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

[Ruin Explorer]

What authoritative position did I take in asking what the setting is about? What damage have I caused in admitting that I do not know, and seeking to understand?

Dude.

The world does not revolve around you.

Not every comment in this thread is about you. This one is specifically about people who behave differently to you. Yet even with that specificity, which you clearly understand, you want to centre everything on yourself and your feelings, instead of discussing the issue. It's bizarre.

So, I actually, personally, would have been better off talking very authoritatively about things I didn't understand. Because then I wouldn't be attacked for seeking to understand.

No, because you would have got into a giant fight about how you had no idea what you were talking about, despite your authoritative claims, and you would have been one of those dudes who posts a giant screed, and as soon as they get called on it, asked for sources, and so on, mysteriously vanishes from the board, never to be seen again.

But again you're centre-ing this whole thing on you. Why?

 

[Orius]

Honestly, I don't know how important the old S&S stories are to understanding any of the classic D&D material, let alone Greyhawk itself. I'll be honest, of Appendix N, all I've read is Howard's Conan stories, a bit of Burrows, and of course Tolkien. And of those, the only thing I read fully in the mid 90s when I first got into D&D was Tolkien, and Gary didn't even like LotR (note how Appendix N refers to it as "Ring Trilogy" in an almost dismissive manner). Howard's work in turn was obscured by the various Conan pastiches which at times poorly portray the character, and I hadn't even read all Howard's original stories. At the time though, the old Ace/Lancer paperbacks were how most people were reading Conan, and those probably influenced D&D more than pure Howard. Burrows I didn't read until after I'd seen the John Carter film and was curious about the originals. I still find a lot of the classic D&D material to be fascinating though, probably because the old stuff held a sort of mystique about it that more recent material just doesn't have.

No, I don't think Greyhawk really has a "hook "; like I've said earlier in the thread, the real appeal comes from its open nature as a setting, where DMs could make their own individual Greyhawks, but that's the setting's greatest weakness as well. People who want to buy setting material want something more developed like the Realms, while DMs who want to do their own thing tend to prefer homebrewing like myself. Greyhawk occupies a space in between there that is perhaps too narrow to be successful.

I think grodog's comments on the John Carter film in comparison to Greyhawk are fairly apt.

 

[Azzy]

This is a confusing question. Are you asking this honestly, or is it some sort of rhetorical device? I couldn't even begin to count the media properties/IPs I both understand and dislike. Indeed, very often seeing how something works is a cause to dislike it (c.f. the Sword of Truth series, once you've realized it's all libertarian/objectivist propaganda and messed-up BDSM stuff which real BDSM people likely frown at, it's unreadable - and it wasn't very readable to start with).

I mean, if you did English Lit, or Film Studies, did you like all the works you came to understand? I sure didn't. Some I did turn around on totally (Wuthering Heights, for example), but a lot just got more annoying (King Lear).

It wasn't a question, just a statement. Also, am I not questioning your ability to understand something that you don't like. However, telling someone that they need to be familiar with something (sword & sorcery literature) in order to understand something else (Greyhawk) that you don't even like seems a bit confounding when there are people that understand and like that something else (Greyhawk) even without having read the something (sword & sorcery literature). I also don't see a lot of people who are fans of Greyhawk proclaiming that someone needs to have a familiarity with sword & sorcery literature in order to have some sort of proper understanding of the setting. Yes, sword & sorcery literature informed the creation of Greyhawk (and D&D as a whole), but it's not the only—or even the main—thing that underlies the setting. Historical periods, events, and polities (like the Migration Period, the Holy Roman Empire, the Teutonic Knights, the Hunnic invasion, the Crusades, et al.) also inform the setting just as much.

 

[Helldritch]

Dear @Chaosmancer , it is not the fact that you asked, but that you refused to read the stuff that was suggested. Sometimes, to have a better understanding, you have no choice but to read and familiarize yourself with the subject. You clearly rejected that idea and brought lightning onto you.
Edit: Not from me though. I don't expect people to read as fast as I am. But the perceived tone with which you answered was... haughty?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It wasn't a question, just a statement. Also, am I not questioning your ability to understand something that you don't like. However, telling someone that they need to be familiar with something (sword & sorcery literature) in order to understand something else (Greyhawk) that you don't even like seems a bit confounding when there are people that understand and like that something else (Greyhawk) even without having read the something (sword & sorcery literature). I also don't see a lot of people who are fans of Greyhawk proclaiming that someone needs to have a familiarity with sword & sorcery literature in order to have some sort of proper understanding of the setting. Yes, sword & sorcery literature informed the creation of Greyhawk (and D&D as a whole), but it's not the only—or even the main—thing that underlies the setting. Historical periods, events, and polities (like the Migration Period, the Holy Roman Empire, the Teutonic Knights, the Hunnic invasion, the Crusades, et al.) also inform the setting just as much.

Sure, and the specific sources that are most relevant is a reasonable thing to discuss. Talking about D&D in general the most important but most-forgotten source, especially by people under about 35 is clearly Michael Moorcock in general (and indirectly, through D&D and Warhammer, he's been a massive influence on TTRPGs and fantasy in virtually all forms of gaming, but less so literary fantasy and TV/movie stuff - that said Tolkien is a lesser influence in literary fantasy than he is typically credited as*, beyond popularizing th general concept of worldbuilding). My contention was less about specific sources and more about the notion that it was reasonable to disregard understanding of the sources.

* = I read an otherwise-reasonable and well-written article recently where the author flatly claimed "all fantasy" was influenced by Tolkien which is definitely not true, but it's the sort of comment that goes unchallenged or even supported in a lot of the world, especially the internet, and especially with younger people.

 

[Helldritch]

Sure, and the specific sources that are most relevant is a reasonable thing to discuss. Talking about D&D in general the most important but most-forgotten source, especially by people under about 35 is clearly Michael Moorcock in general (and indirectly, through D&D and Warhammer, he's been a massive influence on TTRPGs and fantasy in virtually all forms of gaming, but less so literary fantasy and TV/movie stuff - that said Tolkien is a lesser influence in literary fantasy than he is typically credited as*, beyond popularizing th general concept of worldbuilding). My contention was less about specific sources and more about the notion that it was reasonable to disregard understanding of the sources.

* = I read an otherwise-reasonable and well-written article recently where the author flatly claimed "all fantasy" was influenced by Tolkien which is definitely not true, but it's the sort of comment that goes unchallenged or even supported in a lot of the world, especially the internet, and especially with younger people.

Fully agree with you on this. But there is hope. Elric is being re-edited, so is Robin Hobbs' assassin serie and many others. It was almost impossible to get copies of these books just a few years ago. Now, with the renewed interest in fantasy genre, we can have access to these stories again.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fully agree with you on this. But there is hope. Elric is being re-edited, so is Robin Hobbs' assassin serie and many others. It was almost impossible to get copies of these books just a few years ago. Now, with the renewed interest in fantasy genre, we can have access to these stories again.

Robin Hobb hard to get? Really? Because if there's one series (other than LotR and ASoIaF) that's been consistently on the shelves in the UK (and US, when I've been there), it's been Hobb, whether it's the original Assassin trilogy or later works*. But maybe it varies by region.

Whereas Moorcock? Hah. The last time I saw any significant number of works by him on a shelf was in the 1990s (thanks to White Wolf of all people), and I've literally never seen them "Suggested for you" in any online store (even where they are available), so I am very glad to hear those are being re-edited.

* = (She did a great job with the final Assassin trilogy, I note. I mean, it's long, and it's challenging in that it subverts and avoids a lot of tropes, but she really landed that plane, and I didn't think that was possible.)

 

[Umbran]

I really wish you'd stop dramatizing this and making yourself the victim at every turn. You've done it in a huge percentage of your responses here.
...

I mean, and unlike you here, I'm willing to admit I've been the guy in the wrong...
...
What's with the victim complex here?

Mod Note:

Yes, well, you're in the wrong now for making the argument about the person, rather than the topic. Going forward, please stop addressing the person you are speaking to, and limit yourself to the content of the post, or you'll have to be removed from the discussion.

 

[Helldritch]

They were hard ro come by in Québec and in Canada (at least in Ontario where I have friends). So yes it depends from region to region. Especially when many here in Québec need the translated work. ( not my case, obviously)

 

[Doug McCrae]

A strength of Greyhawk is its geography... About all that's missing is a volcano for a red dragon

According to the Glossography the "ancient volcano fortified by Keraptis" in the module S2 White Plume Mountain is in hex T3-70, just south of the Riftcanyon. Afaict it's in the hex that contains the letter 'R' in "RIFTCANYON" so it's 16 hexes (480 miles) from the City of Greyhawk.