Question for newer players (started with 3e), Greyhawk - yea or nay?

[chatdemon]

I'm looking for the opinions of those who started D&D with 3e, or for those who had no existing setting loyalty prior to 3e here guys, those of you who had a favorite campaign before you switched to 3e, I'm not looking for a setting comparison debate.

Anyway, so you bought your 3e PHB, right? There's the basic skeleton of a campaign world there, Greyhawk. WotC then released the D&D Gazetteer, with which you could get familiar with the setting in some detail for a paltry $10.

Do you play Greyhawk? If so, what aspects of the setting appealed to you? What do you like and dislike about the setting? Do you play in the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign? Do you visit online Greyhawk resources such as Canonfire?

For those who passed on Greyhawk for something else, can I ask what turned you off to the setting? What could WotC have done to get you interested? What can Greyhawk fandom do to make the setting interesting and useful for you?

Any opinions welcome!

I'm pondering some ideas on how to best try and steer my future Greyhawk related projects, and I'm wondering what interests the newer players, and what could help lure new players to the setting.

 

[chatdemon]

A wee little bump

 

[johnsemlak]

EDIT: Doh!!! I missed the bit which said you want opionions from people who start from 3e. sorry. I'll ask my players who are starting with 3e;

 

[coyote6]

I'm looking for the opinions of those who started D&D with 3e, or for those who had no existing setting loyalty prior to 3e here guys, those of you who had a favorite campaign before you switched to 3e, I'm not looking for a setting comparison debate.

I'm not sure I'm someone whose opinion you want -- I stopped playing AD&D with 1e in the late '80s, never really played in any any setting when I did play (A)D&D (it was all homebrews and/or just background that was barely mentioned), but I've owned various versions of Greyhawk, FR, and other settings for years, and even used them a little (with other game systems). Caveats given, here I go.

All of the campaigns I currently actively run & play in are in Greyhawk; there were some FR campaigns, but they've fallen into limbo.

I don't do Living Greyhawk.

I liked the setup of the 3e version of the setting -- basically, large wars had just ended, leaving much evil afoot and many adventures to be had. I was also familiar with the setting from past years (I've owned the Greyhawk folio & the Greyhawk set from the middish-'80s since they came out). I had fond memories of some of the deities (though others bug me; for example, why are there no gods of the moon, or love, outside of the elven gods?).

All-in-all, it seemed like a nice solid basis for a campaign, without being Too Much. The $10 gazetteer was cheap enough that I bought copies for some of the miserly/financially strapped players in my group & gave 'em away -- "Here's a map, here are the countries, don't say I never gave you anything."

I occasionally visit online resources, but I often get a "Too Much Info" vibe, and sometimes find the material to not be to my tastes -- so I often don't use it. Also, some material seems to assume information that I just don't have, and can't find.

Things I dislike -- hmm, there are a few, but they're really just quibbles or stylistic differences. The deities, I've mentioned (I've thought of reworking things to get a more coherent-feeling cosmology, a la the Book of the Righteous -- but hey, I'm lazy, and that would be a lot of work ). The lack of hints (hints, mind you) at the history of the world before the Suel/Baklunish MAD show, and before the Oeridian migrations. But, hey, that just means I can make it up.

 

[chatdemon]

EDIT: Doh!!! I missed the bit which said you want opionions from people who start from 3e. sorry. I'll ask my players who are starting with 3e;

No problem. I'm actually looking for opinions on why anyone does or doesn't play GH. I just wanted to avoid the setting comparison debates, and I'm curious why the setting didn't seem to catch on with a lot of newcomers, despite being the core setting.

 

[Guilt Puppy]

Started playing D&D without much concept of a "campaign world" (at least, in the published sense)... First time I played in a campaign which had a larger coherent world behind it (second campaign I played in), though, it was Greyhawk.

Personally, I have a general ick response to Greyhawk Greyhawk -- it just seems too much the product of older modules piled onto each other, with vanilla flavoring added. It has this really complicated, insanely detailed history attached to it, but that history really isn't that interesting to me.

However, I like certain elements of Greyhawk, mainly because they're conveniently ubiquitous... The pantheon, for one, and the planar cosmology (although I can't say I'd want to have either one in every, or even most of my campaigns)... But I always twist them to fit into my own worlds. (Really, I can't see using published campaign worlds in general -- there's too much detail in there to really improvise, but still not enough detail that you won't need to improvise. To run a world probably, you have to have a really good feel for it -- something which I just can't get for ready-made worlds.)

That said, if I had to pick a campaign world, I'd put Greyhawk tops. I have a private loathing for the Forgotten Realms (no offense to people who play and enjoy the Realms -- it just doesn't fit my style of gaming or DMing at all), and I really don't know enough about the other settings out there to pass judgment (although from the blurbs I've read, they all seem too highly specialized and gimmicky to remain interesting for long).

With beginning players, I'd definitely stick with Greyhawk... It's vanilla fantasy, which makes it easier to understand, and it's tied in with all the info in the core books (which makes learning the game easier, because you don't have to learn the intricacies of whole new worlds.)

 

[johnsemlak]

No problem. I'm actually looking for opinions on why anyone does or doesn't play GH. I just wanted to avoid the setting comparison debates, and I'm curious why the setting didn't seem to catch on with a lot of newcomers, despite being the core setting.

OK, here's my two cents then, from someone who started with the 83 box set.

I have just restarted my D&D career after 10 years completely out, am planning to use Greyhawk in the campaign I run, with the 83 box set (ESD, I don't have the original) and the LGG.

I do surf Canonfire and the Codex site occasionally.

I don't do the Living Greyhawk campaign.

I plan to adapt to my group's taste by adding a Russian-flavor kingdom somewhere, probably hedged in near the Wolf and Tiger Nomads. (If anyone has a better idea let me know).

I like WoG because of (in addition to reasons stated in the 'what makes Greyhawk great' page at canonfire):

- the intriguing history, espeically the seul wars and the cataclisms.

-the classic modules, especiially GDQ and WG4.

-cool artifacts in the 1e DMG, intertwined with WoG

-the cool pantheon, especially the evil deities like Tharizdun and EEG

-the fact that AD&D was more or less intertwined with WoG, at least in my experience.


Things I would like to see for WoG in the future:

More WoG products (!!!)
More development of Oerth beyond the Flanness
3E versions of some more classic modules, like GDQ and WG4
More regions (not necessarily in the Flanaess) with a 'flavor', historical flavors in particular (Oriental, Russian, African, etc)

My two kopeks.