Is Greyhawk Relevant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dragonhelm

Knight of Solamnia
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.

I really like what I see in Pathfinder. When I look at the descriptions of the nations, I can see where many classic modules (and not just GH) can be implemented. At the same time, it has a rich cultural background like the Realms. And while it has that classic element to it, it also feels new and fresh.

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? :D

I'm thinking more in terms of story. What is Greyhawk's draw? Why should I play it over the Realms or Pathfinder? Why should I fall in love with Greyhawk?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

renau1g

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

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.


The only thing with this is that it may have been popular back in the 2e (and earlier) days, very few new gamers since 3e was released were introduced to it (except through Living Greyhawk). It's only been 10 years or so since 3e , but that's a pretty big gap of gamers to try and win back over. While it may be viable, it also seems like a higher risk than just going with a new setting as there are a lot of people who have a strong attachment to the setting (rightly so) and if WotC changed a bunch of stuff in it to fit into their 4e-isms that may cause even further anger from older gamers. I will admit to knowing little of Greyhawk, my 2e days were in a homebrewed setting and some time in Faerun so I'm not sure how well (or poorly) the setting could be converted to 4e.
 

Dragonhelm

Knight of Solamnia
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).

Dragonlance is based very much on AD&D. It did quite well in 3e as many of the organizations lent to the prestige class model well.

While DL could be updated to 4e, I think you might have issues with things like true healing, cosmology, and more magic types than just arcane and divine.

That being said, this is a Greyhawk thread, so it might be good to get back on topic.
 

Saracenus

Always In School Gamer
Long time Greyhawker. It was my first setting back in 1980. Personally I think that WotC is stuck when it comes to putting out a Greyhawk campaign for 4e.

On one hand the old-shoolers out there would scream and holler if anything were changed (for good or ill) and on the other why would a new player want to purchase a campaign that is almost a clone of 4e's default assumptions.

We have seen FR and Eberron which scratch that last itch for a lot of folks. Dark Sun is going to finally stretch what the 4e engine can do for a campaign.

I will bet that next year we will see an original setting with some radical fluff assumption changes. I would be dumbfounded if Dragon Lance or Greyhawk were announced instead.

My two coppers,
 

CruelSummerLord

First Post
One issue with Greyhawk is that it's many different things to many different people. To me, Greyhawk is a much lower-power setting than, say, FR with its 18th-level archmages and magic items readily available for sale. One of the things I've always hated is the notion that PCs can just stroll into town and buy whatever kinds of magic items they want, as if magic were just a cheap, tradeable commodity. Whether or not the lower-powered feel of Greyhawk would appeal to more modern gamers, when magic item creation is so much easier and magic shops are almost an inherent part of the game, is entirely up in the air.

Part of the problem with Greyhawk canon is that a lot of it is extremely garbled and contradictory, not to mention that so much of it is just plain bad. Many Greyhawkers are, shall we say, hostile to the idea of an ongoing metaplot or official changes that seem dictated from on high. It's why many Greyhawk fans (including myself) despise the Greyhawk Wars as written...and I'm not particularly fond of many of the changes wrought by Living Greyhawk, either, and so I don't consider them canon. One of the biggest critiques Greyhawkers have launched at FR was its ongoing metaplot, which many of us viewed as being dictated from on high, personal campaigns be damned.

Up to EGG's departure from the company, Greyhawk had a tradition of only "changing" through modules that the PCs could directly participate in, with the DMs applying the results as written to their campaigns. Otherwise, there was little hint of an ongoing metaplot or changes wrought by NPCs that altered the status quo. Making radical changes to Greyhawk was the job of the individual gaming group.

All this ties back into the notion of what point in the timeline a new Greyhawk release would be placed. It could be rewound to 576 CY, restoring the old status quo. Needless to say, that wouldn't prevent a steady supply of modules and sourcebooks that further flesh out various parts of the setting from being released...it's just that the timeline would never be advanced and every book would assume a base setting of 576 CY. Historical information released by subsequent generations of writers and Living Greyhawk could be integrated where they fit, but otherwise the status quo remains as Gygax wrote it. Essentially, we'd have the old boxed set all over again, but this time much more fleshed out, detailled and given an overall flashier treatment along the lines of what FR has gotten the last few years.

That would be my preferred way of doing things. But part of the problem is that Greyhawkers are also notoriously divided on where exactly the setting should be frozen at. Some fans love the Greyhawk Wars, others hate them. Some people would want to integrate the changes wrought by Living Greyhawk, others would not. Some fans would want to integrate changes such as magic shops, dragonborn, eladrin and tieflings, while others (including myself) would rather go skydiving without a parachute.

With all that in mind, I think Greyhawk would work best as a grimmer, grittier setting that reinforces many of the traditional D&D and Tolkien stereotypes, where magic items are rarer, characters tend to be of lower level, and the setting is otherwise frozen unless the DM and players decide to change it themselves. In some respects, I think it would work as a meat-and-potatoes setting for gamers who don't like the very high power levels of other settings.

Emphasizing the shades of grey, the lower power level, and the traditional "swords and sorcery" nature of the setting, and you might find a niche for Greyhawk that other worlds don't really fill.

And before anyone accuses me of being a crotchety old-timer, please note that I'm actually only 28 years old. I just happen to prefer the lower power levels, where +1 swords are rare and cherished treasures and being 7th level means you really stand out in a crowd. I also like being able to do what I want without having a metaplot breathing down my neck-if you read my stuff at Canonfire, you'll see that a lot of what I write knowingly violates canon. I take what I want and then toss out the rest, which is the attitude I hope people take with anything I write. If they like the whole thing, great, but if they just take the bits they want and toss out the rest, then I consider it mission accomplished. ;)
 

Orius

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



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.

Hmm, avoiding setting proliferation makes sense too. Honestly both Greyhawk and FR are very very similar, no matter how much their respective fans may disagree. Both are generic fantasy kitchen sinks that do "default" D&D. The only real difference is that Greyhawk skews a bit more towards S&S style fantasy while FR skews a bit towards high fantasy. Another way of looking at it is that the Tolkien races are perhaps more firmly integrated into FR as Gary wasn't a huge fan of Tolkien and included nods mostly to hook LotR fans; I think Greenwood might be a bigger Tolkien fan since the Tolkien races, particularly elves, seem a bit more prominent in the background of FR.

In any case, these are picky differences that matter little to the casual player. When comparing the two settings, FR has the upper hand. Even if the game suppliments for Greyhawk sold numbers comparable to FR products, FR also has a significant and popular book line, licensed electronic games like Pool of Radiance, Baldur's Gate, and Neverwinter Nights, and so on. Greyhawk just doesn't have all that behind it, so it makes sense that it gets less support. And if you think Greyhawk has it bad, just look at poor Mystara.
 

thedungeondelver

Adventurer
Dropped the stones, and made Ioun a "default" goddess of magic.

facepalm013.jpg
 

Nifft

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

But "what if"?
When your "can't be" clashes with an "is", we don't have to ask "what if".

"Is" wins.

Reality trumps theory.

Cheers, -- N
 

Nifft

Penguin Herder
EDIT: Correction: I checked the compendium, and they have been re-introducing Ioun Stones a bit at the time.
The default setting of 4e isn't Greyhawk, so the default setting's treatment if Ioun isn't really anything to do with Greyhawk.

4e's default setting stole some gods form Greyhawk and some from FR, and made up some new ones. It's not like 3.x, where the default setting was a setting.

For those who aren't big Greyhawk fans, is Greyhawk best used as a place to mine ideas?
That's what I do, but then, I steal from lots of places.

Cheers, -- N
 

Argyle King

Legend
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.



In my opinion, Eberron is a very good example of how the mechanics of 4E change the feel of a setting. Originally, I would have said Eberron actually took further some of the elements of Greyhawk which I am thinking of during my posts. Eberron in 4E feels a lot different to me, and I think Greyhawk would too; even if less different.

I would very much agree that the way the default 4E setting presented in the first DMG mirrors a lot of how Greyhawk was presented, but the system has since moved (in my opinion) a lot more strongly in one very specific direction - both in terms of support playstyle and just style in general. It performs that style extremely well, and I enjoy it when I'm in the mood for it.

However, for me; when I look at things overall, 4E assumes too much about the way I want to play when I sit down at the table. One of the strengths of Greyhawk was that it did a good job of having just enough detail to entice you and interest you, but remaining somewhat generic. By extent, this also meant that each group could take Greyhawk and have the ability to make it their own. Hack & Slash dungeon crawling, political intrigue, and carving out a kingdom in wild and unknown lands were all possibilities, and only a few possibilities among many. I think a more versatile system which better supports a broader array of play styles would better fit Greyhawk and maintain the memories that people have of being able to make Greyhawk into their Greyhawk. What I think drew people to Greyhawk was the freedom to live the fantasy they wanted to live through their character.

I might be an oddball though because -on the other hand- I actually feel that the style of Forgotten Realms and 4E go together very well. Many people hate the new Forgotten Realms, but I feel that the way 4E is structured fits Forgotten Realms, and I feel that WoTC actually did a very good job of fitting the new D&D elements into Forgotten Realms and explaining (in story) what happened to the old elements.

Why I'd rather not see even Paizo or some other company create Greyhawk is because of one of the areas where I feel 4E actually succeeds very well. One thing which I feel 4E does extremely well is encounter design. I feel that having more creatures involved in a combat is more exciting and allows for more creative story telling through encounters than the '4 PCs beating on one monster until it dies' idea behind CR. I say this as someone who loved D&D 3rd Edition. I enjoyed the game, and I like what little experience I've had with Pathfinder, but this is one area where I 100% feel that 4th Edition's mechanics perform better than the old CR system.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top