The FtA box set was great simply because you could either play way before it, ignore it, play during the war or play after the wars. I even had a campaign where the players saved the Shield Lands. Greyhawk has always been more opened than any other fantasy setting. So much empty spaces that you can build your own barony and eventualy a kingdom! Yes, in other setting you could do it. But they are so defined that the space required for a barony is not evident to find.I agree with this, and I'm getting ready to start a new campaign set in the 1983 Boxed Set Greyhawk. I've come around on this. I'm a grognard that sees unlimited use in that box. I don't like everything in From the Ashes, but do I pick out bits and pieces that I like ala carte for my Greyhawk. Damn right. I'm not as familiar with the Living Greyhawk stuff, (I was away from D&D for an era), but I've used bits from that as well.
So I say build a Greyhawk for today. I'd be happy for another source to cherry pick ideas from.
Every ... single ... setting ... book released has added or changed the default of D&D in 5e.
Nevertheless, whenever this subject comes up with Greyhawk, people always want to make it into Forgotten Realms 2.
There's also Gary Holian. I'm sure he'd jump on this. Sean K. Reynolds is another that has a long history with GH.As I mentioned much, much earlier in the thread - Erik Mona. He's a Greyhawk fan from way back, has done products in the setting and has lots of experience working for WoTC.
Yeah, it's almost as if epic fantasy has other common features that contribute to the genre, and epic scale is only one such feature. But that would require reading what other people have written and contextualizing their arguments appropriately through good faith readings. However, let's rid ourselves of the ridiculous reductionist take here that this amounts to "This story has a lot of important characters, and those characters have a backstory." Or maybe we can say that there is no difference between the noir genre and teenage monster romance genre because both feature stories with beginnings, middles, and ends. But such reductionism would obviously be intellectually dishonest. So we should likewise avoid reducing the argument about characters fitting in settings with grand historical scale to simply "The story has a lot of important characters, and those characters have a backstory." In fact, maybe one should refrain from making further bad takes on arguments in the future? They are not particularly conducive to fruitful discussions.
This is a mistaken definition of Epic Fantasy. Epic fantasy is epic, not because of big stakes, but, because it is epic in scale - cast of thousands, tons of characters, big, massive battles with thousands of combatants - in other words - epic in the sense the The Illiad is epic - it's not the fate of the world, and, really, we're talking about the battle for one poncy little city over the stakes of a girl. But, it's epic because you have all these different characters and stories woven into the plot.
You're seriously comparing a single, American city, with a history that's measured in decades, to the epic scale of something like Middle Earth which has a history measured in millenia? Seriously?
Because you aren't even trying to understand. The fact that I had to list out all those elements means that you actually don't know what you're talking about and are making zero effort to be informed before jumping in to criticize.
Sigh. Epic Fantasy is a Fantasy form, number one, which doesn't exist in literature prior to the 19th century. It's also referring to the NOVEL form, which, also, doesn't really exist before the 18th century. Good grief, this is basic Lit Crit from high school.
I suggest you look at Heroic Fantasy Quarterly - Prose. Poetry. Pulp. or Black Gate before you begin writing off S&S as a genre. Or, look up Glen Cook's Black Company novels for another current example.
IOW, THIS is why you are getting raked over the coals. You are making zero effort to actually understand what's being explained to you and you are now forcing the rest of us to regurgitate crap that you should have learned in high school English classes. This is just freaking ridiculous.
Okay, I'm done.
You're not even trying, argument-wise. A decade or two? Where are you getting this totally false stuff from?
REH wrote Conan stories between 1932 and 1936, when he committed suicide. They were republished for decades, up to the present day, and still popular enough that people based films on them in 1982 and 2011. Even before him there were authors considered to be either S&S or closely related to it.
Other writers, often inspired by REH's works, continued the genre onwards, and it continued into the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s in literary format. The term wasn't coined until 1961, by a then-young Fritz Leiber. Moorcock didn't even start writing until the 1960s.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, and particularly '00s, all fantasy which isn't post-Tolkenian epic fantasy, whether it's S&S, or just fantasy that doesn't consistent of lengthy series of lengthy books has been increasingly, over that period, squeezed to the margins of the genre in terms of financial success, and the short-story magazines and collections which were where S&S was largely published have gradually faded away.
But not so outside literary fantasy. In RPGs, in TV/movie fantasy, in comics (especially in comics!), in video games, S&S was the dominant aesthetic, and remained so up to perhaps the 2000s, but it's still a common aesthetic, or even integrated into the aesthetic.
You're saying you've read articles and so on, but when you say "a decade or two", it's clear you haven't even read the wikipedia article, which I would think would normally be the starting point:
Either way I'm done, given that you've completely proven my point that if you don't try to find out about something, you will do a terrible job of arguing about it - this could scarcely be more perfectly illustrated than by summing up "1930 to 1990" as "a decade or two".
I think that you can allow any option in the PHB in a GH setting. I just think that each option that exists.....all races, classes, backgrounds, and so on.....should all be given a GH specific description of how their inclusion will impact the setting. So, for example, Tieflings in GH.....are they a distinct race as we know them in the PHB and other settings? Or is it more a descriptor of any individual that has some fiendish blood in their heritage? How does that change the Tiefling from how it is presented in the PHB? How would a Tiefling character fit into a GH campaign? And so on.
I think simply barring certain options outright would be a bad idea, as it may dissuade some folks from giving the setting a chance. I think it would be far better to kind of try and envision how GH would handle Dragonborn or Tieflings or other elements that didn't really exist as PC options when the setting was introduced.
Saltmarsh left a very bad taste in my mouth (a book that encourages the DM to bully you if you play a dragonborn or a tiefling don't qualify as fun in my experience).
If your DM did this, then that's on him or her, the book most certainly does NOT excourage the DM to bully you if you play a dragonborn or tiefling. Heck, there are dragonborn in the art, and there's a group of tiefling NPC's IN Saltmarsh that are treated perfectly acceptably.
to be fair, that's the reaction of the people of Saltmarsh, overwhelmingly human, somewhat isolated... it's not a description of 'everyone in the WoG'... if WOTC was going to do a sourcebook on the WoG, they'd undoubtedly make it a lot more inclusive, to better fit the tone of 5E. The WoG, being set mostly in 1E and 2E days, was a lot more along the lines of 'good aligned humans and demi-humans get along, evil humans and humanoids get along, the two sides are in opposition'. Of course, back then, just about every D&D world was like that...I wanted to believe in that, when I read in the book that "the residents react to other visitors, especially tieflings and dragonborn, with a mixture of curiosity and fear" (page 11).
The question is - is GH such a setting?It feels like a lot of interesting campagin settings have restrictions or cultural expectations - maybe based on real world historical, maybe one based on a literary setting, maybe one set in a country based on a particular non-European culture, maybe one based around dungeon crawls, maybe a world without active gods. I don't want those settings to not happen just because there'll always be that one player who, after agreeing to the idea, then wants to be the only dragonborn in real medieval europe, be a drow wizard in Cimmeria, be named Fred and not connected to the culture at all, be a druid who's useless indoors, be the first cleric for the returning gods. If they agreed that the world sounded interesting, then they should be able to happily play within the confines of that world's set up if the DM considers their proposal and decides that it really doesn't fit, or be able to live with the logical repurcussions if the DM says ok but explains what those might be. As such I find it odd to have something be objectionable just because it isn't some iteration of the entire kitchen sink.
I wanted to believe in that, when I read in the book that "the residents react to other visitors, especially tieflings and dragonborn, with a mixture of curiosity and fear" (page 11).
Basically, the book encourages that kind of prejudice and bullying on any player that doesn't want to play a member of the Fellowship of the Ring...
However, I'm an outsider to Greyhawk, and I look to the setting from a prospective PoV. That stuff doesn't appeal to me, but perhaps it was all the rage back then. Or perhaps I'm just spoiled by the Nentir Vale's stance of "people learned to accept and even become fond of those different from themselves" (Worlds and Monsters, pp.18-19).
People can trash talk of 4e all what they want, but at least this edition encouraged inclusivity from the start...
Strange that the kitchen sink trope plagues Greyhawk but not: Darksun, Theros, Ravnica, Birthright, Dragonlance, Innistrad, Amonkhet, Ixalan, Kaladesh and others. The "Ho but they're MTG settings! They don't count!" is pure BS. Three of these are not, and you could add others that are in the DM guild or even Drive thru. A setting is a setting and so far, the printed ones were well received and the PDF of the others were not receiving the tropes' accusations either.
As for inclusivity. You'll get the suspicious/xenophobic tropes even Eberron depending on your race and the region you'll be in. The changelings hide and do not show their heritage for a reason. Even in the realm there will be suspicions/xenophobia involved depending on your race, culture, class or simply because you're not from the village. Some places are cosmopolitan others are backwater areas. Not everything is and should be Mos Eisley...