Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder vs. Greyhawk campaign settings

[fireinthedust]

I don't think there *is* a Greyhawk setting per se, at least not the way there is an FR or Golarion. The only source material has been the odd module, some books, and the 3e APs and other materials. It's not in a single splatbook, though, and the consensus I've always been told (when I ask, cause I'm curious about a source if there is one) is that Greyhawk is generic D&D. Yeah, we know about the Circle of Nine and the various demon princes, but they're sort of D&D product identity flavour rather than part of a single setting. Faerun has that stuff, and has all the same demon princes (Bloodstone trilogy has you fight Orcus, Grazzt, et al, too), and on top of that has a consistent map and places where NPCs live. Greyhawk has dungeons and the free city of Greyhawk, and mention of some lands (the Flaneass, some others).

Sort of the way PoL has the Nentir Vale: not really a setting, more of a backdrop.

Greyhawk never really got me going. Dragonlance never did, either. FR did, but it's flamed out by now (sadly).

Golarion is a neat setting. I really hope it doesn't become a kitchen sink, or get caught up in power creep the way FR did. Goblins should always be treated as though they're scary in the literature, even if 99% of PCs can sneeze one to death.
My favourite part, fyi, is the different human nationalities and the cultural flavour. and the Art.

I'm in the camp of stealing heavily from both, or at least being inspired by what they've got to make my stuff better. Take Castle Greyhawk and put it in Varisia and I'm fine.

 

[Henry]

I keep seeing that, but I don't see why. Would you please explain to me, why you feel that way about the settings ?

First of all, this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/pathfinder-rpg-discussion/291982-golarion-greyhawk.html

explores those similarities. (In particular, James Jacobs' response in http://www.enworld.org/forum/pathfinder-rpg-discussion/291982-golarion-greyhawk.html#post5306391 clinches it to me)

For my opinion, you're dealing with:

--no overriding force for good in the setting a la Harpers (the PFS is neutral at best)

--one or more lands overrun by evil (Ustalav, Razmiran, Iuz' Realm, Scarlet Kingdoms) that isn't losing the battle anytime soon like the Zhentarim did

--and perhaps most important, TONS of blank spaces among these realms for DMs to sketch into. It's more conspicuous by the blanks than the details.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I like Greayhawk bit more actually, more freedom, more classic feel. Used it so long. I have started to warm up to Golarion too. It's ok, but bit too "earthlike". I've gotten used to it too, but it's big turn-off for me. However I also found out they made "races" more personal, so it's not carbon copy of some historical mythology age.

I like Scarred Lands best though. I really like the mythology. Later material however tried to overwrite it to general setting, and I hated it.

I like Golarion for constancy. I would like all areas have more "cost of living"/"house prices"/"rent prices"/travel prices/ship prices etc. it comes up often in my games. Detail in splatbooks seems to vary and swing to whatever stuff writer likes more. I'd like some general info told similar way in every area book, so they are easier to compare. I would devote that like one page max 2.

Also it bit bothers me adventure timelines seem to vary a lot from general one, but really sneekily. "Wait Aroden died 30 years ago, what?": That kinda.

Golarion feels pretty similar to Greyhawk themewise. I like the planes and gods are neat though mostly not as awesome as Scarn ones. They are bit Greayhawkish actually.

I dislike too direct Lovecraft rip-offs, mostly names. It woudn't be an issue if they would be stat-wise kinda that, but since they aren't it's unnessecery and misleading.

I really dislike Forgotten Realms. I always have, since the unreadable grey box. It did have some good stuff I used to steal for Greyhawk. I am happy Golarion is more like Greyhawk and less like that junkyard. I kinda dislike Eberron too, mostly for same reasons.

I think Golarion is actually very much better than Greyhawk, but not better than my Greyhawk. MY greyhawk consisted of that boxed set some oldie moduless, and some of gazetters actually made for Mystara. Greyhawk was rather thin deal, and I wasn't too found of second edition material for it. But that first boxed set was so inspiring. Bit like Scarn Gazetter was. Golarion never made such a impression. It's much slower foundness. Then again later material has made me like Golarion more, not less. Which is why I still subscribe so many Pathfinder things.

 

[Minicol]

Thank you for the link Henry, I get it better now.

 

[Greg K]

I don't think there *is* a Greyhawk setting per se, at least not the way there is an FR or Golarion. The only source material has been the odd module, some books, and the 3e APs and other materials. .

I am not sure what you mean by this. Pre 3e, there was

1. the original Greyhawk folio about the lands and cultures (no mention of skin color).
2. Len Lakofka's Dragon articles about the Suel people of Greyhawk to which Gary added notes

3. Gary's Dragon articles including
a. Gary's Barbarian class article included a bit on the various "barbarian" cultures and each culture altered the classes weapon selection and "skills"
and all of this was in the 1e Unearthed Arcana
b. Gary's Dragon articles about the deities and quasi deity's of Greyhawk.
The pantheon presented in 3e was not the same, but a mix of the Gary's deity's plus Lakofka's the Suloise pantheon (which appearedlafter Gary's set of deity articles). However, most of not all of Gary's remaining deity's were among those listed in the 3.5 Complete Divine.

4. The Greyhawk box set which, if I recall correctly, incorporated a lot of Gary's material from Dragon sans the Barbarian class.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I am not sure what you mean by this. Pre 3e, there was

1. the original Greyhawk folio about the lands and cultures (no mention of skin color).
2. Len Lakofka's Dragon articles about the Suel people of Greyhawk to which Gary added notes

3. Gary's Dragon articles including
a. Gary's Barbarian class article included a bit on the various "barbarian" cultures and each culture altered the classes weapon selection and "skills"
and all of this was in the 1e Unearthed Arcana
b. Gary's Dragon articles about the deities and quasi deity's of Greyhawk.
The pantheon presented in 3e was not the same, but a mix of the Gary's deity's plus Lakofka's the Suloise pantheon (which appearedlafter Gary's set of deity articles). However, most of not all of Gary's remaining deity's were among those listed in the 3.5 Complete Divine.

4. The Greyhawk box set which, if I recall correctly, incorporated a lot of Gary's material from Dragon sans the Barbarian class.

You may not like it, but there was a lot more:

Greyhawk Adventures, City of Greyhawk, Greyhawk Wars, From the Ashes, three or four regional sourcebooks, and two books (one focused on DMs the other on players) set after the war, whose names escape me right now.

 

[Tonguez]

Golarion is Greyhawk done right

(by right I mean with internal consistency benefiting from experience. It is greyhawk updated and made with DnDs internal culture and rules applied. I prefer Pathfinder....)

 

[NewJeffCT]

Both Golarion and Greyhawk are the two settings I never got at all. But for exactly the same reasons.
They both look like generic kitchen sink settings of fantasy counterpart cultures to me, with no distinct identity of their own.

But given their popularity, there must be a lot of people who get quite a lot out of either of the two. But I never figured out what.

Despite having been a gamer for over 30 years, I have not used a lot of Greyhawk over the years, though I have run a ton of individual modules that are set in Greyhawk by default. Never a campaign, though.

Not a huge fan of Golarion, though I appreciate the work that Paizo has put into their world. Some of the modules/APs that they have set in Golarion are not mapped out very well/inconsistently, IMO. And, when I read through the first setting book, it seemed like a lot of things were tossed in there because the world needed a reason to have X in there here, and Y in the world over there.

I do think there is a need for generic worlds that can be used for most campaigns - Greyhawk, Kalamar, Golarion, etc. - where the DM and the players can fill in the blanks.

 

[gamerprinter]

I think vanilla settings apply to a specific large segment of the gamer community, especially those who like a variety cultures to play with, while being less world builders due to time constraints.

For the rest of us, who don't mind putting in the work with a custom home brew setting (like me and many of you), vanilla settings don't really fit. I prefer mint or sherbert to vanilla, and prefer to custom design the flavors of my ice cream.

Other than a few notable adventures, I too avoid Greyhawk and Golarian and prefer to play in my own worlds, or something more exotic. (Kaidan, anyone...)

 

[Yora]

It depends on personal interest a lot. For myself, the greatest part about fantasy worlds are the new and unique cultures and to explore their society and learn to understand their culture. Generic settings don't provide anything in this department.
But if you are mostly interested in having an environment for your adventures that is easily accessible and can be understood almost completely with just applying the knowledge of mainstream fantasy you already have, then a generic setting is a huge improvement and something like Dark Sun or Planescape would be a major obstacle for the group. You would have to dump most or even all of your preexisting knowledge of fantasy worlds and learn everything again, and many of the popular plots you enjoy can't be replicated well within the special circumstances of the world.
It's a very different use of a world, which results in completely different requirements.