General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I'm going to have to quibble with you on this one. Given that Greyhawk was explored almost exclusively through modules and those modules were absolutely dripping in magic items, and very powerful magic items to boot, the idea that Greyhawk was somehow less wahoo than FR depended an awful lot on whether or not you actually played those modules.
Those adventures and opponents were exceptional. In Greyhawk, there was a town to go back to where the 6th level sheriff was not necessarily dripping with magic items and orcs were mostly worth fighting for coin and spare weapons. A world where a death knight had an 80% chance to be equipped with a magical sword. Certainly, Greyhawk could get a little wahoo, but on average, things tended to even out, and the wahoo generally did not extend to every corner of the gameworld.
I was initially quite impressed with the Paizo map, but I eventually found myself reverting to the original Darlene map - simply because her(?) map has so many beautiful hand-drawn details.
Thank you for that Riley, I really appreciated it. So much so, you get some XP.
I had always loved the Darlene map and have found it superior to anything produced since.
This is a major, major part of it. No where else do you see the kind of labeling that Darlene did. It is one of many reasons to love that map.
But those adventures were the ones a lot of people played. That makes them commonplace.
Quote:
A world where a death knight had an 80% chance to be equipped with a magical sword.
This chance went up to %100 if using a published module.
There's a big disconnect between the item frequency (and wahoo frequency in general) described in the rule books and the published adventures. My experience is that the adventures set the baseline. The charts in the DMG and MM amount to textbook cases, with little real (real-fake?) world applicability.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
To me, Greyhawk, as presented in the modules, IS the airbrushed van sort of fantasy. You had wahoo settings for the adventures, robots, demons and various other things popping up all over the place and you were battling GODS by the end of more than one module (or at least beings powerful enough to be able to see divinity on a clear day).
Yeah, I have to agree. Many of the modules were not at all in line with what was represented in the folio. There are some serious gonzo moments out there. This is why I always considered the modules as optional accessories, not as canon setting supplements (and, IMO, I don't think the early Greyhawk modules were ever presented that way).
But those adventures were the ones a lot of people played. That makes them commonplace.
I rarely played any of them. Most of my adventures in Greyhawk have been just as presented by others in this thread -- a sort of sword & sorcery environment, where magic exists but is not common, where the morality of those around you is likely to be questionable, and where phat loot is tempered.
Of course, one person is not a counter-example, but I think what we have here is clearly shown to be many people on each side. Run games however you want. High magic or low. Whatever works. But it's clear that some people were attracted to Greyhawk for a reason, and that reason works for them. It's fair to let them have their reason.
No they werent, they were the baseline. If you used the treasure tables, you quickly experienced similar results. There was a great disconnect between the words of the designers and the actual game experience using the published adventures and the rules they wrote.
We were completely loaded in 1st edition, with little to actually use it on, as we didnt feel like running an army or a pile of henchmen (otherwise we'd play an actual wargame).
I just realized one of the reasons I love Greyhawk.
Those modules were gonzo, in a world that wasn't.
I mean that most of the world up front had an almost normal historic feeling and depth, but there were dragons in those hills. That helps build a sense of adventure that is addictive and thrilling.
To go from an almost medieval town or village or city with it's medieval issues and problems to find a lost starship filled with wonder, adventure, and danger, is amazing.
Living in a world that was, day to day, almost normal and primitive, and yet know of Iuz and dragons and the planes and the whispered hidden riches guarded by unearthly dangers is deeply fulfilling.
Yea, I love Greyhawk. I missed all of 2e Greyhawk, much of the end of 1e and all but the last few moments of 3e, so the old gazateer/boxed set and the 1e adventures is still very much what my Greyhawk is.
...IIRC there was a race in the box set I got that had modifiers to 5 of 6 ability scores, that is pretty special! (Valley elves? I could be misremembering though, it was a while ago)
I should point out that the map tags on the Dungeon Magazine Greyhawk map are written in a font designed by Darlene herself based on her own handwriting.
Never has there been so much nostalgia for so little content as Greyhawk - and don't take that the wrong way - the reason I think many folks cling to it so is that it was intentionally vague in its setting, with defined factions, nations and a handful of NPCs, so that "my" Greyhawk would of course be different from "your" Greyhawk. Much as Gygax was often quoted saying that he felt each DM's game should be different from another with house rules, mechanics etc. so too do the same rules apply to the campaign.
Greyhawk makes for an excellent sandbox, and also I miss the convention games from recent RPGA years. In an era when I was mostly playing scripted Eberron games, playing more free form GH games at Cons (even with the limited time and scope of an RPGA game) was a welcome relief.
I'm hoping 2010 does welcome a new Greyhawk - it deserves its due for a glossy setting done right.
I should point out that the map tags on the Dungeon Magazine Greyhawk map are written in a font designed by Darlene herself based on her own handwriting.
--Erik
Hey Erik, just a quick word of thanks. Over the years you've been one of the foremost people carrying the Greyhawk torch and keeping the world alive and fresh. I always read reverence and delight in your Greyhawk work; I haven't always agreed with how you've developed the world, but you've done it with joy and respect. In case I haven't said it before, that makes me really happy.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Currently editing the 4e War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
Hey Erik, just a quick word of thanks. Over the years you've been one of the foremost people carrying the Greyhawk torch and keeping the world alive and fresh. I always read reverence and delight in your Greyhawk work; I haven't always agreed with how you've developed the world, but you've done it with joy and respect. In case I haven't said it before, that makes me really happy.
Thanks! I've enjoyed working on the setting over the years and I think Greyhawk fans are the best fans in the world. Thinking back to the AOL folders of 1992 and the "ungerground" era of Greytalk, it's amazing to still see "The Grey in the Hawk" by Nitescreed being quoted whenever this topic comes up, and it's amazing to see that the setting is still going strong almost 30 years after it first came out.
And as much as the setting minutia is popular with scholars of the setting, D&D is not really about scholarship so much as it is about adventure, and I believe the Greyhawk setting's popularity is largely due to the incredible adventures set there.
Insofar as Maure Castle and The Whispering Cairn and Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk are a part of that legacy, I'm happy to have had a chance to play in the sandbox.
Speaking as someone who knows of Grayhawk only through the Demonomicons and clips from 3.x sources, I honestly thought it was an only vaguely-illustrated setting that anyone could write anything for. Granted, there was that quasi-soap opera about famous NPCs (Tasha/Iggwilv and Grazz't, Iuz, Vecna, etc.), but I really thought they were the only detailed parts of the who thing. Like how dungeon drawl classics has a "map o the world" but the focus is on the modules.
Specifically this is because there are loads of FR products that came out, and virtually none for Grayhawk. I asked RPGA fans and they told me that any 3.x book not for FR was basically GH. Like how POL is the default 4e setting, with sites like Winterhaven, sure, but nothing outside of modules that's really "canon".
Erik Mona (and everyone else, I guess): I wouldn't want Paizo to be distracted from Pathfinder. I'm a 4e fan, for the rules, but I really enjoy the setting; I think it's really set a high bar for any campaign I run, in terms of detail and scope for the game setting (nations, takes on classic things like the Underdark, etc.). Thanks.
Still, if I wanted a really 1e gritty, classic feel for a campaign... I would enjoy a GH game. Also Wilderlands (bought the boxed set, still havn't digested everything!), but I can see a lot of carry-over between, say, the City State of the Invincible Overlord and, say, a city in the Flanaess.
But when you do read the non-module sources and compare with sources for FR, like Volo's Guide to Waterdeep for example, you really do realize the substantial difference between magic assumptions in the campaigns.
Adventures are always a little different because they were designed to be the main source of wealth and magic items for adventures, back in the day.
To be honest, almost all my experience with Greyhawk came from the modules. But, by the same token, if you start perusing the old Dragon articles, there was some pretty heavy duty assumptions there as well.
Let's not forget, if you wanted to really make out like a bandit, slaughtering the villagers in Hommlet netted you MUCH more loot than the Moathouse. It seems pretty high magic to me when farmers have magic weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawsplay
Those adventures and opponents were exceptional. In Greyhawk, there was a town to go back to where the 6th level sheriff was not necessarily dripping with magic items and orcs were mostly worth fighting for coin and spare weapons. A world where a death knight had an 80% chance to be equipped with a magical sword. Certainly, Greyhawk could get a little wahoo, but on average, things tended to even out, and the wahoo generally did not extend to every corner of the gameworld.
Again, going to disagree with you. That 6th level sheriff, if he was statted out by a module, likely had a magical weapon, magical armor and, quite possibly, another item or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdrakeh
Yeah, I have to agree. Many of the modules were not at all in line with what was represented in the folio. There are some serious gonzo moments out there. This is why I always considered the modules as optional accessories, not as canon setting supplements (and, IMO, I don't think the early Greyhawk modules were ever presented that way).
But, didn't the modules predate the folio? My history is a bit fuzzy. I know I picked up the boxed set way back when, but, I don't remember if it was new or had been around for a while when I did so.
On another note, Erik Mona, while I may have had some unkind words with you in the past, your work with Greyhawk has always been excellent. Well done you.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
What was special to me about Greyhawk was the sense of history; Suel vs Oerdian, Vecna vs Kas, Nyrond vs Great Kingdom. The emerging cosmpopolitan, merchantile cities like Greyhawk, Dyvers, and Irongate defying the old feudal states. The elven schisms, with drow and valley elves as offshots. All of these are neutrally aligned story elements. There are good and evil people on each side, fighting for loyalties more than alignment. This makes the world feel vibrant and real.
The problem is that there are few clear-cut enemies. The players can either be as Gray as the world, aligning themsleves with one faction, or they can strive to uphold the greater good and risk getting on the bad side of all the factions. In my games, the players always choose the side of good, becoming peacemakers and striving to undo the evil within each society rather than making one society dominant. Because of this, it is quite conceivable that they get into conflict with neutral or good organization in the world, such as some dogmatic paladin orders or the Circle of Eight. Knowing my players, they'd try to bring such a a conflict to a peaceful resolution, but conflict is definitely possible.
Comparing to Forgotten Realms, political divisions there are much more along alignment lines. The forces of good in FR might not cooperate well, but they do not join forces with evil allies to fight their good neighbors as they could in Greyhawk.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
Knowing my players, they'd try to bring such a a conflict to a peaceful resolution, but conflict is definitely possible.
(Speaking as one of Starfox' players
Yes, that kind of challenge can be very frustrating, but because of that also very fun to try, and rewarding when and if you succeed.
One of the greatest appeals of Greyhawk, and one that Gygax himself pointed out in the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide, was that a lot of the setting's details were left deliberately sketchy so individual groups could put their own spins on it. You could make the world dark and bloody, more light-hearted and humorous, high or low magic, pulp Conan-style adventures or epic Tolkienesque battles of good and evil, whatever suits you.
This was also elaborated in how the setting was developed through modules as opposed to the sourcebook/novel-heavy approaches of Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. There were few arbitrary additions to official canon outside of the modules themselves, and your gaming group directly influenced how they turned out. If the drow were defeated in the Against the Giants modules, for instance, then Geoff, Sterich and the Yeomanry will not be invaded and you've just radically altered a possible outcome of the Greyhawk Wars. Potentially dramatic shifts in play could be worked out by your group based on your own actions, rather than on pre-set outcomes decided on by sourcebook and novel authors.
Hence why so many fans hated the Greyhawk Wars, and I also have a certain distaste for Living Greyhawk-from From the Ashes onwards, official setting canon was now being added by TSR/WoTC fiat that many players had no say or influence over, something that to my mind goes directly against the original spirit of the setting. The one golden rule of Greyhawk is, to me, that your group alone decides what is canon. The 1983 boxed set will be an obvious jumping-off point, but from there you should feel free to take what canon you like and discard the rest, an approach I use in my own Canonfire articles, where I only do research if I feel like it and include only those canonical facts that I like.
Don't put too much faith in Nitescreed's Grey in the Hawk, as it's largely a series of strawman attacks directed against the Forgotten Realms. That said, both that essay and some of the other posts here demonstrate the conventions that developed among devoted fans-namely, that the world is a firmer shade of neutal grey rather than a battle of good versus evil; that magic is not as prevalent as in a place like the Forgotten Realms; that it's more Robert E. Howard and Fritz Leiber than J.R.R. Tolkien in its overall tone, although there's plenty to work with if you decide to go the Tolkien route; that the forces of good and evil are somewhat more pragmatic in that good nations can be at each others' throats or can ally with ostensible enemies if they work towards a common goal; and that the overall power levels are lower than they are in FR, for instance.
These tropes are generally accepted by Greyhawk fans, although you can and should ignore any or all of them if you think it would benefit your campaign. Greyhawk is flexible enough that you can alter the tone and power level as you see fit and still run an enjoyable game.
Again, if there's something in canon you don't like, throw it out and make up whatever you want in its place. I personally prefer to assume that Expedition to the Barrier Peaks never happened, that there are no crashed starships, robots or other science fiction knicknacks in the setting, to the point where gunpowder and the internal combustion engine do not function, which precludes the rise of guns or industrialization and keeps Greyhawk more or less permanently frozen at its pseudo-medieval technological level, although gnomes can elaborate other forms of technology, like combination locks and printing presses.
Does that have any basis in Greyhawk? Not particularly, since Gygax's and Kuntz's original games were littered with sci-fi tropes, but I prefer to keep Greyhawk pure and untouched by these things, and the setting is flexible enough that I can quietly put them in the dustbin without too much fuss.
__________________ Proud member of D.A.D. (Dragons Are Disposable)!
The one I'm really sick of is:
"Dragons are geniuses, they should be able to think of every tactic the party might possibly come up with."
Funny how those people don't seem inclined to give so much leeway to PC Wizards with even better Int scores...-mmu1
"As I created them, there are absolutely no good Drow save for the insane." (Gary Gygax, EN World, 2007)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
