Remathilis
Legend
How did Roger Moore (Sp?) screw up Greyhawk? (NOTE: this comes from someone whose first real exposure to Greyhawk as a setting was 3e). What specifically went wrong?
Greyhawk being dumped as the core setting in 3.5
- Thread starter DDK
- Start date
Tyler Do'Urden
Soap Maker
3E should have used The Forgotten Realms as it's core setting, and here's why:
#1. THE COMPUTER GAMES!!! Between Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, and Baldur's Gate, gamers at large associate D&D with the Forgotten Realms setting.
#2. THE BOOKS!!! I'm not a fan either, but you've gotta admit that they're popular. I've met many a non or infrequent gamer who is hung up on Salvatore's fiction.
#3. THE LOOK!!! I can't say this enough- I love the rules mechanics of 3e, but the art looks like a video game- and not the D&D games, at that. The Forgotten Realms materials, on the other hand, look like the D&D that I know and love.
#4. THE PANTHEON!!! I'm sorry, but I just can't get excited about the Gods of Greyhawk, and their names just turn me off. Heironeous (all too often pronounced by my friends as hairy-anus)? Give me Torm anyday- he sounds like a rear-kicker. Boccob? Wee Jas? What kinds of names are those, compared to Mystra or the tolkienesque Selune? And BANE- there's an enemy for you- none of this Hextor stuff...
#5. THE SETTING!!! Forgotten Realms makes assumptions that fit D&D better than Greyhawk... mostly minor issues, but hardly irrelevant. The Elves of FR are a foot taller. Magic has internally consistent laws. Everything has an assumed rhyme or reason- which makes putting a setting together all the easier.
I'm not an "FR" fanboy- heck, the only 3e FR book I own is Magic of Faerun. I don't read the fiction, I don't run the setting. But I clearly prefer it as the default for all the reasons stated above. And, in my mind, it is the default- as it is in the minds of many others, I'd imagine...
#1. THE COMPUTER GAMES!!! Between Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, and Baldur's Gate, gamers at large associate D&D with the Forgotten Realms setting.
#2. THE BOOKS!!! I'm not a fan either, but you've gotta admit that they're popular. I've met many a non or infrequent gamer who is hung up on Salvatore's fiction.
#3. THE LOOK!!! I can't say this enough- I love the rules mechanics of 3e, but the art looks like a video game- and not the D&D games, at that. The Forgotten Realms materials, on the other hand, look like the D&D that I know and love.
#4. THE PANTHEON!!! I'm sorry, but I just can't get excited about the Gods of Greyhawk, and their names just turn me off. Heironeous (all too often pronounced by my friends as hairy-anus)? Give me Torm anyday- he sounds like a rear-kicker. Boccob? Wee Jas? What kinds of names are those, compared to Mystra or the tolkienesque Selune? And BANE- there's an enemy for you- none of this Hextor stuff...
#5. THE SETTING!!! Forgotten Realms makes assumptions that fit D&D better than Greyhawk... mostly minor issues, but hardly irrelevant. The Elves of FR are a foot taller. Magic has internally consistent laws. Everything has an assumed rhyme or reason- which makes putting a setting together all the easier.
I'm not an "FR" fanboy- heck, the only 3e FR book I own is Magic of Faerun. I don't read the fiction, I don't run the setting. But I clearly prefer it as the default for all the reasons stated above. And, in my mind, it is the default- as it is in the minds of many others, I'd imagine...
Olive
Explorer
if we need a default, GH is fine. I voted I don't care.
but i''d rather the setting was supported PROPERLY.
I've never played GH, and know little about it (hey, DDK, if you're ever doing a proper GH game and need players in melbs, drop me a line), but i'm sure it deserves more than what it's getting. tho LGJ is really interesting usually.
but i''d rather the setting was supported PROPERLY.
I've never played GH, and know little about it (hey, DDK, if you're ever doing a proper GH game and need players in melbs, drop me a line), but i'm sure it deserves more than what it's getting. tho LGJ is really interesting usually.
Gamage
14 people invited, 4 showed up, I've gamed with one of them (who's actually pretty cool), one got into three games THROUGH me and I'm not in any of them, and another I'm currently waiting on a game to be organized (he's the DM) but is full.
If you can turn up once a fortnight for a minimum of 5-6 hours on a Saturday or Sunday and know three others or can get three others or three others materialize out of the Ethereal Plane, then I'll happily run a GH game. I have a plot that I've been developing for ages but decided not to unleash on my PBP players so I'm ready to go. However I'm anal-retentive as a DM and demand a lot from my players; the weak need not apply...
Oh, and the reason I'm posting this in this thread and not just in an email is because I figure if any other Aussies in Melbourne are reading this and want to jump on board, they can... I've run an ad in the Gamer's Seeking Gamer's forum for like six months and have only gotten one response so *I* think this is a legitimate post
I'm sure I invited you to the meet-up I was organizing, back in the Aussie thread...Olive said:
14 people invited, 4 showed up, I've gamed with one of them (who's actually pretty cool), one got into three games THROUGH me and I'm not in any of them, and another I'm currently waiting on a game to be organized (he's the DM) but is full.
If you can turn up once a fortnight for a minimum of 5-6 hours on a Saturday or Sunday and know three others or can get three others or three others materialize out of the Ethereal Plane, then I'll happily run a GH game. I have a plot that I've been developing for ages but decided not to unleash on my PBP players so I'm ready to go. However I'm anal-retentive as a DM and demand a lot from my players; the weak need not apply...
Oh, and the reason I'm posting this in this thread and not just in an email is because I figure if any other Aussies in Melbourne are reading this and want to jump on board, they can... I've run an ad in the Gamer's Seeking Gamer's forum for like six months and have only gotten one response so *I* think this is a legitimate post
Olive
Explorer
i'm already DMing a game, but i can pretty definitely make a decent saturday afternoon game once a fortnight. Midday till 6 would be good for me. but i'm pretty sure i don't know anyone else who would want to play right now.
the email in my profile is wrong and when i last tried to change it, it messed up my posting for a week or so.
and i kinda lost track of the aussies thread, and missed the meetup.
I was thinking that we should try to organise a Melbourne GameDay, but I don't know where we would do it...
hijack over.
the email in my profile is wrong and when i last tried to change it, it messed up my posting for a week or so.
and i kinda lost track of the aussies thread, and missed the meetup.
I was thinking that we should try to organise a Melbourne GameDay, but I don't know where we would do it...
hijack over.
buzz
Adventurer
Keep it!
D&D isn't generic; there are a lot of assumptions about the "implied setting" built into the core rules. These assumptions need a framework, and Greyhawk provides that framework. The setting has a rich history, yet can also be stripped down to a basic level to add "just enough" flavor to the core D&D3e rules.
In addition, having some sort of default setting makes it a little easier, imho, on people new to the game. They can take all of the aformentioned assumptions and apply them immediately to a campaign setting. Yet, the flavor of the setting as presented in the core books is mild enough that using a different setting is nearly effortless.
However, I agree with a lot of people here that, if WotC is going to include the setting at all, there should, at the very least, be more overt support.
(We all seem to be ignoring the RPGA, admittedly. I'm not particularly interested in the whole "Living [blah]" concept, myself, and don't see why one has to resort to that just to get more setting material.)
A comprehensive campaign setting book, along the lines of the FRCS, would be a good start. AFAIC, such a book would serve as a sort of fourth core rulebook, essentially being a detailed demonstration of the application of the core rules to a setting.
Why couldn't the default setting be FR? I'm sure it could, but here seems to be a lot more "baggage" involved with FR. GH is more "straight" D&D, and thus serves as a better default in my estimation.
D&D isn't generic; there are a lot of assumptions about the "implied setting" built into the core rules. These assumptions need a framework, and Greyhawk provides that framework. The setting has a rich history, yet can also be stripped down to a basic level to add "just enough" flavor to the core D&D3e rules.
In addition, having some sort of default setting makes it a little easier, imho, on people new to the game. They can take all of the aformentioned assumptions and apply them immediately to a campaign setting. Yet, the flavor of the setting as presented in the core books is mild enough that using a different setting is nearly effortless.
However, I agree with a lot of people here that, if WotC is going to include the setting at all, there should, at the very least, be more overt support.
(We all seem to be ignoring the RPGA, admittedly. I'm not particularly interested in the whole "Living [blah]" concept, myself, and don't see why one has to resort to that just to get more setting material.)
A comprehensive campaign setting book, along the lines of the FRCS, would be a good start. AFAIC, such a book would serve as a sort of fourth core rulebook, essentially being a detailed demonstration of the application of the core rules to a setting.
Why couldn't the default setting be FR? I'm sure it could, but here seems to be a lot more "baggage" involved with FR. GH is more "straight" D&D, and thus serves as a better default in my estimation.
Desdichado
Hero
Re: Re: Greyhawk being dumped as the core setting in 3.5
Of course not. Viola is my mother's oldest sister. I believe the term you're looking for is voila! It's Italian.WizarDru said:
Similar Threads
