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

[Paul Farquhar]

hard-boiled detective fiction

And interesting thought. I was thinking about the relationship between S&S and noir. Eberron being the noir influenced setting. It has the moral ambiguity that I associate with most S&S (inc. Witcher), but replaces swords with wands.

NB, what about Wildemount? This seems to be a very S&S influenced setting to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

NB, what about Wildemount? This seems to be a very S&S influenced setting to me.

I'm only limitedly familiar with it, but literally everything I know about the setting itself screams "EPIC FANTASY" at the top of its lungs. The way the group in Critical Role plays may well be much more S&S, but that just makes them like about 75% of D&D groups, who act more like Conan and Geralt than Aragorn or Jon Snow.

EDIT - Re: Eberron yeah, that leans very close to noir in a lot of ways, including the post-war setting, though the huge importance of the Houses combined with them being morally ambiguous rather than outright morally bankrupt reads as post-cyberpunk. It doesn't typically feel very S&S because it's so built-up and there's so much communication, so there's little of the feeling of wonder and dread S&S often evokes.

That said, the relatively benign/neutral nature of the Houses by default is probably the least plausible part about the setting. Throughout human history, every guild and company with the kind of monopolies they have has exploited the hell out of them, but Baker wanted to have his cake and eat it, so just arbitrarily has them not doing that for "reasons". I've read his explanations, but they're deeply half-hearted compared to the tremendous enthusiasm he has for the rest of his setting - basically coming down to "I dunno, I guess they're afraid bad things would happen if they did exploit the monopolies". Which is fundamentally implausible - if they had recently done that, and bad things had happened, it might be plausible, but that's not the case (the recent horrific events weren't related to exploiting monopolistic power).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'm only limitedly familiar with it, but literally everything I know about the setting itself screams "EPIC FANTASY" at the top of its lungs. The way the group in Critical Role plays may well be much more S&S, but that just makes them like about 75% of D&D groups, who act more like Conan and Geralt than Aragorn or Jon Snow.

A lot of S&S boils down to how the protagonists/players act though. The world might need saving, but PCs could choose to bum around towns killing monsters for money whist some other suckers do the job.

Wildemount has the moral ambiguity that is part of S&S, along with incentives to solve problems with a sword.

 

[Aldarc]

Wildemount has the moral ambiguity that is part of S&S, along with incentives to solve problems with a sword.

I think that this requires equivocating between what is meant by “moral ambiguity”. Plus, solving solutions with a sword is called “playing D&D.”

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, I think to understand "why Greyhawk", if your answer is "Sword and Sorcery", then you need to justify why the current 5e settings are not S&S.

I can come up with reasons for most of them, but not Wildemount.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think that this requires equivocating between what is meant by “moral ambiguity”. Plus, solving solutions with a sword is called “playing D&D.”

Quite. D&D from 2E onwards is very often "Sword and Sorcery protagonists livin' in an Epic Fantasy world". Some groups do play it more High/Epic Fantasy of course, or play in more of an S&S world.

I can come up with reasons for most of them, but not Wildemount.

Not trying to be rude, Paul, but literally the only reason you've actually stated for Wildemount, that doesn't apply to literally all D&D settings, is "moral ambiguity". I'm guessing there's more to it in your mind than you've yet put on the page?

I don't think "moral ambiguity" alone makes a world which is very classically High Fantasy into S&S (reading up on it a bit now). And it's sort of "reverse moral ambiguity" as Aldarc implies. Normally "moral ambiguity" means "everyone is kind of the bad guy". In Wildemount it's more like "no-one is really the bad guy, they're just misunderstood or having opposing-but-valid goals", which is not the S&S approach to moral ambiguity at all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Thankfully that is not actually the case.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, because it is completely the case. Okay, I guess they are only "experts" in a particular author, but I had a teacher whose major focus of study was Edmund Spenser, and there are dozens of scholars of Shakespeare.

So, I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I was saying, or if I'm misunderstanding you.

To be honest, I'm not sure if I would not look to the Bible as the literary origins of the redemption arc. The main thing they have in common is use of the word "redemption."

Well, in the last two thousand years, I'm sure there have been some changes made to the literary structure. But, pretty much the majority of stuff written in Europe during the 13 and 1400's was heavily steeped in the Bible, and from their we found ourselves riffing on various conceits.

Ok, just to weigh in here because it's something I see a lot of. If someone has not read the primary sources, has not read the secondary sources and is basing their opinion on the opinions of others, that opinion really doesn't carry a lot of weight. I mean, this is what we saw all the time in the Edition Wars where people who had not played 4e, had not read the 4e books, were parroting the same criticisms of 4e that others were making and simply elevating the level of frustration in the conversation.

At some point, you have to be responsible for RTFM. Not just cherry picking snippets from wiki articles, but, actually spending the time to gain a background in the issue (whatever the issue is) before putting forth an opinion if you expect that opinion to be taken seriously.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about something as minor as an RPG setting or something as important as inclusivity in RPG books. If you (and I mean this as a general you as in all people) will not do the necessary background reading before forming an opinion, do not expect to be taken seriously.

8th time, 9th time 10th time?

My only opinion that I put forth before people started dog piling on me was "It isn't impossible to explain Greyhawk to someone who is unfamiliar to your reference." And, it was based in a very general understanding of how people talk and communicate about products.

And, sure, I have put forth more ideas since. But I have avoided declaring whether or not something had worth, or anything of the sort. Most of what I have said is, "Wait, if that is it, why do you need a setting?" or responding to specific points people have made in the thread.


I don't know why people are acting like I tried to come in and explain how to write a Greyhawk book.

And interesting thought. I was thinking about the relationship between S&S and noir. Eberron being the noir influenced setting. It has the moral ambiguity that I associate with most S&S (inc. Witcher), but replaces swords with wands.

NB, what about Wildemount? This seems to be a very S&S influenced setting to me.

I've been wondering about that myself. Reading the pages that Uriak posted and thinking about some of the posts I've seen, the entire point presented seems to be that S&S is about a more hard-bitten mercenary individual, in over their head (ie you are a detective running into Gang activity instead of normal cases, you are a thief running into a demon cult instead of just a noble man) and dealing with stories that are personal and "small stakes"

Which, sounds exactly like Noir.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this brings me to another point I've been considering. People have been describing the setting as "Sword and Sorcery" but looking into the definition of Sword and Sorcery, it seems to focus on individuals who are personally motivated by power or greed, encountering dangerous threats in a small scale conflict that is fully personal stakes.

Which.... isn't a setting. From a literary stand point at least, that isn't what that word means. It feels a little bit like going to someone and saying "Hey, we should play in my new setting. You are a cynical former cop who can't say no to a pretty face."

That is a character, maybe a plot, but not a setting. It can indicate a setting, this character typically falls into a setting where they are the lone point of law, and are involved with certain other character archetypes, but I could write that story in a futuristic space station circling a neutron star, a fantasy village on the border of the untamed wilderness, or Chicago.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And this brings me to another point I've been considering. People have been describing the setting as "Sword and Sorcery" but looking into the definition of Sword and Sorcery, it seems to focus on individuals who are personally motivated by power or greed, encountering dangerous threats in a small scale conflict that is fully personal stakes.

Which.... isn't a setting. From a literary stand point at least, that isn't what that word means. It feels a little bit like going to someone and saying "Hey, we should play in my new setting. You are a cynical former cop who can't say no to a pretty face."

You're doing the thing I was talking about, argument-wise, which is going from this place where you don't actually understand a thing, and then making really bold claims about it.

Obviously S&S isn't a setting. S&S informs the tone of a setting. And you're focusing on one aspect of S&S, just trying to boil it down, which is reductive and is stopping you from understanding, not helping you, exactly as I suggested it might a few posts back.

And it's not the same as noir. It's related to it, in a lot of ways - there's some significant crossover, but there's a ton of difference, not least that many S&S protagonists are powerful and self-propelled in a way noir protagonists nearly never are, and the stories are resolved in a very different way. In noir, it tends to be fundamentally "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown", resolution-wise. Whereas in a lot of S&S it's more "Wow, that was some weird scary stuff, good thing I killed Mr Tentacles and stole his gold!". Even Elric seems pretty cheery compared to a lot of noir. Sometimes it's still "Forget about it, Elric..." but sometimes it's like "Whoa weird but that was awesome!" which is literally never the case in noir.

A lot of the stories aren't "small stakes" in the way noir consistently is, either. Noir's stakes are almost always deeply personal. In S&S, there stakes are often more about survival and profit, or simple survival, or even personal prestige (something largely absent from noir - instead that tends to focus on the inverse, being true to yourself when no-one will ever know about it). Sometimes in S&S, often partly by accident, the heroes do save the world, or end some tremendous evil.

Thinking about S&S in general, I'd say Andrzej Sapkowski hews closest to noir, which is why I felt like his stuff was almost a different, related genre, as I discussed earlier. Then you have Fritz Leiber who, in part because of his big-city setting, isn't a million miles away, but REH's Conan is a bit further away, and Elric is further still (and isn't typically mercenary, but is very much trying to survive). That's just one axis of relationship to a single genre, note, not some sort of summary of S&S.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry @Chaosmancer - I wasn't really directing my point specifically at you. It was more just a general observation. I've honestly only been skimming your discussion with the others and I'll be completely honest, I have not been paying attention.

Well, I think to understand "why Greyhawk", if your answer is "Sword and Sorcery", then you need to justify why the current 5e settings are not S&S.

I can come up with reasons for most of them, but not Wildemount.

Well, answering why 5e is not S&S is pretty easy. 5e magic is FARRRRRRR to ubiquitous for the genre. With cantrips and the rather large number of casting classes, it's unusual to go a single round in an encounter without at least one spell being cast. Even outside of combat, magic is used very commonly - light spells, Mage hand, etc. 5e is far more Harry Potter than anything resembling S&S with nearly every challenge facing the PC's being resolved in whole or in part by the use of magic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, answering why 5e is not S&S is pretty easy. 5e magic is FARRRRRRR to ubiquitous for the genre. With cantrips and the rather large number of casting classes, it's unusual to go a single round in an encounter without at least one spell being cast. Even outside of combat, magic is used very commonly - light spells, Mage hand, etc. 5e is far more Harry Potter than anything resembling S&S with nearly every challenge facing the PC's being resolved in whole or in part by the use of magic.

Not unreasonable, but I think it's possible to envision something that's basically S&S tonally but where magic is as common as D&D, at least within the adventuring group. The Witcher series arguably demonstrates this, what with Geralt and his Signs (the issue of stuff like fireball is a different one - that's more a case of scale, and something where TT RPGs and literary fantasy tend to part company). Witchers are extremely rare, let alone ones as proficient with Signs as Geralt, but in any given situation involving Geralt, Geralt is involved, if you see what I mean.