Is Greyhawk Relevant?

[Nifft]

Commercially today, it's the kiss of death.

If a lot of people lined up to buy a reissue of the classic, valuing the extent to which it is a "build your own" framework, then they would not be signing up to buy a whole series of products. WotC would have to think of something different to sell next.

But that IS the current WotC setting strategy. Two books, a couple of modules, some on-line support, and then we're off to a different setting the next year.

If it was really the "kiss of death", we wouldn't be getting Dark Sun. We'd be getting more Eberron or FR stuff.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Theocrat]

Greyhawk is best when its Dead

Hi all -
As owner of GreyhawkOnline.com, ThePale.org, and the owner of the OerthJournal.com I think Greyhawk is still a big part of RPG gaming.
Greyhawk is not dead in the sense of its useless. I swore I'd never buy a 4e book, and haven't yet 4e is filled with tons of Greyhawk lore. The latest Deminomicon for example. Yes, they've taken the terms, personality and concepts from Greyhawk and further genericized them or made them into aspects that don't fit into Greyhawk, but that doesn't mean that Greyhawk is just for nostalgia or other useless aspects.
If fact, after 2e's Sargent era, Greyhawk flourished under the minor guidance of Erik Mona and Gary Holian. Using AOL, we fleshed out much of Greyhawk - which became the foundation for Living Greyhawk's concepts of Greyhawk. This was an early fan-based formation that grew into a larger gaming based formation that furthered the growth and direction of Greyhawk (both good and bad).
Now that Greyhawk is back to being a dead world in the sense of the dead tree format from WotC, the AOL days are back. The Internet has continued to expand upon Greyhawk - with better research and objectivity that many of the WotC writers during the later bit of 2e and 3e era. I've always lambasted Sean K Reynolds for his work on Greyhawk - because it would be contradictory or plain out of place and with a lack of previous research. Now however, I just friended him on FB and said that I appreciated the work that he's done on WoG 2.0 - because it's much better researched and original than before. But this is because Greyhawk has such a convoluted history that research is the only way to make sure things work out in the crease. With WoG 2.0 (Golarion, if you don't catch it) they are making things up as they go along - new creases are OK.
So with Greyhawk dead, it is up to those fans that have a love for the setting more than it is a job. Sure past Greyhawk writers loved the setting - but not nearly to the extent that Maldin loves his Greyhawk City and Geology. As fans they time needed to explore a concept and a region can take years - that no professional writer can take. This allows Greyhawk to live, to soar, even if it takes 4x longer than any previous explorations of the world.
The OerthJournal has most excellent articles furthering the understanding of the world - heck two or three people are working on further expanding the Western zone - and their research, exploration and knowledge of Greyhawk will make their source books no-less canonical than those products produced by WotC/TSR by authors that just wrote.
And this is why Greyhawk is viable. Greyhawk is best when its dead.

Be Well. Be Well Marked In The Grave.
Theocrat Issak

 

[grodog]

I'm sure that many of us have played at some point or another in the world of Greyhawk. This was Gygax's world, home to some of the greatest classic dungeons in D&D. It is for that nostalgia factor that we hold it in such high regards.

Yet as time has gone on and the hobby has evolved, I have to wonder if it still holds up all these years later.

and

I think these days Greyhawk is just nostalgia for the "good old days" of early D&D. I myself like generic settings but the current thing seems to be every setting needs a hook of somekind and Greyhawk doesn't have that, and thus I don't think it appeals to the current generation of gamer.

and

[snip] I don't think Greyhawk could be changed enough to make a difference, and still be Greyhawk. I think it can only successfully exist as a nostalgia thing. It may be possible to re-print the Campaign World, and even update it to 4E mechanics, but I don't think major changes could work. I think Forgotten Realms is spared this a little more due to it's plethora of cultures and geographic areas, and it's history of already having world changing events. Greyhawk just wouldn't be Greyhawk anymore if the same thing was done to it.

So in my opinion, Greyhawk is only relevant as a Nostalgia product, not as a currently published major campaign world.

I disagree that folks play in Greyhawk only for nostalgia, or that it's only value is as a nostalgia K-Tel compilation aired on beyond-late-night TV: I'm sure some do play GH for nostalgia, just as some people play in any setting (or listen to different styles of music, or whatever) for nostalgia, but Greyhawk offers a lot more than "gaming when I was 9". Greyhawk is a rich setting that offer a lot of detail if the DM and players want it, or it is a very generic setting that offers an almost-blank slate the offer DMs and players widely-ranging freedom to build whatever they want within it's confines. It's flexibility is one of the reasons that I remain drawn to Greyhawk after playing in it for 30 years.

Does GH need reinvention? I would say yes. It needs to be set apart somehow.

I don't know what Greyhawk needs, or how to make it more relevant to the modern-day gamer. I wish I did. I would hate to just see it fade away, yet that seems to be what's happening. Should it be another continent on the same planet as the Realms? Does it need a makeover?

I think that for Greyhawk to rise again as a "top tier" setting, it probably needs devoted attention from WotC, and to have a team of writers who can write to its strengths as well as create new material that blends with its rich history of already-published content. A reboot like what was done recently with Star Trek might or might not work: Greyhawk's already had a few reboots in its past, although none other than Greyhawk Wars were very major in how they changed the setting.

Greyhawk could/should be taken back to its Sword & Sorcery roots. The Free City of Greyhawk itself is heavily inspired by Lankhmar (with established Thieves and Assassins Guilds, etc). [snip]

And Gygax added to the Sword & Sorcery flavor a couple of evil kingdoms that rival Mordor itself. We have the Great Kingdom, the Horned Society, and Iuz. Think of it: this is a campaign where an actual demigod rules a kingdom right next to the civilized lands!

and

I think people choose their own style of play, whether High Fantasy, Sword & Sorcery, Grim & Gritty, etc. I don't think they want a Campaign World to choose that style for them. A Campaign World that has lots of cultures, hooks, regions, etc., that they can then play their type of game in, is going to be chosen more over one that is less flexible.

I agree with Klaus: Greyhawk offers a lot of options. You can play heavily politics and RP in cities and between/among the politicking nations; you can play traditional "ring quest" games against the evil nations; you can play grim-n-gritty Midnight-style gaming in the post Greyhawk Wars era; you can play in arctic environs down through steaming jungles; you can play high-fantasy with warring artifacts in Greyhawk's past (Suel Imperium), present (the Great Kingdom is home to at least six or seven potent artifacts, plus hugely magical locations from which some can be created), and future (mind flayers are still running around in the Rift Canyon in 998 CY, and---a bit closer to 576 CY---Robin Bailey's Nightwatch novel offers a glimpse into a possible future when Greyhawk's magic is starting to fade). Cultures are spread throughout the lands, and pretty diverse---inspired by American Indians, Gaelic Celts, Arabians, Aztecs, and others (in addition to the flexibility to define or redefine any nation/culture in whatever way you want, of course). Greyhawk pretty much has it all---if you know where to look for it.

Those familiar with Gygax's original presentation of the setting will note that the threat of war was in the air. Perhaps it could be reset to beginning of the Greyhawk Wars, and the setting's schtick could be that war is being waged all around. This would be a change from classic Greyhawk being focused on the awesome dungeon crawls, but I don't think it would be deviating from the feel of Greyhawk too much - it would just be focusing on a specific aspect of it.

Good point, Philosopher: the Greyhawk Wars were being staged in the 576 CY timeline as detailed in the folio and original boxed set, as well as in the Dragon Articles penned by Gygax and Kuntz. I'm not sure I'd want to blow up the setting again, per se, but Greyhawk does accomodate that option quite well, even for Gygax-Kuntz purists.

 

[grodog]

I'm using a combination of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer and previous edition supplements and this suits me just fine. In fact, I'd rather not have any official support for the setting at this time. If they change things around as much as they did for the newest version of the Forgotten Realms or to try to make classic Greyhawk appeal to newer gamers, I'd prefer for it to lay fallow.

The beauty of Greyhawk's publishing history is that you can pretty much do just about anything with it, and likely be supported by some form of canon: Greyhawk's continuity is a mess, so picking and choosing elements from different rules editions and eras of the campaign's publishing history is one of my favorite ways to keep the setting fresh.

I think the big problem is its ties to D&D. As a campaign setting it is tied closely to the fate of it's parent IP, D&D, and thus has had to change over time to fit it. So that lead to changes from 3e that started a trend, and now a lot of the "Proper Nouns" from GH can be found in all current D&D.

I think that's part and parcel of the ways that the settings are managed: because in many cases, WotC folks who were writing "for Greyhawk" (in particular the 3.5 era) weren't as familiar with the setting and it's history, so Greyhawk was watered down as a "name dropping" marketing lure in many cases. (I'm talking more specifically after the departure of Erik Mona, Lisa Stevens, James Jacobs, and other folks who are, of course, deeply familiar with Greyhawk).

Secondly, in recent years WoTC hasn't seen GH as something to support. When the RPGA took over handling it I knew things weren't going well. (I fear the same thing will happen with Forgotten Realms).

I thought that the Living Greyhawk support was pretty good, in terms of keeping the setting alive, and many of the folks running the Triads and writing scenarios were long-time fans of the setting. So, I'd truthfully rather see GH (or FR, DL, DS, etc.) in the hands of dedicated fans rather than corporate writers who know far less about the setting and its history.

Truthfully, I'm not even wholly certain what I'm looking for. Is GH something that would sell these days? Does it have a draw that the Realms or Pathfinder doesn't have? If it was updated to 4e, is there a place for all the 4e-isms?

I think that Golarian is, in many ways, a more-modern successor to Greyhawk, since ISTR Erik Mona stating that it was consciously designed to play upon the strengths of Greyhawk, and to leverage the same same core inspirations from S&S fiction.

In terms of what you're looking for: does Greyhawk seem more dead because its stat blocks aren't current to 4.0 (or 3.5 or whatever you're playing)? Or, are you looking for some specific hook/teaser/plot/AP that will draw you in? Or, something else?

 

[grodog]

As I get older, I tend to go with the, "They'd only screw it up" philosiphy and if I want to use my older materials... I just use the old materials.

It'd be great to see a new Greyhawk with the high quality product that WoTC is known for. Hell, be great to see them license it out to Paizo as they have just about equal production values.

I think that this is one of Greyhawk's weaknesses, and it relates directly to the lack of support for the setting from WotC: there's not an easy way for a player new to D&D to pick up Greyhawk and start to play there. The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer is 10 years old this November. The same challenge exists for other OOP settings of course, too: without a FRCS or LGG, it's hard for someone to pick up the setting, absorb it and then determine where they want to set their game, based on the kind of game they want to play. It's also hard to know what other books to pick up, if you're so inclined to leverage previous edition stuff in your games: what fits well with the kind of game I want to run, in the type of area I want to run it, etc.

But as far as it's relevance? People just starting the game now never probably know that Vecan was for years if not decades just a hand and eye and that Ioun was just some floating magical items.

The game evolves.

Hmm: what did 4e do to Ioun Stones?

This is a big reason why I like the World of Greyhawk so much -- so much of its back story was made by the original PCs while playing the game. The fact that so many of the NPCs of the setting were actual PCs in the original game, and the adventure locals in the setting were actual adventures in the original game. This is why Greyhawk is the best setting to me.

Its history wasn't just written, it was made by the DM and Players while playing the game.

That's definitely part of the draw in researching the early history of the development of D&D, Greyhawk, and Greyhawk Castle, and the accounts of play from back then.

Strength because it was created as a campaign setting back in a time when it wasn't uncommon for modules to have blank areas for the DM to set up on his own. That's kind of what Gary did with Greyhawk, he gave gamers a world with some basic details that they could flesh out themselves. [snip]

Weakness because settings like Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms set a new standard for the campaign world, with more detailed locations and a metaplot. Greyhawk never had that, and when these things were added to the setting, fans wren't happy because it clashed with the developments in their own Greyhawk flavored homebrewed campaigns.

I agree, in particular with the idea that how campaigns are published and marketed is a big factor in why "do it yourself" doesn't appeal as much as it once did: while many players do create their own adventures, settings, and such, many more play in settings and modules that were created for them, and that definitely indicates a shift in how the game is marketed (and then played) starting ~1980 vs. the first 8 years of OD&D.

I think though the fan base was fractured seriously enough back in the late '80s and early '90s that the setting just may not be commerically viable anymore.

To quote Lisa Stevens from BITD @ http://paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects...agonCompendiumII&wosid=QlhISqQQbA4YHv61v6sWZw:

Or perhaps the fact that Greyhawk doesn't sell.

Don't get me wrong: I like Greyhawk, too. But when compared to the incredibly successful franchises Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or even the ordinary supplements that WotC puts out, Greyhawk cannot even carry a torch.

Well, I can tell you, as the last person who was the Greyhawk Brand Manager at WotC, that Greyhawk sold almost as well as Forgotten Realms. It was a really successful line of products. However, when we started 3rd edition, the manager of D&D at the time decided that we had too many campaign settings, so Greyhawk got put off to the side in favor of FR. It had everything to do with not starting the proliferation of game settings and nothing to do with sales. Just for the record.

Lisa Stevens
CEO

So, I like to think that Greyhawk still has legs for personal fan reasons, as well as the hope to professionally publish Greyhawk materials once more in the future.

 

[Ariosto]

But that IS the current WotC setting strategy.

But it "can't" be, says the familiar argument for edition-churning and against selling different games!

But "what if"?

Pretty much "what grodog said".

 

[Henry]

Hmm: what did 4e do to Ioun Stones?

Dropped the stones, and made Ioun a "default" goddess of magic. Can't say as I'm happy with the decision, myself.

EDIT: Correction: I checked the compendium, and they have been re-introducing Ioun Stones a bit at the time.

 

[Argyle King]

I love Greyhawk, but I think I'd honestly rather see the rights to the setting be purchased by a company other than WoTC. I'm not trying to knock 4E, but I really don't feel that the mechanic structure and default design assuptions of the current D&D model would produce what people would want out of Greyhawk. I'll go so far as to say that I think Greyhawk would better be reproduced by a non-d20 system; while I like plenty of Paizo's products, and I did highly enjoy D&D 3E, I don't think that system accurately captures the elements of Greyhawk that I want to be highlighted either.

 

[Klaus]

I love Greyhawk, but I think I'd honestly rather see the rights to the setting be purchased by a company other than WoTC. I'm not trying to knock 4E, but I really don't feel that the mechanic structure and default design assuptions of the current D&D model would produce what people would want out of Greyhawk. I'll go so far as to say that I think Greyhawk would better be reproduced by a non-d20 system; while I like plenty of Paizo's products, and I did highly enjoy D&D 3E, I don't think that system accurately captures the elements of Greyhawk that I want to be highlighted either.

May I ask why do you think that?

If anything, Dragonlance is the least-4Eish of the old settings (since no gods, no healing, except now healing is no longer a divine gimmick).

Greyhawk works perfectly with 4e, IMHO.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Hi all -
As owner of GreyhawkOnline.com, ThePale.org, and the owner of the OerthJournal.com I think Greyhawk is still a big part of RPG gaming.
Greyhawk is not dead in the sense of its useless. I swore I'd never buy a 4e book, and haven't yet 4e is filled with tons of Greyhawk lore. The latest Deminomicon for example. Yes, they've taken the terms, personality and concepts from Greyhawk and further genericized them or made them into aspects that don't fit into Greyhawk, but that doesn't mean that Greyhawk is just for nostalgia or other useless aspects.

You make an excellent point here. GH has a ton of good ideas. I'm surprised, though, to see some of the names from the name spells stripped from the spells.

For those who aren't big Greyhawk fans, is Greyhawk best used as a place to mine ideas?

By the way, I wanted to say how I appreciate your work with Greyhawk. I've worked very hard to keep Dragonlance alive, so I can empathize with your position.