I especially think arguing over Canon is a colossal waste of time.
Almost all arguments are a colossal waste of time.
...and yet, the internet.
I especially think arguing over Canon is a colossal waste of time.
Games Workshop handles canon in an interesting way. When they want to ignore lore that isn't convenient they just ignore it. They might do this by saying a particular faction was eaten by the Tyranid. They don't make in a point to repudiate the lore, they just ignore it in all future productions. When they want to make a change, they just tell their audience something was always a part of the lore even if it's a lie or they change their minds and suddenly bring something back that's been gone for decades.
Is anyone really going to be upset if dragonborn are suddenly in Greyhawk? That's a rhetorical question, of course someone is going to be upset. Does it matter if they're upset? I'm not sure the answer is yes.
I wouldn't so much call it a grey zone. While these three books are thematically very similar, introducing more detailed setting material and mechanics for their respective worlds, only Greyhawk Adventures was really in any kind of "grey zone". It was the last hardcover released for 1E, in 1988, when they already had release dates for 2E and so they tried to make sure it was compatible with both (and put a blurb saying so on the cover).Forgotten Realms Adventures, the companion piece to Greyhawk Adventures and Dragonlance Adventures in that 1E/2E hardcover grey zone...
I wouldn't so much call it a grey zone. While these three books are thematically very similar, introducing more detailed setting material and mechanics for their respective worlds, only Greyhawk Adventures was really in any kind of "grey zone". It was the last hardcover released for 1E, in 1988, when they already had release dates for 2E and so they tried to make sure it was compatible with both (and put a blurb saying so on the cover).
FRA was released in 1990 and contains conversion notes for updating existing 1E FR campaigns to the 2E rules, but all the rules content is 2nd ed.
DLA was released in '87 and is a purely 1E product.
Man, am I the only one who loved the 1e Dungeoneers Survival Guide? And the Wilderness SG as well?
I agree that OA is probably the best of the bunch. It has its issues, but it's a playable setting with interesting new classes and rules options, and some neat new ideas like the campaign events table.1e had amazing hardcover books. But the last great hardcover book in 1e was ....
My pick- OA.
Brief argument-
OA, despite being ... let's say flawed from the modern perspective ... was a genuinely good rules-book. Every book after that had such serious problems that it can't be considered great.
UA- don't get me started on the cash grab.
WSG/DSG- meh.
DLA/GHA- super meh.
So here's the only possible issue with my argument. I do acknowledge that Manual of the Planes was better than the utter mediocrity (or worse) that was the 1e hardcover books from December '85 until 2e. But I've also said that I think that MoTP made a mistake in the way it treated alternate prime material planes, which is a major demerit. So I'd say that it doesn't quite hit high enough to justify putting it in and allowing the other hardcovers to slip in.
MotP I put in much the same category as the DSG and WSG. It's a book full of details about places your characters could go, which is full of systems to make the whole thing unplayably tedious and un-fun.
I might rank them something like:
1. OA
2. DLA
3. UA (for rules patches, magic items, a few spells)
4. GHA
5. DSG
6. MotP
7. WSG
In practice UA still gets used by me the most, for the few useful bits it has. Whereas OA, DLA, and GHA will generally only get used if I'm running or playing in those settings. DLA has definitely seen the second-most use for me, because I've had a couple of friends who really enjoy the setting.I also concur on DLA. I don't think it's good enough to overcome the general mediocrity of the post-OA books, but I do recall actually enjoying parts of it, especially compared to the modules. Never used it though. I might put GHA at 3 instead of 4 only because UA's few good things are far outweighed by how terrible the bad things were, and how it messed up a lot of tables for a while.