Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Greyhawk setting material
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7804569" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>Fair enough I suppose [USER=6799753]@lowkey13[/USER]. To me, it sounds like you want everyone to be forced to play YOUR version of Greyhawk, and anything you happen not to like should be excised from the base set, not because it happens to be a bad idea but because YOU don't like it.</p><p></p><p>I mean, it's a tad hyperbolic to argue that adding Dragonborn to Greyhawk turns it into Forgotten Realms. Then again, you've already compared it to adding an ocean and vampiric giant squid to Dark Sun, so, I guess hyperbole is the standard response.</p><p></p><p>I mean, you've talked at length about how interesting the Scarlet Brotherhood is. But, if we go back to boxed set, the SB is a couple of paragraphs buried in the back of a book. No details, not information, nothing. They don't feature in a single module or any GH material until 1998. How could they be considered iconic to the setting? They are iconic to the setting NOW. But, that's because you've got SK Reynold's fingerprints all over them.</p><p></p><p>I totally agree that one of the main draws of GH is the open nature of the setting. That it's a bare bones framework that DM's should be filling in. FANTASTIC. My GoS campaign is set after the GH wars. Is it canon? Nope. Not even remotely and that's great. Others want to run it earlier? That's also fantastic and not terribly difficult to do.</p><p></p><p>But good grief. If the only way we get a 5e Greyhawk is if they eject everything after 1983? No thanks. I don't mind a bit more detail in my setting than a pretty thin softcover book that gives more details about the bloody trees you find in Greyhawk than to the organizations that move and shake the political landscape. And, frankly, if someone's mental idea of Greyhawk is so fragile that adding Dragonborn (oh noes, 4e cooties!) breaks the setting? Well, sorry, but, too freaking bad. I'd rather WotC bury the setting and never look at it again than appease fans like that. Why should everyone else get screwed over just because you cannot say no to your players? You don't want Dragonborn in your game? Cool, not a problem. But, stop telling me I can't have them in my game. One of us is going to have to do some work, and, well, I'm selfish enough that I WANT the lore of the last thirty years to be used rather than all that fantastic work by writers like Erik Mona, SK Reynolds and others to get left on the cutting room floor just because someone can't wrap their head around something that didn't come out of the 80's.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7804569, member: 22779"] Fair enough I suppose [USER=6799753]@lowkey13[/USER]. To me, it sounds like you want everyone to be forced to play YOUR version of Greyhawk, and anything you happen not to like should be excised from the base set, not because it happens to be a bad idea but because YOU don't like it. I mean, it's a tad hyperbolic to argue that adding Dragonborn to Greyhawk turns it into Forgotten Realms. Then again, you've already compared it to adding an ocean and vampiric giant squid to Dark Sun, so, I guess hyperbole is the standard response. I mean, you've talked at length about how interesting the Scarlet Brotherhood is. But, if we go back to boxed set, the SB is a couple of paragraphs buried in the back of a book. No details, not information, nothing. They don't feature in a single module or any GH material until 1998. How could they be considered iconic to the setting? They are iconic to the setting NOW. But, that's because you've got SK Reynold's fingerprints all over them. I totally agree that one of the main draws of GH is the open nature of the setting. That it's a bare bones framework that DM's should be filling in. FANTASTIC. My GoS campaign is set after the GH wars. Is it canon? Nope. Not even remotely and that's great. Others want to run it earlier? That's also fantastic and not terribly difficult to do. But good grief. If the only way we get a 5e Greyhawk is if they eject everything after 1983? No thanks. I don't mind a bit more detail in my setting than a pretty thin softcover book that gives more details about the bloody trees you find in Greyhawk than to the organizations that move and shake the political landscape. And, frankly, if someone's mental idea of Greyhawk is so fragile that adding Dragonborn (oh noes, 4e cooties!) breaks the setting? Well, sorry, but, too freaking bad. I'd rather WotC bury the setting and never look at it again than appease fans like that. Why should everyone else get screwed over just because you cannot say no to your players? You don't want Dragonborn in your game? Cool, not a problem. But, stop telling me I can't have them in my game. One of us is going to have to do some work, and, well, I'm selfish enough that I WANT the lore of the last thirty years to be used rather than all that fantastic work by writers like Erik Mona, SK Reynolds and others to get left on the cutting room floor just because someone can't wrap their head around something that didn't come out of the 80's. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Greyhawk setting material
Top