D&D 5E (2014) I believe the Greyhawk Campaign setting was a missed opportunity for Wizards of the Coast.

[Parmandur]

Oh, and it's only novels were, to my knowledge, the Gord the Rogue novels. I've only read the first book in the series, but it was... not great.

I think there some early 3E novels that fizzled, as well; I've only ever read Dragonlance stuff, but I'm pretty sure they tries reviving Greyhawk novels as part of the halfhearted attempt to make it the "assumed" setting.

 

[Henry]

Oh, no -- the early 3e novels set in Greyhawk with the iconics weren't that bad - but the greyhawk stuff after Gord, particularly that "Demon's hand" trilogy, got a lot of flak as being terrible back in the late 80s to early 90s. For me, I was a Gary loyalist back then, i didn't read anything Greyhawk that wasn't by him or Rob Kuntz.

 

[the Jester]

Greyhawk was the default setting for 3e, so it's not like they haven't done this in a half-assed manner before. So I can see them wanting to do something different.

Half-assed is the key issue here. D&D hasn't supported Greyhawk in more than a half-assed manner since 1e.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh, no -- the early 3e novels set in Greyhawk with the iconics weren't that bad - but the greyhawk stuff after Gord, particularly that "Demon's hand" trilogy, got a lot of flak as being terrible back in the late 80s to early 90s. For me, I was a Gary loyalist back then, i didn't read anything Greyhawk that wasn't by him or Rob Kuntz.

Haven't read them, I was commenting more on the lack of financial success more than creative.

 

[Parmandur]

Half-assed is the key issue here. D&D hasn't supported Greyhawk in more than a half-assed manner since 1e.

Big problem is,there is no GH equivalent town Ed Greenwood, or even a Bob Salvatore, to keep the torch for GH burning.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Big problem is,there is no GH equivalent town Ed Greenwood, or even a Bob Salvatore, to keep the torch for GH burning.

They don't need an Ed Greenwood or Bob Salvetore to do something good with GH.

I think you maybe giving Bob too much credit with regards to FR.

 

[the Jester]

Big problem is,there is no GH equivalent town Ed Greenwood, or even a Bob Salvatore, to keep the torch for GH burning.

Erik Mona, yo- but now he's all Pathfinder.

 

[Evhelm]

Admittedly, what I have to say is just more unique, idiosyncratic individual experience, but I'll throw me two cents in!

I came to D&D just as 3e was ramping up. At the time, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting guide was coming out, and the Greyhawk Gazetteer was nowhere to be found. Seriously. My parents owned a bookstore at the time, and Wizards (and their publisher who, at the time, I believe was Random House) were not doing more print runs of the Gazetteer. From what I learned in that business about how WotC's publishers handled stock, that meant that Greyhawk probably didn't sell as well as the FRCS.

For me, personally, (again, growing up in a bookstore) I ate up Forgotten Realms. I met Ed Greenwood and Bob Salvatore at booksellers conventions, and I gobbled up their novels. I could easily set campaigns in those worlds because the campaign setting was vast, detailed, and very user-friendly. The encounters I had with Greyhawk lore through the Core 3 were distant, muddled, and ultimately bland because there were no stories associated with them for me.

Having said that, I did read those 3e Greyhawk novels; I still own all of them and loan them out to my students who are looking for a good, brief, fantasy romp. My only criticism with those books as "set-pieces" is that they (once again) were entirely generic. The settings/places were quickly forgotten, and the only thing binding them together were the common character threads.

From a business perspective, I think WotC made the right choice with Forgotten Realms being the initial flavor of 5e. Is it still my favorite setting? Do I still eat up books by Greenwood and Salvatore? No.

From a rules perspective, I think WotC made the right choice with the multiverse. Having said that, I do absolutely see Forgotten Realm's influence as a "default" setting. It's not the same intensity of default as Greyhawk was for 3e, but I think an argument can be made for it. Most of the examples in the PHB/DMG/MM reference FR; they also often reference other settings, but FR seems to always be mentioned.

Now for the inevitable (again, idiosyncratic) pros & cons list!

Pros:

• FR has a wide media appeal: games and books galore!
• Personally, all of the players in my gaming group have played in FR before. We have been able to learn the new rules without worrying about a new setting.

Cons:

• GH fans feel left out in the cold; where's the love?
• 3e established a precedent of GH being the lens through which the game is viewed; WotC has gone even further away from that model.

Mixed:

• The staggered release leaves everyone without a polished Campaign Setting (or knowledge of if one will ever be released for the new edition).
• Personally, I'm a huge 3e Eberron fan and am hoping for some Eberron love; however, I do NOT think Eberron should/could be the default setting for D&D, so I'm understanding that I need to have patience.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Admittedly, what I have to say is just more unique, idiosyncratic individual experience, but I'll throw me two cents in!

I came to D&D just as 3e was ramping up. At the time, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting guide was coming out, and the Greyhawk Gazetteer was nowhere to be found. Seriously. My parents owned a bookstore at the time, and Wizards (and their publisher who, at the time, I believe was Random House) were not doing more print runs of the Gazetteer. From what I learned in that business about how WotC's publishers handled stock, that meant that Greyhawk probably didn't sell as well as the FRCS.

For me, personally, (again, growing up in a bookstore) I ate up Forgotten Realms. I met Ed Greenwood and Bob Salvatore at booksellers conventions, and I gobbled up their novels. I could easily set campaigns in those worlds because the campaign setting was vast, detailed, and very user-friendly. The encounters I had with Greyhawk lore through the Core 3 were distant, muddled, and ultimately bland because there were no stories associated with them for me.

Having said that, I did read those 3e Greyhawk novels; I still own all of them and loan them out to my students who are looking for a good, brief, fantasy romp. My only criticism with those books as "set-pieces" is that they (once again) were entirely generic. The settings/places were quickly forgotten, and the only thing binding them together were the common character threads.

From a business perspective, I think WotC made the right choice with Forgotten Realms being the initial flavor of 5e. Is it still my favorite setting? Do I still eat up books by Greenwood and Salvatore? No.

From a rules perspective, I think WotC made the right choice with the multiverse. Having said that, I do absolutely see Forgotten Realm's influence as a "default" setting. It's not the same intensity of default as Greyhawk was for 3e, but I think an argument can be made for it. Most of the examples in the PHB/DMG/MM reference FR; they also often reference other settings, but FR seems to always be mentioned.

Now for the inevitable (again, idiosyncratic) pros & cons list!

Pros:

• FR has a wide media appeal: games and books galore!
• Personally, all of the players in my gaming group have played in FR before. We have been able to learn the new rules without worrying about a new setting.

Cons:

• GH fans feel left out in the cold; where's the love?
• 3e established a precedent of GH being the lens through which the game is viewed; WotC has gone even further away from that model.

Mixed:

• The staggered release leaves everyone without a polished Campaign Setting (or knowledge of if one will ever be released for the new edition).
• Personally, I'm a huge 3e Eberron fan and am hoping for some Eberron love; however, I do NOT think Eberron should/could be the default setting for D&D, so I'm understanding that I need to have patience.

The thing that Wizards doesn't understand is the fact that it's the older Realms fans that really have control over the Realms. If you kept up with 4th edition then you will see that once the Realms fans turned their backs on the Spellplague era that it went down hill from there.

What Wizards now face is the fact that unless you aren't careful with what you put into the Realms then you will continue to piss off the majority of fans and you will be left with the same problems as last edition.

I don't think Wizards has the ability keep the lore of FR in check with what a majority of fans want.

 

[Evhelm]

The thing that Wizards doesn't understand is the fact that it's the older Realms fans that really have control over the Realms. If you kept up with 4th edition then you will see that once the Realms fans turned their backs on the Spellplague era that it went down hill from there.

You're right that I ditched FR for 4th; my group tried 4e, but I ended up doing a homebrew for the entirety of its lifespan.

What Wizards now face is the fact that unless you aren't careful with what you put into the Realms then you will continue to piss off the majority of fans and you will be left with the same problems as last edition.

Because the novels and games are set in what I presume to be the current incarnation of the Realms, I think they're gambling they'll survive that wave.

I don't think Wizards has the ability keep the lore of FR in check with what a majority of fans want.

This is a very strong point! However, I'm not sure they've ever been able to do this completely, and because of the multimedia success of FR in other non-traditional areas I think it's still the right (or at least best available) choice.