Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8237112" data-attributes="member: 177">I think it is strongly implied in the two choices - putting out a high quality version of the original product would not be something good.&nbsp; Ergo, that content is lacking.&nbsp; But, you know, I'll allow that Snarf has a habit of using inexact phrasing for effect, so let's set that aside for the moment.&nbsp; I'll drop coming at it from that angle.The root of the matter is in where the analogy to ST:TNG fails.&nbsp; Star Trek had a large and active fanbase - it had the original series, a ton of novels, and four successful movies - Star Trek IV came out the year before Next Gen premiered, remember.&nbsp; The property was a fan favorite, and compelling to the audience at the time.&nbsp; Appealing to the established fanbase, and expanding for the future, made a lot of sense at that moment.&nbsp; Greyhawk... doesn't have any of that.&nbsp; It is, all in all, an obscure intellectual property, even to the D&amp;D playerbase at this time.In fact, looking at this thread, with all the stress on making it into GoT or The Witcher, what I get is that Greyhawk doesn't have much compelling of its own that isn't being done by some more recent and culturally relevant property.&nbsp; Why, then, is Greyhawk, specifically, called for?&nbsp; And heck, if I wanted that world-in-decline, humanocentric, low-magic feel.... I think I'd not bother with D&amp;D at all, and just pick up Swords of the Serpentine, because it's game is actually more geared to producing Fafhrd &amp; Grey Mouser or Conan-style action-adventure, and the Eversink setting has all the elements necessary to support the feel.Thus my questions.&nbsp; I don't actually see what's compelling about Greyhawk itself at this time.And, btw, I say this as a gamer who cut his teeth on Greyhawk.&nbsp; I didn't touch FR until I ran Phandelver for a friend's kid.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8237112, member: 177"] I think it is strongly implied in the two choices - putting out a high quality version of the original product would not be something good. Ergo, that content is lacking. But, you know, I'll allow that Snarf has a habit of using inexact phrasing for effect, so let's set that aside for the moment. I'll drop coming at it from that angle. The root of the matter is in where the analogy to ST:TNG fails. Star Trek had a large and active fanbase - it had the original series, a ton of novels, and four successful movies - Star Trek IV came out the year before Next Gen premiered, remember. The property was a fan favorite, and compelling to the audience at the time. Appealing to the established fanbase, and expanding for the future, made a lot of sense at that moment. Greyhawk... doesn't have any of that. It is, all in all, an obscure intellectual property, even to the D&D playerbase at this time. In fact, looking at this thread, with all the stress on making it into GoT or The Witcher, what I get is that Greyhawk doesn't have much compelling of its own that isn't being done by some more recent and culturally relevant property. Why, then, is [I]Greyhawk[/I], specifically, called for? And heck, if I wanted that world-in-decline, humanocentric, low-magic feel.... I think I'd not bother with D&D at all, and just pick up Swords of the Serpentine, because it's game is actually more geared to producing Fafhrd & Grey Mouser or Conan-style action-adventure, and the Eversink setting has all the elements necessary to support the feel. Thus my questions. I don't actually see what's compelling about Greyhawk itself at this time. And, btw, I say this as a gamer who cut his teeth on Greyhawk. I didn't touch FR until I ran Phandelver for a friend's kid. [/QUOTE]

Verification