Does Wizards want Greyhawk to fail?

[Thurbane]

Why? Because YOU like it better?

Errr...yes?

...also because I think it has less "fiddly bits" than FR or Eberron, like Spellfire, Warforged, Artificers etc.

At the end of the day, though, it's just my opinion, not a scientific fact.

 

[Friadoc]

Yeah, neither Collins nor Slavesik have any respect for the setting whatsoever. I'll cheer the day they both get canned from Wotc. Oh let it be soon.

Now I'll humbly disagree with you here, while I'm a Greyhawk fan first, I've enjoyed both Eberron and the Realms and the various works of Andy and Bill.

Hell, Alternity is still one of my loves, even if 3e's arrival killed it, and I own all of it's books.

Andy and Bill might not be fans of Greyhawk, from the anecdotes, but they're good designers and developers who shouldn't lose their job because of the lack of production for Greyhawk in 3e/3.5e.

 

[Friadoc]

I'm a fan of Gygax's 1983 boxed set Greyhawk, it's the most 'D&Dy' of the D&D worlds, closest to the implied setting of the core rules. But the problem is that, like all creative works, it is very much of its time. The Rain of Colorless Fire/Invoked Devastation is a clear analogue for WW3 - a nuclear apocalypse. What relevance does that have to us now in a world where global warming is the #1 concern and terrorism #2?

Umm, well, irresponsible and power mongering wizards lead by a cabal of evil doers who ignored the signs of their actions and their effect on the world led to a mighty conflagration?

Seriously, it is easy to look at the Rain of Colorless Fire/Invoked Devastation as a timeless element of the plot/backstory.

Heck, global destruction with a humanoid connection or element is pretty easy to understand, sans living in a utopia.

Heck, look at the Scarlet Brotherhood, they're a pretty timeless foe/evil, too. I rather liked Sean K. Reynolds take on them in Slavers, which I think was right before 3e.

 

[Friadoc]

In Eberron there are no gods.

Yeah, you got tell Jaela Daran that there are no gods. *chuckles*

Although, I do get your point, in Eberron the dieties are a lot more indirect and working through others than they are in other settings.

I mean, heck, in FR we've had the dieties walking the Realms and mortals rise into various positions within the pantheon.

With Greyhawk ripe with demigods, powerful mortals, and potential godlings.

 

[carmachu]

Perhaps you're missing from your count all the core books which are rife with Greyhawkisms. All the Dungeon and Dragon articles that were all about Greyhawk.

The current edition of D&D is thoroughly saturated with Greyhawk. So yeah, I call BS on YOUR claim.

Uh, no. The exact opposite is easy to see.

Show me whats on the shelves right now for greyhawk in comparison to FR or Eberron.

You cant.

Those SAME otehr two...got articles all over the place as well. Support was lacking. Being a couple of names and such in teh core books does not equate to support.

 

[jokamachi]

Now I'll humbly disagree with you here, while I'm a Greyhawk fan first, I've enjoyed both Eberron and the Realms and the various works of Andy and Bill.

Hell, Alternity is still one of my loves, even if 3e's arrival killed it, and I own all of it's books.

Andy and Bill might not be fans of Greyhawk, from the anecdotes, but they're good designers and developers who shouldn't lose their job because of the lack of production for Greyhawk in 3e/3.5e.

And I will disagree with you. I would fire both of them without hesitation for ignoring the wants of fans, keeping down a great setting, and promoting hogwash like Eberron.


*performs incantation to banish Collins back to the farm*

 

[Thurbane]

How is that a problem? We know that leading up the release of 3e, WotC did tons and tons of market research. I think it's fair to assume that when WotC decided to focus on a single campaign setting and nominally support another by making it "default" they knew what they were doing.

I don't neccessarily agree here. Big company + market research /= right result 100%.

I've worked for enough large companies to know that even the best of them get it wrong occasionally...

New Coke anyone?

 

[haakon1]

I do thank WotC for a GH book, but a GH revival based off of EtCG sales seems unlikely since 4e is coming out and EtCG will be uncompatable with it.

Yup. I thank them for letting Erik produce a fine Greyhawk product. Shame about the timing, but something had to be last, and only Greyhawkers can be counted on to buy in a grognard old school way, though the end be near.

 

[Glyfair]

But events have shown that WotC didn't just support one setting or does Eberron not count as a setting. I know it was FR 1st and it was the only setting supported for a time. Then they had a setting search contest and I had no problem with that. I'm happy some people really enjoy Eberron. But my point is that WotC didn't stick with just one campaign setting, they focused two- FR and Eberron.

But Forgotten Realms and Eberron don't really fill the same niche*. Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk do fill the same niche*.

I doubt they will have more than two regular campaign settings at a time. They might start doing annual settings (which we have heard rumbles that might hint in that direction), but I doubt they will be more than one, or maybe two books each.

* Yes, I know there are always people who will quarrel with these facts. If you ask people who aren't particular fans of each setting I think you'll find a consensus.

 

[Friadoc]

Now, do I think Wizards wants Greyhawk to fail?

Nope, I don't think that they (WotC) want Greyhawk to fail, since for it to fail it would have to be given equal chance to do so.

While the core D&D books are peppered with Greyhawk flavor, it is still not the same as the full court press of a Campaign Setting book/line, such as the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and Eberron Campaign setting, which includes supplemental books and not just the roughly generic adventures.

Under 3e/3.5e Greyhawk has had the chance to have successful books, but not a successful line and it has not been given the same development as the Realms or Eberron in the current edition.

What visits we've had to Oerth, thus far, though have been fine books, many are fan favorites, but it's almost like giving a dehydrated person a 6 oz. glass of ice water.

Sure, we loved it, but suddenly we want a whole lot more then you've given us.

Can I blame Wizards?

Sure, as a fan, but I've also got to give them some benefit of the doubt, too.

I don't think they're doing it maliciously, they're not out to hurt Greyhawk fans, if they were doing so then all they would have to do is just release a product that utterly, totally, and completely destroys Oerth.

Period.

If, in canon, Greyhawk was destroyed, forever, then they don't have to do anything with it, as it's a dead setting.

Obviously they haven't done that, so obviously someone, somewhere, at sometime will do something with it.

I've stated my hopes, more than once, of how I'd love for Paizo to get Greyhawk, but I'm loving the Pathfinder Chronicles right now, so I'm okay waiting for Greyhawk's next hurrah.

While I don't think that Wizards wants Greyhawk to fail, I don't think they've given it a chance to succeed, either. The peppering of Greyhawk flavor in core books, supplements, and adventures is still only a fraction of the fluff/flavor text that Eberron and the Forgotten Realms has had, it's simple to see.

Semantics aside, they've not had the same chance, in 3e, as Ravenloft and Dragonlance has had, either.

But, what we have had in Dragon, Dungeon, and recently the Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk have been downright awesome, so my patience is earned.

For now. *grins*