how to describe "Greyhawk" to a new player?

[CruelSummerLord]

The best piece of advice I can give you is this:

Something is canon only if you say it is canon.

Like jdrakeh, I lament the fact that Greyhawk has become laden with so much canon over the years, and even more so that many of my fellow Greyhawk fans seem to want to closely adhere to official canon, rather than make something up themselves that suits their campaigns and their needs.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, the crashed spaceship in the Barrier Peaks, the cybernetics of Blackmoor as described by Dave Arneson, Murlynd, and basically everything modern and/or technological, or that makes reference to something outside the traditional bounds of swords and sorcery, is not canon.

Why not?

Because I say so, that's why.

I consider Murlynd, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and Dave Arneson's fantasy tech to be abominations that have no place in a true Greyhawk campaign. Similarly, I hate much of what Sean K. Reynolds writes, and therefore it is not canon either. I don't need any justification for this other than my say-so.

Now, that's just me and my own personal view of canon. My buddy GVDammerung, who posts both on Canonfire and on here, loves these things and includes them in his verison of Greyhawk, and that's just fine. If I were playing in his game, I would cheerfully accept them-he's the DM, and he's the one who decides what goes in his version of Oerth.

Now, when planning out your personal version of Greyhawk, feel free to mix and match elements of official TSR/WOTC canon, fanwork like at Canonfire, real-life mythology, or whatever you wish. If you say something is canon, then it's canon-if you say it isn't, then it isn't.

Much of what I write on canon is done for my own personal amusement, but if I can inspire any DMs or players out there, so much the better. If there are any DMs or players who've lifted any of my stuff, you can expect that they'll have only taken those elements that suited them, or otherwise adapted it to fit their own games and concepts of the world.

Many of the previous posters have shown the tendencies that have cropped up in Greyhawk products and fandom over the years, and you're more than welcome to use them, if you like. But if you don't, don't feel like you're not playing the world the way it's "supposed to".

Here's how I recommend you explain Greyhawk:

The setting is your basic toolbox. Canon and fanworks have additional tools that you can take if you feel you need them. Only you can decide what tools are most useful to you in your projects, and in conjunction with your players you can cherry-pick those instruments that will be most useful to you.

Greyhawk, as originally conceived by Gary Gygax (RIP), wasn't meant to have a specific flavor, and EGG specifically says in the 1E DMG that he left things sketchy on purpose so DMs could insert their own stories, settings and histories with a minimum of fuss.

Keep that in mind, tailoring the setting to suit your specific needs, and you can't go wrong.

 

[sinecure]

The best piece of advice I can give you is this:

Something is canon only if you say it is canon.

SNIP SNIP SNIP

Keep that in mind, tailoring the setting to suit your specific needs, and you can't go wrong.

I think this is why 4e campaign setting construction is pure gold. I grew upon 2e, but this is old school and the way I was taught to play in those 2e setting in the first place.

(never read any FR novels, but an FR fan) - spikey

 

[grodog]

Well-said CSL!

 

[Aeolius]

I consider Murlynd, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and Dave Arneson's fantasy tech to be abominations that have no place in a true Greyhawk campaign. Similarly, I hate much of what Sean K. Reynolds writes, and therefore it is not canon either. I don't need any justification for this other than my say-so.

Agreed. Oerth is different for every DM that chooses her. Add to that the various incarnations of GH supplements between 1e, 2e, and 3e, plus the Living Greyhawk campaign, and you'll see why the setting is confusing to most. One cannot even count on the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, an excellent supplement considering its publication date, to appease the masses.

Oerth can be political. Oerth can be a religious hotbed. Oerth can be restrictive, in its choice of allowable races and classes. Or one can ignore all of the above.

Me, I allow warlocks, psionics, Tome of Magic, and Incarnum in my GH campaign. I have added Oerthblood as a unique element, thus allowing for Oerthblood elementals, Oerthblood adepts, and so on.

But they tell me I an an atypical DM.

 

[S'mon]

Greyhawk names never bothered me at all, they seem pretty realistic, even when 'silly'. Only setting where I can't stand the names is Kalamar - names like Principality of Pekal have a made-up generic-fantasy feel I dislike.

 

[haakon1]

Me, I allow warlocks, psionics, Tome of Magic, and Incarnum in my GH campaign. I have added Oerthblood as a unique element, thus allowing for Oerthblood elementals, Oerthblood adepts, and so on.

Whereas me, I only allow Core Book materials, and keep the feel as 1e as possible, under 3.5e rules. I think Dungeon Crawl Classics and Paizo material fit Greyhawk fairly well, most of the time . . .

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Whereas me, I only allow Core Book materials, and keep the feel as 1e as possible, under 3.5e rules. I think Dungeon Crawl Classics and Paizo material fit Greyhawk fairly well, most of the time . . .

See, and you're both picking and choosing what you feel best fits your Greyhawk campaign, which is exactly what you should be doing as DMs. The greater "looseness" you can get from this cherry-picking of both fluff and crunchy bits gives Greyhawk its greatest strength-its flexibility.

Ironically, its bland vanilla formula offers some of the greatest scope for variety. Some people, like me, enjoy just plain, straight-up vanilla ice cream. Others like putting on chocolate syrup, crumbled-up cookie things, strawberries, caramel, butterscotch, or whatever else you can name. There's still vanilla underneath, but apart from that each dish is a unique flavor all its own. Start with the vanilla ice cream and add different ingredients as you see fit.

 

[Nifft]

Some people, like me, enjoy just plain, straight-up vanilla ice cream.

One of my ex-girlfriends liked to say: "Vanilla is a spice, too!"

Cheers, -- N

 

[Desdichado]

While I agree with the sentiment (and apply it more widely than Greyhawk; my Star Wars games tend to completely ignore huge chunks of the Expanded Universe and even parts of the movies) I have to be Mr. Nitpicky here and say that that's not using the word canon correctly, though.

It's perfectly fine to say, "in my campaign we're doing it this way" but canon is canon—regardless of what any individual campaign may use.

 

[grodog]

That's just a GH geek thing, Hobo: we debate canon, quasi-canon, and non-canon status of various sources, as well GH apocryphal sources too

I establish GH canon for each campaign that I run, so one may well differ completely from another, for example, in terms of what happens to Prince Thrommel from ToEE, or who secretly rules the Valley of the Mage, or whatever.

And while I understand that yes, that's still not a canonical definition of canon, it is how most GHers use the term (a la definition 4 @ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canon for example).