What didn't people like about Greyhawk From the Ashes?

[Christian]

the Greyhack Wars and the lead up to them and following didn't make me very happy with T$R.

Wow. And diaglo's usually so comfortable with change ...

 

[Thulcondar]

There are several different points here (great response, btw), and I will address them separately...

This post kept nagging at me.
The argument, summarized, is that DMs who use the setting now have too much information and have to either ignore it or their campaigns because "lazy DMs" can't make stuff up.

But if the DM is not lazy then why is he using a published campaign setting instead of a homebrew, even thought "up on the fly as needed"?

That's a fine objection. I will respond by saying that:

a) I have indeed done many a home-brew campaign (one or two entirely on the fly), and
b) There is a difference in using a cohesive framework for a campaign and a campaign wherein every jot and tittle is given in exhausing detail. Such a setting gives a feel. A texture. It allows for a certain amount of shared culture (among those who share the setting), without requiring that each and every detail be replicated ad nauseum amongst the participants. It's one thing to have Beory and Verbobonc in common; it's entirely another to have the complete details of every village between Dorakka and the Nyr Dyv common across every campaign...

(I would point out that the same problem arises for the Judge's Guild campaign material; much to the chagrin of those who might claim it is mere nostalgia that drives my ideas, I find the same shortcomings with the Wilderlands of High Fantasy that I do with the Realms, Harn, and later Greyhawk. Too much detail. Where can I put my dungeon without wrecking the whole scheme?

The main problem is if the setting has few details there is NO choice. You have to make stuff up. So if you are a "lazy DM" (read: rushed, distracted, etc) even though you're paying for the world you still need to invest a large amount of creative energy and time into background. But if the world is detailed (or has sections of detail in-between the blank patches) you can choose to use as much or as little as you want.

Well fine, then choose the setting that provides a lot of detail. Choose FR over GH. But don't change the nature of Greyhawk just to suit the needs of those who need more hand-holding.

And, as someone who has made his share of homebrews, in addition to reading published settings, I know there's also an brainstorming effect. Other writers will ALWAYS think of ideas that would never, ever have occurred to you. These ideas are not always good but can start you thinking in different directions.

Reading through this thread, as a relative newcomer to Greyhawk and the argument, much of the dislike seems to boil down to change=bad.

Most of the posters here who hate GW and FtA seem to be old school players (often retired from D&D:\ ). The two updates seem to be receiving the condensed, concentrated vitriol of the setting's change, the change of what people want in a published world, a change in the game and industry, etc. There's probably some residual feelings of the edition changes (OD&D to 1st AD&D to 2nd AD&D) mixed in there as well, further tainting memories and opinions.

Meanwhile, most of the people who have admitting to like one or both of the accessories, were newcomers to the setting.

Actually I played 2nd Edition for years and years, and in a FtA-era setting, too. (I was actually kinda a fan of kits, and had kits for each class worked out for most nations of the Flanaess). But when it comes down to it, I made a conscious decision to revert to AD&D 1E, and to launch campaigns in the era of the original folio and boxed set. I might use certain elements of Wars/FtA as background (Turrosh Mak, the machinations of the Scarlet Brotherhood, etc.). But it's not history just yet.

And I'm *this close* to going back to OD&D. The only thing holding me back is that my players don't have the boxed sets... (And AD&D is so close to the boxed set and the supplements that it's hardly worth the bother.)

 

[grodog]

Sorry, I should have clarified. Those weren't the excerpts I was talking about (though they do deserve mention). I meant a series of Campaign Journal articles where he described rumors, events, etc taking place in Greyhawk post-FtA. I'm not sure if Campaign Journal was the right name or not, but it was something like that.

Aha, thanks for the reminder on those, Cthulhudrew---those two Campaign Journals appeared prior to the Ivid excrepts, in Dragons 191 (March 1993) and 195 (July 1993), and they do in fact introduce the new setting. I'll have to go check them out, haven't read those in ages

 

[grodog]

Heck, Gygax's own simple introduction to T1 The Village of Hommlet provided more brilliant campaign background than the entire folio.

Can't argue with that: T1 is a masterpiece that can launch years of game play, without ever using T1-4. I think it was designed as such, since it has more story hooks per square inch than many novels; the folio, on the other hand, wasn't about introducing a specific campaign plot, IMO, but rather a setting framework within which you could build many campaigns. That said, Greyhawk best-known for the modules that originally developed it, modularly, and that openness obviously doesn't appeal to all potential buyers....

 

[grodog]

The first problem is economics. For Greyhawk material to get produced on a regular basis it needs to sell enough copies to justify the expense and manpower being put into it rather then it being used in a Realms or Eberron product. To sell the needed volume Greyhawk products need to be broad enough to be attractive to non-Greyhawkers but there aren't enough Greyhawkers to support the line on their own.

Ah, but per Lisa Stevens @ http://paizo.com/dragon/messageboards/compendium/aoWHCAndDragonCompendiumII that's a myth:

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

 

[grodog]

If anyone else had problems opening them, I'll see about redoing the file and/or uploading them in a different format. I could just put the individual text files online, I guess....

Downloading them now, will let you know, Nell....

 

[haakon1]

Economics

Nod, that's why I buy everything that's Greyhawk, and I never buy anything that's labelled Forgotten Realms or Eberron . . . which pretty much leaves me buying DCC's and Dungeon, that's about it.

 

[S'mon]

(I would point out that the same problem arises for the Judge's Guild campaign material; much to the chagrin of those who might claim it is mere nostalgia that drives my ideas, I find the same shortcomings with the Wilderlands of High Fantasy that I do with the Realms, Harn, and later Greyhawk. Too much detail. Where can I put my dungeon without wrecking the whole scheme?

That seems weird - 90% of the Wilderlands is howling wilderness, it's designed so that interconnections are pretty limited and you can stick your dungeon pretty much anywhere! It works even better if you expand the scale to Bledsaw's original 15 m/hex.

Greyhawk is more likely to face problems here because it's a generally late-medieval type setting with powerful nation states, unlike Wilderlands' scattered city-states. Wilderlands is more 8th century BC than 15th century AD.

 

[GSHamster]

This post kept nagging at me.
The argument, summarized, is that DMs who use the setting now have too much information and have to either ignore it or their campaigns because "lazy DMs" can't make stuff up.

But if the DM is not lazy then why is he using a published campaign setting instead of a homebrew, even thought "up on the fly as needed"?

For a lot of people, restrictions breed creativity. If you have a completely blank canvas, there are just so many possibilities that you freeze up and can't do anything.

However, if you have some restrictions, it gives you direction and you can be creative.

Of course, it's possible to have too many restrictions, and the restrictions interfere with your creativity, which is what some people feel happens in Forgotten Realms.

(for some people)

Homebrew = blank slate; too much freedom
Greyhawk = correct balance of restrictions and freedom
Forgotten Realms = too many restrictions

Hope that made sense. Of course, this doesn't apply to everyone.

 

[rounser]

Homebrew = blank slate; too much freedom
Greyhawk = correct balance of restrictions and freedom
Forgotten Realms = too many restrictions

Have the GH enthusiasts here had a look at Thunder Rift? It's a lot smaller (and therefore much easier to develop and keep tabs on), and a lot more "generic D&D" than even GH, Mystara et al. It's also very easy for players to get a grasp of, with only two towns, one city, a castle and a dwarven hold for the population centres. If you want a map with some names and a D&D-game-supporting history, that's it right there.

Just a thought; carry on.