a dry read, but if you want to play in that era, it's pretty thorough.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 25, 2020)

Doug McCrae said:


> The largest cities in medieval Europe were much bigger than those in either Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.
> 
> Rel Astra* - 63 900
> Waterdeep** - 100 000+
> ...




On the D&D website, Waterdeep is stated as having 2 million people.









						Lore | Dungeons & Dragons
					

Learn about the incredible heroes, villains, and figures of legend that play a compelling role in the lore of Dungeons & Dragons.




					dnd.wizards.com
				




I won't quibble over that though; the more anti-medieval piece there is that so many cultures and races are able to coexist so peacefully, practically like today's New York.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 25, 2020)

2 Million people would put Waterdeep at about equivalent size to Tang Dynasty Chang'an


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 25, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> 2 Million people would put Waterdeep at about equivalent size to Tang Dynasty Chang'an




Which is not medieval Europe, which is theoretically what the Sword Coast is emulating... but again, this wasn't the main point of my original post on anti-medievalism...


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 25, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Which is not medieval Europe,..



Well no it's 8th century China, but I assumed that was obvious.



Urriak Uruk said:


> ...which is theoretically what the Sword Coast is emulating... but again, this wasn't the main point of my original post on anti-medievalism...



Well it was an observation.  Not meant as a support or rebuttal to any particular argument which I have not been following.

But really any D&D setting is theoretically medieval in about the same sense that the Soviet Union was theoretically an utopian paradise.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 26, 2020)

I thought the population of Waterdeep also included the lands around it where people farm and whatnot.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I you want that, sure.  In my experience, most people don't want that level of realism.
> 
> 
> Which brings us back to the time that a great many DMs, myself included, just don't have.  I created settings when I was in high school and my 20's when I had the time.  I couldn't even begin to write even a small one now.




They don't care about that level of realism, but, they are so incredibly fussy that 1 level of an NPC would matter?  Or the name of some NPC they aren't even meeting?


----------



## generic (Jan 26, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> But really any D&D setting is theoretically medieval in about the same sense that the Soviet Union was theoretically a utopian paradise.



_Theoretically_ a utopian paradise?


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> On the D&D website, Waterdeep is stated as having 2 million people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




They're referring to "urban area". The proximity of many villages and towns to each other and larger cities in medieval europe could give you some interesting figures, particularly in southern spain (most urbanised area in early middle ages europe) or northern italy (most urbanised in middle and late medieval era).


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Which is not medieval Europe, which is theoretically what the Sword Coast is emulating... but again, this wasn't the main point of my original post on anti-medievalism...




The Sword Coast, and Forgotten Realms in general, is way more 15-16th century europe than it is modelling any earlier period, and not just technology levels. You have guilds, centralised monarchies, a powerful merchant class. The only thing it lacks is firearms. And firearms appeared before all of those things...


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> They're referring to "urban area". The proximity of many villages and towns to each other and larger cities in medieval europe could give you some interesting figures, particularly in southern spain (most urbanised area in early middle ages europe) or northern italy (most urbanised in middle and late medieval era).




It doesn't say anything about an urban area. You could interpret it that way, but it could also be interpreted as meaning the area within its walls and the neighborhoods directly outside of said walls.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 26, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> _Theoretically_ a utopian paradise?


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> It doesn't say anything about an urban area. You could interpret it that way, but it could also be interpreted as meaning the area within its walls and the neighborhoods directly outside of said walls.



(Shamelessly stolen from Reddit)
The canonical population in 1372 was 1,347,840 (source, the 3e FR campaign guide). (more specifically: 64% human, 10% dwarf, 10% elf, 5% halfling, 5% half-elf, 3% gnome, 2% half-orc) The key is this - the CITY of Waterdeep population was 132,661, but Waterdeep is more than just the core city itself. Much like in the real world, the "greater metropolitan area" of a city is often counted in the population numbers. Especially when you take into account the fact that many medieval cities would have fewer permanent citizens and a significant number of people who lived outside the city walls, but who would fall back into the city itself in the event of an attack or siege. This is why so many sieges resulted in overcrowded conditions and bled resources so quickly - the city would be supporting far more population than it was normally designed to handle. So it's easy to believe that the Waterdeep scenario is that about 1/10th the population live within the the city walls on a permanent basis, while 9/10ths live outside. In 1372, the overall population of Waterdeep as an entity is 1.35 mil, give or take. Expanding to 2 mil over 120 years isn't entirely out of the question. The assumption would thus seem to be that any source giving Waterdeep's population as being 2 mil in the 1490s is almost certainly referring to the overall Waterdeep area (even if it explicitly refers to the "city"), and not just the literal city itself. The city itself, assuming the overall population ratio remains the same, is probably pushing closer to around 200,000 people. Which would only be an increase of about 70,000 or so people over 120 years. Again, plausible (though considering it would be a nearly 50% increase in population, which would necessitate a fair bit of new building, expansion, and potentially even extending the walls in some places to accommodate new buildings). It's also worth noting that Volo's account in Dragon Heist implies that the 120 year period between 3e and 5e was actually disruptive enough that the population in 1490 should actually be higher than it is, and that Waterdeep is only just recovering to pre-crisis levels.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> The Sword Coast, and Forgotten Realms in general, is way more 15-16th century europe than it is modelling any earlier period, and not just technology levels. You have guilds, centralised monarchies, a powerful merchant class. The only thing it lacks is firearms. And firearms appeared before all of those things...




Ok we need to start over.

Originally, I made a pitch for Greyhawk, saying that setting is more similar to Medieval Europe than the default setting, Forgotten Realms (it is not _exactly _Medieval, but it's closer than FR). I also had other arguments for GH including it's tone and larger theme.

Then I got dragged into this weirder debate where someone said "Oh actually, Greyhawk's not medieval either," which I know it's not, I just think it's closer to FR (and I wanted that difference to be emphasized).

Now I'm somehow in an even weirder argument that I don't even want to be in, about FR, of people saying how close it is to medieval history.

So I'm going to restate my original statement; _I find Greyhawk to be a grittier setting than the default setting of 5e (being FR). Although this is not consistent throughout all GH products, I find that world to be a harsher one than FR, where the threats are more pressing and dangerous, where the rulers are typically more pragmatic and less heroic, and the focus is more survival than good vs. evil. In some respects, GH's society is more reflective of a realistic medieval setting, than FR's more high-minded renaissance one._

This POV by the way is largely shared by Mike Mearls, which you can hear his thoughts here;


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Jan 26, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> The Sword Coast, and Forgotten Realms in general, is way more 15-16th century europe than it is modelling any earlier period, and not just technology levels. You have guilds, centralised monarchies, a powerful merchant class. The only thing it lacks is firearms. And firearms appeared before all of those things...




Modern views of the material culture of the middle ages have always been more 15th century than anything recognizable as the early or high middle ages. This partly has to do with the anachronism of thought _from_ the actual medieval and to a lesser extent early modern periods themselves. For example, within decades of the emergence of knighthood at the turn of the 12th century people were claiming it went back to Roman times. Similarly in the rather abstract legal and political theory of the period when centralized monarchies evolved they were quickly seen as having always existed, at least in principle. And of course later eras had a lot more plate mail left in collections than chainmail, what authentic medieval castles survived were often buried in later additions and motte-and-baileys had rotted away long ago, while the descendants of warhorses were alive an well the typical medieval traveling horses had been bred out of existence outside of Iceland, etc., etc. And then 19th century romanticists come along and just make the middle ages whatever they wished they were.

I did graduate work focusing on anachronism in Medieval and Early Modern European thought, so it's actually one of the things that fascinates me about D&D.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> In some respects, GH's society is more reflective of a realistic medieval setting, than FR's more high-minded renaissance one.




I'll agree as long as by "some respects" we mean a very few respects. Fundamentally, outside of the more familiar elements of material culture, these settings have nothing really to do with either era. And fundamentally even enthusiasts of these periods tend to have a very shaky understanding of them so it couldn't really be any other way. Even if the settings were designed by medieval studies PhDs almost no players and DMs would actually run it true to the era.  

Please nobody take that personally, but I was a huge enthusiast who upon reading several hundred academic books on the subject in the course of graduate work learned how fundamentally little I had known. Even studying actual primary sources without a serious background in how to read between the lines will give you fairly inaccurate impressions of a lot of things.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I'll agree as long as by "some respects" we mean a very few respects. Fundamentally, outside of the more familiar elements of material culture, these settings have nothing really to do with either era. And fundamentally even enthusiasts of these periods tend to have a very shaky understanding of them so it couldn't really be any other way. Even if the settings were designed by medieval studies PhDs almost no players and DMs would actually run it true to the era.
> 
> Please nobody take that personally, but I was a huge enthusiast who upon reading several hundred academic books on the subject in the course of graduate work learned how fundamentally little I had known. Even studying actual primary sources without a serious background in how to read between the lines will give you fairly inaccurate impressions of a lot of things.




To be fair, I almost mean more that Greyhawk _feels _more medieval and more realistic, rather than it actually being so (at least compared to FR). It's something that I think is expressed largely in its tone/theme rather than it's actual qualities. This is something that is immensely difficult to actually prove so debating it is probably completely pointless.


----------



## schneeland (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> So I'm going to restate my original statement; _I find Greyhawk to be a grittier setting than the default setting of 5e (being FR). Although this is not consistent throughout all GH products, I find that world to be a harsher one than FR, where the threats are more pressing and dangerous, where the rulers are typically more pragmatic and less heroic, and the focus is more survival than good vs. evil. _




All debates about how close to the actual Middle Ages Greyhawk really is: a more down-to-earth and somewhat grittier setting is something that 5e currently lacks from the WotC side (there are a number of 3rd party products, but I think that's not what we are discussing here). I'm not sure they can really make that happen with 5e, but it would be one of the few products that are still interesting to me at this point.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 26, 2020)

Of the 3rd party settings "The Lost Lands" by Frog God Games probably hews closer to the spirit of early Greyhawk.

Really it's probably more Greyhawk than Greyhawk is.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> They don't care about that level of realism, but, they are so incredibly fussy that 1 level of an NPC would matter?  Or the name of some NPC they aren't even meeting?



Yes.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Specific subclasses like maybe Scarlet Brotherhood, maybe a feat or two, some specific backgrounds like the FR book has, etc.




Heh. Funny you should mention this. I just had to have some Scarlet Brotherhood monks in my Ghosts of Saltmarsh game. 

Reskinned Githzerai monks and poof, instant Scarlet Brothers. 

Please leave my beloved Greyhawk out of your wish list. Greyhawk is the toolkit setting where nearly everything was left vague for a reason. 

You want encyclopedic material? Stick with Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2020)

Henry said:


> whats funny is that you just reminded me that someone did release a 3rd party conversion of Barrier Peaks on DMsGuild. Not related to the thread, but now I have a VERY strong desire to run a 5e version of Barrier Peaks for a group as a limited series. Limited because I don’t want to deal with the consequences of releasing all those tech items into a long campaign.




It’s done by MT Black and it’s very good. I ran it in my Primeval Thule campaign. Not a direct update but certainly in keeping with the original.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 26, 2020)

I really love to see people play and create homebrew adventures and settings. There is a nice young man in out FLGS that is running his own adventure in a dinosaur setting.  He really loves jurrasic park. His players seem to be having a blast. And he had the same group playing for about 3 months. I look at him and what he is doing and I think to myself that is what D&D is all about. I hope to play in his group down the road.

I would much rather play something like that then play an published adventure where I definitely can tell some players are reading the module before they come in to play in a group.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> So WotC is made of cowardly sell-outs?



It's made of (I assume) professional staff who do their jobs as directed to.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Nothing in D&D is distinctly anything, then.  You can have defiler and preserver abilities in any setting you feel like.



Half-giants are rather distinctive. To the best of my knowledge no setting but Dark Sun has ever featured them. Similarly defiling magic.

Whereas Purple Dragon Knights are just knights. Not unlike Knights of the Hart. And Scarlet Brotherhood monks are just Open Hand monks (ie they are 1st ed PHB monks).

Similarly GH vikings are (just) vikings.

GH doesn't need mechanically distinctive elements because it is (deliberately) out-of-the-box D&D. D&D was written to do Greyhawk, rather than vice versa.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> the more anti-medieval piece there is that so many cultures and races are able to coexist so peacefully, practically like today's New York.



What do you have in mind? Mediaeval Egypt/Palestine/Syria/Byazntium/Scily/Southern Italy had many cultures and religions coexisting - Armenian, Byzantine/Greek, Turkish, Arab, Frankish/Norman, etc. The conflicts that occurred weren't exclusively or even really primarily on cultural or religious, as opposed to broadly political, lines.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 26, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Half-giants are rather distinctive. To the best of my knowledge no setting but Dark Sun has ever featured them. Similarly defiling magic.
> 
> Whereas Purple Dragon Knights are just knights. Not unlike Knights of the Hart. And Scarlet Brotherhood monks are just Open Hand monks (ie they are 1st ed PHB monks).
> 
> ...



While you are right.  Generally whether this sort of material is needed rarely stops it being printed.

There's plenty of things in Greyhawk that could be subclasses, just like they were prestige classes in 3E.  So you could have subclasses for various knighthoods, you could have a subclass for the scarlett brotherhood etc.   This seems to be how 3rd Party material handles these things anyway.

It's certainly not what I would like to see from a Greyhawk book.  I certainly don't think there's any concepts in Greyhawk that couldn't be played with what already exists.

(Actually I think WOTC may have learned their lesson here.  I'm not sure there's been anything they've release along these lines since the Sword Coast Adventurer's guide. )


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 26, 2020)

What I'd like for a Greyhawk book is something more aimed at GMs and building a campaign.

Maybe sort of double it up as a book for making a campaign world with Greyhawk as the example. Present a basic framework and then give multiple ways the campaign could go and options.  Present possibilities - maybe the Greyhawk Wars are the future of the setting - maybe they're not.  Maybe Rary will turn out to be a traitor, maybe he won't.  Take all the later canon, and instead focus on how it could be turned into campaigns.

Maybe aim the book at GMs who want to transition from running adventure paths to creating their own material and provide them with some frameworks to do so.

Take the whole idea of canon, load it into a cannon, and fire it into the sun.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Heh. Funny you should mention this. I just had to have some Scarlet Brotherhood monks in my Ghosts of Saltmarsh game.
> 
> Reskinned Githzerai monks and poof, instant Scarlet Brothers.




And if I don't want to do that?



> Please leave my beloved Greyhawk out of your wish list.




No.

You like and want what you like and want, and I will do the same.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I did graduate work focusing on anachronism in Medieval and Early Modern European thought, so it's actually one of the things that fascinates me about D&D.





Benjamin Olson said:


> I'll agree as long as by "some respects" we mean a very few respects. Fundamentally, outside of the more familiar elements of material culture, these settings have nothing really to do with either era. And fundamentally even enthusiasts of these periods tend to have a very shaky understanding of them so it couldn't really be any other way. Even if the settings were designed by medieval studies PhDs almost no players and DMs would actually run it true to the era.



The difficulties in trying to run an "authentically" mediaeval RPG are almost insuperable, I think.

Even if one overcomes the problem of working out what is the truth about the mediaeval period - itself the subject of dispute among those best-educated in the field - there is what I think is an even bigger problem in the RPG context, namely, _outlook_ and _motivation_. Both my own play experiences, and reading others on these boards, make me think that very few RPGers want, or are able, to play characters whose outlook is not modern. One sees this most starkly, but not at all exclusively, in discussions of paladins and alignment where behaviour that falls broadly within the romantic/honourable self-conception of a mediaeval warrior is labelld as "lawful stupid".

I'm currently most of the way through the  second volume of Runciman's three-volume history of the crusades. Any expert mediaevalist probably has views on the correctness of its approach and account; I'm not qualified in that respect. But he has a lot of footnotes to primary sources and so I assume that the basic recount is largely accurate. Here is one story he tells, loosely summarised:

In the mid-twelfth century a Frankish army is on campaign against Nur ad-Din. They encounter some soldiers whom they take to be scouts, but they then realise they've encountered Nur ad-Din's main force. This is because they hear the whinny of a mule which had been a gift from the Franks to a sheikh whom they knew to be riding with Nur ad-Din in his army - per Runciman, the mule whinnied because it recognised the smell of the Frankish horses that it used to hang out with.

When one starts to extrapolate from this story to everything it implies about social and political relationships, the apparent lack of correlation between personal affiliations and loyalties on the one hand and "political" ones on the other, gift-giving between ostensible enemies, etc, one gets glimpses of a world which no D&D game I'm aware of has ever emulated.

How often in the history of D&D play has a party of PCs found itself fighting someone riding a steed that was a gift from the PCs, and this _isn't _a sign of betrayal, or of some fundamental change in loyalties (eg Kitiara in Dragolance), but is just what one expects, because duty (which everyone acknowledges to have almost overwhelming importance) brings acquaintances, even friends and allies, into conflict?


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 26, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Half-giants are rather distinctive. To the best of my knowledge no setting but Dark Sun has ever featured them. Similarly defiling magic.




Neither of those things have to stay there, though.  The mechanics work for any campaign you like.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> While you are right.  Generally whether this sort of material is needed rarely stops it being printed.



Fully agreed. But that's why I've said that I don't think there would be anything _distinctively_ GH about such mechanical elements. (Just as I don't see anything distinctively FR about the Purple Dragon Knight beyond the name.)


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> Maybe aim the book at GMs who want to transition from running adventure paths to creating their own material and provide them with some frameworks to do so.



Hmm. Is this a rational thing for a publisher of APs, though?

Anyway, if they do it, they should get Luke Crane and Robin Laws to write it!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Neither of those things have to stay there, though.  The mechanics work for any campaign you like.



It's not doubt true that things which are distinctive can become non-distinctive by being moved into other settings. But that doesn't show they're not currently distinctive.

My point is that GH doesn't have distinctive mechanical elements, _precisely because_ GH _is _D&D_._


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> On the D&D website, Waterdeep is stated as having 2 million people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or practically like cosmopolitan cities like medieval Paris and Constantinople?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 26, 2020)

pemerton said:


> The difficulties in trying to run an "authentically" mediaeval RPG are almost insuperable, I think.
> 
> Even if one overcomes the problem of working out what is the truth about the mediaeval period - itself the subject of dispute among those best-educated in the field - there is what I think is an even bigger problem in the RPG context, namely, _outlook_ and _motivation_. Both my own play experiences, and reading others on these boards, make me think that very few RPGers want, or are able, to play characters whose outlook is not modern. One sees this most starkly, but not at all exclusively, in discussions of paladins and alignment where behaviour that falls broadly within the romantic/honourable self-conception of a mediaeval warrior is labelld as "lawful stupid".
> 
> ...





doctorbadwolf said:


> Or practically like cosmopolitan cities like medieval Paris and Constantinople?




Way bigger. Paris 1550 est around 350k, Constantinople fluctuated a lot more but 50-500k.

They were Imperial capitals. Not technically for France I suppose but Frances population was bigger than most contemporary empires.

Waterdeeps a city state. Venice hit 250 as a trade port, the Hansa cities (Hamburg, Lubeck, Bremen) are a lot smaller and are the real life Waterddeps.

Can't really have that many people in Waterdeep though. First century Rome had around a million. Imperial capitals, Egyptian grain shipments.

Waterdeeps 2 million number is BS unless they're referring to the great area.

Another comparison.

Manhatten (now). Population 1.6 million.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Or practically like cosmopolitan cities like medieval Paris and Constantinople?




Just curious as I actually don't have a ton of knowledge on this subject... but how cosmopolitan was medieval Paris?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Just curious as I actually don't have a ton of knowledge on this subject... but how cosmopolitan was medieval Paris?




 Put it this way if the French had a proper tax system they could have recreated the Roman Empire from Paris. 

 Their population was similar to the Ottoman Empire and around 5 times bigger than the UK.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Put it this way if the French had a proper tax system they could have recreated the Roman Empire from Paris.
> 
> Their population was similar to the Ottoman Empire and around 5 times bigger than the UK.




I was meaning "cosmopolitan" in the diversity kind of way, not the city's actual size. I have no doubt that cities are capable of massive populations; Imperial China is proof of that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> I was meaning "cosmopolitan" in the diversity kind of way, not the city's actual size. I have no doubt that cities are capable of massive populations; Imperial China is proof of that.




It wouldn't have been very diverse. Jews had ghettoes until Napoleon, mass immigration didn't exist and you would have a few  ambassador's from places like Ottoman Empire. This is 16th century or so before then even less. 

Not everyone would be French, back then the regions were more nationalities. France wasn't unified as such until the 15th or 16th century depending on how you count it. You would have had Bretons and people from the old Burgundy.

The booted out Protestants in the Reformation, mist foreigners would be other Europeans with a very few visitors from North Africa or Ottomans.

Venice for example had the Turkish house. All the Turks lived in one house.

There were no Mosques outside of Sicily and parts of now Russia.

So everyone would be Catholic, European, and mostly French (99%+ probably).

London in the 18th Century had 10 000 Africans iirc but population of a million+ iirc.

It's been a while since Uni but yeah your diverse cities were the merchant ports in the med and places like the Balkans. They got cleansed in the 20th century (Nazis, Greece/Turkey, Yugoslavia etc).

Mosques were illegal, Protestant illegal (Catholic in the UK until 19th century).

People got exhibited into the 20th century.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 26, 2020)

I just can't buy Waterdeep as having 2 million people.  Chang'an had the Great Canal, one of the greatest engineering feats in history to transport food.

Rome and Constantinople at their heights relied on massive grain shipments from Egypt (and the population of Constantinople plummetted when they lost the middle-east to the Arabs).

Even if we assume huge amounts of farms outside Waterdeep that are not shown on the map, it seems doubtful that the region really has the transport and storage capacity to feed 2 million people.  If we assume peasant technology and a 9 to 1 population of farmers to urban dwellers that's 18 million people labouring to keep the city fed.

Fortunately it's all pretty irrelevant.  The population of Waterdeep is _big_, exactly how big is just a number.  Chop a 0 off the end and make it 200,000 and nothing really changes.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 26, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I just can't buy Waterdeep as having 2 million people.  Chang'an had the Great Canal, one of the greatest engineering feats in history to transport food.



Don't forget all the creatures living below Waterdeep when you consider its census.    Wererats in the sewers, vampires in the undercity, probably whole tribes of goblins, etc.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 26, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Don't forget all the creatures living below Waterdeep when you consider its census.    Wererats in the sewers, vampires in the undercity, probably whole tribes of goblins, etc.



There's a campaign hook.
 "We need you to go down into Skullport and Undermountain and bring back an accurate survey of the populace for tax purposes."
"Wait, just a census right, we're not collecting taxes then?"
"Not yet, you'll need to be higher level for that."


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Jan 26, 2020)

pemerton said:


> *So why do people keep asking for GH to be "redone" for 5e? *What are they actually asking for? Why do they need to pay again to read the same stories they've already read?



My guess? To complain about it.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Put it this way if the French had a proper tax system they could have recreated the Roman Empire from Paris.



Mediaeval France could not have "recreated the Roman Empire". They didn't have the administrative technology. The best recent one-sentence description I've read recently of the French mediaeval system of government was along the following lines: _feudalism is a system for allowing a peasant society to raise sufficient mounted troops to fight successfully against pastoralists_.

It's completely different in social and governmental forms from the Roman Empire.



Zardnaar said:


> Protestant illegal (Catholic in the UK until 19th century).



Being Catholic in the UK was _not _illegal. Catholics were subject to various disabilities until the early 19th century.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 26, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Mediaeval France could not have "recreated the Roman Empire". They didn't have the administrative technology. The best recent one-sentence description I've read recently of the French mediaeval system of government was along the following lines: _feudalism is a system for allowing a peasant society to raise sufficient mounted troops to fight successfully against pastoralists_.
> 
> It's completely different in social and governmental forms from the Roman Empire.
> 
> Being Catholic in the UK was _not _illegal. Catholics were subject to various disabilities until the early 19th century.




 Tax/adminstration similar thing. The things keeping France in check was themselves and then matter coalitions. Geography in 3rd place maybe. 

 Catholics from memory ended up at around 1% of the UK population, there was no freedom of religion. Same in France except they also did it pre reformation.

 Once France was unified and stable you had the Sun King. When they went Republic you had Napoleon.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 26, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Being Catholic in the UK was _not _illegal. Catholics were subject to various disabilities until the early 19th century.



It was illegal NOT to worship in the Church of England, which amounts to much the same thing.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Catholics from memory ended up at around 1% of the UK population, there was no freedom of religion.





Paul Farquhar said:


> It was illegal NOT to worship in the Church of England, which amounts to much the same thing.



I was responding to the claim that it was illegal to be Catholic in the UK up until the 19th century. This isn't true. Nonconformists and Catholics were subject to various sorts of disabilities imposed by the Test Acts and similar, which meant that non-Anglicans couldn't hold various public offices or access universities. But they weren't criminals, and for most of the 17th and 18th centuries it wasn't criminal to take part in non-conforming church services.

Some of the details are in the Wikipedia entries on nonconformism and recusants.

In France the persecution of protestants was for the century from the revocation of the Edict of Nantes through almost to the Revolution. For a hundred years prior to its revocation the Edict of Nantes - part of the resolution of the Wars of Religion in France - provided for a degree of toleration of Protestants.

The discussion of the role of a particular approach to Catholic uniformity in creating the high mediaeval French state that I am familiar with is R I Moore's _The War on Heresy_, Some of the basic ideas of the book are set out in this essay on his website.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 26, 2020)

pemerton said:


> Hmm. Is this a rational thing for a publisher of APs, though?
> 
> Anyway, if they do it, they should get Luke Crane and Robin Laws to write it!




I bet a book on short adventures and scenarios that can fit in anywhere would do well. Maybe not every time. But their has been numerous request for shorter adventures. I would like to see something that is somewhere bwtweeb yawning portals and the old book of lairs products. Little mini quests or scenarios that can be placed anywhere.  Just my idea for a possibility that may work.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 26, 2020)

I always thought it was a little weird to up the population to 2m without changing the map. The Manhattan comp is a good one, and Manhattan has skyscrapers. I don't know where Waterdeep would put 2 million people. It's one of those 'canon' facts I'll feel free not to use.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 26, 2020)

Yeah. 2 million population waterdeep is an oversight  on the part of the editors. That’s about all there is to say about that topic. But I’m sure we can drag that out for another 50 pages on this thread on a nothing issue that has nothing to do about playing the game


----------



## pemerton (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> I'll concede the Hammlet example, though as you say it is 2e.



The Village of Hommlet is not 2nd d AD&D. It's a Gygax module, T1, reproduced as part of T1-4 Temple of Elemental Evil.

I wouldn't normally make a big deal of it, but there are some posts in this and the other thread about what is or isn't proper to Greyhawk that don't seem to be based in a deep familiarity with the published material.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 26, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> Of the 3rd party settings "The Lost Lands" by Frog God Games probably hews closer to the spirit of early Greyhawk.
> 
> Really it's probably more Greyhawk than Greyhawk is.




Í have the Known Realms (World of Aereth) boxed set from Goodman Games.  I really like the setting because it is in the same spirit of being more GH than GH.

Just enough info.  No mechanics on the major NPC rulers, a decent pantheon of deities that can be easily swapped out, and some 3.x crunch.  The world-shattering events are local, not global, so no destruction of the setting like Greyhawk Wars or the Time of Troubles.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Just curious as I actually don't have a ton of knowledge on this subject... but how cosmopolitan was medieval Paris?



Very, though details are hard to come by the further back you go, obv, and I don’t know much about early medieval France at all. Their first real king was named Hugh, though. Not a name I associate with the Middle Ages and yet there it is. 


Not as much as Constantinople, though, until you get into late Medieval and Renaissance Paris.

Edit: I seem to keep losing the last thing I type in a post. Anyone else have that happen? Just, once you hit post there is text missing?

anyway, the idea that Paris wasn’t diverse when it was a major city is pretty silly. Mass immigration was absolutely a thing throughout history, for one thing, but Paris was a major center of trade and culture. There were absolutelyAfricans and South Asians living in Paris. Again, nothing like Constantinople, until late medieval and Renaissance Paris, but still quite a bit more diverse than folks tend to think of medieval Europe as being.

as you said before, and others, the common conception of Medieval Europe is largely false.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 26, 2020)

McDonald’s has quality control and is consistent. But 5 star restaurants are generally not owned by the big corporations. The same is with rpg’s the best products are made independent. Quality control for mass consumption generally means mediocrity at best and consistently subpar at worse. Do you want a corporate Big Mac. Or the perfect medium rare filet. You are not getting the perfect tender juicy medium rare filet at McDonald’s or even Texas road house (which I like), but from a master chef that runs his own place. Good chef’s are master artists.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I just can't buy Waterdeep as having 2 million people.  Chang'an had the Great Canal, one of the greatest engineering feats in history to transport food.
> 
> Rome and Constantinople at their heights relied on massive grain shipments from Egypt (and the population of Constantinople plummetted when they lost the middle-east to the Arabs).
> 
> ...




To be fair it probably is possible with magic-shenanigans allowing the amount of food and quality of it to be inflated beyond natural capacity. But again, not very realistic.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 26, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> . IMO, if you need a medieval fix, why not play Pendragon or Ars Magica?



A dislike for the game mechanics, troupe play, and/or something else depending upon the system.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 26, 2020)

Greg K said:


> A dislike for the game mechanics, troupe play, and/or something else depending upon the system.



Why not play d&d. That’s what it is designed for. But... everyone should try pendragon.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jan 26, 2020)

There are different projects, but these have to arrive after the videogames titles, and now they have to get ready for the hardware of the next generation of videoconsoles. 

And now its main project is the D&D movie. To produce a true blockbuster, because even after some succesful titles the team may start to be burnt. Not even Disney has found the ultimate key for an action-live without superheroes or classic princesses/heroines.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 26, 2020)

Anoth said:


> McDonald’s has quality control and is consistent. But 5 star restaurants are generally not owned by the big corporations. The same is with rpg’s the best products are made independent. Quality control for mass consumption generally means mediocrity at best and consistently subpar at worse. Do you want a corporate Big Mac. Or the perfect medium rare filet. You are not getting the perfect tender juicy medium rare filet at McDonald’s or even Texas road house (which I like), but from a master chef that runs his own place. Good chef’s are master artists.



Doesn’t translate. The indie games are fun and weird, but they are not better games.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 26, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Doesn’t translate. The indie games are fun and weird, but they are not better games.



It's actually a pretty good analogy. Even a master chef can create an exquisite meal that you or I will call meh. Being a master chef will improve quality of technique but it will not necessary please everybody.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> There are different projects, but these *have *to arrive after the videogames titles, and now they *have *to get ready for the hardware of the next generation of videoconsoles.
> 
> And now its main project is the D&D movie. To produce a true blockbuster, because even after some succesful titles the team may start to be burnt. Not even Disney has found the ultimate key for an action-live without superheroes or classic princesses/heroines.




I wouldn't be so confident in your language. Nothing "has" to happen.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jan 26, 2020)

Sorry if my English isn't perfect but at least I can write a second languange.

If you were a Hasbro CEO and D&D is a brand with an increasing value... what would you do? The future of this industry is in the videogames and the media productions (movies and series). But these need time. The key is in good stories, the best stories, but you can't hire a troop of writters for a faster publication.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Sorry if my English isn't perfect but at least I can write a second languange.
> 
> If you were a Hasbro CEO and D&D is a brand with an increasing value... what would you do? The future of this industry is in the videogames and the media productions (movies and series). But these need time. The key is in good stories, the best stories, but you can't hire a troop of writters for a faster publication.




No worries, I wasn't sure if it was on purpose or not.

If I was the CEO of Hasbro... there is an expression in English, "If it 'aint broke, don't fix it." Meaning, if something is doing well, don't try to improve it to much as you may actually make it worse.

D&D is one of Hasbro's most successful brands right now. So if I was CEO of Hasbro, I would recognize that the folks at WotC are doing a great job handling the brand on their own, and wouldn't try to influence their development very much by pushing for the cross-overs and product tie-ins you frequently mention. I think the gradual development of a film, and the limited amount of tie-ins they've released with video games and toys, are enough milking of revenue without risking over-saturation of products.

Essentially, if I was CEO of Hasbro, my focus would be on improving the struggling brands that are not D&D, or the development of entirely new ones.

I also do not agree that the future of RPGs is in video games and media. That was the consensus years ago, and D&D's pursuit of being "more like a video game" actually led to it struggling against rivals like Pathfinder. D&D 5E has been extremely successful because of its simplicity and ease of access for new players, and its limited releases allow for a higher quality of product.

If you look at Warhammer and how it pursues its licensing strategy (it gives out its license to any game company who wants it), it doesn't seem to have largely impacted its sales; instead, its recent success is more tied to recent improvements in their products, rules, and games.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jan 26, 2020)

Videogames have been one of the best advertising. I would dare to say maybe Perfect World Enternaiment, the videogame publisher, would like a return of Kara-Tur, to create a videogame adaptation, but Asian players from different countries would wish different things about the lore, for example more monsters based in their own folklore. 

Remeber Transformers was a dead line until the first movie, and then the franchise resurrected. Without the cartoon serie they couldn't be selling little ponies. Maybe they need a children cartoon about monster pets trained as allies.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 26, 2020)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Videogames have been one of the best advertising. I would dare to say maybe Perfect World Enternaiment, the videogame publisher, would like a return of Kara-Tur, to create a videogame adaptation, but Asian players from different countries would wish different things about the lore, for example more monsters based in their own folklore.
> 
> Remeber Transformers was a dead line until the first movie, and then the franchise resurrected. Without the cartoon serie they couldn't be selling little ponies. Maybe they need a children cartoon about monster pets trained as allies.




Yeah but D&D _isn't _a dead line. I won't argue that if you aren't selling Transformers toys you should try being flexible with the brand and lease it to Universal to do what they want with it.

But D&D is _extremely _successful right now. Why would I try to possibly ruin that by rushing through a bunch of video games or movies or shows, that could very well harm it's year-over-year sales?

For me, if I was CEO that's a risk I'm not going to take. I'm perfectly ok with doing partnerships and cross-overs, but only ones that WotC is comfortable doing, and I want to ensure the quality of those remain high so I am not tarnishing an already strong brand.

I also feel that this POV is one that the actual Hasbro CEO probably shares, which is why there have been relatively few partnerships and toy lines for D&D released in recent years.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 26, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> It's actually a pretty good analogy. Even a master chef can create an exquisite meal that you or I will call meh. Being a master chef will improve quality of technique but it will not necessary please everybody.



True. And, also, not every indie restaurant has a master chef. In fact, the overwhelming majority don't.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 26, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yeah but D&D _isn't _a dead line. I won't argue that if you aren't selling Transformers toys you should try being flexible with the brand and lease it to Universal to do what they want with it.
> 
> But D&D is _extremely _successful right now. Why would I try to possibly ruin that by rushing through a bunch of video games or movies or shows, that could very well harm it's year-over-year sales?
> 
> ...



Yep, right now DND’s brand is strong because it has a newfound reputation for quality. The game runs out of the box, it’s fun, new players love it and old players are coming back in droves.

Pumping out dnd action figures at dollar general isn’t what you do with a brand whose reputation is quality experience.


----------



## Anoth (Jan 26, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep, right now DND’s brand is strong because it has a newfound reputation for quality. The game runs out of the box, it’s fun, new players love it and old players are coming back in droves.
> 
> Pumping out dnd action figures at dollar general isn’t what you do with a brand whose reputation is quality experience.




i really want a venger action figure. Don’t ruin my dreams.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jan 26, 2020)

You can allow yourself the risk to add the craziest ideas as *April's fool* jokes, for example cybertronians (transformers) as living construct PC race or the stats of the main characters of My Little Pony as centauresse heroines, or horror gothic vampire-hunter version of the magical girls "Pretty Cure", Power Rangers as totem warriors with biopunk lifeshape technology defending their planet against defiler invaders from Athas world,  or Cobra-La, the G.I.Joe's archenemies, as an alien Lovecraftian cult of snake-men, with Spelljammer technology. This could be the best way to send a probe ballon to test the reaction by the fandom. 

And you have to admit the production is slower not only because they would rather quality, but because they have got plans linked with other projects.


----------



## ChaosOS (Jan 26, 2020)

As a side note, I find the arguments about "Could Waterdeep actually have 2mil people?" discussion to be funny because in Eberron, the arguments are about the reverse - there's not _enough_ people in the big cities, especially Sharn.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Jan 27, 2020)

ChaosOS said:


> As a side note, I find the arguments about "Could Waterdeep actually have 2mil people?" discussion to be funny because in Eberron, the arguments are about the reverse - there's not _enough_ people in the big cities, especially Sharn.



I sold my Eberron book so don't have the exact figures, but I'll take your word for it. On a broader note, most D&D settings have the same problems - the cities are too large, but the countries and regions have too few people. Basically the urban/rural population proportions are WAY off. If Waterdeep is 2 million, then the Sword Coast should be 70 million or more. A lot of setting designers are using post-Industrial demographics to determine population. Paris might have been around 100,000 in the Middle Ages, but France was 17 million.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jan 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Usually, the arguments ensure because of the more common fan issues that we see in anything from Star Wars to Forgotten Realms; canon and validation. People strongly identify with D&D, people love D&D, and because of that love for D&D (and/or particular things within it) they have strong beliefs as to what should be included. Or even what a campaign setting should look like.




One important factor that I think you may be losing inside your categories of canon and validation is *shared experience*. That’s pretty much _why_ that stuff matters to a lot of people. Contrary to what might be assumed, rather than being a belligerent gate-keeping attitude, it can actually be about _wanting to bring people in_ and finding it no longer a simple proposition.

Nobody wants to start up a conversation about D&D/Star Wars/Star Trek/Etc, and have to stop and ask, “Wait a minute, which D&D/Star Wars/Star Trek/Etc, are we talking about?”

It isn’t about wanting to be better than others, it’s (sometimes literally) wanting to be on the same page as others. Sure it can get ugly, but the root drive is an inherent desire for socialization. And the problems arise when this was once easy and assumed, and then some corporate entity changes the identity of a product so that instant connection you used to be able make with complete strangers isn’t possible anymore. I mean, I’m sure some people just want to be jerks, but I don’t intentionally associate with them, and the friends I have that are passionate about things like canon generally want to be inclusive and bring new people into a hobby.

The world of fandom would probably be a better and more civil place if corporations would just avoid reusing the same name for a revised product.

“Yeah, I’ve heard of this Dungeons & Giants game, but I haven’t played before. Sure, I’ll join your group and give it a try. I do play another similar game by the same company called Dungeons & Dragons I could run sometime later if you guys are interested.”


----------



## Umbran (Jan 27, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> So the long and the short of it is ... people will want official product because that's what people do.




I was away for a week, and I'm not likely to read 20 pages of thread, so this may already have been noted, but...

Beware selection bias.

"People" want this.  How many?  As compared to how many people pay the game cruising along just fine without new official settings?  We don't know.

We see some number of people complain that they want official product... because they aren't satisfied, so they complain.  But, if someone is satisfied, they are unlikely to start a thread about it.  We do not hear from those people - they are in general not engaging in discussion of exactly how satisfied they are, and if they do, it is without vehemence and tenacity, so they don't tend to stick in the mind....


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 27, 2020)

Also don't listen to forums as a game developer. That's how we got 4E.

Most players are casual types, probably don't play high level, probably don't play multiple edition and probably don't care to much about campaign settings.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 27, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> And if I don't want to do that?




Wasn't saying you should.  Just something that came to mind because I had just done it.  

But, it does make the argument that "oh, it's too much work" kinda look silly when all it takes is about 15 seconds to do it on your own.




> No.
> 
> You like and want what you like and want, and I will do the same.




Fair enough.  But, you already HAVE what you want.  Forgotten Realms has more information than most encyclopedias.  We HAVE a setting that is completely detailed out.  Do we really need more than one?

Never minding that as soon as you ignore the whole "official canon" thing, there is a frigging MOUNTAIN of Greyhawk material out there.  I should know, I've been wading through it for my Saltmarsh campaign.  You want to know about the area?  The history?  The NPC's?  It's a Google search away.  Every possible detail that you want to know is RIGHT THERE.  And, again, if you ignore the "official canon" thing, there's classes, monsters, and adventures GALORE for 5e set in Greyhawk.

The argument that you don't have time to make it yourself kinda falls flat when all the work has already been done for you.  The only thing missing is that WotC seal of approval.  Frankly, if you're running Greyhawk, I cannot imagine that anything WotC has to say really matters to you.


----------



## ChaosOS (Jan 27, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> I sold my Eberron book so don't have the exact figures, but I'll take your word for it. On a broader note, most D&D settings have the same problems - the cities are too large, but the countries and regions have too few people. Basically the urban/rural population proportions are WAY off. If Waterdeep is 2 million, then the Sword Coast should be 70 million or more. A lot of setting designers are using post-Industrial demographics to determine population. Paris might have been around 100,000 in the Middle Ages, but France was 17 million.




The only Eberron book that had extensive demographic information was the original ECS, but the numbers in it gave Khorvaire the population density of Siberia. Based on Keith comments the going theory is someone took a pen to the map scale towards the end of editing to dramatically upscale the continent and didn't bother to fix the population numbers while they were at it.

Fun fact, the scale of the map has changed every edition. Khorvaire went from 5k miles across to 3k in the 3e to 4e jump (One of the handful of changes that seems to be universally popular), and Rising made it a tiny bit smaller again (This change is more suspect just because of the way the 5e map is put together, there's speculation it wasn't intentional)


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> It's made of (I assume) professional staff who do their jobs as directed to.



Isn't that a sell out? A professional who takes direction and works on someone else's project?


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 27, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Wasn't saying you should.  Just something that came to mind because I had just done it.
> 
> But, it does make the argument that "oh, it's too much work" kinda look silly when all it takes is about 15 seconds to do it on your own.




Except not.  That's by far not the only thing that needs updating and most of it won't be that simple.  Also, for some people, apparently it's very important.  For you and myself, 1 level isn't a big deal.



> Fair enough.  But, you already HAVE what you want.  Forgotten Realms has more information than most encyclopedias.  We HAVE a setting that is completely detailed out.  Do we really need more than one?




I'm not suggesting that as much info on GH be released as we have on the Realms.  I'm saying that a book like The Sword Coast Adventure Guide is warranted.



> Never minding that as soon as you ignore the whole "official canon" thing, there is a frigging MOUNTAIN of Greyhawk material out there.  I should know, I've been wading through it for my Saltmarsh campaign.  You want to know about the area?  The history?  The NPC's?  It's a Google search away.  Every possible detail that you want to know is RIGHT THERE.  And, again, if you ignore the "official canon" thing, there's classes, monsters, and adventures GALORE for 5e set in Greyhawk.




If you like not having the material in quality book form, sure.  If I'm running a campaign, I want the physical material, not PDF or internet.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 27, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Isn't that a sell out? A professional who takes direction and works on someone else's project?



Or is it just called having a job?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Or is it just called having a job?



To the true hippy, having a job is a sell out.


----------



## WayOfTheFourElements (Jan 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Or is it just called having a job?



There's also self-employment and people getting together to all create the product they've always dreamed of.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 27, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> There's also self-employment.



I'm self employed, but if someone engages me to get their child through GCSE Maths I'm not going to decide to teach them Engine Maintenance instead.


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 27, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Also don't listen to forums as a game developer. That's how we got 4E.



It gave us 5e explicitly,


----------



## Garthanos (Jan 27, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Most players are casual types,



And that means what exactly? The game should be simplistic and be pure random chance driven? without significant choices?


Zardnaar said:


> probably don't play high level,



So abandon high level is that the lesson? not saying its not a possibility because if they had pushed epic tier off to its own book after development had finished in earlier tiers the game could be better in any edition. 



Zardnaar said:


> probably don't play multiple edition



So don't make new editions let's go back to playing 1e. Sorry not interested. 



Zardnaar said:


> and probably don't care to much about campaign settings.



As a veteran of 1e era I think the campaign setting is something a DM creates not the game designers and 4e left its setting really open ie a perfect match something I could easily adjust.

Sometimes I cannot believe how many ways I disagree with you.


----------



## jasper (Jan 27, 2020)

pemerton said:


> .......
> 
> Whereas Purple Dragon Knights are just knights. Not unlike Knights of the Hart. And Scarlet Brotherhood monks are just Open Hand monks (ie they are 1st ed PHB monks).
> 
> ...



This. Now a rant.
RANT. Why is it a lot of you want to add crunch to every name thing? Purple Paladins of Pittsburgh is piece of lore. They must have this feat, carry an +5 holy potatoe peeler. The Scarlet Brotherhood are named group. They must be this special build. Each and every Scarlet Brotherhood will have the exact build for each level see this 40 page hand out of builds. 
How about this? The name group is just a group with a specific goal. Like all you fan people of (insert your favorite) sports team. You all generally wear a uniform (team t-shirt). You all want the team to win. But you all look different and go about your lives until start time on game day.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 27, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> There's also self-employment and people getting together to all create the product they've always dreamed of.



Sure, but there are also people who work for the companies that make the TTRPGs. Working for a company isn't selling out. Not being self employed isn't selling out. People who don't work for WotC can certainly get together and write gaming supplements, that's why we have such a strong 3PP community, but they aren't somehow the pure faith while employees of WotC are sell-outs, that's a ridiculous statement.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 27, 2020)

Selling out, as I understand the term, requires that you have an artistry of a certain style that you then change in order for it to have more mass appeal. 

In a niche market, I suppose the definition of mass appeal isn't as "massive" as in, for example, popular music.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure, but there are also people who work for the companies that make the TTRPGs. Working for a company isn't selling out. Not being self employed isn't selling out. People who don't work for WotC can certainly get together and write gaming supplements, that's why we have such a string 3PP community, but they aren't somehow the pure faith while employees of WotC are sell-outs, that's a ridiculous statement.




It seems a bit of a Catch 22 has been created.....you're not a professional unless someone pays you for your work, but if you listen to the person that pays you, then you're a sell out. 

Riiiight.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 27, 2020)

Garthanos said:


> It gave us 5e explicitly,




Not quite - 5e was developed based on player feedback, yes.  But not explicitly by listening to forum users - they had a separate feedback channel for the playtesting that included a great many people who were not involved in the major discussion forums.


----------



## jayoungr (Jan 27, 2020)

Umbran said:


> "People" want this.  How many?  As compared to how many people pay the game cruising along just fine without new official settings?  We don't know.



The thread was made in response to comments on other existing theads, so (as I read it) there was a certain amount of implication that it was meant to refer to people on this board and an unspecified number of others beyond that.



jasper said:


> RANT. Why is it a lot of you want to add crunch to every name thing? Purple Paladins of Pittsburgh is piece of lore.



In the specific case of Purple Dragon Knights, we know they were added to SCAG at WotC's direction, even though they're not from the Sword Coast proper.  It seems clear that their intention (although it was clearly unsuccessful) was to create an option somewhat like the 4E warlord.  (I don't know why they didn't give it more playtesting, though.)  So in that case, the crunch was the driving factor and the lore was just an excuse, rather than them looking at the lore and saying "Obviously, this group must have new crunch!"


----------



## billd91 (Jan 27, 2020)

jasper said:


> This. Now a rant.
> RANT. Why is it a lot of you want to add crunch to every name thing? Purple Paladins of Pittsburgh is piece of lore. They must have this feat, carry an +5 holy potatoe peeler. The Scarlet Brotherhood are named group. They must be this special build. Each and every Scarlet Brotherhood will have the exact build for each level see this 40 page hand out of builds.
> How about this? The name group is just a group with a specific goal. Like all you fan people of (insert your favorite) sports team. You all generally wear a uniform (team t-shirt). You all want the team to win. But you all look different and go about your lives until start time on game day.




I hear ya. But as a counter argument - they *tried* balancing flavor choices with role playing in plenty of 2e kits back in the 1990s. Didn't work out very well. Too many cases of role playing limitations not being actually limiting. Too much table variation in styles of play between RP-heavy and RP-light. Now, people have it put well into their heads that distinctions should be backed by something that's objective and meaningful whether the players are RP-heavy or RP-light.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 27, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Isn't that a sell out? A professional who takes direction and works on someone else's project?




Actors work with people called directors.  They all work on projects that they don't fully own.  They outright compete for the chance to do so.  Are all actors "sell outs"?

Most professionals (artistic or otherwise) on the planet take direction and work on someone else's project.  Because "professional" means "someone who makes a living at something."  And making a living generally requires doing a specific thing that has enough value that others will pay enough for it for you to live on.

Maybe you get lucky, and your own personal ideas that you can manage to execute on your own just happen to align with the public, or some small number of very wealthy patrons, such that you are paid for doing whatever you darned well feel like.  But that is being lucky.  

There's this myth that an artist must be so independent that they risk destitution - but how much art can you make it you cannot feed yourself?  That's a self-limiting approach to creativity.  Art is communication - all effective communication takes the audience into account.  An artist working at the direction of another just has someone else responsible for knowing the audience.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 27, 2020)

jayoungr said:


> The thread was made in response to comments on other existing theads, so (as I read it) there was a certain amount of implication that it was meant to refer to people on this board and an unspecified number of others beyond that.




Yep.  Now, I am just suggesting we _consider_ how many that may be, rather than just assume it.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 27, 2020)

jasper said:


> This. Now a rant.
> RANT. Why is it a lot of you want to add crunch to every name thing? Purple Paladins of Pittsburgh is piece of lore. They must have this feat, carry an +5 holy potatoe peeler. The Scarlet Brotherhood are named group. They must be this special build. Each and every Scarlet Brotherhood will have the exact build for each level see this 40 page hand out of builds.
> How about this? The name group is just a group with a specific goal. Like all you fan people of (insert your favorite) sports team. You all generally wear a uniform (team t-shirt). You all want the team to win. But you all look different and go about your lives until start time on game day.



I'm also firmly against creating specific crunch to support a specific setting group; with an exception for if the group has certain special capabilities that don't yet exist within the framework of the game.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jan 27, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I'm also firmly against creating specific crunch to support a specific setting group; with an exception for if the group has certain special capabilities that don't yet exist within the framework of the game.



Part of the reason for this is so that players want to take some flavor-based crunch instead of the usual x levels of this, y levels of that to get the mechanical benefits with no reason whatsoever for having done so.  It's also to allow DMs to build opponents who aren't all the same all the time.  It's intended to inspire a desire for more --> more future book sales.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 27, 2020)

billd91 said:


> I hear ya. But as a counter argument - they *tried* balancing flavor choices with role playing in plenty of 2e kits back in the 1990s. Didn't work out very well. Too many cases of role playing limitations not being actually limiting. Too much table variation in styles of play between RP-heavy and RP-light. Now, people have it put well into their heads that distinctions should be backed by something that's objective and meaningful whether the players are RP-heavy or RP-light.



For very low values of tried. The 2e kits ranged from useless to required in terms of balance.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 28, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> /snip
> 
> If you like not having the material in quality book form, sure.  If I'm running a campaign, I want the physical material, not PDF or internet.




Fair enough I suppose.  Seems kinda like shooting yourself in the foot to be that hard nosed about it.  There are currently four Oerth Journals for 5e - somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200 pages of setting material for 5e, and more coming out every quarter - written by the biggest Greyhawk geeks you could possibly find.  

So, the material you want is already there.  It's easy to find.  The only thing is, it isn't printed on the skin of a tree.  Perhaps, and I'm just suggesting here, a tiny bit of compromise might result in you getting, if not precisely what you want, at least more than nothing and shouting on hilltops for a product that may or may not ever see the light of day.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> So, the material you want is already there.  It's easy to find.  The only thing is, it isn't printed on the skin of a tree.  Perhaps, and I'm just suggesting here, a tiny bit of compromise might result in you getting, if not precisely what you want, at least more than nothing and shouting on hilltops for a product that may or may not ever see the light of day.




Don't be casting aspersions about people's preferred formats for materials. Not everyone has (or will) make a shift to PDFs and other electronic forms. Sometimes, books are simply easier to sit and read. Plus - *maps* are way better printed on posters and that's a bit more of a hassle trying to generate one from a PDF. I *love* my Greyhawk maps by Darlene.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 28, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Don't be casting no aspersions about people's preferred formats for materials. Not everyone has (or will) make a shift to PDFs and other electronic forms. Sometimes, books are simply easier to sit and read. Plus - *maps* are way better printed on posters and that's a bit more of a hassle trying to generate one from a PDF. I *love* my Greyhawk maps by Darlene.




Oh, I get the desire.  Sure.  But, given that we haven't had a proper Greyhawk supplement published in, what, twenty years or more, perhaps it might be better to settle for what is available.  

And, frankly, given the quality of printers these days, or the proliferation of companies that will print for you on pretty much any surface you would like, I'm not sure I buy that it's that difficult to generate a map from a pdf.  I'm looking at my Primeval Thule map on my wall, printed on 8 A3 pages and it certainly does the job.  If I wasn't such a cheap bastard, I could get it printed a heck of a lot nicer for like, what, 20 bucks?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Oh, I get the desire.  Sure.  But, given that we haven't had a proper Greyhawk supplement published in, what, twenty years or more, perhaps it might be better to settle for what is available.
> 
> And, frankly, given the quality of printers these days, or the proliferation of companies that will print for you on pretty much any surface you would like, I'm not sure I buy that it's that difficult to generate a map from a pdf.  I'm looking at my Primeval Thule map on my wall, printed on 8 A3 pages and it certainly does the job.  If I wasn't such a cheap bastard, I could get it printed a heck of a lot nicer for like, what, 20 bucks?




 I would pay good money for a map folio pack of 5 world's.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 28, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> I would pay good money for a map folio pack of 5 world's.



5 worlds?  Not sure what that means.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> 5 worlds?  Not sure what that means.




 They used to sell map packs. If they made something similar with 5 poster sized maps if the campaign settings I would pay for that. 

 Printing maps off PDFs suck.


----------



## jasper (Jan 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> .........
> 
> And, frankly, given the quality of printers these days, or the proliferation of companies that will print for you on pretty much any surface you would like, I'm not sure I buy that it's that difficult to generate a map from a pdf.  I'm looking at my Primeval Thule map on my wall, printed on 8 A3 pages and it certainly does the job.  If I wasn't such a cheap bastard, I could get it printed a heck of a lot nicer for like, what, 20 bucks?



Um. Depend on the company, the print is only as good as pdf. What looks great on your machine will not look great on an 18 by 36 poster. Ask me how I know.  Never mind research some of my posts and questions during Tomb.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 28, 2020)

jasper said:


> This. Now a rant.
> RANT. Why is it a lot of you want to add crunch to every name thing? Purple Paladins of Pittsburgh is piece of lore. They must have this feat, carry an +5 holy potatoe peeler. The Scarlet Brotherhood are named group. They must be this special build. Each and every Scarlet Brotherhood will have the exact build for each level see this 40 page hand out of builds.
> How about this? The name group is just a group with a specific goal. Like all you fan people of (insert your favorite) sports team. You all generally wear a uniform (team t-shirt). You all want the team to win. But you all look different and go about your lives until start time on game day.



This is a Strawman.  Nobody here has requested that crunch be added to every named thing.  A few pieces of crunch in a new book?  Yes.  The absurd argument you make above? No.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 28, 2020)

But, again, @Maxperson, the crunch you want IS AVAILABLE.  It's there.  Granted, true, it's not in the form you prefer.  I get that.  But, it's not that it's totally unavailable.  The fact that it's not bundled into a print book probably has a lot more to do with market factors than anything else.  There just isn't enough demand for it.  

Now, maybe this year or next or whatever, we'll start seeing these setting update books.  Fantastic.  I've got nothing against the notion.  However, if they do happen, they will update the WHOLE setting, not just the bits that you or I personally happen to like.  Which means an updated Greyhawk will be after the Greyhawk Wars.  There's just too many people who have kept the timeline going to ignore.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 28, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, again, @Maxperson, the crunch you want IS AVAILABLE.  It's there.  Granted, true, it's not in the form you prefer.  I get that.  But, it's not that it's totally unavailable.  The fact that it's not bundled into a print book probably has a lot more to do with market factors than anything else.  There just isn't enough demand for it.




Show me the official well playtested 5e Greyhawk campaign crunch?  If you can do that, it's available.  If you cannot, it is not.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 29, 2020)

The PHB?


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 29, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> The PHB?



Nope.  Try again.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 29, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Nope.  Try again.



I was laughing with him, not at him, were you?


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 29, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I was laughing with him, not at him, were you?



Not that it's any of your business, but I thought he was making a funny.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 29, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Not that it's any of your business, but I thought he was making a funny.



It was an honest question, I wasn't sure. No offense.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 29, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Show me the official well playtested 5e Greyhawk campaign crunch?  If you can do that, it's available.  If you cannot, it is not.




Again, I get what you're saying, but, you seem to be ignoring what I'm pointing out.

You will NEVER GET THIS.  It is not going to happen.  Or, if it does happen, it's going to be YEARS down the road.  It's been more than a decade since Greyhawk got any official material for it.  And that was in Dragon.  Which still wouldn't satisfy you since it's not in a hardbound book and it's not particularly well playtested.  

So, you have a choice.  Either sit and bitch about something that is never going to happen, or unclench just a smidgeon and look at what is actually out there.  I mean, it might not be official, but, it's pretty well play tested and it's written by people who are very much experts on all things Greyhawk, so, basically, your only hangup is that the Oerth Journal doesn't have that official seal of approval.

Not that that seal of approval means much.  My Ghosts of Saltmarsh includes the adventure - Isle of the Abbey.  In the Abbey, there is a room in which are described, in the boxed text, three ogre zombies and a crystal minotaur golem.  The stats are one ogre zombie, two ghasts and one crystal minotaur golem.    So much for proof reading.  Never minding that in the same adventure, a couple of rooms to the west, there's a room where two minotaur skeletons and five undead figures are guarding the exits.  The stats call for 2 minotaur skeletons, a bodak and 2 wraiths.    Guess someone couldn't count.

At the end of the day, you have to choose - either sit and wait and bitch or look at what's actually available right now.  Because, right now?  There's some bloody fantastic stuff for Greyhawk being written.  Sorry it's just not in the format that suits you.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 29, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Not that it's any of your business, but I thought he was making a funny.




I was. But also kind of making a point. My session tonight took place in Greyhawk. Worked just fine.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 29, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I was. But also kind of making a point. My session tonight took place in Greyhawk. Worked just fine.



I never said you couldn't play in Greyhawk with what is around now.  I said that what I am asking for isn't in the PHB, and it's not.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 29, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I never said you couldn't play in Greyhawk with what is around now.  I said that what I am asking for isn't in the PHB, and it's not.




I know, and I get it. All I was saying is that all that’s needed to do so is in there. 

I know you want some additional crunch. I’m not quite sure what that may be. Given that the setting originated prior to the majority of crunchy elements that later editions added, it seems odd. Feats, backgrounds, subclasses, prestige classes....none really seem to suit the setting, generally. Beyond those general ones already in the PHB.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 29, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Again, I get what you're saying, but, you seem to be ignoring what I'm pointing out.
> 
> You will NEVER GET THIS.  It is not going to happen.  Or, if it does happen, it's going to be YEARS down the road.  It's been more than a decade since Greyhawk got any official material for it.  And that was in Dragon.  Which still wouldn't satisfy you since it's not in a hardbound book and it's not particularly well playtested.
> 
> ...




I mean, Ghosts of Saltmarsh...


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 29, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I know, and I get it. All I was saying is that all that’s needed to do so is in there.
> 
> I know you want some additional crunch. I’m not quite sure what that may be. Given that the setting originated prior to the majority of crunchy elements that later editions added, it seems odd. Feats, backgrounds, subclasses, prestige classes....none really seem to suit the setting, generally. Beyond those general ones already in the PHB.



Technically the PHB has too much in it. Dragonborn? Tieflings? They aren't in Greyhawk. What are these Warlocks and Sorcerers? 

And it is missing stuff: Where are the sun elves? They might be eladrin now?

But actual Greyhawk specific crunch? I do not recall there being any crunch in World of Greyhawk or the other Greyhawk books. Now Greyhawk Adventures, that has some crunch. Let's spells specific to clerics half of which are now in the PHB. A suggestion on 2nd ed sphere's clerics of certain deities should be restricted too. Okay. More spells, some of which are PHB spells.

Ah, the Scarlet Brotherhood. It's led by a basically standard Monk 16. No special Brotherhood crunch here. No kits, for example.

Monsters, spells, magic items. Here you can at least say some of this stuff has Greyhawk fluff attached to it. But the crunch is usable in any campaign.

TL;DR: My point is the Greyhawk setting releases has never been a place for real crunch. You have the fluff.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 29, 2020)

WayOfTheFourElements said:


> Isn't that a sell out? A professional who takes direction and works on someone else's project?



When talking about art and illustration, I know of some illustrators and fine artists whom have said that illustrating others work is a form of "prostitution" (doing so almost exclusively in jest). However, I have never any of them claim them that illustrators were not professionals as even prostitutes get paid for their work.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 29, 2020)

Sell out is generally when you make drastic changes to something in order to make more money which may or may not work. 

 I don't think it applies to getting paid for work.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jan 29, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> And it is missing stuff: Where are the sun elves? They might be eladrin now?




Does Greyhawk have sun elves? The PHB does mention the FR sun elves (they are a variety of high elves).


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 29, 2020)

Sword of Spirit said:


> Does Greyhawk have sun elves? The PHB does mention the FR sun elves (they are a variety of high elves).



I thought GH had all the elf varieties.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 29, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> I thought GH had all the elf varieties.




Valley elves, grugach, wood elves, grey elves, high elves, drow, aquatic elves... but sun elf is the Forgotten Realms term for a high elf. So yes, and no on GH having all elf varieties. They have pretty much all of them, but not necessarily using the same terms.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 29, 2020)

Grey elves. Of course. That's what I was thinking. It's been a while since I delved into these old settings.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 30, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Technically the PHB has too much in it. Dragonborn? Tieflings? They aren't in Greyhawk. What are these Warlocks and Sorcerers?




The only reason they "aren't in" Greyhawk is because they didn't exist when Greyhawk was originally published.



> And it is missing stuff: Where are the sun elves? They might be eladrin now?




Sun elves are a Forgotten Realms thing, not Greyhawk.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Azzy said:


> The only reason they "aren't in" Greyhawk is because they didn't exist when Greyhawk was originally published.
> 
> 
> 
> Sun elves are a Forgotten Realms thing, not Greyhawk.




 Sort of feeds back into why people don't like it. The new races may exist but they're not a major natural part of the setting.

 They retconned in Dragonborn nation's in 4E FR. It was terrible.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 30, 2020)

Where are the kenku and araccoka nations? (Like I know how to spell it)


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Where are the kenku and araccoka nations? (Like I know how to spell it)



They were at the back of the queue when they handed out retconned nations and missed out. I think they may have gotten a lovely vacation home in the Dales as consolation though, so there's that.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 30, 2020)

There's plenty of room in the Dales for a small avian nation. People are always saying that.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Sort of feeds back into why people don't like it. The new races may exist but they're not a major natural part of the setting.




Ermegerd, it's new! I gotta hates it!



> They retconned in Dragonborn nation's in 4E FR. It was terrible.




Yeah, the hamfisted approach that they too in 4e's FR to dragonaborn (and, to be fair, everything else) was horrible. On the other hand, the approach they took to adding dragonborn to Eberron was very low key and unobtrusive.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Azzy said:


> Ermegerd, it's new! I gotta hates it!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the hamfisted approach that they too in 4e's FR to dragonaborn (and, to be fair, everything else) was horrible. On the other hand, the approach they took to adding dragonborn to Eberron was very low key and unobtrusive.




 Eberron was also built from the ground up as anything goes.

 In a vacumn I don't mind most things. Except Kender.

 I like variety, some settings anything goes sure. Other settings not so much.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Eberron was also built from the ground up as anything goes.



That's irrelevant to the manner in which it was handled in Eberron vis-a-vis the Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> In a vacumn I don't mind most things. Except Kender.



So you're saying you'd be opposed to Kender in a vacuum? That doesn't seem like you at all, you seem more like the_ in space there's no one to hear you scream_ kinda guy there. Personally, I like looking out the porthole and watching their little frozen faces float by, hoopaks clutched tight in icy fingers. YMMV.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> So you're saying you'd be opposed to Kender in a vacuum? That doesn't seem like you at all, you seem more like the_ in space there's no one to hear you scream_ kinda guy there. Personally, I like looking out the porthole and watching their little frozen faces float by, hoopaks clutched tight in icy fingers. YMMV.




Heh.  Vlad Tepes style for Kender. 

 I have heard that Paladin's can smite Kender and doing so is regarded as a good act.


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jan 30, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Sword of Many Things could be a great cursed item. It changes form every round, roll on the d100 table to see what you're wielding this turn. A zucchini! Three goldfish in a sock! A Gnome Paladin *impaled* on a *pointed* Stick!! Solid gold baby, I'm using it.




There, fixed it for ya.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jan 30, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> How can you strap me to a rocket if you're living in the Forgotten Realms?  The Forgotten Realms has been stuck in a state of perpetual non-advancement for the last thousand years.



Ah, see, if you really knew the Forgotten Realms, you'd know that Kara-Tur has rockets.  The kind that are designed to explode.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Again, I get what you're saying, but, you seem to be ignoring what I'm pointing out.
> 
> You will NEVER GET THIS.  It is not going to happen.  Or, if it does happen, it's going to be YEARS down the road.  It's been more than a decade since Greyhawk got any official material for it.  And that was in Dragon.  Which still wouldn't satisfy you since it's not in a hardbound book and it's not particularly well playtested.



Maybe.  On the other hand, there's a petition going around to get a 5e Greyhawk and it has the support of Luke Gygax, another of those like Mercer who plays in groups and venues that people go watch and pay for, so maybe it will get traction.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Valley elves, grugach, wood elves, grey elves, high elves, drow, aquatic elves... but sun elf is the Forgotten Realms term for a high elf. So yes, and no on GH having all elf varieties. They have pretty much all of them, but not necessarily using the same terms.



It's confusing, but Sun Elves are the Grey Elves and the Moon Elves were high elves.  The FR lore says Sun = High, but the stats are wrong.  They are just known as "high elves" in the Realms.  Grey elves had an int bonus like Sun elves.  Moon elves had a dex bonus like the high elves.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Jan 30, 2020)

Here's what they did for 5e. There are two standard _mechanical_ elf subraces: High, and Wood.

GH Gray, Valley, and High => High
FR Sun and Moon => High

GH Wood and Wild (Grugach) => Wood
FR Wood and Wild => Wood

Also:
DL Silvanesti and Qualinesti => High
DL Kagonesti => Wood

It's not terribly complicated. It's all in the PHB on p. 23-24, and about all you have to remember is that if you're a surface terrestrial elf, you're mechanically either High or Wood.


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 30, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> So you're saying you'd be opposed to Kender in a vacuum?



Obviously you put Kender in a blender (whether of gnomish origin or otherworldly).


----------



## ClaytonCross (Jan 30, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> *Consistency. *
> -omitted-
> *Authority.*




Agree with pretty much everything you said, but I would also say that the number one reason I see for wanting official products is consistency of rules and authority to resolve debates on RAW/RAI by a third party. 

*Players*: "_Why GM! the books says I can do X so I built my character around X, but now your saying I can't do X at all even though I could do it last session!?!?_" 
<Calling the Authority of Official to in force consistency in the rules, so the GM doesn't change the rules to shift the sands in there favor when it convenient to them. >

*GM*: "_Look, this isn't homebrew, the rules are the rules. I am not telling you how to play, I didn't make new rules for this fight, nor did I build this encounter. It's official content and was play tested and deemed fine. I can tweak some stuff a little bit but I pretty much intend to stick to the script_"
< Calling the Authority of Official to in force consistency in the rules, means being able to hold the players to same rules with out having to take the blame for each player having something they don't like. One player doesn't like grappling rules, one does like perception rules, one doesn't like not being all powerful... they all try to blame it on the GM but the GM didn't make this. So instead of everything being the GMs fault. If the GM *chooses* to introduce homebrew at the players request the GM doing the player a favor.>

The power of making debates about a trusted 3rd Parties rules removes a certain *personal accountability* from the players and GM. Any argument where players and GM disagree can be resolved by just taking the official answer which almost always is expectable by both parties without becoming personal. Players on the other hand can't homebrew while GM homebrew that players don't like can be personally insulting to the GM when rejected and feel like personal attacks to players when its specifically them who is effected (usually nerfed or restricted). Like wise when a player brings in a 3rd party character from a non-official source and it does badly the GM can easily blame players for finding something broken and/or trying to power game. Official content can be circumstantially broken but the player can point to it not being the character but the combination of the character and the setup the GM created. In that case, the player has an argument not to be robbed of their "chance to shine" instead of being called a power gamer. 

Some Players will still power game and some GMs will still rail road, but both players and GMs *feel like* they are less likely to have to deal with these if they use only official material. Which often leads to players being restricted to official and no-UA content. It also leads to GMs who have been continually nagged by players not liking their homebrew or have to settle debates between player preferences in homebrew by just calling official. 

Essay done. Sorry for the long post. But if you know me you know I write books in forums. … still sorry though. Thanks for reading.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> In a vacumn I don't mind most things. Except Kender.



Kender are just Hobbitses who have reasons to go adventuring, which is why a watered-down version of Kender has replaced a watered-down version of Hobbits as the official Halfling race.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2020)

Azzy said:


> The only reason they "aren't in" Greyhawk is because they didn't exist when Greyhawk was originally published.
> /snip




BINGO!

Once upon a time, there were really only two settings for D&D - Greyhawk and The Known World.  Now, The Known World was only for Basic/Expert D&D, and it was kept very separate from Greyhawk.  But, anything else that was published for D&D was published FOR Greyhawk.  Anything not set in the Known World, published before 1987, was meant to be set somewhere in Greyhawk.  Pretty much anyway.

So, the notion that Greyhawk isn't a kitchen sink setting ignores pretty much the first 15 years or so of the game's history.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 30, 2020)

It is a kitchen sink, but it's an old one from a seventies house.  The question is whether when you renovate, you rip out the old pannelling and replacing with slick shiny new modern surfaces, or you carefully restore it, updating behind the scences but retaining the original veneer.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jan 30, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> It is a kitchen sink, but it's an old one from a seventies house.  The question is whether when you renovate, you rip out the old pannelling and replacing with slick shiny new modern surfaces, or you carefully restore it, updating behind the scences but retaining the original veneer.



But there's really nothing that needs restoring. You could pick the 3e Greyhawk Gazetteer and play right now without changing anything. If you want Greyhawk to be one of the official 5e settings, then you have to change it so that it fits a specific niche.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> It is a kitchen sink, but it's an old one from a seventies house.  The question is whether when you renovate, you rip out the old pannelling and replacing with slick shiny new modern surfaces, or you carefully restore it, updating behind the scences but retaining the original veneer.




However, the analogy doesn't hold a lot of water.  heh.

Like I said, it's not really a 70's kitchen sink.  Or, at least, that's not the important bit.  The fact that it is a setting that accepted all things D&D is the important part.  The only reason that we don't have a lot of the newer bits in the setting is that the setting was largely put out to pasture in favor of Forgotten Realms and then a bunch of other settings.  

Sure, we could reset the setting back to some earlier historical point.  That can be done.  But, it ignores the fact that Greyhawk wasn't meant to be that way.  Greyhawk for the early years of D&D, was EVERYTHING D&D.  Heck, even Kara-tur was originally advertised to be part of Greyhawk.  The material apparently was cut from the book later on, mostly because TSR was, at that point in time, severing ties with all things Gygax.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

IMO, if you want a low magic low fantasy setting where pretty much everyone is human, then that isn't Greyhawk, and never was.

There is certainly room for such a setting, but it would be far better to start from scratch.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 30, 2020)

Hussar said:


> However, the analogy doesn't hold a lot of water.  heh.
> 
> Like I said, it's not really a 70's kitchen sink.  Or, at least, that's not the important bit.  The fact that it is a setting that accepted all things D&D is the important part.  The only reason that we don't have a lot of the newer bits in the setting is that the setting was largely put out to pasture in favor of Forgotten Realms and then a bunch of other settings.
> 
> Sure, we could reset the setting back to some earlier historical point.  That can be done.  But, it ignores the fact that Greyhawk wasn't meant to be that way.  Greyhawk for the early years of D&D, was EVERYTHING D&D.  Heck, even Kara-tur was originally advertised to be part of Greyhawk.  The material apparently was cut from the book later on, mostly because TSR was, at that point in time, severing ties with all things Gygax.



Yes.  This has already been said.   Others in this thread seem to feel quite differently.  

How shall we determine the TRUTH?


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> /snip
> 
> Not true. To an extent that is hard to imagine, almost no material is "set" In Greyhawk. Where is, for example, the Desert of Desolation? Where is Barovia? The Hidden Shrine? The Tower of Inverness? Where is Dragonlance (heh)?
> /snip




Heh.  Dragonlance.  Fair enough.  Wasn't thinking of those.

However, Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan was set in Greyhawk.  As was Ghost Tower of INverness.

This Post by @Merric Blackman details the settings pretty well:

*1978:*
G1-3, D1-3, S1: Greyhawk

*1979:*
S2, T1: Greyhawk;
B1: no setting (although notes for placing in Greyhawk)

*1980:*
A1, C1, C2, Q1, S3: Greyhawk

*1981:*
A2, A3, A4, I1, L1, U1: Greyhawk;
B2, B3, X1, X2: no setting.

*1982:*
N1, S4, WG4, U2: Greyhawk;
B4, X3: ?;
R1, R2, R3, I2, I3: no setting (*note, R series possibly on other side of Greyhawk, but never made canon)

*1983:*
L2, EX1*, EX2*, U3, UK1, UK2: Greyhawk; (*note: demiplane,  not written as Greyhawk)
I4, I5, I6, R4: no setting
RPGA3, B5, X4, X5: ?

In 1984, the Dragonlance campaign came along.

Cheers!


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

That was standard practice. When TSR published a module they added a few lines suggesting a Greyhawk location for it, but unless it was actually written by Gygax it wasn't intentionally written with Greyhawk in mind.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> one example would be City State of the Invincible Overlord.



For some reason this was very popular in the UK.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I did not know that! My knowledge of UK gaming of the era, outside of Fiend Folio, the UK modules, and Warhammer FRPG is pretty pretty limited.



Well, I only have experiential evidence for that, no sales figures or anything. It could have been simply a consequence of very few outlets selling D&D, or maybe it's cynicism appealed. But it is the only "campaign setting" that I saw used in those early days. Not that it was used as much as homebrew (my world was imaginatively called Erf!) or simply sitting down and playing a module as a one-off without any references to setting.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2020)

There was no need to be terribly specific about the setting.  There was only one TSR setting - Greyhawk.  EVERYTHING was made for Greyhawk unless it specifically wasn't.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2020)

I don't understand why you would say that.  Every module that I listed was placed in Greyhawk.  They have hex references for their placement.  The references to non-canon Greyhawk dieties in Tomoachan can be chalked up to it simply being very early in the development of the setting.  No different than references to orcs in Dragonlance.  

Like I said, it was ALL Greyhawk, all the time, unless it was specified otherwise.  The planar cosmology in the PHB was for Greyhawk - and, note, because of the multiple Primes, you could easily have crossovers from other settings or even the real world in Greyhawk, and frequently there were.  The Warden II appearing in Greyhawk wasn't a mistake.  

They didn't actually have to say, "Well, this material is for Greyhawk.  What else would it be for?  There WAS only Greyhawk.  The City State of the Invincible Overlord was never part of TSR D&D.  It was, in today's parlance, a 3rd party product.  As was everything else.  Unless it was for The Known World, until the publication of Dragonlance, it was set in Greyhawk.  EVERYTHING - Monster Manual I and II and the Fiend Folio.  Lolth and the Drow.  The demon lords.  The arch devils.  Everything that wasn't specifically called out as NOT Greyhawk, was presumed to be in Greyhawk somewhere.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Trial by ordeal.



And not just any ordeal.  Tiddlywinks, the worst of the bunch.


----------



## Sadras (Jan 30, 2020)

Hussar said:


> No different than references to orcs in Dragonlance.




Did this happen? I didn't know.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> The reference to non-GH deities is because it was a COMPETITION MODULE that had a paragraph appended to it.*



Also, because no one cared about "canon", so where perfectly fine with dropping a few extra Mesoamerican deities into a setting.


> *My goodness, are you one of those people that tries to explain why teleporters were used in TOS?



Transporters.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2020)

Hussar said:


> I don't understand why you would say that.




You say that, and then prove that you don't with the rest of the post.



> Every module that I listed was placed in Greyhawk.  They have hex references for their placement.



Look.  If I had created a module, say The Hidden Shrine of Not in Greyhawk.  It would have been like most of the modules of the day and just created for people to play in whatever campaign they wished.  Now imagine that TSR had two major campaign words, The Known World for BECMI stuff and Greyhawk for advanced stuff.  If I wanted to be helpful to those people who wanted to put my module into Greyhawk, I might just pick a likely place for it to be in that campaign world and have a hex reference.

That doesn't make it designed for Greyhawk. 



> The references to non-canon Greyhawk dieties in Tomoachan can be chalked up to it simply being very early in the development of the setting.  No different than references to orcs in Dragonlance.




You're trying really hard to justify your weak position.  



> They didn't actually have to say, "Well, this material is for Greyhawk.  What else would it be for?  There WAS only Greyhawk.



@lowkey13 already told you.  They were designed just as general modules to be used for whatever world the DM happened to be running, usually homebrew.  Tacking on a hex reference to help those who played Greyhawk didn't make those modules for Greyhawk.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I may never live that down. Never get into an argument when you’re thinking about something else!



It's almost as if you mixed it with this thing called D&D or something.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It's almost as if you mixed it with this thing called D&D or something.



It's easy to tell the difference. D&D is where people wander about killing things, Star Trek is where people wander about trying not to kill things.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's easy to tell the difference. D&D is where people wander about killing things, Star Trek is where people wander about trying not to kill things.



I thought Star Trek was where people wander around in red shirts being killed.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I thought Star Trek was where people wander around in red shirts being killed.



That's the same in D&D, apart from the cloaks are red instead of the shirts.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> That's the same in D&D, apart from the cloaks are red instead of the shirts.



Well, no wonder he confused the two!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Did this happen? I didn't know.



I'm sure they meant orcas.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I'm sure they meant orcas.



More probably he's talking about the part in Dragonlance that says orcs don't exist on Krynn.  I mean, that's a reference to orcs.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> More probably he's talking about the part in Dragonlance that says orcs don't exist on Krynn.  I mean, that's a reference to orcs.



Actually, Kyrnn is canonically connected to Spelljammer.

So they where probably scro.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Jan 30, 2020)

The recent thread concerning canon in 5e seems to overlap somewhat with this one.

I wonder if the desire for canonicity, the need for official product – and maybe even an emphasis on RAW play – are all aspects of the same phenomenon, and describe a certain predisposition when approaching the game. A kind of semi-objective concreteness is offered which removes a sense of ambiguity; it also absolves the DM of some responsibility – and allows them to focus more on the immediate needs of the game.

I do think it’s also probably fair to ask who, in the world of 2020, has the time and inclination to extensively homebrew for themselves? You? Lucky you...


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 30, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> *My goodness, are you one of those people that tries to explain why teleporters were used in TOS? It's real simple- because of the show's budget.



Watching The Orville, seeing the shuttles fly to the planet makes me laugh every time I see 30-40 seconds of the show's runtime spent on this. (Aka, the second reason they used transporters instead of model shoots of a shuttle flying to the planet.)


----------



## Oofta (Jan 30, 2020)

Sepulchrave II said:


> The recent thread concerning canon in 5e seems to overlap somewhat with this one.
> 
> I wonder if the desire for canonicity, the need for official product – and maybe even an emphasis on RAW play – are all aspects of the same phenomenon, and describe a certain predisposition when approaching the game. A kind of semi-objective concreteness is offered which removes a sense of ambiguity; it also absolves the DM of some responsibility – and allows them to focus more on the immediate needs of the game.
> 
> I do think it’s also probably fair to ask who, in the world of 2020, has the time and inclination to extensively homebrew for themselves? You? Lucky you...



I always do a homebrew campaign.  But you know what?  I find it far less work and time than running a published campaign while also being much more responsive to my players.  

The thing is, I'm lazy.  Like really, really lazy when it comes to running a campaign.  I have a bunch of lists of random names and locations that I generate online.  I think of campaign arcs and plot points during my commute.  I jot a few notes down when I get a chance, grab a handful of monsters and I'm ready for a session.  I almost never predraw maps other than to have a general idea of the likely areas the PCs are going to go.  After the session I jot down a few notes.  I use a map I made years ago but only use the portions that actually matter to the PCs.

For me it takes roughly half the time to plan and document a home campaign than to run a mod.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 30, 2020)

Hussar said:


> There was no need to be terribly specific about the setting.  There was only one TSR setting - Greyhawk.  EVERYTHING was made for Greyhawk unless it specifically wasn't.




While Gygax had mentioned his home campaign earlier, the Greyhawk Folio Edition came out in 1980, six years after Basic was published, three years after AD&D.

I don't think it reasonable to suggest that _anyone_ other than Gygax's players, were assumed to be playing in Greyhawk before that time.  How can material be "for Greyhawk" when Greyhawk... doesn't really exist in the market?


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 30, 2020)

Oofta said:


> I always do a homebrew campaign.  But you know what?  I find it far less work and time than running a published campaign while also being much more responsive to my players.
> 
> The thing is, I'm lazy.  Like really, really lazy when it comes to running a campaign.  I have a bunch of lists of random names and locations that I generate online.  I think of campaign arcs and plot points during my commute.  I jot a few notes down when I get a chance, grab a handful of monsters and I'm ready for a session.  I almost never predraw maps other than to have a general idea of the likely areas the PCs are going to go.  After the session I jot down a few notes.  I use a map I made years ago but only use the portions that actually matter to the PCs.
> 
> For me it takes roughly half the time to plan and document a home campaign than to run a mod.



Yep, this is me too.  The only reason I've leaned towards published settings recently is because they have a map, and because I have players that will actually do some homework to learn the setting.  

I've never understood the idea that "prepublished adventures save me time".  It takes me way longer to read the book and understand the adventure structure than it does to just make something up.  And the stuff I make up is already customized for the PCs!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2020)

I don't mind the reading part. I read the module through, and decide as I go what I'm going to use and not use. More importantly, I have ideas as I go about what to change and add and whatever. By the time I'm done reading I have a pretty clear picture of what the adventure is going to look like. Everyone has a different process though.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 30, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Yep, this is me too.  The only reason I've leaned towards published settings recently is because they have a map, and because I have players that will actually do some homework to learn the setting.
> 
> I've never understood the idea that "prepublished adventures save me time".  It takes me way longer to read the book and understand the adventure structure than it does to just make something up.  And the stuff I make up is already customized for the PCs!




I've been finding this more and more true as time goes by. I think that's likely because many adventures these days are designed as an entire adventure path, or as part of that path. So you have to either become familiar with a lot of material, or you have to sift through a bunch of it for the bits you like.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 30, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I've been finding this more and more true as time goes by. I think that's likely because many adventures these days are designed as an entire adventure path, or as part of that path. So you have to either become familiar with a lot of material, or you have to sift through a bunch of it for the bits you like.



Yup, those relatively short modules where much easier to digest than the modern trend for epics.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Yup, those relatively short modules where much easier to digest than the modern trend for epics.




Exactly. I picked up Trilemma Adventures, a kind of OSR style bundle of short site based adventures to see if that kind of product would be more helpful. And it is a bit....each of the many adventures in the book fits onto 1 to 3 pages. The entries are utilitarian yet evocative. 

But I'm still finding that my mix of minimal prep and improv at the table to be the best approach for my game.

I think it's more a question of if there is any improvement in the experience at the table, for my players most importantly, but also for me, when using published material. My players seem to enjoy my personal approach at least as much or more than when I run published material, and it's easier for me to do my thing.....so it's a win/win. 

I still like to pick up published material for inspiration and lifting of some basic elements like maps and stat blocks, but I don't find them to be much use at the table during play.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 30, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I've never understood the idea that "prepublished adventures save me time".  It takes me way longer to read the book and understand the adventure structure than it does to just make something up.




In a game (like 3e, say) for which generation of combat encounters takes a lot of effort, I think published material save many people a lot of time.

And, to be brutally honest... not every GM is a writer of intricate novels.  Many of us don't come up with particularly interesting or tangled situations as the basis for their adventures.  For these folks, a published adventure can save them a lot of brain-wracking.


----------



## prabe (Jan 30, 2020)

Oofta said:


> I always do a homebrew campaign.  But you know what?  I find it far less work and time than running a published campaign while also being much more responsive to my players.
> 
> The thing is, I'm lazy.  Like really, really lazy when it comes to running a campaign.  I have a bunch of lists of random names and locations that I generate online.  I think of campaign arcs and plot points during my commute.  I jot a few notes down when I get a chance, grab a handful of monsters and I'm ready for a session.  I almost never predraw maps other than to have a general idea of the likely areas the PCs are going to go.  After the session I jot down a few notes.  I use a map I made years ago but only use the portions that actually matter to the PCs.
> 
> For me it takes roughly half the time to plan and document a home campaign than to run a mod.




This is about where I am. Granted, I have been ... forcibly retired for a little more than two years, so I have more time on my hands, but what takes time in my experience is making the world before Session One (or Session Zero). Once a campaign is going it's usually pretty easy to see where it will go; every once in a while, a party will have resolved what they were working on and I will have to sketch out things for the directions I can think of, but even that isn't something I find all that hard.

Of course, there's also the fact that I more or less can't understand published adventures, and what I do understand seems like more work to fix than writing my own (including figuring out a way to tie the characters to it, which is rarely a strength in published adventures, IME).


----------



## Oofta (Jan 30, 2020)

Umbran said:


> In a game (like 3e, say) for which generation of combat encounters takes a lot of effort, I think published material save many people a lot of time.
> 
> And, to be brutally honest... not every GM is a writer of intricate novels.  Many of us don't come up with particularly interesting or tangled situations as the basis for their adventures.  For these folks, a published adventure can save them a lot of brain-wracking.



I occasionally buy published mods to farm for ideas, but by and large they seem to be lacking much in the way of plot or intrigue anyway.  Maybe I just haven't picked up the right ones but they seem to be quite simplistic.  A cult is yet again bent on death and destruction, blah, blah, blah.  

I can get as much depth from online random plot and NPC generators.

But different strokes for different folks and what-not.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

I like printing maps from adventures and stocking it with my own stuff.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 30, 2020)

Oofta said:


> I occasionally buy published mods to farm for ideas, but by and large they seem to be lacking much in the way of plot or intrigue anyway.




Well, D&D doesn't sell itself as having a focus on such things.  Go look at a Shadowrun or Ashen Stars module - these games have much more focus on intrigue and investigation, and their modules show it.


----------



## Coroc (Jan 30, 2020)

Oofta said:


> I always do a homebrew campaign.  But you know what?  I find it far less work and time than running a published campaign while also being much more responsive to my players.
> 
> The thing is, I'm lazy.  Like really, really lazy when it comes to running a campaign.  I have a bunch of lists of random names and locations that I generate online.  I think of campaign arcs and plot points during my commute.  I jot a few notes down when I get a chance, grab a handful of monsters and I'm ready for a session.  I almost never predraw maps other than to have a general idea of the likely areas the PCs are going to go.  After the session I jot down a few notes.  I use a map I made years ago but only use the portions that actually matter to the PCs.
> 
> For me it takes roughly half the time to plan and document a home campaign than to run a mod.



I like that. Sometimes when i wing and improvise, i do things like complex riddles on the fly. But i normally run official settings and modify the mto my needs because i do not want tocreate long lists of names and locations


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2020)

Wow.

You'd think that no one actually read the 1e DMG where Greyhawk is specifically used - artifacts being probably the easiest example.  Or the 1e PHB with it's "named" spells.  The non-human deities in Deities and Demigods?  "There was no Greyhawk" before 1980?  Seriously?  

Sorry, no.  It was ALL Greyhawk.  All those proper nouns in modules like the GDQ series?  Which, by the way, DO predate 1980.  

Greyhawk is not like other settings.  It wasn't, "boxed set first".  Those modules, the references in the core books?  That's Greyhawk.  That's how the setting was presented.  Not setting first and then some modules and supplements to showcase the setting.  It was modules and adventures first.  

Heck, Tomoachan was pretty much the sum total of the information we had on the Olman society for a long, long time.  It still is the basis for the setting information.  

Oh, and, by the way, since folks don't seem to know their history - orcs were referenced in the Dragonlance novel Kendermore (1989) with a half-orc character.  Oops.  It's not considered canon and it's generally simply considered a mistake.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2020)

Look, let's see if this will clear up how I understand Greyhawk and what differentiates GH from pretty much every other setting.

Greyhawk is the Keep on the Borderlands setting of D&D.  It's not Forgotten Realms where you have a constantly changing setting that is described in glorious, excruciating detail, where it is possible for a player to actually know the setting better than the DM.  No, Greyhawk expects you to fill in those details just like Keep on the Borderlands did.  You are expected to provide the names, the other NPC's, and all the other bits and bobs of the setting.  All Greyhawk does is give you a very, very bare bones framework, with some really interesting details (what exactly did happen at Emridy Meadows?  Don't know?  Make it up!) and leaves it up to the DM to then breathe life into the setting.

Do you want a Greyhawk where everyone is a closet Scarlet Brother, xenophobically hating other races?  FANTASTIC.  Do that.  Do you want a Greyhawk where gunpowder is made from dragon poop?  GREAT!  Do that.  So on and so forth.  

Greyhawk is the differentiated from other settings by being very much an ur-setting.  My Greyhawk, your Greyhawk and someone else's Greyhawk should probably look very, very little alike.  And that's ok.  That's expected.  That's the way it's always been.  How did we play Greyhawk before the folio and the boxed set?  We had the modules.  That's where Greyhawk always lived first.  We had those tantalizing details in the DMG- who was Lum or Dalver-Nar?  Mordenkainen or Leomund?


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> They retconned in Dragonborn nation's in 4E FR. It was terrible.




They did. And as we know, this ruined FR beyond salvaging, and the setting was never used by Wizard's again.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> They did. And as we know, this ruined FR beyond salvaging, and the setting was never used by Wizard's again.




 Well they retconned their nation's out. 

 Since 1E and 3.0 realms are better than 4E and 5E (general opinion) adding Dragonborn didn't improve the setting.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Well they retconned their nation's out.
> 
> Since 1E and 3.0 realms are better than 4E and 5E (general opinion) adding Dragonborn didn't improve the setting.




This "general opinion" can't exactly be proven. Especially since 5E Forgotten Realms, simply because way more people play 5E instead of anything else, is more popular that previous editions versions of FR.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your opinion is entirely subjective and impossible to prove one way or another.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> This "general opinion" can't exactly be proven. Especially since 5E Forgotten Realms, simply because way more people play 5E instead of anything else, is more popular that previous editions versions of FR.
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but your opinion is entirely subjective and impossible to prove one way or another.




 I would be willing to bet 1,E or 3E would win best FR poll. 4E us hated and 5E us to sparse. 

 2Es just kinda there.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> I would be willing to bet 1,E or 3E would win best FR poll. 4E us hated and 5E us to sparse.
> 
> 2Es just kinda there.




Maybe it would win here, filled with people who started in 1E or 3E. But a general audience of D&D players? 5E would smash aside the other editions, no question.

Now I'll admit it wouldn't be a fair comparison because most people who have played in FR have only played in 5E. But that just leads back to how you can't "objectively" prove that one edition's version of FR is better than another.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Maybe it would win here, filled with people who started in 1E or 3E. But a general audience of D&D players? 5E would smash aside the other editions, no question.
> 
> Now I'll admit it wouldn't be a fair comparison because most people who have played in FR have only played in 5E. But that just leads back to how you can't "objectively" prove that one edition's version of FR is better than another.




 New players won't know any better. They already have a heap of options to pick from. FR, Eberron, new CR thing.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> New players won't know any better. They already have a heap of options to pick from. FR, Eberron, new CR thing.




I can counter that old players don't know better, with their previous "experience" being tainted by nostalgia making them inherently biased.

Again, this is not something you can objectively prove on way or another.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> I can counter that old players don't know better, with their previous "experience" being tainted by nostalgia making them inherently biased.
> 
> Again, this is not something you can objectively prove on way or another.




 A lot of old players are familiar with new stuff lol. 

 It's not a requirement for me I like variety.  I'm completely fine with anything goes as long as the setting or campaign is built for it. 

 I prefer phb plus a few races special to that setting though.  Even if you're using WotC material. 

 How many races are in the official game now?


----------



## generic (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> A lot of old players are familiar with new stuff lol.
> 
> It's not a requirement for me I like variety.  I'm completely fine with anything goes as long as the setting or campaign is built for it.
> 
> ...



How is this a coherent post in the context of the discussion, though?

There are over 30 official races in the game, iirc.  More if you count the Plane Shift articles.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 30, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> How is this a coherent post in the context of the discussion, though?
> 
> There are over 30 official races in the game, iirc.  More if you count the Plane Shift articles.



Plus of course there's all the 3rd party products.  God knows how many ways there are to play Ratpeople and catpeople and lion people and lizard people.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> How is this a coherent post in the context of the discussion, though?
> 
> There are over 30 official races in the game, iirc.  More if you count the Plane Shift articles.




 Main point is if you run anything goes no one is really gonna care about any of the races.  The get lost in the shuffle. 

 It mostly turns into pick the most powerful one.

 Think of the classic settings they often added a few races not throw open the doors.


----------



## generic (Jan 30, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> Plus of course there's all the 3rd party products.  God knows how many ways there are to play Ratpeople and catpeople and lion people and lizard people.



Cat people?  They're called Tabaxi, and they're in VGtM!


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Main point is if you run anything goes no one is really gonna care about any of the races.  The get lost in the shuffle.
> 
> It mostly turns into pick the most powerful one.
> 
> Think of the classic settings they often added a few races not throw open the doors.



Ha.  The last game I played in was 3 half-elves and 2 humans.
The one before that was 2 humans, 2 half-elves and a half-orc.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> A lot of old players are familiar with new stuff lol.




Look you're just completely missing the point here. You can't just state that an edition's version of a setting is better than another as if it's a fact, when that is a subjective opinion.

Pretty much all art, including D&D settings (which is made up of a collection of stories and fictional worldbuilding) can only be judged subjectively. If you don't like something, that doesn't make it inherently worse, just as my finding it good doesn't make it inherently better. We have different tastes.

I think I'll just drop this convo as you tried to shift the discussion to something else.


----------



## generic (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Main point is if you run anything goes no one is really gonna care about any of the races.  The get lost in the shuffle.
> 
> It mostly turns into pick the most powerful one.
> 
> Think of the classic settings they often added a few races not throw open the doors.



Personally, I prefer it when people define their character by his or her or their personality traits, rather than just their race.  However, I am somewhat more lenient in terms of the races I allow, though I will not shove a kingdom for each one into my setting.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 30, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Cat people?  They're called Tabaxi, and they're in VGtM!



That's just the official ones.  I'm pretty sure the Midgard setting has it's own version and the Scarred Lands players guide has turned the Manticora into a cat people race.


----------



## generic (Jan 30, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> That's just the official ones.  I'm pretty sure the Midgard setting has it's own version and the Scarred Lands players guide has turned the Manticora into a cat people race.



Indeed.  And, of course, there are thousand upon thousands of homebrew race compendiums or standalone races for everything from Wasp Elves to anime girls.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Well they retconned their nation's out.
> 
> Since 1E and 3.0 realms are better than 4E and 5E (general opinion) adding Dragonborn didn't improve the setting.



No they didn't. Tymanther's still around.


Zardnaar said:


> A lot of old players are familiar with new stuff lol.
> 
> It's not a requirement for me I like variety.  I'm completely fine with anything goes as long as the setting or campaign is built for it.
> 
> ...



37. 

PHB: 9

Dragonborn
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Half-Elf
Halfling
Half-Orc
Human
Tiefling
EEPC: 3

Aarakocra
Genasi
Goliath
VGtM: 12

Aasimar
Bugbear
Firbolg
Goblin
Hobgoblin
Kenku
Kobold
Lizardfolk
Orc
Tabaxi
Triton
Yuan-Ti Pureblood
Tortle Package: 1

Tortle
ERftLW: 4

Changeling
Kalashtar
Shifter
Warforged
MToF: 1

Gith
GGtR: 5

Centaur
Loxodon
Minotaur
Simic Hybrid
Vedalken
AI: 1

Verdan
LR: 1

Locathah


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 30, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> I would be willing to bet 1,E or 3E would win best FR poll. 4E us hated and 5E us to sparse.
> 
> 2Es just kinda there.



I own the Forgotten Realms campaign settings for 1e, 2e, 3e and Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. Didn't bother with 4e. Which of these is the best? All of them of course because I can use whatever I want from any of the different versions, set the campaign whenever I want or just make naughty word up.

If I had time I would homebrew my own setting but I don't so I use published material and use it however I want.


----------



## generic (Jan 30, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> I own the Forgotten Realms campaign settings for 1e, 2e, 3e and Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. Didn't bother with 4e. Which of these is the best? 5e of course because I can use whatever I want from any of the different versions, set the campaign whenever I want or just make      up.
> 
> If I had time I would homebrew my own setting but I don't so I use published material and use it however I want.



It doesn't bother me, but the mods prefer that you don't use any language you wouldn't use around your grandmother.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 30, 2020)

You haven’t met my grandmother....


----------



## generic (Jan 30, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> You haven’t met my grandmother....



I used Morrus's words...


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 30, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> It doesn't bother me, but the mods prefer that you don't use any language you wouldn't use around your grandmother.



Apologies for the s word then but my grandmothers all died before I was born. As my mother tells it, her mother swore like a trooper. So does my aunt. We'd have got along famously.

In this day and age, I didn't realise the s word was still a swear word; you read worse in the newspapers here in the UK.


----------



## generic (Jan 30, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> Apologies for the s word then but my grandmothers all died before I was born. As my mother tells it, her mother swore like a trooper. So does my aunt. We'd have got along famously.
> 
> In this day and age, I didn't realise the s word was still a swear word; you read worse in the newspapers here in the UK.



Yeah, I am total agreement, and my grandmother has been known to swear like a sailor as well.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 30, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Look you're just completely missing the point here. You can't just state that an edition's version of a setting is better than another as if it's a fact, when that is a subjective opinion.




Sure he can.  People state their opinion as fact all the time on the forum.  Which, come to think of it is just my opinion ...


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 30, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> Apologies for the s word then but my grandmothers all died before I was born. As my mother tells it, her mother swore like a trooper. So does my aunt. We'd have got along famously.
> 
> In this day and age, I didn't realise the s word was still a swear word; you read worse in the newspapers here in the UK.



Well originally it was Eric Noah's grandmother, so perhaps she was more easily offended.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2020)

If someone has reasons why they think one edition is better than another that's fine. It does seem though that some people misplace that one little phrase, "I think". Such a little thing to lose, I completely understand - they probably get pushed under the couch, or fall down the side of the driver's seat. Sadly, it leaves one trying to sell opinions at the fact market but not understanding why sales are low.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 30, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> If someone has reasons why they think one edition is better than another that's fine. It does seem though that some people misplace that one little phrase, "I think". Such a little thing to lose, I completely understand - they probably get pushed under the couch, or fall down the side of the driver's seat. Sadly, it leaves one trying to sell opinions at the fact market but not understanding why sales are low.




Yeah the original statement just annoyed me, that "1E and 3E's FR is more popular than 4E and 5E's FR, therefore adding Dragonborn is bad."

Because one, you can't really prove they are more popular unless you actually commissioned a means-tested poll of D&D players. And two, even if you did, it would be heavily slanted in favor of 5E because it's just way more played than anything else. And if you did somehow find the more popular one, it still may be unrelated to Dragonborn.

I did try playing devil's advocate on my replies, but it's definitely frustrating when people try "proving" the un-provable


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 30, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yeah the original statement just annoyed me, that "1E and 3E's FR is more popular than 4E and 5E's FR, therefore adding Dragonborn is bad."
> 
> Because one, you can't really prove they are more popular unless you actually commissioned a means-tested poll of D&D players. And two, even if you did, it would be heavily slanted in favor of 5E because it's just way more played than anything else. And if you did somehow find the more popular one, it still may be unrelated to Dragonborn.
> 
> I did try playing devil's advocate on my replies, but it's definitely frustrating when people try "proving" the un-provable




 Main point was adding more races to a setting can indeed make it worse.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 30, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yeah the original statement just annoyed me, that "1E and 3E's FR is more popular than 4E and 5E's FR, therefore adding Dragonborn is bad."
> 
> Because one, you can't really prove they are more popular unless you actually commissioned a means-tested poll of D&D players. And two, even if you did, it would be heavily slanted in favor of 5E because it's just way more played than anything else. And if you did somehow find the more popular one, it still may be unrelated to Dragonborn.
> 
> I did try playing devil's advocate on my replies, but it's definitely frustrating when people try "proving" the un-provable



Well, it should annoy you, it's a ridiculous statement. As a syllogism it doesn't even pass the laugh test. Paired with the unsupported data set it's not even worth considering. The dragonborn thing isn't something anyone can decide with any authority for anything other than their own table. It's a like/dislike thing, there are no facts involved and no one is being forced to do anything.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Main point was adding more races to a setting can indeed make it worse.



But that's the thing—that's your opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Main point was adding more races to a setting can indeed make it worse.



Please provide at least three concrete examples of how adding more races to a setting makes it worse. Also, justify these examples with discussion as to why you think a D&D fantasy setting where anything can be added and includes magic that can conjure things; provide planar travel or allows gods to interfere in the world can not accommodate more races.

Also, in settings such as Greyhawk which accommodates both a crashed spacecraft AND a spelljammer port in the city of Greyhawk; or Forgotten Realms which has planetary portals, multiple Spelljammer ports and an asteroid Spelljammer base, why do more races hurt the setting? Hmm?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> Please provide at least three concrete examples of how adding more races to a setting makes it worse. Also, justify these examples with discussion as to why you think a D&D fantasy setting where anything can be added and includes magic that can conjure things; provide planar travel or allows gods to interfere in the world can not accommodate more races.
> 
> Also, in settings such as Greyhawk which accommodates both a crashed spacecraft AND a spelljammer port in the city of Greyhawk; or Forgotten Realms which has planetary portals, multiple Spelljammer ports and an asteroid Spelljammer base, why do more races hurt the setting? Hmm?




4E Darksun (Dragonborn shoe horned in,  defeats hidden menace if Dray, retcons Dray out, Dray were bad idea in 1st place). 

4E FR (Dragonborn shoehorned in)

Adding Spelljammer elements to Greyhawk) Krynn

 Note adding GH elements to Spelljammer/Planescape is fine. By that I mean if you want to hang out in Sigil or the Rock of Bral. 

 I like Spelljammer but it's kind of goofy. Adding goofy to FR or GH changes the tone of the setting.

 Also no Orcs in Krynn but then players can say "I'm from FR and are visiting" which is kinda silly.


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> 4E Darksun (Dragonborn shoe horned in,  defeats hidden menace if Dray, retcons Dray out, Dray were bad idea in 1st place).
> 
> 4E FR (Dragonborn shoehorned in)
> 
> ...



This reply doesn't even come close to answering my post - this does not explain how adding races makes settings worse. How does adding Dragonborn to Forgotten Realms make the setting worse? Why does adding Tabaxi or Goliaths to Forgotten Realms not make the setting worse? Why does adding Dragonborn to Dark Sun make the setting 'worse'. Define 'worse' in this context? Worse than what? Why is the original 2e edition version of Dark Sun better without Dragonborn in your 'opinion'?

I get the impression you just don't like Dragonborn which means you are biased. Your biased opinions are not facts and are not supported by any apparent actual evidence (from, say, official WotC polls) whatsoever.

I give this reply a D- for failing to answer the question set and for providing little to no evidence as to why this opinion should be considered as factual.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> This reply doesn't even come close to answering my post - this does not explain how adding races makes settings worse. How does adding Dragonborn to Forgotten Realms make the setting worse? Why does adding Tabaxi or Goliaths to Forgotten Realms not make the setting worse? Why does adding Dragonborn to Dark Sun make the setting 'worse'. Define 'worse' in this context? Worse than what? Why is the original 2e edition version of Dark Sun better without Dragonborn in your 'opinion'?
> 
> I get the impression you just don't like Dragonborn which means you are biased. Your biased opinions are not facts and are not supported by any apparent actual evidence (from, say, official WotC polls) whatsoever.
> 
> I give this reply a D- for failing to answer the question set and for providing little to no evidence as to why this opinion should be considered as factual.




You didn't ask for evidence you just asked for examples.

FR blew up the world to shoehorn them in.

Darksun. The Dragon singular. Doesn't have the usual D&D dragons, the Dray were a hidden menace not a normal race.

Spelljammer added to other settings. Changes the tone of the setting.

I allow Dragonborn in my current game. There's actually an empire of the with 5 subraces of Dragonkin to pick from as well.

Dragonborn are a bit underpowered in 5E as well.

 I stopped banning them when no one picks them anyway. 5 years in next DB chosen will be a first.


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 31, 2020)

Yes whether something is "worse" is an opinion.

Water is also wet.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> Yes whether something is "worse" is an opinion.
> 
> Water is also wet.



I heard a disturbing rumor that the sky might be blue...


----------



## billd91 (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> I get the impression you just don't like Dragonborn which means you are biased. Your biased opinions are not facts and are not supported by any apparent actual evidence (from, say, official WotC polls) whatsoever.




Doesn't matter if he's biased. If he doesn't like dragonborn and dragonborn are around in the game, the setting is worse for him. Might not be for you, but you don't get to judge what he considers better or worse on some objective scale.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Doesn't matter if he's biased. If he doesn't like dragonborn and dragonborn are around in the game, the setting is worse for him. Might not be for you, but you don't get to judge what he considers better or worse on some objective scale.




 I'm not a fan of them mechanically as they're weak.

 I'm playing Midgard, they exist as a PC option in Midgard ergo you can play them. 

 They're not very good, you're better off playing Dragonkin but they're there. They even have their own Empire.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 31, 2020)

billd91 said:


> Doesn't matter if he's biased. If he doesn't like dragonborn and dragonborn are around in the game, the setting is worse for him. Might not be for you, but you don't get to judge what he considers better or worse on some objective scale.




If he was arguing that it was "worse for him", he'd get a whole lot less push back.  However, he's trying to argue that the addition of a dragonborn objectively made Forgotten Realms "worse".  A completely unsupportable statement.

It would help a LOT if folks would stop trying to present their opinions as facts.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> FR blew up the world to shoehorn them in.




The Realm Shaking Event to usher in 4e was just plain stupid.  I couldn't agree with you more.  But its stupid because it's stupid, not because it introduced dragonborn.

They could have just been described as a new race clawing it's way out of Chult and establishing a regional presence....or maybe a result of a secret breeding program amongst all dragons for some mysterious purpose...or maybe they didn't need to explain it at all and could have just said they existed all along but in small numbers.

It's not like we have to have a RSE everytime we create a new sentient creature in a monster manual and I don't see why they have to do it to add dragonborn.

NOTE: This applies to Greyhawk too.  It's a big world.  Dragonborn can be out there somewhere without a big to-do.  You have a spaceship in a mountain, maybe they came from that planet.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 31, 2020)

It is a point to remember that the 4e shakeup of Forgotten Realms served more than a few purposes, even if it largely failed at all of them.  Sure, it was to add in the new 4e races, but, also, it was meant as a soft-reboot of the setting to clear away the accumulated cruft of the past thirty years in the hopes of attracting new fans.

Yup, it failed.  It failed for all sorts of reasons, but, primarily it failed because it was tied to 4e and the swirling mess that 4e became.  I'm not sure I'd point to any single thing as causing the failure.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> You didn't ask for evidence you just asked for examples.
> 
> FR blew up the world to shoehorn them in.




That's _how _they where added, not the fact a race _was _added. There was no_ need _to do anything to the setting, because any core rules D&D setting is teaming with far more sentient non-human races than the Moss Eisley Cantana. Take lizardfolk - added in Volo's? No, they had been part of Greyhawk/FR from the beginning - they are in the 1st edition Monster Manual, along with tritons, orcs, sea elves, fiends that can interbreed with humans etc etc. And with all those sentients running around it's not surprising if one or two others escape notice.

That's why Greyhawk doesn't work as a human-centric world - the Monster Manual says it's full of aliens, whether or not the DM allows them to be player characters. If you want a human-centric campaign world the first thing you need to do is tear up most of the Monster Manual.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

jmucchiello said:


> Watching The Orville, seeing the shuttles fly to the planet makes me laugh every time I see 30-40 seconds of the show's runtime spent on this. (Aka, the second reason they used transporters instead of model shoots of a shuttle flying to the planet.)



Have you never seen _Thunderbirds..._


(It isn't a bug, it's a feature)


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Umbran said:


> And, to be brutally honest... not every GM is a writer of intricate novels.  Many of us don't come up with particularly interesting or tangled situations as the basis for their adventures.  For these folks, a published adventure can save them a lot of brain-wracking.



Very few D&D adventures can be described as "intricate", whether homebrew or published. They are usually as formulaic as an episode of Columbo, and like Columbo none the worse for that.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Heck, Tomoachan was pretty much the sum total of the information we had on the Olman society for a long, long time.  It still is the basis for the setting information.



Hidden Shrine was based on real world cultures, with a few names changed, and very well researched. If you want to know more about the "Olmans" you just need to go back to the source material.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> That's _how _they where added, not the fact a race _was _added. There was no_ need _to do anything to the setting, because any core rules D&D setting is teaming with far more sentient non-human races than the Moss Eisley Cantana. Take lizardfolk - added in Volo's? No, they had been part of Greyhawk/FR from the beginning - they are in the 1st edition Monster Manual, along with tritons, orcs, sea elves, fiends that can interbreed with humans etc etc. And with all those sentients running around it's not surprising if one or two others escape notice.
> 
> That's why Greyhawk doesn't work as a human-centric world - the Monster Manual says it's full of aliens, whether or not the DM allows them to be player characters. If you want a human-centric campaign world the first thing you need to do is tear up most of the Monster Manual.




 You do realize humanocentric doesn't mean other races don't exist. 

 What you're allowed to play is. Some races work better as NPCs and if allowed may not have the easiest reception.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> You do realize humanocentric doesn't mean other races don't exist.
> 
> What you're allowed to play is. Some races work better as NPCs and if allowed may not have the easiest reception.



If the world is as full of aliens as Greyhawk, people aren't going to treat an alien turning up in the local tavern as remotely strange.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If you want a human-centric campaign world the first thing you need to do is tear up most of the Monster Manual.



If you want a human-centric campaign, the only thing you have to do is to say "Hey, how about a human-centric campaign?"


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> If you want a human-centric campaign, the only thing you have to do is to say "Hey, how about a human-centric campaign?"




Lol people have some funny ideas.

Could be as simple as Orcs are there to get killed. No you can't play one.

Doesn't mean Orcs don't exist.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Lol people have some funny ideas.
> 
> Could be as simple as Orcs are there to get killed. No you can't play one.
> 
> Doesn't mean Orcs don't exist.



So, what if your players decide they don't want to kill the orcs, they want to talk to them?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> So, what if your players decide they don't want to kill the orcs, they want to talk to them?




 That's fine they're BPCs. I don't really care how the PCs chose to interact with them. 

 Just because the Orcs exist though doesn't mean you can play one. Maybe you can,maybe the DM makes the game Orc centric. Maybe Orcs don't exist a'la Dragonlance/Darksun. 

 It's up to the DM what's available. For whatever reason.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> That's fine they're BPCs. I don't really care how the PCs chose to interact with them.
> 
> Just because the Orcs exist though doesn't mean you can play one. Maybe you can,maybe the DM makes the game Orc centric. Maybe Orcs don't exist a'la Dragonlance/Darksun.
> 
> It's up to the DM what's available. For whatever reason.



Sure, the DM is free to make abitary decisions about what races players can play, but if the race is in the world it's in the world, irrespective of if the DM lets you play as one or not.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Sure, the DM is free to make abitary decisions about what races players can play, but if the race is in the world it's in the world, irrespective of if the DM lets you play as one or not.




True. But that's independent of humanocentric.

 As long as the DM is upfront about things I don't care what they do. 

 If a DM says we're playing Eberron, drops an asteroid on it session 2 and post apocalyptic session 3 it's not really something that is Eberron even if it's technically on Eberron.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> True. But that's independent of humanocentric.



DM says "you can only play as human". Your human steps out of their front door and walks straight into the Moss Eisley cantina (i.e. any core rules game world).

That's not humancentric. A humancentric setting would be one where you didn't bump into aliens every 5 minutes. Making all the aliens hostile doesn't make them any less alien. A humancentric setting would be one where the average person didn't believe aliens existed.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> DM says "you can only play as human". Your human steps out of their front door and walks straight into the Moss Eisley cantina (i.e. any core rules game world).



Ironically, that's exactly what happens in Star Wars, a humanocentric saga where most main characters are humans, even though it takes place in a universe filled with thousands of different species.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> DM says "you can only play as human". Your human steps out of their front door and walks straight into the Moss Eisley cantina (i.e. any core rules game world).
> 
> That's not humancentric. A humancentric setting would be one where you didn't bump into aliens every 5 minutes. Making all the aliens hostile doesn't make them any less alien. A humancentric setting would be one where the average person didn't believe aliens existed.




 Strawman. The cantina is full of humans, maybe some demihumans and the nasty stuff is in the Caves of Chaos. 

 It would be idiotic if a DM did that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> Ironically, that's exactly what happens in Star Wars, a humanocentric saga where most main characters are humans, even though it takes place in a universe filled with thousands of different species.




 Different genre and medium. Well done though.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Strawman. The cantina is full of humans, maybe some demihumans and the nasty stuff is in the Caves of Chaos.
> 
> It would be idiotic if a DM did that.



The cantina is a metaphor. The _world_ is the cantina. You have what? five? different alien races a couple of miles down the road in the Caves of Chaos alone. Everyone knows aliens exist, and live a few miles down the road. That's not humancentric. Humancentric is when the Caves of Chaos are full of human bandits. Humancentric is when over the course of several sessions the players may gradually learn of the existence of aliens, but no one believes them.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> Ironically, that's exactly what happens in Star Wars, a humanocentric saga where most main characters are humans, even though it takes place in a universe filled with thousands of different species.



Actually, it was intentional. Star Wars is not humancentric, even though most player characters are human. Firefly/Serenity is humancentric - _everyone _is human.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's an analogy. The _world_ is the cantina. You have what? five? different alien races a couple of miles down the road in the Caves of Chaos alone. Everyone knows aliens exist, and live a few miles down the road. That's not humancentric. Humancentric is when the Caves of Chaos are full of human bandits. Humancentic is when over the course of several sessions the players may gradually learn of the existence of aliens, but no one believes them.




 You're kind of inventing interpretations of humanocentric. 

 It just means humans are the main race. Other races exist but look at B2 do you see humanoids hanging out in the Keep? 

2E DMG also explained it in regards to level limits. 

 It just really means humans are the center of the campaign. How that's executed various and most fantasy and sci fi things are humanocentric.  They're the focus of the show. 

 Pretend ircs don't buy stuff. Humans do. That's why it's about relating to the audience. 

 Doesn't mean everything has to be humanocentric. 

 There's 4 core races. That the common assumption if default D&D. Humans are one if them. 

 If you don't include humans in a home game that's fine but it's not assumed for the average player.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Actually, it was intentional. Star Wars is not humancentric, even though most player characters are human. Firefly/Serenity is humancentric - _everyone _is human.




 That's not humanocentric in the context we're using.  It's never meant non humans don't exist.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> That's not humanocentric in the context we're using.  It's never meant non humans don't exist.



Firefly never said aliens don't exist. But if they do exist they don't show up in the show and no one knows about them. If it had lasted more than half a session maybe aliens would have shown up later. Also see: The Expanse.

You can have aliens in a humancentric setting, but they shouldn't be living a few miles down the road where everyone knows about them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Firefly never said aliens don't exist. But if they do exist they don't show up in the show and no one knows about them. If it had lasted more than half a session maybe aliens would have shown up later. Also see: The Expanse.




 Not D&D doesn't matter. Generally a world/setting/franchise only has to be consistent with itself. 

 If they explore and discover aliens while building up to the idea that something is out there that's fine. 

 In D&D other stuff exists but you can't (generally) play a dragon. Replace Dragon with whatever.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Pretend ircs don't buy stuff. Humans do.



The whole plot of the Greyhawk set U1 hinges on "Pretend ircs" (avoiding spoilers) buying stuff from humans.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The whole plot of the Greyhawk set U1 hinges on "Pretend ircs" (avoiding spoilers) buying stuff from humans.




So humanocentric doesn't mean the races don't interact non violently.
You can negotiate whatever you like with them, if they listen or not is another matter.

In old D&D reaction rolls were 2d6. If you had a +2 or +3 on your roll the odds of hitting the higher positive numbers jumped drastically.

Negotiating with orcs wasn't impossible it was hard.
IIRC Orcs had a penalty to charisma. Assuming the DM let you play one they would have a lot harder time talking their way out if a hostile situation.

 DMs discretion if Orcs are allowed.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> So humanocentric doesn't mean the races don't interact non violently.
> You can negotiate whatever you like with them, if they listen or not is another matter.




Danger at Dunwater says they will listen, if the players don't mess things up. And following on from that it would make perfect sense for an alien to join the party, especially if they are going on to do U3.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Danger at Dunwater says they will listen, if the players don't mess things up. And following on from that it would make perfect sense for an alien to join the party, especially if they are going on to do U3.




 Up to the DM that one. 

 Having PCs go out and discover stuff is a better way of doing it than shoehorning stuff in. 

 Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Also if everyone starts doing that eventually you'll have no PCs left from the original party which might be an issue.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The cantina is a metaphor. The _world_ is the cantina. You have what? five? different alien races a couple of miles down the road in the Caves of Chaos alone. Everyone knows aliens exist, and live a few miles down the road. That's not humancentric. Humancentric is when the Caves of Chaos are full of human bandits. Humancentric is when over the course of several sessions the players may gradually learn of the existence of aliens, but no one believes them.




Y'know, this is a point.  And probably why everyone tends to talk past each other.  When @Paul Farquhar talks about humanocentric, he seems to be referencings settings like Hyboria.  Yes, there are non-humans in the setting, but, they are very, very few and far between.  There are entire Conan stories where no non-humans appear.  By this definition, something like John Carter, Warlord of Mars would not be humanocentric, simply because the only human in the stories is John Carter.  

OTOH, @Zardnaar is referring to the protagonists.  It's humanocentric, so long as the protagonists are human (or at least mostly human).  So, Warlord of Mars becomes Humanocentric in this definition because John Carter is the protagonist.  A campaign is humanocentric, regardless of the broader setting, so long as the PC's are (mostly) human.  

Makes for an interesting comparison really.  Is Star Wars Humanocentric?  How about Lord of the Rings?  According to @Zardnaar's definition, LotR and most certainly The Hobbit is very much not humanocentric.  There are almost no human characters at all.  OTOH, according to @Paul Farquhar, the setting of Middle Earth is pretty solidly humanocentric.  Other than a few conclaves of non-humans, nearly everyone in Middle Earth is human.  Or, take the two views of Greyhawk.  Because of the1e rules, most groups tended to be heavily weighted towards humans.  But, the setting certainly skew that way - there are tons of non-humans all over the place.  Since we're not playing by 1e rules anymore, I'm not sure if that skewing really applies.

It might be more useful to be a bit more specific in what you mean by humanocentric.  Because, at it stands, the two of you are just talking past each other.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Y'know, this is a point.  And probably why everyone tends to talk past each other.  When @Paul Farquhar talks about humanocentric, he seems to be referencings settings like Hyboria.  Yes, there are non-humans in the setting, but, they are very, very few and far between.  There are entire Conan stories where no non-humans appear.  By this definition, something like John Carter, Warlord of Mars would not be humanocentric, simply because the only human in the stories is John Carter.
> 
> OTOH, @Zardnaar is referring to the protagonists.  It's humanocentric, so long as the protagonists are human (or at least mostly human).  So, Warlord of Mars becomes Humanocentric in this definition because John Carter is the protagonist.  A campaign is humanocentric, regardless of the broader setting, so long as the PC's are (mostly) human.
> 
> ...




LotR is still humanocentric the Hobbits are a very small part if the world.

Drizzt novels are also humanocentric at least outside Menzo.

He's an outsider in a human world and I think Sojourn us a great example if what a Drow can expect to face on GH/FR. Eberron not so much.

He couldn't exactly walk into a tavern or a lit if cities early on.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Having PCs go out and discover stuff is a better way of doing it than shoehorning stuff in.



Sure. But now humans are sitting down drinking tea with people far more alien than an orc. And it's only episode 2. That's a lot more Star Trek than Firefly.

Sure, there are degrees of humancentricity, but for people who want a Game-of-Thrones type experience from their D&D Greyhawk goes nothing like far enough.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Sure. But now humans are sitting down drinking tea with people far more alien than an orc. And it's only episode 2. That's a lot more Star Trek than Firefly.
> 
> Sure, there are degrees of humancentricity, but for people who want a Game-of-Thrones type experience from their D&D Greyhawk goes nothing like far enough.




 D&D us bad for Game if Thrones type world. 

2E using a lot of optional rules is the only D&D that could come close. D&D is D&D.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> D&D us bad for Game if Thrones type world.



You can get a lot of the way there by changing from "you can't play a reptile person because the DM says so" to "you can't play a reptile person because they don't exist [lie]".


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> You can get a lot of the way there by changing from "you can't play a reptile person because the DM says so" to "you can't play a reptile person because they don't exist [lie]".




 Doesn't really matter why. Reptile people can be excluded for multiple reasons.

1. DM doesn't like them.
2. They don't exist
3. They're antagonists
4. DM wants a different tone
5. DM wants to spotlight different races
6. DM worldbuilding, wants players to focus on that
7. War
 Etc.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Doesn't really matter why. Reptile people can be excluded for multiple reasons.
> 
> 1. DM doesn't like them.
> 2. They don't exist
> ...



"Reptile Person" in this context simply means "not a human".

The first thing to do if you want a setting that will appeal to GoT fans is to say is humans are the only confirmed intelligent race on the planet. Everything (other than beasts) in the Monster Manual is mythical, and doesn't exist until the PCs encounter it.

That would be far more interesting than a world that differs from Forgotten Realms only by the DM being stricter with PC races.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> "Reptile Person" in this context simply means "not a human".
> 
> The first thing to do if you want a setting that will appeal to GoT fans is to say is humans are the only confirmed intelligent race on the planet. Everything (other than beasts) in the Monster Manual is mythical, and doesn't exist until the PCs encounter it.
> 
> That would be far more interesting than a world that differs from Forgotten Realms only by the DM being stricter with PC races.




 If that's what the DM wants sure. 

D&D dies have some baseline assumptions. 4 races, MM, DMG.
Doesn't bother me if you deviate from that but the further you deviate from it it's better off in a campaign setting. 

 I like Darksun for example, I wouldn't add DS stuff to the PHB in any serious way.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> LotR is still humanocentric the Hobbits are a very small part if the world.
> 
> Drizzt novels are also humanocentric at least outside Menzo.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but there are a number of different posters in the thread, so maybe I've confused you with someone else, but, wasn't your pre-requisite for humanocentric that the majority of the party are human?  Or have I confused you with someone else?

The Hobbit has no humans in the party.  How is that possibly a humanocentric story?


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> If that's what the DM wants sure.
> 
> D&D dies have some baseline assumptions. 4 races, MM, DMG.
> Doesn't bother me if you deviate from that but the further you deviate from it it's better off in a campaign setting.
> ...



The Urban dictionary defines humanocentricity as a human centred world view which relegates all other lifeforms as being secondary and much more inferior.

If you translate that view to a D&D setting, it doesn't prevent the existence of non- humans in the setting but it will make playing a non-human really difficult. In settings such as Forgotten Realms this would reflect trying to play a race such as a goblin or orc in 'non-enlightened' areas such as Waterdeep. More enlightened lands such as Zakhara or the Wildemount setting would not have such a strong humanocentric view.

However, by the definition provided, no official D&D setting is truly humanocentric otherwise you could not really play non-humans without having a miserable play experience. And who wants that?


----------



## Don Durito (Jan 31, 2020)

I would think of your typical humanocentric fantasy world this way:

You have a series of kingdoms and cultures.  Most of these are human cultures and kingdoms.  The Dwarves have one or two mountain cities somewhere but there in a great minority.  Elves, live in forests somewhere, halfings presumably live somewhere but don't really have anywhere in particular.  Gnomes?  Who cares about gnomes? 

Humans drive the world, and most of it's history.

Greyhawk by these lights is humanocentric.  Grey box Forgotten realms was humanocentric, although it became somewhat less so over later editions.  Birthright is definitiely humanocentric, so is Dark Sun - at least to the degree that it's main drivers of civilisation are city dwelling humans. Midgard, is not particularly, although humans are still probably the most prevalent race.  

Interestingly, D&D settings have tended to become less humanocentric over time while fantasy literature has actually gone the other way and mostly dropped even the tolkien inspired races.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> However, by the definition provided, no official D&D setting is truly humanocentric otherwise you could not really play non-humans without having a miserable play experience. And who wants that?





We-ell, we did have two Conan modules released back in the 1980s, so Hyboria was, at least briefly, an official setting.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> This reply doesn't even come close to answering my post - this does not explain how adding races makes settings worse. How does adding Dragonborn to Forgotten Realms make the setting worse? Why does adding Tabaxi or Goliaths to Forgotten Realms not make the setting worse? Why does adding Dragonborn to Dark Sun make the setting 'worse'. Define 'worse' in this context? Worse than what? Why is the original 2e edition version of Dark Sun better without Dragonborn in your 'opinion'?




A campaign setting is designed with X, Y and Z races.  Dark Sun or example came out in 1991 with very specific races in it.  In order to force Tabaxi in, you either have to do something drastic to the setting in order to get them there, which many will find to be unpalatable, or else you have to ignore the decades of gaming where there were no Tabaxi in the marketplaces or anywhere else the players went in the world and suddenly they are everywhere, which many will find to be unpalatable.  It makes the setting worse for people who want things to make sense or not be drastically setting altering.

As an example, the Forgotten Realms was released in 1987 and I bought it.  No mention of Saurials anywhere.  I played the game for years before the novel with Saurials in it was written in 1991.  They didn't make it into the game until 1996 and suddenly we have Dinosaur born in the game.  Supposedly they were brought to the world by a god, which altered the world.  I hated it and said no.  Dragonborn are the same.  They don't exist in my game.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Actually, it was intentional. Star Wars is not humancentric, even though most player characters are human. Firefly/Serenity is humancentric - _everyone _is human.




If *everyone* is human, you don't need to describe it as humanocentric. Humanocentric really only matters if humans *aren't* the only relevant groups around, but humans are dominant - culturally, politically, and as the backdrop society around the focus of the campaign setting.


----------



## generic (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> A campaign setting is designed with X, Y and Z races.  Dark Sun or example came out in 1991 with very specific races in it.  In order to force Tabaxi in, you either have to do something drastic to the setting in order to get them there, which many will find to be unpalatable, or else you have to ignore the decades of gaming where there were no Tabaxi in the marketplaces or anywhere else the players went in the world and suddenly they are everywhere, which many will find to be unpalatable.  It makes the setting worse for people who want things to make sense or not be drastically setting altering.
> 
> As an example, the Forgotten Realms was released in 1987 and I bought it.  No mention of Saurials anywhere.  I played the game for years before the novel with Saurials in it was written in 1991.  They didn't make it into the game until 1996 and suddenly we have Dinosaur born in the game.  Supposedly they were brought to the world by a god, which altered the world.  I hated it and said no.  Dragonborn are the same.  They don't exist in my game.



But, you do realize that this cannot possibly be argued as objectively making the setting worse, because that is a matter of preference.  Do I agree with you?  Yes, I do, in fact, agree with your contention that Forgotten Realms has been made worse over time.  I entered the game in 4E, as I am too young to have entered much earlier, and, I was so dissuaded from playing the setting by internet dwellers complaining about changes to the setting, that I did not play FR until I began playing 5E.  I do not wish to imagine having one of my favorite settings, say, Eberron, be destroyed by careless inclusions.  

However, this all comes down to preference, which is why you cannot prove that the setting was made worse.  Do we all know that the setting was made worse?  Yes, intuitively, many of us do.  But, there will always be those who insist on evidence, even when it is in the field of subjectivity.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

It depends _how _you introduce them. If you have Waterdeep market suddenly teaming with Saurials, that's terribad. But if adventurers uncover a secret valley full of dinosaur people, that's fine.

And with FR, it's connected to the rest of the multiverse via Spelljammer and Planescape, so a PC could be a planar traveller, even if there are no others of there kind on the planet.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> That's _how _they where added, not the fact a race _was _added.




The addition of a new race, regardless of the method, is world/setting altering.  The Dragonborn are a race that is both populous and capable of producing many level 20+ PC class PCs and NPCs or the equivalent power NPCs(depending on the method you use to make NPCs).  

If they had been running around loose in the world the entire time, they would have been known about and been present in Greyhawk and other cities/countries for entire 40 years it has been a published setting.  

There are three choices I can see that result from Dragonborn entering the setting.  1) you retcon that they were around the entire time, but SOMEHOW no player or DM knew it while they were adventuring and creating adventures in Greyhawk.  Not a good solution.  2) you just ignore that they popped in and don't bother to explain it.  Probably the best of the bad solutions.  3) You have a world altering event, like they were imprisoned magically as a race for 10 bazillion years and just got released, came from another world en masse, or some other way, which is the most setting destructive method.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> But, you do realize that this cannot possibly be argued as objectively making the setting worse, because that is a matter of preference.  Do I agree with you?  Yes, I do, in fact, agree with your contention that Forgotten Realms has been made worse over time.  I entered the game in 4E, as I am too young to have entered much earlier, and, I was so dissuaded from playing the setting by internet dwellers complaining about changes to the setting, that I did not play FR until I began playing 5E.  I do not wish to imagine having one of my favorite settings, say, Eberron, be destroyed by careless inclusions.
> 
> However, this all comes down to preference, which is why you cannot prove that the setting was made worse.  Do we all know that the setting was made worse?  Yes, intuitively, many of us do.  But, there will always be those who insist on evidence, even when it is in the field of subjectivity.



There is no objectivity here, unless you are looking at sales numbers and can definitively link a drop to the release of the race.


----------



## generic (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> There is no objectivity here, unless you are looking at sales numbers and can definitively link a drop to the release of the race.



My point exactly... Did you read my whole post...?


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Sure, the DM is free to make abitary decisions about what races players can play, but if the race is in the world it's in the world, irrespective of if the DM lets you play as one or not.



I've never met a DM that just made random decisions about what races can be played.  They have reasons, which excludes arbitrary.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> My point exactly... Did you read my whole post...?



I did, perhaps you missed in the post you quoted where I say, "...which many will find to be unpalatable" and " I hated it and said no."

Clearly I was talking about subjective and not objective.


----------



## generic (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I did, perhaps you missed in the post you quoted where I say, "...which many will find to be unpalatable" and " I hated it and said no."
> 
> Clearly I was talking about subjective and not objective.



I know that... that's why... oh, sorry.  Yeah, I did indeed miss that.  That's the trouble with having fifteen different tabs open, all of them being read within seconds of each other.  I apologize for taking your argument out of context.


----------



## jasper (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> ….
> There are three choices I can see that result from Dragonborn entering the setting.  1) you retcon that they were around the entire time, but SOMEHOW no player or DM knew it while they were adventuring and creating adventures in Greyhawk.  Not a good solution.
> 2) you just ignore that they popped in and don't bother to explain it.  Probably the best of the bad solutions.
> 3) You have a world altering event, like they were imprisoned magically as a race for 10 bazillion years and just got released, came from another world en masse, or some other way, which is the most setting destructive method.



I am tempted to do 3. 
THIS IS THE THIRD AGE... 10,000 years Star City arose from the grounds of a great adventuring group. (my 1E) 1,000 years ago the Second Age began (3E). It is now 10,030. 30 years the change came.  People awoken changed.  Some became what is call Dragonborn. Other Teeth Lings. Others were change to what ever  is the flavor of the week. (AKA what ever Maxperson can whine about until Jasper gives in.)
I have another DM who loudly states I am an evil bad wrongfun DM because if I would homebrew I would limit races and books. I just reply  If I was homebrewing I wouldn't let him sit at my table.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> I know that... that's why... oh, sorry.  Yeah, I did indeed miss that.  That's the trouble with having fifteen different tabs open, all of them being read within seconds of each other.  I apologize for taking your argument out of context.



No worries!  I think we've all confused people and arguments here.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

jasper said:


> I am tempted to do 3.
> THIS IS THE THIRD AGE... 10,000 years Star City arose from the grounds of a great adventuring group. (my 1E) 1,000 years ago the Second Age began (3E). It is now 10,030. 30 years the change came.  People awoken changed.  Some became what is call Dragonborn. Other Teeth Lings. Others were change to what ever  is the flavor of the week. (AKA what ever Maxperson can whine about until Jasper gives in.)
> I have another DM who loudly states I am an evil bad wrongfun DM because if I would homebrew I would limit races and books. I just reply  If I was homebrewing I wouldn't let him sit at my table.



If you like it, go for it.  

Calling me a whiner is not only an inappropriate response to my posts, but it's also against the forum rules.  Don't do it again.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The addition of a new race, regardless of the method, is world/setting altering.



Nope. Planar travellers visit Toril all the time, so having another one in no way alters the setting.


> The Dragonborn are a race that is both populous



They never had to be populous (and aren't in my FR). Player Character exceptionalism means you can still play one even if you are the only one on the planet.



> If they had been running around loose in the world the entire time, they would have been known about and been present in Greyhawk and other cities/countries for entire 40 years it has been a published setting.




Not if they where confined to some obscure part of the setting. New species are constantly being discovered, and the World of Greyhawk has only ever mapped one out of many continents.


----------



## jasper (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> If you like it, go for it.
> 
> Calling me a whiner is not only an inappropriate response to my posts, but it's also against the forum rules.  Don't do it again.



Sorry. I thought you get the joke of x person whining until the gm and other players give in.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Nope. Planar travellers visit Toril all the time, so having another one in no way alters the setting.




Correct.  Having ONE is in now way setting altering.  Having an entire race  IS setting altering.



> They never had to be populous (and aren't in my FR). Player Character exceptionalism means you can still play one even if you are the only one on the planet.




Then that's your home brew.  Just like I home brew Warforged in my game to be unique PCs and not a race.  As the game introduces Dragonborn, though, they are a populous race.



> Not if they where confined to some obscure part of the setting. New species are constantly being discovered, and the World of Greyhawk has only ever mapped one out of many continents.



Transportation magic and normal transportation is a thing for a race capable of generating level 20+ PCs and NPCs.  It defies reason to think that none would have been seen for thousands of years and then suddenly they are all over the place.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

jasper said:


> Sorry. I thought you get the joke of x person whining until the gm and other players give in.



Thanks.  I'm also a bit tired.  I was out gaming until 1am and then up at 5am, so my subtlety meter is lower than it's usual low.


----------



## jasper (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Thanks.  I'm also a bit tired.  I was out gaming until 1am and then up at 5am, so my subtlety meter is lower than it's usual low.



And now you bragging. Harump.  I about to leave and pick up other con goers in 27 minutes.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

jasper said:


> And now you bragging. Harump.  I about to leave and pick up other con goers in 27 minutes.



Nice.  What con?  My next con doesn't arrive until next month.


----------



## jasper (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Nice.  What con?  My next con doesn't arrive until next month.



Kamicon up in Birmingham Al.  And lets takes this to PM before we annoy other people.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It defies reason to think that none would have been seen for thousands of years and then suddenly they are all over the place.



It defies reason how no one has ever mapped the rest of WoG, but yet it happenend.

And there is no reason why a race has to be "all over the place" in order for them to be playable. Even elves in the Forgotten Realms are far from "all over the place".


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> And there is no reason why a race has to be "all over the place" in order for them to be playable. Even elves in the Forgotten Realms are far from "all over the place".



Yep!  They've always been..............oh wait, all over the place.  Not one city or country that I can think of didn't have elves.  If you look at the setting books it even gave the number or percentage of demihumans for the locations.  The percentages were low, but they were there................all over the place.


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> A campaign setting is designed with X, Y and Z races.  Dark Sun or example came out in 1991 with very specific races in it.  In order to force Tabaxi in, you either have to do something drastic to the setting in order to get them there, which many will find to be unpalatable, or else you have to ignore the decades of gaming where there were no Tabaxi in the marketplaces or anywhere else the players went in the world and suddenly they are everywhere, which many will find to be unpalatable.  It makes the setting worse for people who want things to make sense or not be drastically setting altering.
> 
> As an example, the Forgotten Realms was released in 1987 and I bought it.  No mention of Saurials anywhere.  I played the game for years before the novel with Saurials in it was written in 1991.  They didn't make it into the game until 1996 and suddenly we have Dinosaur born in the game.  Supposedly they were brought to the world by a god, which altered the world.  I hated it and said no.  Dragonborn are the same.  They don't exist in my game.



This is fine, you have explained why adding Dragonborn makes the setting worse in your opinion. The other poster did not and seems unable to.

If someone is unable to explain why they have reached a particular opinion - how that opinion was formed - that opinion is then worthless and not worthy of consideration as it has no basis. People have opinions on a great many things and usually there is a reason why they hold that opinion. An opinion without a basis is just thoughtless drivel.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> This is fine, you have explained why adding Dragonborn makes the setting worse in your opinion. The other poster did not and seems unable to.
> 
> If someone is unable to explain why they have reached a particular opinion - how that opinion was formed - that opinion is then worthless and not worthy of consideration as it has no basis. People have opinions on a great many things and usually there is a reason why they hold that opinion. An opinion without a basis is just thoughtless drivel.



I don't agree with that.  Just because someone has difficulty expressing the reason for the opinion, doesn't mean that it is baseless or thoughtless drivel.  There will rarely be an opinion that is without reason.  It may not be that useful for the purposes of understanding where that person is coming from or furthering the conversation, but the opinion itself isn't worthless.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> This is fine, you have explained why adding Dragonborn makes the setting worse in your opinion. The other poster did not and seems unable to.
> 
> If someone is unable to explain why they have reached a particular opinion - how that opinion was formed - that opinion is then worthless and not worthy of consideration as it has no basis. People have opinions on a great many things and usually there is a reason why they hold that opinion. An opinion without a basis is just thoughtless drivel.



Really?  I need a reason other than "They don't exist in my campaign and never have?"  Why?  You want a campaign with all 40-ish races as an option?  Go for it!  DM a campaign.  I might even want to play it.

I really hope my current group makes an indelible, lasting mark on my campaign world.  Well, even if they fail one possible goal (I don't set goals, I set up options) they'll probably leave a mark for better or worse.  Players contribute to the world and make it more than I could imagine all the time.

But the foundation of the world's structure is ultimately mine, and mine alone.  Between me and my wife, I'm the only one guaranteed to be interested in the world in a year or two.  So yes, I've thought long and hard about my world and it's look and feel.  No I don't have to explain why it is like it is to you.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 31, 2020)

Oofta said:


> Between me and my wife, I'm the only one guaranteed to be interested in the world in a year or two.  So yes, I've thought long and hard about my world and it's look and feel.  No I don't have to explain why it is like it is to you.




To us, no. To your players, I think common courtesy suggests you *should* - and I'm emphasizing it. As a gaming group, you need buy in from both the players and the DM. Explaining why things are as they are (without giving away spoilers) is something I think DMs *owe* their players. And it could be as simple as "I've been building this campaign setting for a long time and I've thought long and hard about the things I've incorporated into it. If I've left something out, it's because I didn't feel it fit as well as other things I thought fit better and I wanted to keep out the extra complication." But, either way, giving explanations is what builds trust - not the yes or no to adding something - and trust builds buy-in.


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

Oofta said:


> Really?  I need a reason other than "They don't exist in my campaign and never have?"  Why?  You want a campaign with all 40-ish races as an option?  Go for it!  DM a campaign.  I might even want to play it.
> 
> I really hope my current group makes an indelible, lasting mark on my campaign world.  Well, even if they fail one possible goal (I don't set goals, I set up options) they'll probably leave a mark for better or worse.  Players contribute to the world and make it more than I could imagine all the time.
> 
> But the foundation of the world's structure is ultimately mine, and mine alone.  Between me and my wife, I'm the only one guaranteed to be interested in the world in a year or two.  So yes, I've thought long and hard about my world and it's look and feel.  No I don't have to explain why it is like it is to you.



Zaardnar is posting that adding Dragonborn to the Forgotten Realms makes the setting worse. The way he posts this ( over and over again) makes this seem like an indisputable fact which he seems incapable of explaining the rationale for. Other people, including myself, disagree with this.

This has nothing to do with what you or anyone else decides to do with your own game; I - along with several other people - do not agree with Zaardnar's view; he is putting forward an argument he appears unable to justify. I do what the heck I want with my own games too but I don't state, for example, that adding Aasimar to Ravenloft makes the setting worse. I have added Aasimar to Ravenloft in my own campaign and I have my reasons.

If you post something that looks like you are stating a fact when it is actually your opinion, and people call you out on it, then you should be able to back your opinion up. If you cannot support your opinion then people will ignore you and regard your view as pointless. This is something I need to do in my work on a very regular basis and I need to back my views up with a good rationale or my input will not be taken seriously.

Do not confuse supporting an argument you are putting forward in public with doing what you want in your own game in private.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> Zaardnar is posting that adding Dragonborn to the Forgotten Realms makes the setting worse. The way he posts this ( over and over again) makes this seem like an indisputable fact which he seems incapable of explaining the rationale for. Other people, including myself, disagree with this.
> 
> This has nothing to do with what you or anyone else decides to do with your own game; I - along with several other people - do not agree with Zaardnar's view; he is putting forward an argument he appears unable to justify. I do what the heck I want with my own games too but I don't state, for example, that adding Aasimar to Ravenloft makes the setting worse. I have added Aasimar to Ravenloft in my own campaign and I have my reasons.
> 
> ...



But what I was responding to is the "The DM has to justify their setting" idea.  Maybe I'm confused - I'm starting to come down with cold/flu - but my point is that no, I don't think I need to justify every decision I've ever made for my campaign.  I don't really care what other people decide or what published campaigns do.

This applies to @billd91 as well.  Personally, I find FR to be kitchen sink garbage dump of a campaign.  That doesn't mean it's not fun in it's own way, but I have a problem taking it seriously.  The number of races already stretches credulity for me, I don't want to stretch it any further.  While I play to have fun, my campaign has a serious side as well.  I would have a hard time feeling that I could run a serious campaign with a kitchen sink campaign.

So I limit races and include that in my session 0/campaign invite posting.  If anybody asks the reason is a simple "it doesn't make sense in my world".

On the other hand let's say you join my campaign and you want to play a Minotaur.  I think about it for a bit and while they're traditionally a monstrous race I've never actually used them.  So sure.  Cow-boy it up.  I come up with a story of how minotaurs were on an undiscovered island of Etrec and off we go.

But then you decide that minotaurs are a bunch of bull and instead want to play a Kenku.  Again, I come up with a story of a hidden valley, a curse, whatever.  Then you decide Kenku are nothing to crow about.

I could go on with the puns like there's something fishy about Locathah and so on but my point is that if I start allowing one new race I have less and less reason to ban other races.  At a certain point, to me race just becomes a rubber mask and races have no meaning.

My limits and house rules are not arbitrary.   That doesn't mean I have to justify it to anyone.


----------



## Undrave (Jan 31, 2020)

Oofta said:


> On the other hand let's say you join my campaign and you want to play a Minotaur. I think about it for a bit and while they're traditionally a monstrous race I've never actually used them. So sure. Cow-boy it up. I come up with a story of how minotaurs were on an undiscovered island of Etrec and off we go.




You could C.O.W.-boys it up instead! It's an easy way to suddenly add a new race to a setting: Because Magical Meteorite! 

Then, the fact they're a brand new race adds interesting story elements


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

Oofta said:


> But what I was responding to is the "The DM has to justify their setting" idea.  Maybe I'm confused - I'm starting to come down with cold/flu - but my point is that no, I don't think I need to justify every decision I've ever made for my campaign.  I don't really care what other people decide or what published campaigns do.
> 
> This applies to @billd91 as well.  Personally, I find FR to be kitchen sink garbage dump of a campaign.  That doesn't mean it's not fun in it's own way, but I have a problem taking it seriously.  The number of races already stretches credulity for me, I don't want to stretch it any further.  While I play to have fun, my campaign has a serious side as well.  I would have a hard time feeling that I could run a serious campaign with a kitchen sink campaign.
> 
> ...



This all perfectly reasonable and I agree with you.

My issue is this as succinctly as I can make it: if someone puts forward an argument into the public domain and a member of the public disagrees and asks for a rationale for that viewpoint; the person should provide that rationale or expect their view to be ignored/not worthy of consideration. Don't want to be considered foolish/thoughtless? Then don't make public statements of your opinion presented as fact without being able to back that opinion up with thought out rationale.

This is how the real world works; you will be expected to defend viewpoints you put out into public arena/ social media. If you can't then you diminish yourself and people will no longer consider what you have to say.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 31, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> This all perfectly reasonable and I agree with you.
> 
> My issue is this as succinctly as I can make it: if someone puts forward an argument into the public domain and a member of the public disagrees and asks for a rationale for that viewpoint; the person should provide that rationale or expect their view to be ignored/not worthy of consideration. Don't want to be considered foolish/thoughtless? Then don't make public statements of your opinion presented as fact without being able to back that opinion up with thought out rationale.
> 
> This is how the real world works; you will be expected to defend viewpoints you put out into public arena/ social media. If you can't then you diminish yourself and people will no longer consider what you have to say.




I agree with taking issue with people presenting opinion as fact.  If it happens now and then it's just something that's poorly phrased and intent or meaning was not properly conveyed.  It happens.  But when people double down on it, it bugs me a bit as well.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 31, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Do not confuse having a pleasant conversation about what people like, and dislike, about a game involving dragons and unicorns on the internet ...
> 
> with whatever super serious debate you think you're trying to win.



Not trying to win a debate around an Elf game; I am responding to someone who presents their opinions as fact and then can't explain why they think that way. It doesn't matter what forum I'm on, I will always call that out otherwise we end up with misrepresentation; misinformation or fake news. 

It doesn't come across as a pleasant conversation actually; not engaging in discussion but just stating 'this is a fact' is not a conversation - it's just aggravating.

By the way, have you read many discussion threads on this site? Because a considerable number seem to digress into 'super serious discussions'. If you are looking for pleasant conversations about rpgs without argument or heated debate then you are in the wrong place.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 31, 2020)

Oofta said:


> But what I was responding to is the "The DM has to justify their setting" idea.  Maybe I'm confused - I'm starting to come down with cold/flu - but my point is that no, I don't think I need to justify every decision I've ever made for my campaign.  I don't really care what other people decide or what published campaigns do.
> 
> This applies to @billd91 as well.  Personally, I find FR to be kitchen sink garbage dump of a campaign.  That doesn't mean it's not fun in it's own way, but I have a problem taking it seriously.  The number of races already stretches credulity for me, I don't want to stretch it any further.  While I play to have fun, my campaign has a serious side as well.  I would have a hard time feeling that I could run a serious campaign with a kitchen sink campaign.
> 
> ...




Yeah... I may be misinterpreting your post, but if your point is "My table, my rules, I can decide what I want even if it's arbitrary and don't need to justify it," then I totally disagree.

Now, you don't need to justify your decisions to us here on this forum; we don't matter to your table (and we shouldn't).

But there should be some justification made to your players.

Let's say one of my players comes to me and says "Hey I came up with this great idea for a centaur PC, I worked hard on it can I use it?" And I replied "Naw none of that weird s*it, bipedals only," I'm being a bad DM.

Now, I can justify my "no centaurs" rules by saying something like, "In the world I've already built and established, your bard centaur doesn't really work because centaur culture is no more advanced than chimpanzees." But I still have to make a justification.

If I'm not, I'm just treating my players like their contribution to the game matters less than my own, and that reveals a lack of respect, like their just actors in _my_ game. Which I think misses the point of D&D entirely.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 31, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 31, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> Nope. I thought this was for my fellow bronies. Fluttershy FTW!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was about to say "it's genocidal halflings not gnomes," but honestly it just makes this post funnier...

Also, no paladins. Doesn't matter if related, but no paladins.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 31, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yeah... I may be misinterpreting your post, but if your point is "My table, my rules, I can decide what I want even if it's arbitrary and don't need to justify it," then I totally disagree.
> 
> Now, you don't need to justify your decisions to us here on this forum; we don't matter to your table (and we shouldn't).
> 
> ...



My justification is that it's my world and I've made decisions over the years and here's the result.  

I don't make arbitrary decisions but I don't feel the need to justify every decision.  As far as players having an impact, their actions or lack therein absolutely matter.  But the players aren't defining the world, I am.

Want to design a world?  Go for it.  It's called being a DM.  Tell me up front what the parameters are and I'll decide whether it makes sense for me to join.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 31, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 31, 2020)

Oofta said:


> I don't make arbitrary decisions but I don't feel the need to justify every decision.  As far as players having an impact, their actions or lack therein absolutely matter.  But the *players aren't defining the world, I am*.




See here's my disagreement with you; they are, they're the players in it. If you make a king and they kill and overthrow him, they're defining the world. If you arbitrarily block that move, you're removing player agency, which to me defeats the whole point of why you're actually playing D&D.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 31, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> I always get that mixed up. I thought that the gnomes were killed off in Dark Sun because the kender ate all of them?




Close, it's the templars (paladins) who killed the gnomes. But don't worry, I'm making a module where the kender travel my Spelljammer to Dark Sun to eat the templars.

Then I'll need something to eat the kenders, I'm still working out the details...


----------



## Nebin (Jan 31, 2020)

I rip off the good parts for my home game. spells locations ideas, always steal prom the best :
).


----------



## Oofta (Jan 31, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> See here's my disagreement with you; they are, they're the players in it. If you make a king and they kill and overthrow him, they're defining the world. If you arbitrarily block that move, you're removing player agency, which to me defeats the whole point of why you're actually playing D&D.




In a recent campaign a PC because of their choices and actions did become the king (well, emperor/over-king).  The future of that region will be changed for many campaigns to come and the land will be much more peaceful and prosperous, at least for a while.

But I put the king there in the first place.  I decided that there _were _kings in my world.  I decided in this particular case that the king had no legitimate claim to the throne and was actually a red dragon.  Oh, and  the dragon's mother is _really_ pissed off with her son.   I haven't decided what the long term fallout of that will be or how/if I will integrate it into future campaigns.

Players also help me fill in the world and it's background all the time.  But I have final say.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 31, 2020)

Oofta said:


> In a recent campaign a PC because of their choices and actions did become the king (well, emperor/over-king).  The future of that region will be changed for many campaigns to come and the land will be much more peaceful and prosperous, at least for a while.
> 
> But I put the king there in the first place.  I decided that there _were _kings in my world.  I decided in this particular case that the king had no legitimate claim to the throne and was actually a red dragon.  Oh, and  the dragon's mother is _really_ pissed off with her son.   I haven't decided what the long term fallout of that will be or how/if I will integrate it into future campaigns.
> 
> Players also help me fill in the world and it's background all the time.  But I have final say.




See this just sounds like railroading under a different name. Do your players have any choices at all? Or only a list of options that you "allow"?

If my players divert from my original plan for the campaign, I adapt my plans and world for that. I don't try to _force _them back, though I'll offer them carrots and sticks to get them back on track if there's something I really think they'd enjoy.

If the game is just "Here's my world and story, and I expect you to follow the breadcrumbs I lay out," in storytelling terms that's not much different from a video game. And if I want that, I'll just play a video game.


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> See this just sounds like railroading under a different name. Do your players have any choices at all? Or only a list of options that you "allow"?
> 
> If my players divert from my original plan for the campaign, I adapt my plans and world for that. I don't try to _force _them back, though I'll offer them carrots and sticks to get them back on track if there's something I really think they'd enjoy.
> 
> If the game is just "Here's my world and story, and I expect you to follow the breadcrumbs I lay out," in storytelling terms that's not much different from a video game. And if I want that, I'll just play a video game.



If everyone in the game is having fun then telling someone they are running the game in a bad way is 'Your way is BadWrongFun'.

So what if someone runs a game in a way you don't approve of? You're not playing in that game are you? Live and let live.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2020)

Deciding that the king is in fact a red dragon isn't railroading. No one is having a choice forced. All that's happened is that the DM decided that X is the case. What the players do about it, how they find out about it, well that's up to them. If the dragon king is somehow key to the plot, then even if the players make no effort to find out that fact, I'd have them find out anyway, because they need to know. Once agin, after they know, they go back to deciding what to do about it. It isn't railroading.

On a separate note, the DM probably should justify the scope and limitations of the campaign, that would be good practice - that's what a pitch and session zero are for. However, if you show up at session zero with the Centaur character without knowing anything about the campaign, you probably shouldn't just expect to be allowed to use it. As a DM I'm under no obligation to allow any damn thing a player wants to play just because they want it. That's the worst kind of player entitlement.


----------



## Oofta (Jan 31, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> See this just sounds like railroading under a different name. Do your players have any choices at all? Or only a list of options that you "allow"?
> 
> If my players divert from my original plan for the campaign, I adapt my plans and world for that. I don't try to _force _them back, though I'll offer them carrots and sticks to get them back on track if there's something I really think they'd enjoy.
> 
> If the game is just "Here's my world and story, and I expect you to follow the breadcrumbs I lay out," in storytelling terms that's not much different from a video game. And if I want that, I'll just play a video game.



Huh?  They chose to fight back against the emperor, they didn't have to.  The group made multiple choices along the way of who to ally with, where to spend limited resources.  When to save innocents or raid the caravan bringing payment for the soldiers to fund their revolution.  They uncovered secret plots and were betrayed when they didn't suspect an ally of being a spy despite multiple hints.

But at various points I gave them major arcs they could pursue.  At the end of most sessions I tell them "here are the obvious options and opportunities in front of you what do you want to pursue next session or do you want to do something else?"

That's not a railroad, it's an open road.  I create the map, they decide where to go. It's a far, far cry from saying "I don't want drow as a playable race" to saying I run a railroad campaign.  But even if I did (which most modules seem to), who cares if everyone at the table is having fun?


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Jan 31, 2020)

Oofta said:


> Huh?  They chose to fight back against the emperor, they didn't have to.  The group made multiple choices along the way of who to ally with, where to spend limited resources.  When to save innocents or raid the caravan bringing payment for the soldiers to fund their revolution.  They uncovered secret plots and were betrayed when they didn't suspect an ally of being a spy despite multiple hints.
> 
> But at various points I gave them major arcs they could pursue.  At the end of most sessions I tell them "here are the obvious options and opportunities in front of you what do you want to pursue next session or do you want to do something else?"
> 
> That's not a railroad, it's an open road.  I create the map, they decide where to go. It's a far, far cry from saying "I don't want drow as a playable race" to saying I run a railroad campaign.  But even if I did (which most modules seem to), who cares if everyone at the table is having fun?




My mistake I misunderstood your post; I read this as you had purposefully designed that emperor to have them fight, and funneled all the options to that end result.

And I agree, if people are having fun at your table with some races excluded, it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Jan 31, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> My mistake I misunderstood your post; I read this as you had purposefully designed that emperor to have them fight, and funneled all the options to that end result.
> 
> And I agree, if people are having fun at your table with some races excluded, it really doesn't matter.



Ah, pleasant conversation restored - for now!


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> That's why Greyhawk doesn't work as a human-centric world - the Monster Manual says it's full of aliens, whether or not the DM allows them to be player characters. If you want a human-centric campaign world the first thing you need to do is tear up most of the Monster Manual.




Not really.

The monster manual(s) have never implied that everything in them exists in the world, IMO.

I see them as a toolkit from which you choose monsters for your campaign. 

Now adventures set in a world that include certain races, I can see your point there.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 31, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> A humancentric setting would be one where the average person didn't believe aliens existed.




I see "humanocentric" as meaning all the struggle, strife, and epic stories are told from the human point of view.

Not that other races do or don't exist.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 31, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

DMs don't have to justify it explain anything.

 They might have a hidden menace plot so revealing the reason why a player can't be XYZ ruins the bug reveal. Sure feel free to ask but if u say no I don't feel like elaborating on it. 

 Last campaign I played DM said no evil races. Didn't ask why assumed he was referring to Drive, Tieflings and various humanoids. 

 Hell I had a DM ban us from even reading the Birthright boxed set or even touch it. He hid tickets to the midnight screening of The Phantom Menace.

 That reason can be completely arbitrary. DM should be some what enthusiastic about what they want to run. 

 At the end of the day I'm inviting you to play. Right now you can okay anything in the phb and Midgard books, no you can't play a githyanki.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 31, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> ...but you didn't say I can't play a githzerai!
> 
> RULES LAWYERING FTW !!!!111!!!!!
> 
> You'll have to pry my player entitlement from my cold, dead, githzerai hands.




 Heh they're not in the Midgard material so you can't play them either.

 There's some races I prefer players not to have due to the theme. There's very few Elves in Midgard and in Nuria I would prefer a Gnolls, Minotaur, Ravenfolk, Werelion. Would also prefer no half vampires but you might be able to talk me into it. 

 Those races were going to be used more if they picked a different part of the world. If the pucked Zobeck gear/warforged cycle in Southland stuff cycles out.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2020)

What if I wanted to play a CN half Weretiger, half forest gnome, Lore Bard grappler in a hot pink luchidor mask, who plays the bagpipes skyclad? I spent a long time on that character...


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> What if I wanted to play a CN half Weretiger, half forest gnome, Lore Bard grappler in a hot pink luchidor mask, who plays the bagpipes skyclad? I spent a long time on that character...




 Nyet.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jan 31, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Nyet.



You sir are playing roshambo with my canon-given right to play whatever I feel like in any campaign and any setting without reference to theme or party composition. Shame on you.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> You sir are playing roshambo with my canon-given right to play whatever I feel like in any campaign and any setting without reference to theme or party composition. Shame on you.




This is true I am a bad bad person.

I'll file your concerns in my don't give a crap folder.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

Urriak Uruk said:


> See this just sounds like railroading under a different name. Do your players have any choices at all? Or only a list of options that you "allow"?




How do you look at that and come to the opinion that it's railroading?  All I see is that @Oofta created a game situation and the players made choices and decisions that allowed one to become King.  Nothing I see in there implies that they were forced into anything.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 31, 2020)

lowkey13 said:


> ...but you didn't say I can't play a githzerai!
> 
> RULES LAWYERING FTW !!!!111!!!!!
> 
> You'll have to pry my player entitlement from my cold, dead, githzerai hands.



Lich!  Githzerai Lich!


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 31, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Lich!  Githzerai Lich!




Githzerai Gnome Paladin lich. With rapier.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 31, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I would think of your typical humanocentric fantasy world this way:
> 
> You have a series of kingdoms and cultures.  Most of these are human cultures and kingdoms.  The Dwarves have one or two mountain cities somewhere but there in a great minority.  Elves, live in forests somewhere, halfings presumably live somewhere but don't really have anywhere in particular.  Gnomes?  Who cares about gnomes?
> 
> ...




And yet you have at least one country that is human dominant with a demihuman ruler (say, Sunndi, for example). Elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, hobgoblins, etc. are all over the place in GH.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The addition of a new race, regardless of the method, is world/setting altering.  The Dragonborn are a race that is both populous and capable of producing many level 20+ PC class PCs and NPCs or the equivalent power NPCs(depending on the method you use to make NPCs).




You're making assumptions about them being populous that are unnecessary. What PCs and special NPCs do is not necessarily indicative a a larger population.



> If they had been running around loose in the world the entire time, they would have been known about and been present in Greyhawk and other cities/countries for entire 40 years it has been a published setting.




Not necessarily, there are a lot of things that exist in GH that are not going to be common knowledge. Also, despite not being in published work in products before they were invented isn't a compelling argument.



> There are three choices I can see that result from Dragonborn entering the setting.  1) you retcon that they were around the entire time, but SOMEHOW no player or DM knew it while they were adventuring and creating adventures in Greyhawk.  Not a good solution.




Why would players or DMs have to have prior knowledge about something for it to be added to a setting? That's just silly. Just because DMs never used, and players never encountered, something doesn't mean it never existed in the setting. By that logic, nothing that appeared in D&D after the publication of the GH Folio belongs in GH (including those pesky grugach elves that Gygax invented).


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Correct.  Having ONE is in now way setting altering.  Having an entire race  IS setting altering.
> 
> Then that's your home brew.  Just like I home brew Warforged in my game to be unique PCs and not a race.  As the game introduces Dragonborn, though, they are a populous race.
> 
> Transportation magic and normal transportation is a thing for a race capable of generating level 20+ PCs and NPCs.  It defies reason to think that none would have been seen for thousands of years and then suddenly they are all over the place.




Serious question @Maxperson - have you ever seen a live civet cat?  Dodo birds existed in the world for hundreds of thousands of years before anyone knew about them.  Scientists in the real world are discovering new species every day, with all the information that we have in the real world.

A pretty large enclave of Dragonborn could be hanging out in the Hellfurnaces, or The Amedio Jungle, or The Wild Coast or The Bright Desert or any of a hundred other places without any problem whatsoever.  Have you actually played Greyhawk so much that you have run campaigns in every region?  With the same players?  Such that those players would be knowledgeable enough about every single location of Greyhawk that it would be impossible to slot in a new race?  

That is bloody impressive if true.

OTOH, it's far more likely that your players, while they might have played a campaign or two in Greyhawk, have only a passing familiarity with the setting, maybe with some strong familiarity with this or that region, and no knowledge whatsoever of different areas.  This is the nice thing about Greyhawk.  Particularly if we're rolling things back to 1983 boxed set Greyhawk.  Most of the Darlene map is undefined and undeveloped.  What's in the Pomarj?  No one knows.  What's in the Bright Desert?  No one knows.  This isn't Forgotten Realms.  Greyhawk is so undefined that I find it absolutely baffling that anyone could seriously argue that slotting in a new race is a major change to the setting.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Serious question @Maxperson - have you ever seen a live civet cat?  Dodo birds existed in the world for hundreds of thousands of years before anyone knew about them.  Scientists in the real world are discovering new species every day, with all the information that we have in the real world.
> 
> A pretty large enclave of Dragonborn could be hanging out in the Hellfurnaces, or The Amedio Jungle, or The Wild Coast or The Bright Desert or any of a hundred other places without any problem whatsoever.  Have you actually played Greyhawk so much that you have run campaigns in every region?  With the same players?  Such that those players would be knowledgeable enough about every single location of Greyhawk that it would be impossible to slot in a new race?
> 
> ...




Agree. Doesn't mean I agree you get to okay as that new race though. I'm fine with ask the DM.

Even FR doesn't remove the PHB thing. Yes the other races exist RAW, DM doesn't have to let you play them.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Agree. Doesn't mean I agree you get to okay as that new race though. I'm fine with ask the DM.
> 
> Even FR doesn't remove the PHB thing. Yes the other races exist RAW, DM doesn't have to let you play them.




Honestly, I largely agree with this.  It's always an "ask your DM" thing.  

What I don't agree with is this notion that it's somehow an difficult task to add a race to Greyhawk.  There are just far, far too many blank spaces in Greyhawk for it to be an issue.  And, frankly, if the only reason that the DM is saying no is that the DM happens to just not like that particular race, I don't have a lot of sympathy.  It's not your character.  I'd far, far rather have a player who was enthusiastic about playing a character than somehow browbeat the player into following my preferences.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I largely agree with this.  It's always an "ask your DM" thing.
> 
> What I don't agree with is this notion that it's somehow an difficult task to add a race to Greyhawk.  There are just far, far too many blank spaces in Greyhawk for it to be an issue.  And, frankly, if the only reason that the DM is saying no is that the DM happens to just not like that particular race, I don't have a lot of sympathy.  It's not your character.  I'd far, far rather have a player who was enthusiastic about playing a character than somehow browbeat the player into following my preferences.




 The context is adding races for players to play. 

 Although some settings should have certain races full stop (Orcs Krynn, Gnomes Darksun etc).


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Azzy said:


> You're making assumptions about them being populous that are unnecessary. What PCs and special NPCs do is not necessarily indicative a a larger population.




Have you read Dragonborn in 5e?  They are numerous enough to form the ranks of entire armies in great wars.  That requires a large population.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Serious question @Maxperson - have you ever seen a live civet cat?  Dodo birds existed in the world for hundreds of thousands of years before anyone knew about them.  Scientists in the real world are discovering new species every day, with all the information that we have in the real world.




Holy False Equivalence Batman!  When Dodos and other animals achieve intelligence and the ability to use magic, including the ability to teleport and shift planes, get back to me on how they are the same as Dragonborn.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Hussar said:


> And, frankly, if the only reason that the DM is saying no is that the DM happens to just not like that particular race, I don't have a lot of sympathy.  It's not your character.




Why do you want to ruin the DM's fun by forcing something he doesn't like into the game?  Seems fairly selfish of any player who would try that.


----------



## Tallifer (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Holy False Equivalence Batman!  When Dodos and other animals achieve intelligence and the ability to use magic, including the ability to teleport and shift planes, get back to me on how they are the same as Dragonborn.



Narnia and Oz for the win.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Why do you want to ruin the DM's fun by forcing something he doesn't like into the game?  Seems fairly selfish of any player who would try that.





 Yeah no DM no game.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 1, 2020)

To be fair if a player feels browbeaten because I've nixed dragonborn and monk on the payable menu well then it would probably be best if we do not share a table.

I mean we are talking about having the option to play at least 8 other possible races, their sub-races, over 10 classes and their numerous subclasses and a multitude of backgrounds. I'm no statician but that is a gross amount of possiblities.


----------



## MNblockhead (Feb 1, 2020)

My first 5e campaign involved a homebrew setting in which I only allowed PCs that were human, dwarf, or halfling and no arcane magic users at first level. I wanted to explore a concept and I was very clear about the limitations in my pitch for players. The campaign lasted over a year. If everyone at the table agrees to a set of limitations or homebrew rules, I see no cause for objection.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Sadras said:


> To be fair if a player feels browbeaten because I've nixed dragonborn and monk on the payable menu well then it would probably be best if we do not share a table.
> 
> I mean we are talking about having the option to play at least 8 other possible races, their sub-races, over 10 classes and their numerous subclasses and a multitude of backgrounds. I'm no statician but that is a gross amount of possiblities.



Not only that, but there are a multitude of different ways to play the same combination.  There are 5 in my group.  We could all easily make very different Dwarven Fighter/Battle Masters with the Soldier background.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Have you read Dragonborn in 5e?  They are numerous enough to form the ranks of entire armies in great wars.  That requires a large population.




There is nothing that requires using that fluff. For example, Eberron doesn't use that story at all.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 1, 2020)

Sorry, @Maxperson, but, have you read the 5e description of Dragonborn?  Can you point to where it states that they are so numerous they form armies?  Sure, they serve as soldiers, but, "form great armies"? Apparently my 5e PHB is different than yours.

And, again, if my playing a given race is going to "ruin the game" for the DM, yeah, I have very little interest in playing with such an inflexible DM.  Yeah, thanks, but, no thanks.  I'd much rather play with a DM who sees a new idea as a opportunity to be incorporated into the game rather than some power play to be smacked down.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Agree. Doesn't mean I agree you get to okay as that new race though. I'm fine with ask the DM.
> 
> Even FR doesn't remove the PHB thing. Yes the other races exist RAW, DM doesn't have to let you play them.



Indeed. I once said "no elves" because I knew they where coming up as antagonists. And I have a permanent ban on kenku.

But that has nothing to do if the race exists in the world or not, whether they are common or obscure or not.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, @Maxperson, but, have you read the 5e description of Dragonborn?  Can you point to where it states that they are so numerous they form armies?  Sure, they serve as soldiers, but, "form great armies"? Apparently my 5e PHB is different than yours.




You should by a WotC version, then.  

Page 32. "...others form the ranks of soldiers in great wars..."

Form THE ranks.  Not some ranks.  Not a few ranks.  But THE ranks, which means all the ranks for the great war.  Great war.  Not skirmish.  Not battle.  Not normal war.  Not small war.  GREAT war.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Azzy said:


> There is nothing that requires using that fluff. For example, Eberron doesn't use that story at all.



Yes.  You can home brew your game to be different or use a setting like Eberron that has home brewed it for you.  Sure.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You should by a WotC version, then.
> 
> Page 32. "...others form the ranks of soldiers in great wars..."
> 
> Form THE ranks.  Not some ranks.  Not a few ranks.  But THE ranks, which means all the ranks for the great war.  Great war.  Not skirmish.  Not battle.  Not normal war.  Not small war.  GREAT war.




 That's a very big leap of logic. From the ranks could be a couple of thousand.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> That's a very big leap of logic. From the ranks could be a couple of thousand.



A few thousand is all you need for a great war is it?


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> A few thousand is all you need for a great war is it?




 Depends on the time frame. Viking army was a few thousand,.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Depends on the time frame. Viking army was a few thousand,.



They engaged in raids, but lost when they met real armies.  The big armies that could engage in great wars would be the Roman Legions and such.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> They engaged in raids, but lost when they met real armies.  The big armies that could engage in great wars would be the Roman Legions and such.




 Raiding huh?









						Great Heathen Army - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Raiding huh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



England at that time was incapable of forming a decent sized army.  When it could, it defeated that army.  The legions, though, would have taken that "great" army, which is misnamed, and eaten it for a morning snack.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Pity they had no legions for 400 years.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Pity they had no legions for 400 years.



Doesn't make 2000 great, though.  You can see great armies that number in 10's and hundreds of thousands in the middle ages and earlier.

China had a 12,000 man army in 2000BC.  Egypt an army of 100,000 in 1250BC.  Persia had 500,000 in 600BC.  2000 was pocket change.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Doesn't make 2000 great, though.  You can see great armies that number in 10's and hundreds of thousands in the middle ages and earlier.
> 
> China had a 12,000 man army in 2000BC.  Egypt an army of 100,000 in 1250BC.  Persia had 500,000 in 600BC.  2000 was pocket change.




Book just says from the ranks. You can have a smallish standing army and still recruit from the ranks.

You can often accomplish a lot with relatively few men.

Hasting. About 5000 on each side, William takes England.

Arabs pushing out of Arabia. Maybe had as few as 13000 men initially.

A few thousand raiders out if Afghanistan establish the Murghal Empire.

I think our army is around 2000, in WW2 we mobilised 100k. You can still go through the ranks at 2000.

 They could still fight as mercs in great wars. It's independent of their numbers. The Swiss for example not many if them still fought in great wars.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Book just says from the ranks. You can have a smallish standing army and still recruit from the ranks.




Dude.  It says GREAT WARS.  Not raids.  Not skirmishes.  Not standing armies.  Not a relatively few men.



> I think our army is around 2000, in WW2 we mobilised 100k. You can still go through the ranks at 2000.




Our standing army before WW2 was a quarter million.  We upped it to nearly 1.5 million in 1941 and to over 3 million by 1942.  You had a small army.  We had the ranks to fight and win a great war.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Just for the sake of argument, though.  Let's assume 2000 dragonborn in the army.  That's probably 10% or less of the total population, making the dragonborn population 200,000 or more.  That's populous.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Dude.  It says GREAT WARS.  Not raids.  Not skirmishes.  Not standing armies.  Not a relatively few men.
> 
> 
> 
> Our standing army before WW2 was a quarter million.  We upped it to nearly 1.5 million in 1941 and to over 3 million by 1942.  You had a small army.  We had the ranks to fight and win a great war.




 PHB thing just says great wars. Alexander the Great had 30-40k.

 Doesn't mean the Dragonborn make up huge numbers. The Spartans fought in great wars but only had around 5k troops dropping down to less than half that. 

 It's fluff it's up to the DM if Dragonborn even exist and in what numbers. A single city state would be enough for them to participate in great wars. Well even a village but I'm assuming the can field a few thousand.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 1, 2020)

Canon pedantry.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> PHB thing just says great wars. Alexander the Great had 30-40k.
> 
> Doesn't mean the Dragonborn make up huge numbers. The Spartans fought in great wars but only had around 5k troops dropping down to less than half that.




30,000-40,000 would indicated a population of 10x that, probably more.  

The Spartans population was 35,000.  They fought in great wars, but did not make up THE ranks of the armies.  They only made up some of the ranks, so it's a False Equivalency to bring them up and equate them to what the PHB says about Dragonborn.



> It's fluff it's up to the DM if Dragonborn even exist and in what numbers.




Sure.  I've already conceded that the DM can home brew them as less populous.



> A single city state would be enough for them to participate in great wars. Well even a village but I'm assuming the can field a few thousand.



Sure, but that is also home brewing.  The PHB does not say that they make up SOME ranks and participated IN great wars.  It says they made up THE ranks of armies in great wars.  That means that they make up the entire army that is in the great war.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Canon pedantry.



English.  It has meaning.  I don't really care if you(general you) change the PHB fluff and make Dragonborn less populous.  As I said, I do that with Warforged.  There likely aren't more than 10 Warforged in my entire world.  However, as written in the PHB, dragonborn are very populous.  They have the numbers to populate an entire army in a great war, and those number would be a small fraction of their population.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> 30,000-40,000 would indicated a population of 10x that, probably more.
> 
> The Spartans population was 35,000.  They fought in great wars, but did not make up THE ranks of the armies.  They only made up some of the ranks, so it's a False Equivalency to bring them up and equate them to what the PHB says about Dragonborn.
> 
> ...




Great wars doesn't mean much in demographs. 

 And you're making very large assumptions on that sentence  in the phb. Never says they are the only ones in the wars.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Great wars doesn't mean much in demographs.
> 
> And you're making very large assumptions on that sentence  in the phb. Never says they are the only ones in the wars.



Yes it does.  They make up THE ranks.  That what "the" means.  If a museum has THE Mona Lisa, there aren't more of them anywhere else.  If THE Beatles were somewhere, it was all of them.  Not some of them.  If Dragonborn make up THE ranks, they make up all the ranks, not some of the ranks.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 1, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Yes it does.  They make up THE ranks.  That what "the" means.  If a museum has THE Mona Lisa, there aren't more of them anywhere else.  If THE Beatles were somewhere, it was all of them.  Not some of them.  If Dragonborn make up THE ranks, they make up all the ranks, not some of the ranks.




Probably taking that a bit to literally. Also implies that someone else is in charge. 

 Is it your contention that if Dragonborn are around there's great wars and the armies are made up of all Dragonborn?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 1, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Probably taking that a bit to literally. Also implies that someone else is in charge.




There is no such implication.  It makes no mention of who the generals are.  They could also be dragonborn without conflicting in the slightest with that line.



> Is it your contention that if Dragonborn are around there's great wars and the armies are made up of all Dragonborn?



No.  My contention is that of all the great wars, dragonborn comprised entire armies in at least some of them.  It uses armies plural, so they would have to have been "the ranks" in at least 2 of them.  It could be 2 our out of 10, 3 out of 6, 4 out of 5, or 2 out of 1 million.  I don't know.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 2, 2020)

you are very mad about something you could just ignore.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You should by a WotC version, then.
> 
> Page 32. "...others form the ranks of soldiers in great wars..."
> 
> Form THE ranks.  Not some ranks.  Not a few ranks.  But THE ranks, which means all the ranks for the great war.  Great war.  Not skirmish.  Not battle.  Not normal war.  Not small war.  GREAT war.




OIC.

Reading failure then.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 2, 2020)

Hussar said:


> OIC.
> 
> Reading failure then.



Yep.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 2, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Serious question @Maxperson - have you ever seen a live civet cat?  Dodo birds existed in the world for hundreds of thousands of years before anyone knew about them.  Scientists in the real world are discovering new species every day, with all the information that we have in the real world.
> 
> A pretty large enclave of Dragonborn could be hanging out in the Hellfurnaces, or The Amedio Jungle, or The Wild Coast or The Bright Desert or any of a hundred other places without any problem whatsoever.  Have you actually played Greyhawk so much that you have run campaigns in every region?  With the same players?  Such that those players would be knowledgeable enough about every single location of Greyhawk that it would be impossible to slot in a new race?
> 
> ...




I have to agree with this post.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 2, 2020)

@Maxperson, given your history of ... well... creative interpretations of what's written in D&D books, I absolutely will not engage with you further on this point.  While you have your interpretation, it might be useful to keep in mind that your interpretation is not the only possible one and that others might not be working from your understanding of the English language.  Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Yes.  You can home brew your game to be different or use a setting like Eberron that has home brewed it for you.  Sure.




Or use a setting like Greyhawk, which was designed for DMs to customize, and create fluff for the race that fits the setting. Seems like a no-brainer.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> as written in the PHB, dragonborn are very populous.  They have the numbers to populate an entire army in a great war, and those number would be a small fraction of their population.



And which campagn setting does the PHB refer to?

Oh, yes, NONE.

Maybe somewhere in the multiverse there where vast armies of dragonborn, but that says nothing about how many dragonborn exist in any particular location.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 2, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> And which campagn setting does the PHB refer to?
> 
> Oh, yes, NONE.




This is incorrect.  It has been said many times by WotC that the default setting is the Forgotten Realms.  It also says that other settings can be different when it comes to races.  This is why you are free to home brew that Dragonborn are much less populous than in the Realms or Dragonlance.  For that matter, you can homebrew those two settings to have them be much less populous or gone if you want.  Nothing stops you from changing things.



> Maybe somewhere in the multiverse there where vast armies of dragonborn, but that says nothing about how many dragonborn exist in any particular location.



True, which is again why you can home brew them to be on the verge of extinction if you want.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 2, 2020)

Who cares what it says about dragonborn in the book? My 5e campaign kicked off with Lost Mines of Phandelver and we had a dragonborn PC, and the question about how many other dragonborn are out there or where has never once come up. 

Just change it into what you prefer it to be. Problem solved.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 2, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Who cares what it says about dragonborn in the book? My 5e campaign kicked off with Lost Mines of Phandelver and we had a dragonborn PC, and the question about how many other dragonborn are out there or where has never once come up.




I certainly don't care what it says, but debate is enjoyable.



> Just change it into what you prefer it to be. Problem solved.



Dragonborn don't exist in any world I run.  Not in the Realms where the book fluff is set, and not in my current Ravenloft campaign.  I suppose if I ever run Dragonlance(unlikely) I will have them, but they will be called draconians and won't be available to the players.  

I'm a big believe in changing things to what you prefer.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 2, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is incorrect.  It has been said many times by WotC that the default setting is the Forgotten Realms.




This is not true. The only default is "the D&D multiverse".


----------



## generic (Feb 3, 2020)

Azzy said:


> This is not true. The only default is "the D&D multiverse".



Uh... no.  WotC has said that FR is the default setting.


----------



## Acolyte of Zothique (Feb 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I certainly don't care what it says, but debate is enjoyable.
> 
> 
> Dragonborn don't exist in any world I run.  Not in the Realms where the book fluff is set, and not in my current Ravenloft campaign.  I suppose if I ever run Dragonlance(unlikely) I will have them, but they will be called draconians and won't be available to the players.
> ...



The kind of debate I read in this thread is not enjoyable. It is pedantic to the extreme; aggravating and borderline adversarial. It is not debate or argument; just people talking past each other and nit picking.

The topic of the thread is why do we demand official product - that's an interesting topic. Endlessly quibbling about Dragonborn is really not.

If you like Dragonborn include them and use your imagination to fit them in. If you don't like them don't use them. There. Done.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 3, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Uh... no.  WotC has said that FR is the default setting.



I remember them distinctly _not_ saying that despite most of the APs being FR, where did they say FR was the default?


----------



## generic (Feb 3, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> I remember them distinctly _not_ saying that despite most of the APs being FR, where did they say FR was the default?



_Cough 

They didn't have to, as the Human ethnicities section of the PHB explicitly mentions FR ethnicities by name as the default Human ethnicities._


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 3, 2020)

On the other hand the PHB elven ethnicities mentions FR, GH and DL, as do several of the other demihuman entries. So there's that.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 3, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> _Cough
> 
> They didn't have to, as the Human ethnicities section of the PHB explicitly mentions FR ethnicities by name as the default Human ethnicities._



The PHB also talks about races and gods of multiple settings. Also, WotC has denied there being a "default" setting outside the multiverse.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2020)

FR is the default setting? That's news to me.  Certainly not written in any of the books the way that Greyhawk was in the 3e core books.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Feb 3, 2020)

Acolyte of Zothique said:


> The kind of debate I read in this thread is not enjoyable. It is pedantic to the extreme; aggravating and borderline adversarial. It is not debate or argument; just people talking past each other and nit picking.
> 
> The topic of the thread is why do we demand official product - that's an interesting topic. Endlessly quibbling about Dragonborn is really not.
> 
> If you like Dragonborn nclude them and use your imagination to fit them in. If you don't like them don't use them. There. Done.




It got derailed because people start conflating two different things.

1) Should Dragonborn (or other "new" PHB races) be presented as racial options in published settings that may not have had them in previous iterations?
2) Would you, as a DM, allow these in your campaign?

1) to me seems self-evident "Yes" - no way is Wizards going to, by default, come down heavy-handed and say people cannot have something from the core books in a setting they publish for 5th edition. Even if it needs a Ravinica style "they are probably visitors from another world" dodge.
2) is up to individual DMs.

From there we went on weird tangents of "dragonborn, drow and tieflings should be killed on sight" which was weird and doesn't sound like anything fun for me, but to each his own. Far more interesting was the posts by people who came up with creative and good ways to integrates things like Dragonborn into Oerth et al.


----------



## QuentinGeorge (Feb 3, 2020)

Azzy said:


> The PHB also talks about races and gods of multiple settings. Also, WotC has denied there being a "default" setting outside the multiverse.




Correct, see Jeremy Crawford's tweet here.


----------



## Bravesteel25 (Feb 3, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Uh... no.  WotC has said that FR is the default setting.




Really? Do you have a source for that? Not being snarky or malicious, just genuinely curious.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 3, 2020)

Azzy said:


> This is not true. The only default is "the D&D multiverse".



So the designers are liars?


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> So the designers are liars?




 No a Twitter post was put up and PHB doesn't specify.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 3, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> No a Twitter post was put up and PHB doesn't specify.



So it's another Crawford retcon.  This is from an interview with Mike Mearls in 2014.

"When I was working on third and fourth there was this dialogue of "Should we just embrace The Realms as the core setting?" And we were always very wary of a big backlash. Honestly people have complained, but I think when you look at how we handled the playtest, and they'll see as we roll out the core rulebooks and Tyranny of Dragons that The Realms elements are strong enough that if you like The Realms or if you don't have a setting they kind of fill in the blanks and really bring the adventure to life, but one of the strengths of The Realms is that it's so diverse that we're not really cancelling anything out but get access to things like the Cult of the Dragon. Using The Realms lets us have a very flavorful villain group with an ongoing story that we can use in the future. If you look at like Red Hand of Doom, one of the big 3rd Edition adventures that went over very well, now that adventure's published we can't really use that adventure again because it didn't have a home in D&D. It doesn't really fit into a larger world. Using The Realms let us have that. (Mike Mearls, Escapist Magazine)"


----------



## Azzy (Feb 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> So it's another Crawford retcon.  This is from an interview with Mike Mearls in 2014.
> 
> "When I was working on third and fourth there was this dialogue of "Should we just embrace The Realms as the core setting?" And we were always very wary of a big backlash. Honestly people have complained, but I think when you look at how we handled the playtest, and they'll see as we roll out the core rulebooks and Tyranny of Dragons that The Realms elements are strong enough that if you like The Realms or if you don't have a setting they kind of fill in the blanks and really bring the adventure to life, but one of the strengths of The Realms is that it's so diverse that we're not really cancelling anything out but get access to things like the Cult of the Dragon. Using The Realms lets us have a very flavorful villain group with an ongoing story that we can use in the future. If you look at like Red Hand of Doom, one of the big 3rd Edition adventures that went over very well, now that adventure's published we can't really use that adventure again because it didn't have a home in D&D. It doesn't really fit into a larger world. Using The Realms let us have that. (Mike Mearls, Escapist Magazine)"



That looks like the path that they've chosen for the adventures, however the core rules are most assuredly not tied to any single setting and are instead inclusive of multiple settings with the Great Wheel cosmology tying them altogether.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 3, 2020)

Azzy said:


> That looks like the path that they've chosen for the adventures, however the core rules are most assuredly not tied to any single setting and are instead inclusive of multiple settings with the Great Wheel cosmology tying them altogether.



That interview was very close to the release date.  It's not as if they could have changed the books in time for the release if what Mearls wrote wasn't what they went with.  Crawford is notorious for retconning what they say, changing things after the fact.  This is just another instance of it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2020)

So, your evidence is an interview in a non-gaming magazine interview?   Where, again, he doesn't actually state that FR is the default, just that it starting off, the modules would be set in Forgotten Realms because it gives them lots to work with.

Huh.  

0 for 2 in this thread on interpreting the English language so far @Maxperson.  You want to go for three?


----------



## Sadras (Feb 3, 2020)

Azzy said:


> This is not true. The only default is "the D&D multiverse".




Interesting. I would have definitely got the answer wrong on that purely based on the fact that most of the AP's are set in FR (I'm not on social media -fb, insta or twitter so I'm not exposed to all that unless someone provides a link here to an interesting feed/ruling). 

But this makes sense with their vision of being inclusive. Well done them!


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 3, 2020)

Interesting. I've always considered the variety of detailed worlds and a diversity of themes to be D&D's greatest strength and it's terrible weakness, simultaneously. I could be playing D&D at several tables, but each one can be uniquely different even if it uses the same world or setting. The game is about creativity and building a unique experience every time.

Discussions like this, however, illustrate the flaw of not having a singular, unified setting everyone can accept. Too many options and flavors result in a division of the fanbase. This will always be the legacy for D&D as it drags the baggage of multiple worlds and universes trying to cram them all together. 

A separate brand or line focused on a particular world or setting would be nice, but only for those interested in investing in that splintered line of products. We've seen how that can get out of hand in earlier editions. But I would hope that decades later, someone might have figured out an amicable solution by now.

Personal note. Like most foods on my plate, I prefer them not to touch. But every once in a while, I like to mix certain ones together.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 3, 2020)

Hussar said:


> So, your evidence is an interview in a non-gaming magazine interview?   Where, again, he doesn't actually state that FR is the default, just that it starting off, the modules would be set in Forgotten Realms because it gives them lots to work with.
> 
> Huh.
> 
> 0 for 2 in this thread on interpreting the English language so far @Maxperson.  You want to go for three?



Don't understand what "Embrace the Realms as the core setting" means?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Don't understand what "Embeace the Realms as the core setting" means?



It means "we are going to publish adventures in that setting".


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 3, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It means "we are going to publish adventures in that setting".



The core is the PHB, DMG and MM.


----------



## Sadras (Feb 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The core is the PHB, DMG and MM.




Max I feel it is safe to assume that their original concept could have evolved. I think at one point you and I might have been right with FR having been the core setting they would have focused on originally, but with 5e's success and dipping their toe into other settings (Ravenolf AP, Ravnica, Eberron & Mercer's settings books, Spelljammer and Greyhawk references/cameos) I think it is fair to say their "default setting" outlook has certainly been reassessed and likely amended.

EDIT: Even within the core there were references to other settings - we were all hoping at some stage they would explore those other settings...


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 3, 2020)

Sadras said:


> Max I feel it is safe to assume that their original concept could have evolved. I think at one point you and I might have been right with FR having been the core setting they would have focused on originally, but with 5e's success and dipping their toe into other settings (Ravenolf AP, Ravnica, Eberron & Mercer's settings books, Spelljammer and Greyhawk references/cameos) I think it is fair to say their "default setting" outlook has certainly been reassessed and likely amended.



That article was from right before release.  It's more likely that Crawford pulled another retcon like he has done several times before on his rulings.  The tweet definitely indicates that they no longer consider the Realms to be the core setting, but the Mearls interview indicates that the Realms was supposed to be the core setting when the game was released.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 3, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## jasper (Feb 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You should by a WotC version, then.
> 
> Page 32. "...others form the ranks of soldiers in great wars..."
> 
> Form THE ranks.  Not some ranks.  Not a few ranks.  But THE ranks, which means all the ranks for the great war.  Great war.  Not skirmish.  Not battle.  Not normal war.  Not small war.  GREAT war.



Is this the Great war of candy top mountain. The Great War of Shirts vs Skins in the back alley of Newark new Jeresy. Please give us the battle location. The dates of the war. Who was in charge of both sides.
I think the Great war of the Chisholm Bee vs the Davis Dukes was great for the peewee football league.  Gee take a piece of fluff and make up a lot .


----------



## jasper (Feb 3, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Dude.  It says GREAT WARS.  Not raids.  Not skirmishes.  Not standing armies.  Not a relatively few men.
> 
> 
> 
> Our standing army before WW2 was a quarter million.  We upped it to nearly 1.5 million in 1941 and to over 3 million by 1942.  You had a small army.  We had the ranks to fight and win a great war.



Well Shoot fire. Me grandpappy was a dragon rider during that dust up. He told me he rode a white dragon and had a m-16 as his sidearm and his blade was two handed claymore.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 3, 2020)

QuentinGeorge said:


> Correct, see Jeremy Crawford's tweet here.



Well he's quite clearly lying.

but _why_ is the real question. is Ed Greenwood a member of the mafia maybe?

edit: i posted this before reading this page, and honestly? my joking theory is more reasonable.


----------



## ChaosOS (Feb 3, 2020)

I think the most clear example of D&D officially using the multiverse but keeping FR the default example is the Weave sidebar in the spellcasting section - 



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> The worlds within the D&D multiverse are magical places. All existence is suffused with magical power, and potential energy lies untapped in every rock, stream, and living creature, and even in the air itself. Raw magic is the stuff of creation, the mute and mindless will of existence, permeating every bit of matter and present in every manifestation of energy throughout the multiverse.
> 
> ...The spellcasters of the Forgotten Realms call it the Weave and recognize its essence as the goddess Mystra, but casters have varied ways of naming and visualizing this interface. By any name, without the Weave, raw magic is locked away and inaccessible; the most powerful archmage can’t light a candle with magic in an area where the Weave has been torn...


----------



## generic (Feb 3, 2020)

Hussar said:


> So, your evidence is an interview in a non-gaming magazine interview?   Where, again, he doesn't actually state that FR is the default, just that it starting off, the modules would be set in Forgotten Realms because it gives them lots to work with.
> 
> Huh.
> 
> 0 for 2 in this thread on interpreting the English language so far @Maxperson.  You want to go for three?



Wow, @Hussar, you may be the least-punished, yet most rude person I've ever seen on these forums.  You are consistently nasty to other members, but, unlike the Cap'n, you are never punished, instead receiving praise in the form of likes and positive reactions.  Do you actually think that it's acceptable to tell others that they have a "0 for 2 in this thread on interpreting the English language"?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 3, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Wow, @Hussar, you may be the least-punished, yet most rude person I've ever seen on these forums.  You are consistently nasty to other members, but, unlike the Cap'n, you are never punished, instead receiving praise in the form of likes and positive reactions.  Do you actually think that it's acceptable to tell others that they have a "0 for 2 in this thread on interpreting the English language"?




Just calling it like I see it.

Considering I've made the frustrating mistake a few times of actually trying to wade through the morass of selective understanding and outright mind boggling reimagining of the English language when it comes to interpreting what is actually being said, I'll stand by it.  

I'd point out that while my response might be a bit more errr... pointed, there are two or three others who have basically said exactly the same thing - that @Maxperson's interpretations have been ... creative to say the least.


----------



## generic (Feb 3, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Just calling it like I see it.
> 
> Considering I've made the frustrating mistake a few times of actually trying to wade through the morass of selective understanding and outright mind boggling reimagining of the English language when it comes to interpreting what is actually being said, I'll stand by it.
> 
> I'd point out that while my response might be a bit more errr... pointed, there are two or three others who have basically said exactly the same thing - that @Maxperson's interpretations have been ... creative to say the least.



Alright, I can understand this, at least.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 4, 2020)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Do you actually think that it's acceptable to tell others that they have a "0 for 2 in this thread on interpreting the English language"?



I'd go for three, but I'm probably misinterpreting what he said.


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 4, 2020)

ChaosOS said:


> I think the most clear example of D&D officially using the multiverse but keeping FR the default example is the Weave sidebar in the spellcasting section -




There's also this on page 33 of the Player's Handbook



> *UNCOMMON RACES*
> 
> The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don’t exist in* every world of D&D,* and even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans.
> 
> In the cosmopolitan cities of the *D&D multiverse,* most people hardly look twice at members of even the most exotic races. But the small towns and villages that dot the countryside are different. The common folk aren’t accustomed to seeing members of these races, and they react accordingly.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 4, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> There's also this on page 33 of the Player's Handbook



True, but if they are common enough that people in a city hardly look twice, there are a lot of them.  Just less than the 1e races.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 4, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> True, but if they are common enough that people in a city hardly look twice, there are a lot of them.  Just less than the 1e races.



Or people hardly look twice at them because they're used to seeing all sorts of non-human creatures (not just Dragonborn in particular). :/


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 4, 2020)

Azzy said:


> Or people hardly look twice at them because they're used to seeing all sorts of non-human creatures (not just Dragonborn in particular). :/



The sky is blue.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 4, 2020)

Do Dragonborn fit in a Kender blender?


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Do Dragonborn fit in a Kender blender?



well Kender are Small and Dragonborn are on the upper end of Medium so prolly not.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Do Dragonborn fit in a Kender blender?



Dragonborn ARE the Kender blender.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Feb 4, 2020)

This debate has lead me to think that it would actually be interesting to have a D&D setting where Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes and Half-Orcs don't exist, but the "new" races like Dragonborns, Tabaxi or Tieflings are common.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 4, 2020)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> This debate has lead me to think that it would actually be interesting to have a D&D setting where Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes and Half-Orcs don't exist, but the "new" races like Dragonborns, Tabaxi or Tieflings are common.



call it Grognardica


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 4, 2020)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> call it Grognardica




Or Clowncartopia.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 4, 2020)

Zardnaar said:


> Or Clowncartopia.




it's not a clown car because it's not stuffed with things, it's efficient with it's races.

and besides, it's better, and more funny, to make fun of old people who refuse to change.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 4, 2020)

Azzy said:


> Or people hardly look twice at them because they're used to seeing all sorts of non-human creatures (not just Dragonborn in particular). :/



And to the uneducated they are pretty much indistinguishable from more common reptilian races such as lizardfolk.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 4, 2020)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> This debate has lead me to think that it would actually be interesting to have a D&D setting where Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes and Half-Orcs don't exist, but the "new" races like Dragonborns, Tabaxi or Tieflings are common.



We have been seriously considering (under the influence of the Dark Crystal) a campaign setting with no humans.


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Feb 4, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> We have been seriously considering (under the influence of the Dark Crystal) a campaign setting with no humans.



That's interesting too, but a different kind of interesting. In a campaign with humans but none of the vanilla races, the "other" has the potential to become strange and interesting again, instead of being business as usual.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 4, 2020)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> This debate has lead me to think that it would actually be interesting to have a D&D setting where Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes and Half-Orcs don't exist, but the "new" races like Dragonborns, Tabaxi or Tieflings are common.




It’d at least be less cliche. None of those races are so strongly connected to an archetype that there’s a default expectation on how they behave.

Do elves and dwarves really seem all that different than humans to anyone anymore? Are they so different from people? The newer races at least seem to offer a little more on that front. They seem genuinely more different than humans. 

I mean, for the amount of difference that comes up in play, we should just rename elves and dwarves Dexlings and Conlings. 

Oh, he’s gruff and he has a Scottish accent! What fun!!


----------



## prabe (Feb 4, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Oh, he’s gruff and he has a Scottish accent! What fun!!




In my head at least, the dwarves on my world sound more like Minnesota or North Dakota than Scotland.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 4, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 4, 2020)

Yeah, I'm not rocking the Fargo accent for a Dwarf NPC. Maybe for Halflings though....


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Feb 4, 2020)

prabe said:


> In my head at least, the dwarves on my world sound more like Minnesota or North Dakota than Scotland.



My Dwarves have always been Italians


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 4, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## generic (Feb 4, 2020)

My Dwarves have always been inter-dimensional, psionic vessels for the servants of a demonic elder god.  Huh, don't know what kind of weird stuff you guys are doing with accents, though.


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 4, 2020)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 4, 2020)

Gnomes are from Boston. Mark Wahlberg is a Gnome Paladin. That is all.


----------



## Oofta (Feb 4, 2020)

The real question is: are the accents based on the FR version or the Greyhawk of the race?  Which one is the official accent?

Oh, and gnomes sound like the Chipmunks.  So adorable when they sing _Christmas Don't Be Late _with their adoptive "father" @lowkey13.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 4, 2020)

I've been thinking about a campaign where humans have vanished, leaving behind their crumbling cities. Infrastructure has collapsed without humanity. Some are glad, as the forests have returned to their old glory
 Others feel that the world has plunged into a dark age without the human drive and sheer numbers pushing things forward. The non-human races have pretty much retreated into their own communities. Adventurers, being an exception, are travelling into dangerous locales, looting the abandoned cities for wealth or knowledge, while others might seek to discover what caused the loss of humanity. Are there still pockets of humans left somewhere in the world? Can they be returned?

Half-elves and half-orcs would still pop up in orc and elf populations, being either reverered, hated or even sought after in hopes they might hold the key to humanity's fate and possible return.

I think it might be interesting to run a world where humans have gone extinct, and think about how the other races would react. I kind of had this image of hobgoblins starting to fill in the niche humans left open. They'd be very organized, highly militaristic, not pleasant, to live under, but they'd keep the monsters at bay and as long as you paid the expected dues, things might be okay. Anyway, hobgoblin numbers are growing, spreading, building, which could be a good reason to want humans back, especially if some folk are looking back at humans in a golden light.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 4, 2020)

Oofta said:


> Oh, and gnomes sound like the Chipmunks.  So adorable when they sing _Christmas Don't Be Late _with their adoptive "father" @lowkey13.



So Mark Wahlberg with a helium voice. Awesome.


----------



## 3catcircus (Feb 4, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> It’d at least be less cliche. None of those races are so strongly connected to an archetype that there’s a default expectation on how they behave.
> 
> Do elves and dwarves really seem all that different than humans to anyone anymore? Are they so different from people? The newer races at least seem to offer a little more on that front. They seem genuinely more different than humans.
> 
> ...



This.  Time to bring back class and level restrictions.  Better yet, go the BD&D route and makes dwarves, elves and halflings a class...


----------



## MNblockhead (Feb 6, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> Oh, he’s gruff and he has a Scottish accent! What fun!!




Except, grumpy Scottish dwarves _are_ fun. 

...Though to be more true to their Earth-culture origins, I play my dwarves with an accent based on the Swedish Chef from the Muppets.


----------



## MNblockhead (Feb 6, 2020)

prabe said:


> In my head at least, the dwarves on my world sound more like Minnesota or North Dakota than Scotland.




Me too!  But, then again, all my characters of _any_ race sound like a Minnesotan.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 6, 2020)

Malkinban said:


> Really? Do you have a source for that? Not being snarky or malicious, just genuinely curious.



You literally said what I was getting ready to....even with the no snark qualifier!  Not going to use malicious, though.


----------

