What is Greyhawk?

[Retreater]

I entered the hobby in 1989, right at the start of AD&D 2nd edition. That's a long time in the hobby, but not long enough to have been there for the heyday of Greyhawk. I always considered Forgotten Realms the vanilla fantasy setting of D&D, whilst the other settings (Planescape, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc.) gave a fundamentally different play experience.
From what I've read, Greyhawk is just vanilla fantasy with a slightly different tone than Forgotten Realms. (And tone is easy enough to establish by the DM and the type of game he or she runs.) So my take is that Forgotten Realms has supplanted Greyhawk. I can't see GH as anything other than a superfluous, vestigial setting (with Blackmoor and Mystara).

 

[David Howery]

I entered the hobby in 1989, right at the start of AD&D 2nd edition.

with a late start like that... the rest of your opinion isn't surprising. By the time of 2E, WoG's best adventures had already been done, and what came after wasn't so great. Not to mention, TSR shifted drastically over to the FR in the process. But WoG is a bit different from FR not just in tone, but in level of detail... where the FR are vastly detailed, WoG isn't.... that's something that appeals to some DMs, not others.

 

[Enrico Poli1]

I entered the hobby in 1989, right at the start of AD&D 2nd edition. That's a long time in the hobby, but not long enough to have been there for the heyday of Greyhawk. I always considered Forgotten Realms the vanilla fantasy setting of D&D, whilst the other settings (Planescape, Eberron, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc.) gave a fundamentally different play experience.
From what I've read, Greyhawk is just vanilla fantasy with a slightly different tone than Forgotten Realms. (And tone is easy enough to establish by the DM and the type of game he or she runs.) So my take is that Forgotten Realms has supplanted Greyhawk. I can't see GH as anything other than a superfluous, vestigial setting (with Blackmoor and Mystara).

Forgotten Realms was chosen as the vanilla setting not because it's intrinsecally better then Greyhawk or Mystara, but for other reasons pertaining to the story of the hobby.
TSR moved from Greyhawk to the Forgotten Realms not because FR is Better but for only a reason: they had fired Gygax and they needed a new vanilla setting, not bound to him.
Some years before, after the legal fight between Gygax and Arneson, Mystara was the vanilla setting for the D&D game, which had to pay rights to Arneson, while in AD&D Gygax was free to develop Greyhawk.

The three settings have each a distinct atmosphere, they are not interchangeable.
In my personal opinion, Mystara is Better then Greyhawk, that is Better then Forgotten Realms. But in the end I love the Realms, too.

 

[DM Magic]

So, what does Greyhawk look like?

Lots and lots of tieflings and dragonborn. All over the place. Just, like, everywhere.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

Could be worse. I've been waiting for the inevitable, "ALL GNOMES! ALL PALADINS!"

No comment.

Its sword and sorcery, gritty, humanocentric and darker in tone than FR which is fluffy pancakes and teddy bears by comparison.

Greyhawk= Game of Thrones
FR= cartoon masters of the universe

In terms of tone.

 

[Gradine]

 

[Nebulous]

I posted a similar question earlier. I really don't understand the FR vs. GH hatred. They both seem like generic fantasy worlds to me, with the same monsters and the gods are reskinned and they both have cool sounding forests and moors and ruins. Is it the huge plethora of FR lore that people take offense to? Or the wildly overwrought magical nature of the Realms? I don't follow the canon at all, I use it as a vanilla base to run games and it work well for me. I could easily swap out Greyhawk for the same setting.

 

[David Howery]

I posted a similar question earlier. I really don't understand the FR vs. GH hatred. They both seem like generic fantasy worlds to me, with the same monsters and the gods are reskinned and they both have cool sounding forests and moors and ruins. Is it the huge plethora of FR lore that people take offense to? Or the wildly overwrought magical nature of the Realms? I don't follow the canon at all, I use it as a vanilla base to run games and it work well for me. I could easily swap out Greyhawk for the same setting.

I've DMd in both; I don't get the animosity either. FR is a highly detailed world, GH is not. If you have a lot of time, you can use either. If you don't, then FR might be better. I prefer GH, but I don't really hate any of the settings.
Except Dark Sun. That one just always irked me, for some reason....

 

[Sacrosanct]

I posted a similar question earlier. I really don't understand the FR vs. GH hatred. They both seem like generic fantasy worlds to me, with the same monsters and the gods are reskinned and they both have cool sounding forests and moors and ruins. Is it the huge plethora of FR lore that people take offense to? Or the wildly overwrought magical nature of the Realms? I don't follow the canon at all, I use it as a vanilla base to run games and it work well for me. I could easily swap out Greyhawk for the same setting.

Greyhawk, drow are bad guys, not PC races
Greyhawk, iconic enemies are dragons, and rot rubs, and otyugh, and Medusa, and type X demons, and vampires, and giants. Not every adventure is somehow tied to a beholder or mind flayer as the big bad guy.
Greyhawk, a creature like a Dragonborn or tiefling would be a monster.
Greyhawk, you neared retirement at name level as a power to be reckoned with, and could build your own strongholds. FR is full of super high level NPCs at every corner cafe, fighting primordials, and you’re barely noticeable at 9th level.
Greyhawk, I drop in my own adventures and flesh out my areas. FR is so famous I can’t do that without being called out by a player how it doesn’t fit lore
.