Does Wizards want Greyhawk to fail?

[billd91]

Why? Because YOU like it better?

It does fit more closely with the original D&D core, which is certainly not by accident. You don't end up learning the racial groups (high elves, grey elves, hill dwarves, etc) without having to turn around and relearn their identities and abilities in FR terms, for example

If the core of D&D were to remain the same, GH is the best fit, closest campaign to the core rules. Making any other campaign the default campaign requires either more changes to the core or additional add-ons to bring the core up to the level of specificity of the new default... which pretty much negates the term default in this case anyway.

 

[Imaro]

I won't come out and say WotC wanted GH to fail, but I think their attempts at support were quite weak. Their big revival push started about 2 years before 3.0 was released. I don't know how well those products did (I suspect they didn't do that well), but any promise they might have had would have been significantly undercut by 3.0's release anyway.

Uhm...just like now, only it's less than a year before the new edition. History repeats itself huh? In the end we'll just see a justification that the Greyhawk adventure didn't sell very well...even though, again, it's on the tail end of an edition about to be replaced. In the end I can only conclude, no WotC isn't looking to support Greyhawk.

 

[Desdichado]

Core books had very few Greyhawkisms, actually. Sure, one expects a certain number of things to crop up, particularly focused on the default list of gods from the PH. But all of that is a far cry from committed support. I certainly would have expected more support for the "default" setting than that.

By core books, I mean "setting neutral" D&D books, not just the three "core books." Sorry; terminology a bit vague there. And I completely disagree if applied especially to the broader picture. I could barely read a page unless it was pure mechanics without stepping on some bit of Greyhawkiana.

Published mainly by Paizo. So, WotC's support for GH after 3.0 came out was pretty paltry. But Paizo's was dynamite thanks to GH partisans running the show. but now that outlet is gone.

Only the last couple of years. Still, they've now integrated it back into WotC. It's a bit premature to say that the nature of the content is going to change significantly. Maybe it will and maybe it won't.

I still think the notion that WotC wants to kill Greyhawk is borderline lunacy, though. From my perspective, they've done everything reasonably possible to get Greyhawk material to its fans.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Core books had very few Greyhawkisms, actually. Sure, one expects a certain number of things to crop up, particularly focused on the default list of gods from the PH. But all of that is a far cry from committed support. I certainly would have expected more support for the "default" setting than that.



Published mainly by Paizo. So, WotC's support for GH after 3.0 came out was pretty paltry. But Paizo's was dynamite thanks to GH partisans running the show. but now that outlet is gone.

I won't come out and say WotC wanted GH to fail, but I think their attempts at support were quite weak. Their big revival push started about 2 years before 3.0 was released. I don't know how well those products did (I suspect they didn't do that well), but any promise they might have had would have been significantly undercut by 3.0's release anyway.

Just want to point that little tag on every issue of Dragon and Dungeon that said "100% Official Content". Before Paizo could print anything in either of those magazines, they had to send it all over to Wizads of the Coast for approval. By virtue of OKing all of the Greyhawk material that was ready to go to print, Wizards was supporting GH. If they weren't, they would have simply axed those articles and said, "Yeah, looks good, but get rid of the Greyhawk stuff and replace it with Forgotten Realms or Eberron material." Honestly, there was probably far more support in those magazines for GH than FR or Eberron put together. Seriously, go through and check out your magazines over the past several years.

Wizards of the Coast has never really supported Greyhawk the way we the fans wanted them to. Big difference.

Don't be too surprised after a few months of Digital Initiative issues of both magazines to find basically the same kind of material as you've been seeing over the past few years (i.e. more Greyhawk material). Seriously. Trust me on this.

 

[Imaro]

I still think the notion that WotC wants to kill Greyhawk is borderline lunacy, though. From my perspective, they've done everything reasonably possible to get Greyhawk material to its fans.

I won't say that they're trying to kill it off...but you're last sentence is absurd. What difference do Greyhawkisms make if there's nothing to put it in context with? If I put Warforged in the monster Manual or give you a tidbit about the Silver Flame followers iin a divine book, but you have nothing to refrence or connect these tidbits to a greater whole, how is that supporting Eberron? Greyhawk didn't even get a real campaign book...at least not on the level of FR and Eberron. It had the gazetter which went out of print by the time 3.5 was released. To say they did everything or even everything reasonable, when looking at FR and Eberron just isn't true.

 

[Desdichado]

Wonderful. So we both think the other's position is absurd. I can tell we're well on our way to a fruitfall conversation here.

My whole argument hinges on the word "reasonable." They've done everything reasonable. The Greyhawk fans think it's unreasonable that WotC hasn't supported Greyhawk in an Eberron or FR like manner, I'm saying I doubt that sales of Greyhawk material match Eberron or FR. Therefore, supporting it in a FR or Eberron like manner isn't reasonable.

But honestly, I think most Greyhawk fans have too high an opinion of the setting and it's market viability. I honestly don't think that's where the gaming market is going, and the fact that WotC was willing to insinuate all this Greyhawkiana into the basic game itself was them going out on a limb, to a certain extent.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Wonderful. So we both think the other's position is absurd. I can tell we're well on our way to a fruitfall conversation here.

My whole argument hinges on the word "reasonable." They've done everything reasonable. The Greyhawk fans think it's unreasonable that WotC hasn't supported Greyhawk in an Eberron or FR like manner, I'm saying I doubt that sales of Greyhawk material match Eberron or FR. Therefore, supporting it in a FR or Eberron like manner isn't reasonable.

But honestly, I think most Greyhawk fans have too high an opinion of the setting and it's market viability. I honestly don't think that's where the gaming market is going, and the fact that WotC was willing to insinuate all this Greyhawkiana into the basic game itself was them going out on a limb, to a certain extent.

I can see what Hobo is saying and have no reservations with agreeing. Of course, my own opinion of the setting itself clashes with the first sentence of his his last paragraph.

Supporting GH through the pages of Dungeon and Dragon has been a safe way for WotC to passively support the setting in what for them has been "reasonable" in the ways Hobo suggests. Market wise, the facts are that FR and Eberron sell better. I really hate what WotC has done with the game I love, but I grudgingly give them credit for throwing Greyhawk enthusiasts their bones. Overall, support was pretty good in their official magazines. Not excellent or stupendous and I always craved more, but it definitely provided me with enough material to keep my Greyhawk games going.

 

[GVDammerung]

A couple of notes.

1st - Wizards placed the restrictions on Paizo that determined how Paizo could use Greyhawk. For example, Paizo could not say "City of Greyhawk" but had to say "Free City."

2nd - I attended 5 Wotc seminars at Gencon 2007 where GH was raised to the Wotc panel. The two D&D Q&A seminars had both Andy Collins and Bill Slavisek on the panel and the RPGA meeting seminar saw Collins in attendence. Collins is one of the leads on 4E and Bill Slavisek directs the RPG end of Wotc. When Greyhawk was mentioned both Slavisek and Collins got looks on their faces like they had smelled something bad. When the GH questions would not just go away they got figety and continued to look sour and provide the most curt answers possible. THis is all body language and intonation and my impression thereof but my impression is that GH is not something Wotc wants to hear about let alone talk about. "Can't all you gamers just play the Realms!" seemed to be the unspoken impression, at least to this attendee.

In sum, I think there is antipathy toward GH. Perhaps, animus. Certainly animus to the extent that GH does not factor into 4e and is thus a distraction from the selling of 4e.

IMO. YMMV.

Edit - Oh. And Erik Mona has noted that in response to recent inquiry Wotc has no interest in licensing GH.

 

[Desdichado]

Animus? Do you mean animosity?

I think that's a fair point (assuming that's what you mean.) It's entirely possible that Greyhawk fans will be whole-heartedly wishing for the days of 3e and 3.5 when Greyhawkiana was saturated throughout the "core" D&D line of products. :shrug: Who knows?

 

[Glyfair]

Edit - Oh. And Erik Mona has noted that in response to recent inquiry Wotc has no interest in licensing GH.

Actually, the quote is "The official word from Scott Rouse is that Wizards of the Coast is not currently interested in licensing any of its campaign settings to third-party companies." So, it's not like Greyhawk is being singled out. They aren't interested in licensing any campaign settings.