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


log in or register to remove this ad

I've seen The Witcher TV show called Sword & Sorcery.

Yeah, it's definitely closer than some, but it's kind of its own thing.

Well, a modern thing which goes a little bit into S&S is Game of Thrones. Although the historic equivalent is a bit more high medieval, parts of the GoT world are definitely closer to Conans surroundings.

I always thought the Essos = Sword & Sorcery, Westeros = Dark Fantasy (or Low Fantasy, or whatever) held some water.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
That is actually what draws me to Greyhawk, the idea that the setting isn't Black/White, but Light Grey/Dark Grey.

I tend to paint the difference in GH/FR as pessimism vs optimism. GH is a world that is cynical, mercenary, and a little selfish. FR is a setting that has strong idealists (for both good and evil) fighting for a better new day. Elminster fights for a better world, Mordenkainen lets Oerth sit in perpetual conflict. Neither one is bad, but I think the biggest thematic thing to me is GH has a "you're on your own" feel vs. FR "Fighting for a new day" feel.
Ironically, I see the Realms as more inherently dystopian. Yes, the Realms have these big, huge nominally Good versus Evil showy fights, but they are nothing but spectacle orchestrated by the deities in order to increase their own power by keeping souls captive. In contrast, GH seems like a better place to live in, yes the world is crumbling, and nothing is so big scale, but your choices are yours, you are not a pawn in a bigger game. Just you, and your friends fighting again the world.
 


Mortellan

Explorer
It’s a nice attempt, but this sounds an awful lot like standard Dungeons & Dragons, right? Is there anything more? Anything unique?
The first part yes, because it sets up the game and all settings that follow. The second part, wars, I would argue is rather distinctive, not because of Greyhawk Wars, but because warfare was baked into AD&D from troop lists, to castle construction and siege machine rules. "Name-level" characters would get their own stronghold and attract followers for what? To guard their treasure? I surmise it was to go from dungeon to politics and the battlefield.
Of course, this isn't a strongly held style of D&D anymore since the advent of more storyline based adventures such as APs that go from 1-20. It still holds though that the backdrop of Greyhawk is always being under a threat of war, either from a raging demigod or a crumbling empire or a secret society now exposed and on the offense. Played right, these wars may never affect the PCs lives. But what are they doing in the meantime? Dungeons. Anything else is probably indirectly tied into the war meta-plot somehow I wager. This is not to say other D&D worlds don't have war, I just think it's more prevalent in Greyhawk.

EDIT: Also, I will think on other unique aspects. I just doubt there is anything more iconic than Greyhawk's geopolitical metaplot.
 

EDIT: Also, I will think on other unique aspects. I just doubt there is anything more iconic than Greyhawk's geopolitical metaplot.
I think Greyhawk could be shaped into the D&D setting you play on "Nightmare" mode, the one where it’s expected that most PCs will not make it out alive in the Temple of Elemental Evil. The one where you keep rolling new characters to replace the ones who died.
 

Ironically, I see the Realms as more inherently dystopian. Yes, the Realms have these big, huge nominally Good versus Evil showy fights, but they are nothing but spectacle orchestrated by the deities in order to increase their own power by keeping souls captive. In contrast, GH seems like a better place to live in, yes the world is crumbling, and nothing is so big scale, but your choices are yours, you are not a pawn in a bigger game. Just you, and your friends fighting again the world.

This is a totally valid interpretation of the Realms, but it's worth noting that the Realms has, AFAIK, never, in any book, whether it be setting, novel, or whatever, really been written that way, and Ed Greenwood clearly doesn't see it that way, and thus tonally, that doesn't come across unless the DM is pretty lore-literate and decides to make it part of the setting.

Ironically, Ed Greenwood's own sort of "day to day life in the FR" book, despite seeming not to believe in the Wall of the Faithless (and indeed not mentioning Kelemvor at all - he's not even listed as a god or mentioned in any way!), still manages to project an extremely dystopian/oppressive-seeming vision of worship in the FR, which is basically that if you don't worship the gods, you're going to be punished, severely, and also no-one will like you or help you. It further confuses matters by seeming to suggest that opposing or hurting the goals of any god means you're stuffed, including evil ones (which is deeply confusing because a huge amount number of FR adventures and novels, including ones by Greenwood, are specifically about doing that).

I think what this shows is that the FR is a pretty clumsily-developed setting, where there's a pretty serious discontinuity between the desired tone of the setting - fairly upbeat high fantasy - and the specifics of it, which are pretty much YA-novel level dystopian if not ignored. I imagine Greenwood could explain it more cogently in person, but even when given an entire book to make the FR make more sense, he only manages to make it weirder and more questionable. Also the man should never be allowed to name food, drink, or really any kind of object or festival or practice. People, places, okay, it's not for everyone but it works, but other stuff... hooo boy.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
I think Greyhawk could be shaped into the D&D setting you play on "Nightmare" mode, the one where it’s expected that most PCs will not make it out alive in the Temple of Elemental Evil. The one where you keep rolling new characters to replace the ones who died.

I think that would be really cool.

But that's me. I also think that this style of gaming is likely to be spectacularly unpopular with most players today. Maybe I'm wrong?
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I think that would be really cool.

But that's me. I also think that this style of gaming is likely to be spectacularly unpopular with most players today. Maybe I'm wrong?
No, I don't think it would be popular nowadays. I would say the general trend is towards characters build around specific player visions, so I don't think meat grinder adventures would be a mainstream attraction.
 

I think that would be really cool.

But that's me. I also think that this style of gaming is likely to be spectacularly unpopular with most players today. Maybe I'm wrong?
I think it would probably not be extremely popular, but I guess it could find a niche - people love the Dark Souls video games, after all - whereas the "it’s sword and sorcery but not really" hook is not likely to be a barn-burner.
 

Remove ads

Top