What is Greyhawk?

[S'mon]

So ... I remember (back when they were published) reading Saga of the Old City. And it was .... fine. I mean, Gygax wasn't a great novelist, but I like it, at the time.

And Artifact (I think?) was next. I vaguely recall it being ... not as good. I almost didn't finish it.

And after that, I think I tried to read the next one after he left TSR. And I wanted it to be good. Because GORD! GYGAX! SEA OF DUST!

It was terrible. I couldn't finish it. I really tried.

Sea of Death I finished, though it has issues - but - Leda-Eclavdra was every teen's fantasy. . I also managed to get through world-trashing Dance of Demons, which was pretty bad in places, terrible "buy my new setting!" finale, but ok for adolescent reading. Years later Upper_Krust sent me the one before DoD - Come Endless Darkness - but I couldn't get through it.

On the bright side, IMO the Gord books are way better than his Egyptian detective books!

 

[S'mon]

The word that always comes to mind when I think of Greyhawk (and Blackmoor and City State of the Invincible Overlord, too) is "primordial." Not just in terms of the aura that hangs over the setting (the formative days of civilization, when lands are wide open and lawlessness abounds), but also the fact that these are the earliest settings for D&D. The players in the game are actually players in that formation, and though much is lawlessness, characters can play a big part in pockets of the world. I remember reading that City State is a Lawful Evil city, and that makes sense. The emphasis is on Law, not good or evil. Chaos rules the land, with vast empty places and enemies and creatures everywhere. The excitement (and practical need) for adventurers, is that there are plenty of places that need taming. Adventurers are in demand, dammit. You can see, then, that civilized areas have authoritarian rulers that provide safe, if corrupt, harbor. This is the Greyhawk that comes to mind, and if it is tackled again by WOTC, the aspect I hope they play up.

Although Greyhawk's corrupt rulers have mostly a listed Good Alignment - part of GH's swords & sorcery motif, Gygax always seemed to favour Neutrality/Balance over Good, which seems to be associated with organised religion and stifling conformity. Where Neutrality is freewheeling and Fun.

 

[S'mon]

For me, a key difference is In order for the DM to run a really effective campaign in FR, they need to be up to speed in FR lore, history, regions, cities, etc, while those aren't needed in Greyhawk, as the DM can easily just insert their own creations into the world and no one would miss a beat.

Well my players seem to enjoy my non-canon FR games - I just treat the Lore as a buffet to choose from. I set Red Hand of Doom in 1491 DR in its FR location just north of Halrua without changing any names (so still Brindol & the Elsir Vale); I set it in 5e era, use Dambrath and the half-drow Crinti, but kept Halrua spellplague-destroyed, got rid of the expansion of the Great Rift (something I hated in 4e - we have such rifts on a smaller scale IRL - they're called Seas!) and worked off the 3e era maps with 4e elements. Anything I don't want does not exist IMC. And the bad guys worship Takhisis from Dragonlance!

 

[Zardnaar]

3E FR maps look good, I still use the Paizo ones.
Think I just reset back to 1E or early 2E. Basically ignore current events.

 

[S'mon]

I didn't think any of the Gord books were good... but I liked the Sea one the best. Not because of the story, but because of the setting, the Forgotten City of the Suel Empire. I stole a lot of stuff from that one and used it in a doozy set of adventures involving the PCs getting there and back again...

I loved the derro as degenerate Suel; and the dust-travelling ship. And Leda (I was young).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

For me, a key difference is In order for the DM to run a really effective campaign in FR, they need to be up to speed in FR lore, history, regions, cities, etc, while those aren't needed in Greyhawk, as the DM can easily just insert their own creations into the world and no one would miss a beat.

I would say that, at least in my case, the opposite is true. I use FR because I know it lore very well. It means I can drop in random details and background without having to make them up on the spot and then try to remember them later. But it is my FR. I use the bits I like, and ignore or change the stuff I don't.

I'm planning on setting my new campaign in Eberron, but I am finding it hard work to bring myself up to speed on all the lore and names.

 

[S'mon]

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.

One thing FR has is noble Tolkieny Better Than You elves with an heroic past. Greyhawk's elves are more Midsummer Night's Dream fey, and a very minor part of the setting.

 

[S'mon]

Greyhawk, drow are bad guys, not PC races

Except Leda!

...And players with 1e Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

One thing FR has is noble Tolkieny Better Than You elves with an heroic past. Greyhawk's elves are more Midsummer Night's Dream fey, and a very minor part of the setting.

Does that really go back to original Greyhawk though? I have noticed a general trend in recent years away from Tolkien elves towards more Shakespearian elves and fey. The Feywild didn't used to be a thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Feywild was called something else. The old Faerie Queen Titiannia iirc.