Quote from: Armchair Gamer on November 07, 2024, 01:57:19 PMAre we sure about this? I remember one industry writer over on TBP reporting that "I know more than one person who never really got into The Hobbit because the sole female character presented for them to relate to was Lobelia Sackville-Baggins."

Note the context here.

When all the women you know are die-hard feminazi shriekers... Yeah, no surprise you know a few that are so lacking in human empathy that they cannot process any work of fiction unless they are given a self-insert to be able to impose themselves on the narrative.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on November 07, 2024, 12:02:58 PMWOTC is free to use their vast resources and creative genius to create a new setting that is 100% inclusive and full of transgender Dr. Doolittle races, and whatever else they want. They won't do that because its easier to just crap all over IP that they already own.

All they know how to do is mine for member-berries.

For two reasons:

1: They are creatively bankrupt. They are incapable of doing anything without imposing their heavy handed ideology all over it. Which is why they screw with established IP: It is the only way they can impose their ideology, and have people actually buy it.

2: They genuinely do not understand what made D&D popular. Which is why they move to defiling established D&D IP rather than create anything of their own. They really do not comprehend why stuff like Radiant Citadel, and Strixhaven didn't sell like hot-cakes.

Wotc D&D is currently still being run by Gen-Xer's (however gay and retarded they may be) that still have something resembling nostalgia and sentiment left for the game as it was.

But sooner or later they will be replaced with hyper-left millenials and zoomers. The most unhinged of the current gaming crowd. When that happens they will cut ties with mining member-berries and proceed to move D&D "forward" for modern sensibilities rather than what they view as the lip-service being done by current wotc.

The shift will become evident when they start to blame their biggest customer base for lack of sales. This has already been taking place in the movie and videogame industries.

FWIW, the changes to rulers don't really bother me, as I am free to ignore them and have the older material. I am surprised by the amount of people they changed.

I am more bothered with the tossing in of goliaths, dragonborn, etc. into the setting that never had it.

History is changed (meaningfully or not) to where the Baklunish brought down the Rain of Colorless Fire, and then the Suloise replied with the Invoked Devastation. 

They do at least give people mentioned in the text alignments, as alignment was kind of a big deal in Greyhawk.

Overall, It seems like a decent folio, but I haven't read every single word so I might have missed something.
I did expect some 'modernization' but they probably should have mentioned that would be happening rather than tout it's starting year.

Quote from: Tristan on November 07, 2024, 10:46:00 PMFWIW, the changes to rulers don't really bother me, as I am free to ignore them and have the older material. I am surprised by the amount of people they changed.

I am more bothered with the tossing in of goliaths, dragonborn, etc. into the setting that never had it.

History is changed (meaningfully or not) to where the Baklunish brought down the Rain of Colorless Fire, and then the Suloise replied with the Invoked Devastation. 

They do at least give people mentioned in the text alignments, as alignment was kind of a big deal in Greyhawk.

Overall, It seems like a decent folio, but I haven't read every single word so I might have missed something.
I did expect some 'modernization' but they probably should have mentioned that would be happening rather than tout it's starting year.

Do you think it's worth buying the new DMG just for the Greyhawk section?

I have zero plans to to run Nue D&D, but I do love me some Greyhawk.

How would you compare the map in the back to previous iterations?

Quote from: M2A0 on November 07, 2024, 11:15:53 PMDo you think it's worth buying the new DMG just for the Greyhawk section?

No. It's only 28 pages of info, and a (rather nice) map. I wouldn't buy the book just for that.

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 08, 2024, 12:57:56 AM

Quote from: M2A0 on November 07, 2024, 11:15:53 PMDo you think it's worth buying the new DMG just for the Greyhawk section?

No. It's only 28 pages of info, and a (rather nice) map. I wouldn't buy the book just for that.

The artist that did the map posted it online so you dont even need to buy the fake 5e DMG.

Quote from: M2A0 on November 07, 2024, 11:15:53 PMDo you think it's worth buying the new DMG just for the Greyhawk section?

I have zero plans to to run Nue D&D, but I do love me some Greyhawk.

How would you compare the map in the back to previous iterations?

Nope. It doesn't really add anything meaningful that hasn't been published before, and it's got the 5.5 art in it as well, so you'll be avoiding that.

Regarding the map, it's nice. They've changed some nation names as well, nothing major.  I'm very partial to the Darlene map so it's not as good as that. Anna Meyer's maps are available too, so it's certainly not worth buying the book for just those two things.

So I actually just read the DMG, as much as I want to say their race/gender swapping is trash, they say it's based on the 1980s Gazetteer ("Folio") which was intentionally left vague (no rulers had names, just titles and maybe classes) and generic for the DM to adjust as they saw fit.

I don't LIKE it, but I can't say it's "bullshit" because it's keeping with the idea Greyhawk is a generic setting you can modify.

Quote from: Nobleshield on November 10, 2024, 03:40:58 PMSo I actually just read the DMG, as much as I want to say their race/gender swapping is trash, they say it's based on the 1980s Gazetteer ("Folio") which was intentionally left vague (no rulers had names, just titles and maybe classes) and generic for the DM to adjust as they saw fit.

I don't LIKE it, but I can't say it's "bullshit" because it's keeping with the idea Greyhawk is a generic setting you can modify.

Its total BS because this is the standard trash corporate excuse to make these changes. Lord of the Rings, TMNT, you name it someones probably pulled it by now.

Quote from: Nobleshield on November 10, 2024, 03:40:58 PM...it's based on the 1980s Gazetteer ("Folio") which was intentionally left vague (no rulers had names, just titles and maybe classes) and generic for the DM to adjust as they saw fit...I can't say it's "bullshit" because it's keeping with the idea Greyhawk is a generic setting you can modify.

If they wanted to follow the example and approach of the 1980 folio they would've left it vague and up to DM's to customize for their campaigns. (I tend to prefer that approach.)

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on November 11, 2024, 09:17:44 AMIf they wanted to follow the example and approach of the 1980 folio they would've left it vague and up to DM's to customize for their campaigns. (I tend to prefer that approach.)

That was my thought as well. WOTC cannot resist an opportunity to advance "the agenda" in any way that they can. This includes crapping all over any and all IP that they own. I am thankful that they have not touched Mystara.

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 07, 2024, 09:56:34 AMHow many of those "established rulers" had more than a single line of text before? The only one that really stands out to me is the Prince (now Princess) of the Principality of Ulek. These changes represent the desire to make D&D worlds feel more inclusive. There are far more female players now than there were 4 decades ago, so they figured that new players (not us) would like a world with more female leaders. I don't really object, but that's because I don't see the change as a dramatic alteration to the world nor do I feel it disrespects the setting or its original writers.

Your way of thinking is dead. The election proves that.

Not only "get woke, go broke" it's "get woke, lose by the vote"

Quote from: blackstone on November 11, 2024, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 07, 2024, 09:56:34 AMHow many of those "established rulers" had more than a single line of text before? The only one that really stands out to me is the Prince (now Princess) of the Principality of Ulek. These changes represent the desire to make D&D worlds feel more inclusive. There are far more female players now than there were 4 decades ago, so they figured that new players (not us) would like a world with more female leaders. I don't really object, but that's because I don't see the change as a dramatic alteration to the world nor do I feel it disrespects the setting or its original writers.

Your way of thinking is dead. The election proves that.

Not only "get woke, go broke" it's "get woke, lose by the vote"

WTF? The election had 0 to do with D&D.

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 11, 2024, 07:22:55 PM

Quote from: blackstone on November 11, 2024, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 07, 2024, 09:56:34 AMHow many of those "established rulers" had more than a single line of text before? The only one that really stands out to me is the Prince (now Princess) of the Principality of Ulek. These changes represent the desire to make D&D worlds feel more inclusive. There are far more female players now than there were 4 decades ago, so they figured that new players (not us) would like a world with more female leaders. I don't really object, but that's because I don't see the change as a dramatic alteration to the world nor do I feel it disrespects the setting or its original writers.

Your way of thinking is dead. The election proves that.

Not only "get woke, go broke" it's "get woke, lose by the vote"

WTF? The election had 0 to do with D&D.

cuz you're still peddling woke "more inclusive is good" horseshit

Quote from: Nobleshield on November 12, 2024, 07:32:18 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 11, 2024, 07:22:55 PM

Quote from: blackstone on November 11, 2024, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 07, 2024, 09:56:34 AMHow many of those "established rulers" had more than a single line of text before? The only one that really stands out to me is the Prince (now Princess) of the Principality of Ulek. These changes represent the desire to make D&D worlds feel more inclusive. There are far more female players now than there were 4 decades ago, so they figured that new players (not us) would like a world with more female leaders. I don't really object, but that's because I don't see the change as a dramatic alteration to the world nor do I feel it disrespects the setting or its original writers.

Your way of thinking is dead. The election proves that.

Not only "get woke, go broke" it's "get woke, lose by the vote"

WTF? The election had 0 to do with D&D.

cuz you're still peddling woke "more inclusive is good" horseshit

In a game world, it's a choice that's neither good nor bad. It's simply a choice of how to flavor the dish. You may not like a particular flavor combination, but that doesn't mean the inclusive dish is objectively "bad" because it doesn't meet your tastes. In this case, Greyhawk was "cooked" to the tastes of what WotC believes to be its target audience. That target audience likely doesn't include the majority of the posters on this board, but they are unlikely to buy the book in any event.

Still, the thread is asking for opinions. Thank you for yours, but attacking mine isn't really necessary, and trying to make this about a fucking IRL election is just being an asshole.

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 12, 2024, 09:47:44 AM

Quote from: Nobleshield on November 12, 2024, 07:32:18 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 11, 2024, 07:22:55 PM

Quote from: blackstone on November 11, 2024, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 07, 2024, 09:56:34 AMHow many of those "established rulers" had more than a single line of text before? The only one that really stands out to me is the Prince (now Princess) of the Principality of Ulek. These changes represent the desire to make D&D worlds feel more inclusive. There are far more female players now than there were 4 decades ago, so they figured that new players (not us) would like a world with more female leaders. I don't really object, but that's because I don't see the change as a dramatic alteration to the world nor do I feel it disrespects the setting or its original writers.

Your way of thinking is dead. The election proves that.

Not only "get woke, go broke" it's "get woke, lose by the vote"

WTF? The election had 0 to do with D&D.

cuz you're still peddling woke "more inclusive is good" horseshit

In a game world, it's a choice that's neither good nor bad. It's simply a choice of how to flavor the dish. You may not like a particular flavor combination, but that doesn't mean the inclusive dish is objectively "bad" because it doesn't meet your tastes. In this case, Greyhawk was "cooked" to the tastes of what WotC believes to be its target audience. That target audience likely doesn't include the majority of the posters on this board, but they are unlikely to buy the book in any event.

Still, the thread is asking for opinions. Thank you for yours, but attacking mine isn't really necessary, and trying to make this about a fucking IRL election is just being an asshole.

Then WoTC is the asshole by obviously shoe-horning DEI into their products.