What exactly makes the Greyhawk Campaign Setting

[Shadowslayer]

That's about what I was expecting, actually.

I was just wondering why, if there was so little actually TO Greyhawk, they decided to put anything in it.

Well, as far as 3e goes, when they came out with it, they decided that the core of the game demanded a generic setting as a baseline. As well, them using Greyhawk was (I think) a little ploy to bring D&D back to its roots for some of the longtimers. (I may be talking out of my butt here, Im not "in the know". Im just going the way it looked to me)

The point is, its not like theres nothing "to it". Its a pretty large setting. It's merely not as well detailed as the stuff that came later. It was meant for DMs to come up with the fine details on their own.

Its kind of unfortunate, but over the years Greyhawk seems to float in some kind of middle ground. Its there, but not really expanded on a whole lot. Once in a while they come out with a book on GH...but the newer players aren't interested because it doesn't have "groovy stuff" like FR or Eberron, and the oldschoolers hate it because it usually involves some change in the setting that they don't like.

Tough place to be.

 

[Turjan]

That's about what I was expecting, actually.

I was just wondering why, if there was so little actually TO Greyhawk, they decided to put anything in it.

Did anybody already mention here that Greyhawk is the basis of the RPGA "Living Greyhawk" campaign (today one setting among others, but it was the first in 3.0 times)? And did anybody mention that WotC published the 3.0 "Living Greyhawk Gazetteer", a book that's criticized by many, but appreciated by others, like me?

Yes, Greyhawk is as generic as possible in order to fit all new material for core D&D into the setting with ease. On the other hand, Greyhawk doesn't need any metaplot from published material. It has its metaplot from the "Living" campaign. There it continues to thrive.

 

[Shadowslayer]

That's one thing that amuses me but also annoys me about these grognards, they complain about how all the other settings suck compared to Greyhawk, say that Greyhawk is best because they can make it whatever they want, then complain about how there isn't enough published for Greyhawk, only to reject anything that is published because it doesn't go with what they've done with the setting.

Agreed.

Im in favor of the best of both worlds for my game. When I'm feeling creative, I pull out the old GH box. When I dont have time or inclanation, I pull out the old FR box and just pluck something out.

 

[Silverleaf]

It's all about the modules. S4, WG4, G1-3, D1-3, T1-4, etc. All the classics that make GH what it is...

 

[Glyfair]

Did anybody already mention here that Greyhawk is the basis of the RPGA "Living Greyhawk" campaign (today one setting among others, but it was the first in 3.0 times)? And did anybody mention that WotC published the 3.0 "Living Greyhawk Gazetteer", a book that's criticized by many, but appreciated by others, like me?

Criticized by many? I don't remember hearing any serious criticisms. The only ones I remember were that it was the only direct Greyhawk material WotC was producing for 3E.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Criticized by many? I don't remember hearing any serious criticisms. The only ones I remember were that it was the only direct Greyhawk material WotC was producing for 3E.

I've heard countless criticisms from a bunch of Greyhawk fans (especially those that dislike things that advanced the setting beyond 578cy) that the LGG wasn't especially evocative of anything from the "old school" era... and thus sucked to them. That it didn't ignore certain unliked changes to the setting made over the years, but rather tried to make lemonade out of the lemons. That certain things from the older era (like some characters) that were changed by later writers weren't corrected but that the later writings were adopted as the "canon".

 

[haakon1]

Nitescreed said it best, way back in the days when TSR's forums were part of AOL and Greyhawk was the bastard stepchild of 2nd Edition

Yup, NiteScreed had Greyhawk down. Erik Mona, of course, did too.

Without re-reading, "Greyness" -- neutrality is the strongest power, and there's no war of good versus evil -- plus the PC's rather than NPC's as the center of the game were the two points I remember most.

 

[haakon1]

That's one thing that amuses me but also annoys me about these grognards, they complain about how all the other settings suck compared to Greyhawk, say that Greyhawk is best because they can make it whatever they want, then complain about how there isn't enough published for Greyhawk, only to reject anything that is published because it doesn't go with what they've done with the setting.

Man, just about now, I really miss Nitescreed . . .

 

[LostSoul]

When I think about Greyhawk, I think about...

Hard-core D&D dungeoneering.

 

[haakon1]

the LGG wasn't especially evocative of anything from the "old school" era... and thus sucked to them. That it didn't ignore certain unliked changes to the setting made over the years, but rather tried to make lemonade out of the lemons. That certain things from the older era (like some characters) that were changed by later writers weren't corrected but that the later writings were adopted as the "canon".

Living Greyhawk Gazetteer is mostly good stuff. It's unfortunate, though, that it kept the absolute (insert string of things Nitescreed would say) that happened to 'hawk in the 2nd Edition era, when TSR's management mangled it. That way, they saved the 10% of the audience that thought that stuff was good, while mildly annoying to pissing off the 90% of the audience that liked Gygax's version better (and stopped playing D&D in the dark years of 2nd Edition, or played FR instead when even TSR decided they had killed Greyhawk). The best thing about WOTC's decision to keep the evils of "Greyhawk Wars" and the lame attempt to incorporate it into the setting in "From the Ashes" is that FR and Eberron players get to make fun of GH players for not loving every word of it . . .