Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 8651626" data-attributes="member: 7026594">I think there's something to it as a more natural home for gritty political conflicts a la GoT than FR is.  Lots of squabbling or warring countries and city-states with varied and weird forms of government, as Snarf has noted.  Less "The king is a Paladin and so naturally above shady backstabbing or breaking treaties, and the PCs KNOW being on his side is the right choice."I feel like travel in the Flanaess should be more varied and interesting than I've usually see it be in the FR.  More variation in the lands/peoples you travel among.   Not to dump on FR by any means, but Oerth seems like a more natural home for a picaresque, say.  FR does have a ton of variety in the setting as a whole, but it also has that variety spread across VAST distances.  The scale of the Flanaess is a little more reasonable (or could be tweaked to be, if I'm misremembering).FR also feels more High Fantasy than Swords & Sorcery, IMO, and that's an angle of differentiation that could definitely be played up in a GH reboot.  Along with the technology/period feel, where FR is more Renaissance.  No firearms in GH, for example.  Few or no frilly sleeves or lace, as someone else noted.I think the big powerful mages pushing Neutrality/Balance is also a good bit different from the Good vs. Evil orientation of other settings.  Good and Evil ARE warring, but the self-interested mages and adventurers mostly don't want either to conclusively win, and cause too much destruction or impose too much law and order.  You can still have adventurers fighting alongside those mages against evil if evil is powerful and ascending.  Greyhawk is more home to mercenary and amoral adventurers, and antiheroes dragged into doing good, where FR is more about Trad good guys on epic quests.</blockquote>

Verification