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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="3catcircus" data-source="post: 3205673" data-attributes="member: 16077">I'll preface this by stating that I love FR.That having been said, I love GH too!  The reason that most of us who love GH, I think, is because the setting provides *just enough* information for a DM to expand upon the way they see fit.  It really wasn't until later in 2nd edition when Robilar, Mordenkainen, etc. were fleshed out.  Prior to that, they were just "legends" in the sense that they were immensely powerful but it was up to the DM as to whether/how he wanted to use them.  I *never* used them except as window dressing - no stats, no nothing.With FR, the Mordenkainens and Robilars are more pronounced and take a larger part of the stage, as does the detail of the world as a whole - something which some DMs feel is to restrictive as to what *they* want to do with the world.Of course, it didn't hurt that there were really not many GH books - and those that there were, were set in the *past*, unlike a lot of the FR books which introduce *new* changes to the campaign world (return of the Shadovar, Lolth's silence, etc.)Essentially, Greyhawk allows DMs to set their campaign at any given time period and know that they *only* have to worry about the Greyhawk Wars (Invoked Devastation and Rain of Colorless Fire notwithstanding).  In FR, DMs have to contend with the ToT, followed by the return of Bane, not to mention the Shadovar, Lolth's Silence, recapture of Citadel Felbarr, etc.It isn't about how colorful or unique the campaign setting is, so much as how easy it is to use it and maintain setting continuity in the face of newer published products.  *That* is what is unique about Greyhawk in comparison to other settings.</blockquote>

Verification