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

[Minigiant]

The thing is Greyhawk isn't "low magic". It's low magic frequency. However adventuring parties is where half of the spellcaster are. Every spellcaster is a hermit, a wanderer, an apprentice of a hermit or a wanderer, or an adventurer. It's not that there aren't spellcasters. It's that 80% of the spellcasters in a given area are travelling together.

You don't meet spellcasters because the spellcasters you'd meet are in the party already. All the magic items anyone sees are in the hands of some adventuring party and the broken remnants of one.

Greyhawk is very personal and that goes with the magic. It makes sense that half your party are spellcasters. That's the whole reason your are together. Because you are greedy or ambitious and want the tough companions you can get of your alignment.

 

[TwoSix]

I get your point, but low magic settings in D&D tend to inflate the importance of casters vs. non-casters. Low magic tends to mean fewer magical items, which are a way to give non-casters extraordinary abilities outside combat, and it also means fewer countermeasures against casters, which also benefits them.

There should certainly be guidance as to how to change how magic items are granted, for sure. Less consumables, less trinket type items. More strong items, and more boons as opposed to external items. Better to give out 1 really good weapon than 5 potions and random wondrous items.

I would also assume that caster type enemies are less frequent, and I don't have a particular problem with caster PCs being more important in those situations.

Again, while I understand why you’d want to ensure the feel that there are few spellcasters andthey sll know each other, given that half the classes are at least part-casters, I find that would be difficult to do while maintaining verisimilitude. A typical 1st level party could consist of a paladin, ranger, wizard, cleric and hexblade warlock, after all.

This is obviously dependent on personal views of verisimilitude, but I've never viewed any PC party as being just a random sampling of campaign NPCs. If the party makes a mostly martial party, then you can run more of a Black Company vibe. If the party is caster-heavy, it points in the direction of the party being gathered together for a reason.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is obviously dependent on personal views of verisimilitude, but I've never viewed any PC party as being just a random sampling of campaign NPCs. If the party makes a mostly martial party, then you can run more of a Black Company vibe. If the party is caster-heavy, it points in the direction of the party being gathered together for a reason.

I ended up addressing the issue of Greyhawk as a humanocnetric campaign here-

D&D General - Moar Greyhawk: Anthropocentrism and Humanity in Greyhawk

This post is related to another post I just wrote, about Greyhawk, here: https://www.enworld.org/threads/for-the-love-of-greyhawk-why-people-still-fight-to-preserve-greyhawk.674292/ After some time in the comments, a poster responded to a list of non-exclusive factors I wrote about Greyhawk...

www.enworld.org

At some point, maybe I will get the energy for a deep dive on magic, but that would take a lot of energy!

 

[Urriak Uruk]

@Urriak Uruk.. However, if you make Greyhawk too vague, it seems more like a kitchen sink (using your words) that can be planted in any "generic default fantasy."….

It is NOT Kitchen Sink. It is Kitchen Chef. Where you have a well known menu aka the modules. But enough blank spots, and permission for the chef (DM) to make it their own.

I mean, I agree with you, because I find Greyhawk tonally distinct that even when you keep details more vague it isn't really a sink.

But the OP complained that Ghosts of Saltmarsh felt to kitchen-sinky to him, which is why I wrote that.

To reiterate, I find that complaints of the "true Greyhawk fans" inconsistent and contradictory... if anyone has a clear idea of what the format of a Greyhawk book would actually be, I'd like to hear it. I am very much pro-Greyhawk setting book, so I'm interested.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But the OP complained that Ghosts of Saltmarsh felt to kitchen-sinky to him, which is why I wrote that.

I wrote that it was fine. It's an AP, not a campaign setting. Rules for ships and sea is hardly Greyhawk-specific (I don't think most people immediately associate Greyhawk with "naval battles," Sea Princes notwithstanding) and the adventure easily converts to other settings, like all the APs.

As campaign settings go, GoS is not a campaign setting.

EDIT- and it didn't open up DM's Guild. So, in one way, it was better than the usual, "Let's take a Greyhawk Thing and just put it in the Realms," but it's hardly catnip to people looking for GH material.

 

[Mortellan]

I wrote that it was fine. It's an AP, not a campaign setting. Rules for ships and sea is hardly Greyhawk-specific (I don't think most people immediately associate Greyhawk with "naval battles," Sea Princes notwithstanding) and the adventure easily converts to other settings, like all the APs.

As campaign settings go, GoS is not a campaign setting.

EDIT- and it didn't open up DM's Guild. So, in one way, it was better than the usual, "Let's take a Greyhawk Thing and just put it in the Realms," but it's hardly catnip to people looking for GH material.

Agreed on the DMGuild snub. They put out one adventure set in Barovia and all of Ravenloft is fair game on DMsGuild. The early section on GoS references quite a bit Greyhawk history, sets up Greyhawk factions and the maps feature regional Greyhawk geography. Never mind the module storylines themselves. Not putting Greyhawk out there after GoS shows they are avoiding setting designation.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I wrote that it was fine. It's an AP, not a campaign setting. Rules for ships and sea is hardly Greyhawk-specific (I don't think most people immediately associate Greyhawk with "naval battles," Sea Princes notwithstanding) and the adventure easily converts to other settings, like all the APs.

As campaign settings go, GoS is not a campaign setting.

EDIT- and it didn't open up DM's Guild. So, in one way, it was better than the usual, "Let's take a Greyhawk Thing and just put it in the Realms," but it's hardly catnip to people looking for GH material.

I think you misunderstood my original question, being largely "How do you think GoS represents Greyhawk" with "Is it a good campaign setting book" because I know it's not a campaign setting. My original question was largely whether you though it represented Greyhawk tonally in a way that fits the setting.

Did it feel like an AP in Greyhawk to you? Your answer made me feel like no, you didn't think it did, and it was too vague. I disagree; I largely don't think an adventure like the Styes fits a setting like FR nearly as well.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think you misunderstood my original question, being largely "How do you think GoS represents Greyhawk" with "Is it a good campaign setting book" because I know it's not a campaign setting. My original question was largely whether you though it represented Greyhawk tonally in a way that fits the setting.

Did it feel like an AP in Greyhawk to you? Your answer made me feel like no, you didn't think it did, and it was too vague. I disagree; I largely don't think an adventure like the Styes fits a setting like FR nearly as well.

..... this is what I wrote-

But Chapter 1 (Saltmarsh), consisting of 29 pages, was fine. It has carousing. It had a dreadnaught with a mad wizard. It had some nice touches. It was fine.

That's not a small thing- there's been a lot of material than used Greyhawk that was, most assuredly, not fine. But it's just some background to an AP. I didn't read it and think that this was the Campaign Setting I had been looking for.

I didn't say it was (or was not) kitchen sink; I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this. It's an AP. It was fine. Is it more "Greyhawk" than Chult? Yes. Is it so definitively Greyhawk that it was like a thunderbolt from the blue, making me say, "THIS IS IT, THIS MODULE FOREVER DEFINE NEU GREYHAWK, AND CANNOT BE USED IN ANY OTHER SETTING."

No. It was fine. They re-used old material, put in a few pages of "Greyhawk" and didn't open the DM's Guild. I'm not sure what reaction you are expecting more than, "It's fine."

?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

..... this is what I wrote-

But Chapter 1 (Saltmarsh), consisting of 29 pages, was fine. It has carousing. It had a dreadnaught with a mad wizard. It had some nice touches. It was fine.

That's not a small thing- there's been a lot of material than used Greyhawk that was, most assuredly, not fine. But it's just some background to an AP. I didn't read it and think that this was the Campaign Setting I had been looking for.

I didn't say it was (or was not) kitchen sink; I'm not sure how many other ways I can say this. It's an AP. It was fine. Is it more "Greyhawk" than Chult? Yes. Is it so definitively Greyhawk that it was like a thunderbolt from the blue, making me say, "THIS IS IT, THIS MODULE FOREVER DEFINE NEU GREYHAWK, AND CANNOT BE USED IN ANY OTHER SETTING."

No. It was fine. They re-used old material, put in a few pages of "Greyhawk" and didn't open the DM's Guild. I'm not sure what reaction you are expecting more than, "It's fine."

?

I dunno, "I liked it"? There's a pretty big gap between "It's fine," and "THIS MODULE FOREVER DEFINE NEU GREYHAWK."

All I asked was if you felt if it tonally represented Greyhawk, and you still haven't really answered that.

I'm fully aware about the DMsGuild and that it's not a Campaign Setting, I agree with you on all that. That's not what Ghosts of Saltmarsh is, it's an AP. All I was curious to know was if you felt like it was an AP in your "vision of Greyhawk."

It sounds like a "no," but you haven't really made clear why without dragging in things like the DMsGuild which isn't really relevant to my question.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure if I would consider using 5e for running Greyhawk. Magic saturates so many classes and subclasses in 5e. If Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are high magic (with different degrees of rarity) and Eberron is wide magic, then on the whole I would call 5e D&D dense magic.

There are also a number of great games out there that arguably capture "the spirit of Greyhawk" better than D&D (and its retroclones) can: e.g., Torchbearer, Forbidden Lands, Freebooters on the Frontier, etc.

In contrast, the Nentir Vale has a number of the strengths of Greyhawk (e.g., sketches of lore surrounded by empty spaces), while also being more conducive for the style of fantasy that 5e is oriented towards, while also not invalidating player options through anthropocentrism and what not.