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

[Mecheon]

Greyhawk is an epic battle between the forces of Law and Chaos, Good and Evil, but with Neutrality evening the scales whenever it starts to tip too far. These are the things that make Greyhawk different from the Realms and other standard fantasy campaigns.

Y'know, I'm probably not going to make any fans with Greyhawk people but this line about neutrality is the actual worst. 'Scales' of good and evil is actually stupid as an idea and the "Team Good vs Team Evil handled with all of the grace of Red vs Blue" is a big part of the reason I think Dragonlance needs to be torn to pieces if it ever gets a reboot.

I would not call this a feature of Greyhawk to advertise but rather one to shove under the dirt

 

[DnD Warlord]

One of these days I am going to put up my pitch for an ultimate/PC settings... but the basics was what I pitched years ago at the end of 3.5 for forgotten realms, but I think 4e Darksun came the closest.
In comics Marvel restarted its line and called it Ultimate. I was originally going with Ultimate Forgotten Realms but someone on here suggested PC Forgotten Realms (Player Centric)

a Player Centric world would go back to the original produced stuff for the setting... then reworked and remade with the current game style and assumptions. Then you would take the best most popular stuff added in... but also set up so the NPCs to take a back seat to PC choices going forward.

 

[The Glen]

If you want to sell Greyhawk you have to show how it's different from Forgotten Realms. Fortunately, Greyhawk does gritty fantasy better than just about any D&D setting. You can pitch it like Game of Thrones before the writers got lazy. Lots of high-level politics that impact the characters without them able to do anything about the cause. Dozens of countries openly antagonistic of each other. Even the good-aligned nations tend to hate one another. Keep the focus on the smaller towns, border raids are a constant threat. Magic is low level, high-level wizards are legendary, you're not going to find Bigby at the tavern laughing it up.

You don't even have to change Greyhawk to get this feel, just retell the setting with a different focus. Capture part of a market that's already out there. Forgotten Realms you walk into a tavern and you'll see 20 different races. In Greyhawk, you'll be lucky to see one person that's just from another country, let alone different race.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I've played quite extensively in Greyhawk a long, long time ago and I didn't care for it. I found the setting generic and uninspiring. The only things I like about it are the gygaxian names and the slightly grittier than average tone.

In my opinion, if one were to revive Greyhawk in 2020, one should commit to the concept of making it the grim and gritty campaign setting, even if it clashes with some elements of the established lore. It would still be Greyhawk, but you would have variant Rangers and Paladins without magic, extensive rules about injuries, curses and diseases, a less forgiving, more brutal combat system as well as tips on how to run a more lethal game. And traps. Lots of traps.

 

[Helldritch]

Why do most people assume that GH is low magic? It was in Greyhawk that rangers had access to both wizard and druidic spells. It was in Greyhawk that the paladins had the most magical powers. At first level they were constantly under the effect of protection from evil.

Greyhawk is not a magicless environment, far from it. But high level charcters are rare to the extreme. Go into the city of Greyhawk and the highest character would be Jallarzy oe Tenser (both wizards), after that? The local priest of Pelor at 9th level... or the local thieves' guild master at about level 14. The power level of NPCs is in general, way lower than what you find in other setting. In fact, it was often a crittic of Greyhawk that it was hard to justify high level NPCs foes in Greyhawk just because there was so few of them. Getting raised from the dead meant you had to actually be able and lucky enough to find someone able to cast the spell. In the city of Greyhawk there was only one priest able to do it... And finding him was only the first part, convincing him would be the next. If you are not a follower of Pelor, good luck on that. No amount of money will make him cast the spell.

Religion was more active and following a god was important. Gods that were popular in one place might be almost non existant in an other. So expanding the infuence of your religion was important. Compare this to the Realms where in Waterdeep, a comparable city, you have at least 7 priest able to cast raised dead and stronger spells...

Again, magic is not absent from Greyhawk. It is the power levels of the NPCs that are toned downed. It also make more sense. If you can kill the dragon yourself, why would you send adventurers? You would get the treasure for yourself. But if you can't do it yourself, as it is often the case in Greyhawk, it makes perfect sense.

This is where Greyhawk is set apart from the other settings. High level PCs are not just other high level adventurers, they are actually among the few that went on and became powerful. They did not retired. They relentlessly pushed on to get more powerful. They can be on par with Tenser, Robilar, Hazen, Belvor and the the others. They are the outstanding ones, not the norm.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Why do most people assume that GH is low magic?

Because it would make the setting distinctive and interesting ?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg , I'm curious how you feel about Ghosts of Saltmarsh. Specifically, the chapters before the the actual remade adventures; I mean the material detailing the town and the surrounding area of Keoloand.

Was that, in your view, a good representation of how you'd like to see Greyhawk made for 5E (but instead of that one region, the entire Flaeness). Or did you find even the small changes like Tieflings too much deviation?

It was fine. To begin with, the original U Series (Saltmarsh) wasn't exactly heavy Greyhawk! But it neither particularly offended, nor made me stand up and go, "A ha! They have it! That's it!" Probably because the material could be easily transposed into any campaign setting (how much work would it take to use that material in a FR setting?).

On the second point, I think that most of the peripheral debates about Greyhawk are usually red herrings for the real issue. It's not (in my mind) really about Tieflings and Dragonborn and whatever.

It's a debate between those who want to have Greyhawk released in some way that respects the integrity of the setting, and those who just see it as a grabbag of names and things to use for 5e. It would not be overly difficult to have an amazing new Greyhawk that has the capacity to include "Tieflings" (modded as fiendish and Iuz) and Dragonborn (exotic seafarers from the blank parts of the map, perhaps?). Who knows?

But I would hate for them to just release a Greyhawk as another default, kitchen sink setting.

 

[R_J_K75]

Greyhawk is not a magicless environment, far from it. But high level charcters are rare to the extreme. Go into the city of Greyhawk and the highest character would be Jallarzy oe Tenser (both wizards), after that? The local priest of Pelor at 9th level... or the local thieves' guild master at about level 14. The power level of NPCs is in general, way lower than what you find in other setting.

I'm not familiar with Greyhawk much other than the few products I read in the early 2000s and the crappy campaign I played in. One thing that seems odd to me about the high level NPCs is that Greyhawk was the default setting of OD&D and 1E AD&D, I may be wrong but I believe it was. Anyhow if there were so little high level NPCs in the world why was it a requirement for PCs to have to find and defeat another NPC of their class before they could advance in level at a certain point? If you had to go kill the 9th level cleric of Pelor to advance in level and you won wouldnt you be relegating yourself to a life of boring mundane priestly tasks to replace the guy you just killed?

Townsfolk: Where's Gober of Pelor, I need a bloodletting?
PC: I killed him, but I'm Goober of Pelor, your new cleric. Hop right up in the chair and we'll get to that bloodletting.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not familiar with Greyhawk much other than the few products I read in the early 2000s and the crappy campaign I played in. One thing that seems odd to me about the high level NPCs is that Greyhawk was the default setting of OD&D and 1E AD&D, I may be wrong but I believe it was. Anyhow if there were so little high level NPCs in the world why was it a requirement for PCs to have to find and defeat another NPC of their class before they could advance in level at a certain point? If you had to go kill the 9th level cleric of Pelor to advance in level and you won wouldnt you be relegating yourself to a life of boring mundane priestly tasks to replace the guy you just killed?

Townsfolk: Where's Gober of Pelor, I need a bloodletting?
PC: I killed him, but I'm Goober of Pelor, your new cleric. Hop right up in the chair and we'll get to that bloodletting.

It wasn't a requirement for Clerics. It was only a requirement for the level-capped classes.

It was a requirement for Assassins, Monks, and Druids. This is all 1e PHB stuff. Only the Assassin's combat had to be lethal (kill); the others could be non-lethal.

For Druids, it started at 12th level, and there was a level cap of Druid of 14.
For Assassins, it started at level 14. There was a level cap of 15.
For Monks, it started at level 8 (!), with a level cap of 17.

Why?

1. Because level corresponded to skill/renown (Name level!) and in these classes, there CAN BE ONLY ONE!

2. To paraphrase Gygax, REASONS.

 

[MGibster]

As you noted, Greyhawk material was already waning by 1985 - that was 35 years ago. That means that Greyhawk fans are generally in the 40+ age category... which seems to be around 11% of the current D&D player base.

I've said it before in other threads but I'll say it again. D&D is in a constant state of flux as creators have made additions to cater to the changing needs of the gaming community. The original game from 1974 was not the same game most people were playing in 1985, which was different from what we were playing in 1995, and, well, need I say more about 2000? D&D has changed and will continue to change in order to remain relevant to gamers.

Greyhawk fans may be vocal, but they no longer hold dominance of gaming's economic pie. It hardly makes sense to put such resources to a project targeting them, considering how critical you note they are.

While I respect Gary Gygax as one of the foundational pillars of our little hobby, I don't believe he's all that relevant to most D&D players today save as a historical curiosity. What exactly does Gygax mean to most D&D players today? His involvement in shaping the game ended in 1985 before most of them were even born, they don't use any of the rules Gygax created, the don't play the game the same as it was played in 1982, and when seeking advice on how to run a game they're not going to turn to Gygax's writings for advice. I have fond memories of Gygax's work, but I would sooner poke myself in the eye before I'd run a game using AD&D 1st edition.

I have some sympathy with the diehard Greyhawk fans. I'm still a little bitter about a lack of alignment restrictions for Paladins. But time marches on and WotC isn't worried about what little old me thinks. The diehard Greyhawk fans are a tiny base that isn't going to be catered to by WotC. Welcome to old age, folks!