D&D General For the Love of Greyhawk: Why People Still Fight to Preserve Greyhawk

[DnD Warlord]

I think it's fairly easy to come up with a new system for that. A grim and gritty Greyhawk game could have rules about generating a cadre of ready to play characters and how to integrate them seamlessly into the campaign. It could also give tips on how to quickly retool old characters into new ones without them feeling too similar. This could be what would set a 5e Greyhawk setting apart, like the Piety system in Theros or the Patron system in Eberron.

John the fighter
His brother Don the fighter
There sister Lin the fighter

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

John the fighter
His brother Don the fighter
There sister Lin the fighter

Yes! Exactly the opposite of that.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Yes! Exactly the opposite of that.

I was being funny but I actually like where this is going... a martial based high fantasy sword and sorcery on hard mode (dark souls like) with quick play rules...

So let me add in something called Character Trees (I wish I remembered what setting thiswas from in 90s).

a character tree has each Player make 3-5 characters. They share the same xp total (so all level up at same time) then you switch in and out as the game plays...

 

[Rathlaw]

What I always liked about Greyhawk wasn't just the grittiness or sword & sorcery aspects, but weird, cosmic Lovecraftian horror flavor that EGG would hid in his modules. (Discovering them was not always a reward and could easily lead to a TPK.)
TSR and WotC seemed to abandoned or de-emphasise this in the later years making it more generic in feel. I would love to see Greyhawk bring back the weird.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Thank you for the time and effort, and I will be looking to your explanation, but I have an immediate problem.

I have never read Moorcock or Conan either. So, you are comparing a thing I don't know except through references to a thing I don't know except through references.

Which might explain the problem, to a degree (I have also never read Song of Fire and Ice, or watched Game of Thrones, so going to that explanation would also not help make it any more clear.)




And this gets me to the second problem I seem to have. Much like @Helldritch talking about making the setting gritty and other such things, what you have described is a style of play.

FR is a setting in decline too. The greatest ages of magic are behind them. Gritty anti-heroes adventuring for profit and not for the good of the world? In all the FR games that I have been in (because I have a DM or two who use the realms since the APs are set there and the maps are easy to find) that's exactly what people did (I am too much of a goody-twoshoes, but I tried)

You could trivially set an adventure in (pulls up map, picks random point) The Border Kingdoms near the Shaar Desolation, and have a gritty survival game where you are the hard, uncompromising hero who is a better alternative than the evils he fights.


So... what gives? What makes Greyhawk as a setting something I'd want to run six different styles of campaign in, if the only hooks are "well you can run this one style of campaign really good, because it matches the history of the world"?


And to state again, I find FR boring as crap. It has a few interesting ideas, but nothing in FR really strikes me as highly compelling either. Though I think that is in part because it is so frickin big, and every game I've ever been in focused on one of two cities (Neverwinter or Waterdeep) and we never went more than a week's travel into generic dungeon beyond that. But, all people seem to be able to say to advocate Greyhawk above FR is that you can run a gritty game where people aren't heroes.... and I can do that in FR, or Eberron, or Wildemount, or Ravinca. So the hook really reads to me as "You can run the game you can run in any setting, but this one is Greyhawk"


And, I suspect that people are going to say you can't really run a gritty game in a setting like Eberron or Ravinca, because there is too much magic. But, in my experience, there are always plenty of sections on the edges of the maps that are harsher than the centers. Sure, House Jorasco has Healing Houses that can cast cure wounds.... but like all hospitals, they exist where the customers are, and maybe out in the border between Breland and Droaam, there is no profit and Jorasco healing is only available if you make a week long trip to a major city.

And, the advantage of a setting like that, is that you can run both games in the same setting. Shifting from a border town in the middle of nowhere to a major metropolis with vast resources lets you play both styles of game, without having to switch settings. Something you can't do if the resources simply never existed in the world. And sure, we could talk about how "X high level spell means you can trivially travel to take advantage of those resources" but you can't really have a properly gritty game when people can just teleport wherever they want anyways, and a lack of magical resources means that your PCs are suddenly scarier than anything else in the world, because nothing else has access to the capabilities the party does.

All right, since you don't know if these influences, I will compare it to something you do seem to have a reference for; the Forgotten Realms, or more specifically the Sword Coast, which has far more influence on D&D 5E than any other region.

First, FR is not a setting in decline. It is not currently as enlightened as say the Age of the Netherese Empire, but to say that it is in decline is like saying Italy under the merchant city-states of Venice and Milan in the Renaissance is in decline compared to the Roman Empire. If anything, the cities of Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter are growing in power and influence.

Comparatively, the nations of Greyhawk are strictly stuck in a very much medieval view of the world, while the cities of the Sword Coast are (although with a similar technology level) much more free-minded. The City of Greyhawk is very much the exception to the world, being a more independent-thinking city, much like how Baldur's Gate dreary brutal pessimism is the outlier compared to the rest of the more optimistic Sword Coast.

Additionally, the Sword Coast has arranged itself in the powerful Lord's Alliance in an effort to protect itself from the aggressive neighboring Amn, and far-off powers like Thay. If we look at recent history, the alliance has proven to be an effective deterrent; Amn has not made any aggressive action in recent times (even losing some colonies), and Thay's actions have all been thwarted.

In comparison, Greyhawk has the Empire of Iuz, ruled by the cambion of the same name. Unlike far-off Thay, Iuz is nearby to the Flaeness kingdoms, and even has nominal partnerships with countries like the Kingdom of Keoland (which is not strictly evil) as the nations operate under a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" paradigm. Although Iuz has not made any recent invasion, it is believed he is simply biding his time. And this does not even factor the other common threats like the raiding slavers of the Sea Princes, the Orcs of the Pomarj, or the sinister Scarlet Brotherhood.

The other major difference is that Forgotten Realms has an expectation that you will make a "good" character. After all, the major characters of the setting are all pretty good. Dr'zzt, Elminster, Laeral Silverhand, Sir Isteval, Minsc... these are all heroes with big roles in the world, with entire series of novels, and are all unambiguously good heroes (though they have other flaws). These heroes all lived, and have a big role in the politics and history of the Sword Coast.

But the heroes of Greyhawk are few and far between. The ones that survived aren't the good-aligned ones. The two most famous, Mordenkainen is strictly neutral to an annoying degree, and Tasha (or Iggwilv) is so evil she imprisoned a demon lord and mothered the evil Iuz herself. The various other famous heroes, the Circle of Eight, are repeatedly slaughtered when being outmaneuvered by the forces of evil. Few good aligned characters remain with any influence in the world; the rulers who remain are left to the normal politicking devoid of moral concerns.

Now, I'm sure you can read the above and say, "Well, I can adapt a gritty, low-magic, morally-grey world to Forgotten Realms, or Eberron, or even Ravnica if I try." And that's true, you can. You can bring any tone or theme to any campaign setting if you try. But the strength of Greyhawk is that by default, your level 1 PCs are not chosen heroes, but are likely just a group of normal (but skilled) individuals trying to find a way to survive in a world that cares little for the affairs of the peasant life. Now, if the PCs are able to survive long enough, they may just be able to learn and gain enough strength to try and make a positive change in this grim world.

And I think that's the difference in FR and GH in a nutshell. In FR, you're largely trying to protect the peace; Waterdeep, Phandalin, most of the Sword Coast (with the notable exception of Baldur's Gate) is a nice place; it deserves to be saved from Tiamat or the Demon Lords. But in GH, it is mostly a terrible place for most people; if you're a good character, you have to go out and change the systemic system of how the world operates to truly make it a decent place.

 

[Orius]

This. From the Ashes, Living Greyhawk, and so on all spring to mind. Heck, Greyhawk was the default setting for 3e. I think part of it is that there's this perpetual seeking of the Platonic Ideal of Greyhawk, as Gygax intended it. And that attitude has unfortunately stifled the development of the setting.

Yup. And like I said, some of those guys insist on playing Greyhawk with 1e rules which WotC was never going to resurrect. That didn't help in the late 2e and the 3e days, and it'll help even less today. I still think the setting was permanently damaged by TSR's bungling.

More than anything specifically about Greyhawk, I understand this frustration. WotC has several old IPs that are beloved by a few but well below being commercially viable for a mainstream release. Why not leverage that in the DMsGuild? I can see why they're holding back Dark Sun and Dragonlance, but are they really going to do anything with Birthright? Greyhawk? Mystara?

It depends on how really valuable the IPs are I guess. Greyhawk and Mystara might lack mainstream appeal today, but they're also closely linked to core D&D identity. There's another problem in them overlapping with the Realms since all three are functional default settings, but 2e showed that the market can only really support one. And there's the whole current problem with the cultural insensitivity stuff, though that's a bigger problem for Mystara than Greyhawk I think.

That is actually what draws me to Greyhawk, the idea that the setting isn't Black/White, but Light Grey/Dark Grey.

I tend to paint the difference in GH/FR as pessimism vs optimism. GH is a world that is cynical, mercenary, and a little selfish. FR is a setting that has strong idealists (for both good and evil) fighting for a better new day. Elminster fights for a better world, Mordenkainen lets Oerth sit in perpetual conflict. Neither one is bad, but I think the biggest thematic thing to me is GH has a "you're on your own" feel vs. FR "Fighting for a new day" feel.

This is partially TSR's fault too. The whole silly content code they had going necessitated bungling villains that never won. So FR's bad guys in the 2e days tended to be ineffectual fools. From what I read about Ed's original campaign, the villains are much more serious and dangerous, and it's a darker setting, more on par with Greyhawk.

 

[Orius]

This is how culture works, mate. People share stories and ideas and use them as shorthand, as shared understand. You seem to be rejecting culture. I mean, good luck if you get stuck on a planet with a Tamarian!

Shaka, when the walls fell.

 

[Coroc]

...

Re: nostalgia, I mean, for who? How many people are actually nostalgic for GH? To judge by the internet, not many. And when a setting peaked 37 years ago, we're talking about people who, if they aren't 50+, will be very soon.

Pretty sure the Twitch crowd and the vast majority of people under 45 (which is to say, virtually all D&D players, according to WotC's own surveys) don't give a hoot about GH, and certainly don't feel nostalgia for something they never experienced and that as you've illustrated, they don't even understand.

...

And here I am, I am 54 and do I feel nostalgic about GH, because I DMd it already when I was young, and I like many aspects of the setting, andI have loads of GH material enough for two or three campaigns, but here is the thing:

Converting it to 5e ? Not the slightest problem: GH has had no special mechanics like DL or RL or DS.
Otoh to compile this old GH stuff material into an interesting story arc, with the plus of saving some of my little free time in using e.g. bought material for the NPCs etc. requires a bit of work (as it did back then).

So now, if there would be a new 5e GH book with additional stuff, then the second part of the job would not get easier at all, unless eventually you only use the new stuff. Also, at what point in the rough, but existing official timeline should this be put?

In my pov the most interesting GH overarcing stuff is the conflict with Iuz plus the traitor Rary story. The basic dungeons like ToH, ToEE, KotB, or drow and giants series, white plume mountain etc. is to some the holy grail of the setting, but tbh these are quite generic dungeons which would easily fit in FR as well (and have been used for this purpose in 5e already)

It is the nearly invincible nemesis Iuz a half god like demon with his own priesthood and an army consisting of hordes of orcs and bandits bolstered by demons which makes the setting very feasible for a "last war between good and evil before the apocalypse" scenario. This is doubled down by the "PCs are more selfish mercenaries than notorious do-goods", aka more like Han Solo than Luke Skywalker.
How can they be motivated to pick the right side, what mundane and political interests interfere with their mission etc.

The Greyhawk wars stuff, which offer a solution on how the grand scale conflict might play out, is imho not the deciding material needed for a good GH campaign, it is mainly a framework for the aftermath, which could be much grittier (or brighter) also.

 

[Coroc]

So until this thread i've never really though too much about this, but....

The "named" spells have existed in the PHB since 1e (Although I don't recall them existing in 4e for some reason). All of the various "settings" as well as most homebrew settings include the named spells in the world, which would mean that in Dark Sun, Birthright, and my personal homebrew 5e setting there have been wizards named Mordenkainen, Ottiluke, Tasha, Tenser, Aganeezer, Snilloc, etc... who have all invented the same spells across the multiverse in some strange meta way. Is my homebrew world's Mordenkainen related in some way to Greyhawks Mordenkainen?

Is there something to this that might make a "hook"?

This is normally resolved, that in some settings you just leave out the wizards name (Like it is also done in the SRD). That kind of convention for naming spells derives directly from Jack Vance, he did that in "The dying earth" where the spells all were named like that (to credit the mage who researched it)

 

[Voadam]

Demon Lords keep being a big deal in the World of Greyhawk.

Iuz is the son of Grazzt.

Lolth was the BBEG at the end of GDQ.

Temple of Elemental Evil has Zuggtmoy.

Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth had a huge demon lord expansion.

Xagyg imprisoned Fraz Urb Luu in Castle Grayhawk and he was freed by Robilar and Co.

Return to the Tomb of Horrors has a bunch on Orcus.

Savage Tide Adventure Path from Dungeon starts in the World of Greyhawk, incorporates X1 from B/X, and then takes the fight to Demogorgon.

Even WG7 has Grazzt show up in one of the levels.

A bunch show up in the Gord the Rogue novels too.