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

[Orius]

It's not that it's unique, per se, it's that it was the first.

The various settings it seems like? They were ripping off it, not the other way around.

Greyhawk suffers from the fact that it's been poorly marketed for 30+ years. It was always so intrinsically tied to Gary Gygax that once he was out at TSR, Greyhawk was never a priority for them, and it showed.
...

Greyhawk isn't an influential or major setting because it's unique, it's because it's the seed that so many other things in D&D sprouted out of, that it has a special and unique place in D&D history and lore.

Greyhawk suffers from what TVTropes calls Seinfeld is Unfunny, because it established a lot of groundwork in what is a typical D&D setting, it doesn't seem all that original even though it was in fact one of the first. And the Realms eventually eclipsed it in popularity. That's why a compelling setting hook is hard to come by, because often the other settings define themselves by what sets them apart from "normal " D&D, i.e. Greyhawk.

Default setting? Huge overlap with the Realms.
Domain management? Overlaps with Birthright.
Recovering from a recent major war? Overlaps with Eberron, and the old guard has a lot of haters of the Greyhawk Wars.

The old guard appreciates that it it's a relatively loose setting that a DM can make his own, but those guys have all made their own unique Greyhawks. That's why they're so invested in it, and they enjoy sharing stories about what they did with it, but that makes it harder to commercialize the setting, and was probably a big obstacle for Sargent's material.

It's a good setting and it's historically important to the game, but there's the issues of making newcomers get interested in a vanilla setting which was influenced by earlier fantasy tropes than what's familiar to them in a world where D&D has been shaping said tropes for over 45 years.

In my view the single best of REH's Conan stories is The Tower of the Elephant. Other classics are The Phoenix on the Sword, The God in the Bowl, The People of the Black Circle, Black Colossus and The Scarlet Citadel. Queen of the Black Coast is well-regarded but you have to do more work to ignore the racism. I prefer Xuthal of the Dark to Red Nails but that's probably a minority opinion. I'm not a big fan of Beyond the Black River but many regard it as a classic. The Hour of the Dragon is longer but fun. I think most of these, maybe all, are available online via Project Gutenberg Australia.

That's a pretty good selection, but the The Scarlet Citadel has a lot in common with The Hour of the Dragon, and Dragon is a far better story. Black Colossus isn't bad but I'd put in second tier as well. Rogues in the House is also another of the top Conan stories, and belongs on that list.

The Phoenix on the Sword was the first published, and it's a good starting point because it introduces the character and the setting. Chronologically, it's the third last story though. REH didn't write the stories in chronological order, so there's no more than a loose chronology among them. Generally, the earliest stories have Conan as a thief in his late teens, and in the three final stories he's a king. In between, he's a soldier, mercenary, pirate, or raider depending on the story, and nearly all the weak stories fall here, as they tended to be written for money. Reading them in publication order is fine. The more recent chronologies put The Frost Giant's Daughter/Gods of the North at the very beginning.

The Tower of the Elephant, The God in the Bowl, and Rogues in the House are part of the thief phase. Rogues is probably the last of the stories, while there's some dispute as to which of the other two come first.

Red Nails is often considered one of the best, but I didn't like it that much. It's one of the bleakest of the stories, and it has a lot in common with Xuthal of the Dusk which I'd read first. Queen of the Black Coast is very good, and while it's very easy to find racist elements in it if you go looking for it, it has a Conan who's matured past his thief days and has an evolving world view on the gods and religious views of the Hyborian world. Beyond the Black River is pretty good. On the surface it comes off as little more than a settlers vs. Indians story from colonial America. But Conan blames the situation on the social inequalities of Aquilonian feudalism, and feels if the barons shared their land more equally, there wouldn't be population pressures encouraging people to settle in Pictish or Cimmerian lands where they get slaughtered by angry natives. And the Picts themselves are nastily violent xenophobes.

The Phoenix on the Sword, The Scarlet Citadel, and Hour of the Dragon are chronologically the final three stories, in that order.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Life is full of choices. You've chosen to read certain things, including re-reading books you've already read. You've chosen not to read other things, even though you could read easily enough S&S to gain a solid understanding of the genre in a tiny fraction of the time it would take you to read the "million-word web novel".

This is on you. You chose to exclude yourself from the conversation. It's actually quite a bad problem that you think you can legitimately involve yourself in the conversation without making even the very slightest effort to gain context. You see this a lot - an ignorant person enters a complex conversation, whether it's about Swords and Sorcery, or Trans rights, or thermodynamics, or whatever, and instead of spending the amount of time it would take to get some sort of grounding in that, which is typically a not-huge amount of time, they just want to butt into the conversation and start making ill-informed proclaimations, and when they're told they're ill-informed, they get all upset, and demand that everyone else spoonfeed them the information, and start making ridiculous comments like the one you did earlier, when you claimed that unless you could explain something in very simple terms, it obviously had nothing going for it (yeah alright Jeffrey Katzenberg...).

In short, you have no right to complain because you, by your own choices, have decided to read a bunch of stuff, and not this stuff.

If don't watch One Piece, I don't expect to be capable of having a conversation about something that's basically derivative from One Piece. But you expect to be able to talk about a genre you've systematically avoided having the slightest inkling about, which does not seem reasonable.

The only parta of this I agree with is that life is full of choices and that Trans-rights and Thermodynamics are complex subjects that require some grounding to fully understand.


The rest of your post is condescending towards me.

I haven't "systematically avoided" Sword and Sorcerery" novels. They simply aren't the novels I have ever read. I read Butcher, Rothfuss, Sanderson, Raymond E. Feist, Patricia Briggs, Ilona Andrews, Kim Harrison, Tamora Pierce, Piers Anonthy, Neil Gaiman (Though I still have not found time or money to get a copy of American Gods), David Eddings.

But, I suppose I have just read the wrong fantasy, liked the wrong subject matters, I am simply too ignorant to enjoy Greyhawk because of my choices in media.


And if that is true, then Greyhawk is a dead setting. Because the majority of my friends read way less than me, and none of them to my knowledge have even heard of some of the authors you feel are essential, let alone read them. And, if you can't even discuss why it might be worth publishing a setting if you don't have the "proper" fictional education, then as a business decision it would be monumentally stupid to try and sell it. Because, the moment some new person wonders into the store, and see the book asking "hey what's that and why should I buy it?" They will get told what I'm being told. If you haven't read Conan or Moorcock, you are too ignorant to understand what this is, go read those first, then we will tell you why you should buy this setting and run it.


Now, I think that is untrue, and BS. Luckily, I have experience with the fans of a setting turning me off of something that turns out is incredibly good. I spent a period of time hating Eberron because of certain posters. To the point where I almost didn't join the Eberron game I am in, because the DM asked for us to have knowledge of the setting, and that was a red flag due to the people I had spoken with before.

But, after talking to the DM, and after seeing some of the cool things, I started diving in and love the setting now. However, no setting is going to survive if the fans response to someone who doesn't know the lingo is "Well, actually, you are too ignorant to enjoy this"

And, this isn't just directed at you. I see the likes on your post, unless those are soley directed at bashing Butcher and Sanderson, they agree that I am simply too ignorant to like Greyhawk.

Talk about damning with faint praise! Two narrow-range authors, neither of whom can write a convincing character between them. Sanderson's only really great talent is making systems of magic/superpowers that are extremely internally consistent. Also I'm not sure which is worse, Butcher's weird combination of sleaze and moralizing (which somehow never seems as "hard-boiled" as I think he thinks it is), or Sanderson's puritanism (in a metaphorical sense) combined with continually walking to the edge of having a character do something risky, and then having them not do it (with that one beautiful exception in Stormlight 2, but even that he backpedaled on frantically in the next novel).

Well, two of my favorite authors who have drawn me deep into their worlds and characters.

But, I guess that is just me being too ignorant to understand again.

 

[DnD Warlord]

I suppose I have just read the wrong fantasy, liked the wrong subject matters, I am simply too ignorant to enjoy Greyhawk because of my choices in media.


And if that is true, then Greyhawk is a dead setting.
(snip)
And, this isn't just directed at you. I see the likes on your post, unless those are soley directed at bashing Butcher and Sanderson, they agree that I am simply too ignorant

1st Butcher, Rothfuss, Sanderson, Raymond E. Feist, Patricia Briggs, Ilona Andrews, Kim Harrison, Tamora Pierce, Piers Anonthy, Neil Gaiman, David Eddings are all great authors... although I have never read piers anonthy or Davideddying I will say BUTCHER and GAIMAN are my favorite of those you listed...(read American gods it is amazing)

2nd and more important no one should ever have to do any reading beyond the basic intro chapter to a setting to enjoy the setting...

3rd as a sword and sorcerey reader(although I only read about half the Conan stuff but I enjoyed the grey mouser more) I STILL don’t see the pitch for Greyhawk

 

[FrozenNorth]

The Greyhawk Campaign Setting should be billed as "The setting D&D started with!", and the actual contents of the book should include a very detailed history of the sections of Greyhawk that are focused on in the main story, as well as updated maps everyone seems to really like from the old box. Crunchwise it should include non-magical versions of some classes, tips for running an old-style game (XP for GP, non-story-based character play, GM versus players style dungeons, class/race restrictions), kingdom building (and other name level pursuits for the different classes, and finally some of the important magic spells, items, and artifacts central to the history and world of Greyhawk.

How's that?

I probably wouldn’t buy it, but at least I can see an audience for it.

 

[DnD Warlord]

To be honest I think a plot neutral hardcover book of grey hawk lore would sell... include a minor dungeon in the last chapter and a list of all the big names as npcs (like monster manual entries) with an entire page on history OUT of game of who played them and info on context as an appendix

 

[FrozenNorth]

[Piers Anthony

Really? Why?

It has been years and years since I read the stuff (Mostly before high school) so I might have missed something, but I always kind of liked it.

I read Piers Anthony when I was a teen as well, and enjoyed it, but there is a lot of creepy subtext that I missed at the time so that I would not recommend it to my son.

Stuff like:
-relationships between young female teens and much older men (Adept series),
-an obsession with the underwear of female teens (one of the Xanth series is literally called ‘The Colour of her Panties’, but it is constant in Xanth),
- the idea if a young woman is attractive or teasing, a man is exhibiting extraordinary self-control in not sexually assaulting her (Adept series again)

Overall, knowing that a middle-aged man wrote these novels really makes it feel skeevy in retrospect.

 

[Doug McCrae]

there is a lot of creepy subtext... one of the Xanth series is literally called ‘The Colour of her Panties’

That's not subtext!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The only parta of this I agree with is that life is full of choices and that Trans-rights and Thermodynamics are complex subjects that require some grounding to fully understand.

That you agree on those, but not on Sword and Sorcery is a result of your ignorance re: S&S.

The rest of your post is condescending towards me.

Um, okay? Your entire attitude here is one of extreme entitlement and false victimhood.

And, this isn't just directed at you. I see the likes on your post, unless those are soley directed at bashing Butcher and Sanderson, they agree that I am simply too ignorant to like Greyhawk.

You've chosen to remain ignorant, and are proud to remain ignorant, and angry (by your own words) that people have suggested maybe you spend a tiny bit of time dealing with that ignorance.

I don't really understand why you don't get it. You demand a seat at the table. You demand you to be taken seriously. You are angry that you're "excluded" just because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This is pretty close to peak entitlement. Not sure what else to tell you. It's fine to say "I don't get it", but it's not fine to say stuff like "If u cant explan it 2 me, its dumb stuff 4 dummies", which is basically what you did.

I know you really want to be a victim here, but you're not. You're not "too ignorant to enjoy the setting". You might well enjoy it just fine, just like you did with Eberron. However, you're too ignorant to have a place in arguing about the quality of the setting.

Well, two of my favorite authors who have drawn me deep into their worlds and characters.

But, I guess that is just me being too ignorant to understand again.

Taste and ignorance are different, if interrelated things, so no it's not ignorant to like them. But neither are particularly good writers by any even semi-objective criterion beside "selling books" (in which case various trashy romance novel writers are pretty much "peak writer") or, in Sanderson's case, coming up with internally consistent magic/superpowers systems. Neither is terrible, either, note. There's a lot of fantasy worse than Sanderson and Butcher. Sarah J. Maas springs immediately to mind as someone who has sold an awful lot of books but is absolutely terrible (literally the only interesting or clever thing about her extremely lengthy first novel is that the main character actually has some human physical failings which most authors ignore). There are good fantasy writers I can't stand, too - like KJ Parker (not to be confused with RJ Barker!), who is very talented, but oh god I can't take books where every single character would probably leave the world a better place if they were dead.

(read American gods it is amazing)

American Gods is possibly the worst thing Gaiman has ever written.

Change my mind.

 

[wingsandsword]

I read Piers Anthony when I was a teen as well, and enjoyed it, but there is a lot of creepy subtext that I missed at the time so that I would not recommend it to my son.

Stuff like:
-relationships between young female teens and much older men (Adept series),
-an obsession with the underwear of female teens (one of the Xanth series is literally called ‘The Colour of her Panties’, but it is constant in Xanth),
- the idea if a young woman is attractive or teasing, a man is exhibiting extraordinary self-control in not sexually assaulting her (Adept series again)

Overall, knowing that a middle-aged man wrote these novels really makes it feel skeevy in retrospect.

Then there are the novels where it's not subtext, it's text.

When I was in college, I had a roommate that was fanatical about Piers Anthony, and said I'd love it if I read his works. He gave me one to start out on.

Firefly.

Yes, that one.

For those that don't know, it's a modern day sci-fi/horror novel. People start having these intense, vivid sexual urges (often very taboo ones) and then see the object of their desire. . .and suddenly they're found dead some time later, literally reduced to nothing but bones, skin and hair, with all soft tissue completely removed from the corpse. Eventually it comes out that the "firefly" is a semi-intelligent alien life form that arrived on Earth that exudes hallucenogenic pheremones that produce incredibly intense almost completely uncontrollable sexual desire, and causes the victim to hallucinate those desires coming true, which the creature uses as cover to engulf and devour, like The Blob, the hapless victim, until only the parts it can't digest (bones, hair, skin, nails) are left. I remember they eventually killed the creature with fire at a stand-off range from its pheromones.

It was basically an excuse for a long series of lurid, very graphic sex scenes that characters were hallucinating right before they were devoured.

That novel was practically traumatizing in how disturbing it was. That was what my friend had recommended as a good introduction to his works.

I decided to never read Piers Anthony again after that.

 

[Aldarc]

And if that is true, then Greyhawk is a dead setting. Because the majority of my friends read way less than me, and none of them to my knowledge have even heard of some of the authors you feel are essential, let alone read them.

If you are strapped for time, you could spend a little time to familiarize yourself with the genre on the Sword & Sorcery page of TV Tropes. But I think that if you at least understand the concept of Conan the Barbarian, you have a pretty good starting point for Sword & Sorcery.

And, this isn't just directed at you. I see the likes on your post, unless those are soley directed at bashing Butcher and Sanderson, they agree that I am simply too ignorant to like Greyhawk.

This is a bit rude, Chaosmancer. A person's reasons for liking Ruin Explorer's post are not so absurdly limited to either bashing Butcher and/or Sanderson and accusing you of being too ignorant to like Greyhawk. That's an unnecessary false dichotomy.

Look, I don't think that Sword & Sorcery is necessary to understand Greyhawk, though having a little knowledge of the popular fiction of Gygax's day certainly creates an enriching understanding of the influences of the early D&D and its associated settings: e.g., Mystara, Wilderlands, Greyhawk, etc. When it comes to Sword & Sorcery, Dark Sun probably leans far more into Sword & Sorcery than Greyhawk, not to mention the 3rd party setting Primeval Thule. Greyhawk has clear Sword & Sorcery influences, but I would say that it is more the sort of setting you would expect created from someone who loved Medieval European miniature wargaming. IMHO, the attitudes, tones, and assumptions of Greyhawk run more cynical and pessimistic than what one would typically find in the Forgotten Realms. Protagonists in Greyhawk are typically motivated by self-interest (e.g., gold, power, land, etc.) whereas I have found that a lot of Forgotten Realms play is more oriented around playing the hero who saves the day.

In terms of literary fiction, Greyhawk is more Black Company and Game of Thrones at the macro-level and Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser at the micro-level. The closest analogous piece of pop fiction would probably be The Witcher. If your friends of ignorant of The Witcher, then that's a pretty large level of disconnect from contemporaneous pop culture fantasy. I have never read the books, played the games, or watched the mini-series, and even I know a fair bit about the setting from secondhand sources.