D&D (2024) GREYHAWKCONFIRMED! Reflections on Greyhawk in the DMG

JEB · Jun 24, 2024

Parmandur said:
Yet it clearly confirms to the original presentation of the Setting in many ways, and the Easyer Eggs on the map are some deep cuts. We can deduce quite a bit from this map, at least in broad strokes.

You really can't deduce anything. Wizards has been pretty clear that only what you see in the current core rulebooks can be counted on as "official". If it's not explicitly stated there, it's a blank slate.

And isn't that the point? They're not bringing any version of Greyhawk back. They're creating a new version for a new era that DMs can use as a template for building their own setting. If someone wants to delve into other editions' Greyhawk lore to fill in the gaps, they obviously can, but that's an individual choice. I assume Wizards is just as happy (maybe even happier) for someone to completely invent their own explanations for every Easter egg.

In short, there's no deeper meaning to be discerned here about 2024 5e Greyhawk. What you see in the DMG is all we know.

Demetrios1453 · Jun 24, 2024

JEB said:
You really can't deduce anything. Wizards has been pretty clear that only what you see in the current core rulebooks can be counted on as "official". If it's not explicitly stated there, it's a blank slate.

And isn't that the point? They're not bringing any version of Greyhawk back. They're creating a new version for a new era that DMs can use as a template for building their own setting. If someone wants to delve into other editions' Greyhawk lore to fill in the gaps, they obviously can, but that's an individual choice. I assume Wizards is just as happy (maybe even happier) for someone to completely invent their own explanations for every Easter egg.

In short, there's no deeper meaning to be discerned here about 2024 5e Greyhawk. What you see in the DMG is all we know.

The main thing creatively is that this will very likely open the setting for products on the DM's Guild, which will allow those who want to create and purchase products based on the setting. No doubt we'll see quite a rush of those once it's allowed.

Parmandur · Jun 24, 2024

JEB said:
You really can't deduce anything. Wizards has been pretty clear that only what you see in the current core rulebooks can be counted on as "official". If it's not explicitly stated there, it's a blank slate.

And isn't that the point? They're not bringing any version of Greyhawk back. They're creating a new version for a new era that DMs can use as a template for building their own setting. If someone wants to delve into other editions' Greyhawk lore to fill in the gaps, they obviously can, but that's an individual choice. I assume Wizards is just as happy (maybe even happier) for someone to completely invent their own explanations for every Easter egg.

In short, there's no deeper meaning to be discerned here about 2024 5e Greyhawk. What you see in the DMG is all we know.

Well, sure, but that is good amd totally fine. That is in the spirit of the original Greyhawk, anyways.

But don't confuse the canon policy: WotC feels no compunction about changing anything (nor should they, it is all made up to play fun games), but as Chris Perkins puts it in that blog post, they will use traditional canon if they have no reason not (like getting rid of language like nomads, Rovers, barbarians, etc.).

So obviouy, Prcs will morally complex player characters in this Greyhawk, and Tieflings, Goliath and Dragonborn will be normal...but the big picture elements from the Folio are likely intact.

JEB · Jun 24, 2024

Demetrios1453 said:
The main thing creatively is that this will very likely open the setting for products on the DM's Guild, which will allow those who want to create and purchase products based on the setting. No doubt we'll see quite a rush of those once it's allowed.

That would be a smart move!

JEB · Jun 24, 2024

Parmandur said:
as Chris Perkins puts it in that blog post, they will use traditional canon if they have no reason not

They very definitely don't. The policy has a whole section on "Why not adopt the canon of earlier editions and be done with it?" Also:

We decide, based on our understanding of the game’s history and audience, what artwork or lore to pull forward, what artwork or lore needs to change, and what artwork or lore should be buried so deep that it never again sees the light of day. We have a couple guiding principles:

If the artwork holds up or the lore has been true in every past edition of the game, we think twice about changing it.

If the artwork or lore hasn’t withstood the test of time, we can update or discard it.

Older canon is not used by default in current 5e products. The only "canon" is what meets their current standards. And only what we see published in the current material is confirmed to meet those standards. That said:

Parmandur said:
but the big picture elements from the Folio are likely intact.

For your own personal Greyhawk, that's as true as you want it to be. Wizards certainly won't tell you not to! But if Wizards doesn't put it in print, it basically doesn't exist for 2024 5e Greyhawk. There is nothing more to deduce - only whatever additional lore you choose for yourself.

JEB · Jun 24, 2024

(Sidenote on the canon policy - I notice the direct link now redirects to DDB. And I can't find a replica of the policy on their site offhand. Their June 11 community update suggests it may come back, but we'll see.)

Parmandur · Jun 24, 2024

JEB said:
They very definitely don't. The policy has a whole section on "Why not adopt the canon of earlier editions and be done with it?" Also:

Older canon is not used by default in current 5e products. The only "canon" is what meets their current standards. And only what we see published in the current material is confirmed to meet those standards. That said:

For your own personal Greyhawk, that's as true as you want it to be. Wizards certainly won't tell you not to! But if Wizards doesn't put it in print, it basically doesn't exist for 2024 5e Greyhawk. There is nothing more to deduce - only whatever additional lore you choose for yourself.

Key quote yoy seem to be miasing here despite supplying it verbatim: "If the artwork holds up or the lore has been true in every past edition of the game, we think twice about changing it."

So, there is no more Caliphate or Holy See on this map, as those are real world religious titles. So, the Wolf Nomads and Tiger Nomads use their endomym on the map, not an eponymous. So the Hunting Lands aren't called "The Barrens" or their people "Rovers". So the Snow Barbarians have their endonym, not am eponymous that ia also a slur.

We can expect that Orcs will be treated differently than they were in 1980.

But, if the lore holds up...they will think twice about changing it.

So we can make pretty sound guesses on what to expect here, using commonsense about what they will change (the Pomarj and Bone Marches will likely be a little more complex, say) and what has come before. Because Perkins and company do care, even if they are willing to change what needs to be changed.

Parmandur · Jun 24, 2024

JEB said:
(Sidenote on the canon policy - I notice the direct link now redirects to DDB. And I can't find a replica of the policy on their site offhand. Their June 11 community update suggests it may come back, but we'll see.)

That's their official conte t policy, not canon.

I think what we can glean primarily fro. The old blog post is that this was their design parameter for the new Core: this is what they will have done to video game or movie produces, or publishers, and ask them to stick to the canon in these new books only.

- Edit - oh, I see. Worth noting on their discord that the canonnpolocy is down, if they are still interested in people knowing that.

JEB · Jun 24, 2024

Parmandur said:
Key quote yoylu seem to be miasing here despite supplying it verbatim: "If the artwork holds up or the lore has been true in every past edition of the game, we think twice about changing it."

Which doesn't mean they default to old canon unless they have a reason not to. It means that if some piece of old canon is well-established and not problematic, they're simply less likely to change it. Combined with the official stance that every edition has its own canon, nothing can be assumed until it's printed in a current product (and not even that's forever - see 5e's "Legacy Content").

Parmandur said:
That's their official conte t policy, not canon.

The article is literally titled "D&D Canon" and explains their canon policy at length.

Parmandur · Jun 24, 2024

JEB said:
Which doesn't mean they default to old canon unless they have a reason not to. It means that if some piece of old canon is well-established and not problematic, they're simply less likely to change it. Combined with the official stance that every edition has its own canon, nothing can be assumed until it's printed in a current product (and not even that's forever - see 5e's "Legacy Content").

But it means exactly that they will tend to be conservative when there is no particular reason not to be (as with sau, Ravenlpft, a literal minefield of problematic content originally). And we have a map now, which shows a lot of what they have changed, and a lot of which has stayed the same. No doubt there will be other interesting changes in the text, I look forward to seeing what they have cooked up.

JEB said:
The article is literally titled "D&D Canon" and explains their canon policy at length.

Never mind about that,I thought you were referencing their promise to publish their official content policy (i.e. their internal standards for what is acceptable).

D&D (2024) GREYHAWKCONFIRMED! Reflections on Greyhawk in the DMG

JEB

Legend

Demetrios1453

Hero

Parmandur

Book-Friend

JEB

Legend

JEB

Legend

JEB

Legend

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Parmandur

Book-Friend

JEB

Legend

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex