What is so special about Greyhawk?

[M.L. Martin]

I think Nitescreed defined the nuts & bolts of the setting best

By essentially arguing:

1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
3) Therefore, Greyhawk is good.

?

There may be some good stuff in that article on what makes Greyhawk distinctive--I'm not familiar enough with it to say (and before anyone assumes biases, I'm not a Realms fan either)--but it's hard to make it through the sneering contempt for those who dare to prefer a badwrongfun setting.

 

[JeffB]

By essentially arguing:

1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
3) Therefore, Greyhawk is good.

?

There may be some good stuff in that article on what makes Greyhawk distinctive--I'm not familiar enough with it to say (and before anyone assumes biases, I'm not a Realms fan either)--but it's hard to make it through the sneering contempt for those who dare to prefer a badwrongfun setting.

Looking at it fresh today, I can see how some may interpret it that way, however I think you need to take into context WHEN & WHY this was written (and why I made sure to C&P the date of his initial post). You had a crew at TSR trying to "realmsify" GH, and certainly had "mistreated" the setting since Gary's departure.. He was clearly pointing out the differences between the approach of the two settings (in order to provide example of the "realmsifying of GH").

i.e. Its not that the Realms are bad per-se, but taking these very realms ideas/themes and shoehorning them into GH is a bad thing.

FWIW- I AM a Realms fan (as a campaign setting), and I agreed with and understood him perfectly when I first read it, as well as now.

 

[Nymrohd]

By essentially arguing:

1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
3) Therefore, Greyhawk is good.

?

There may be some good stuff in that article on what makes Greyhawk distinctive--I'm not familiar enough with it to say (and before anyone assumes biases, I'm not a Realms fan either)--but it's hard to make it through the sneering contempt for those who dare to prefer a badwrongfun setting.

If the only way you can describe something is by pointing how it is different from something else, then that something else probably of greater importance. This line of argumentation does a great disservice to Greyhawk, hardly describes the setting and just tries to bash the Realms with every single cliche people have been hurling at them for a decade.

 

[alleynbard]

By essentially arguing:

1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
3) Therefore, Greyhawk is good.

?

There may be some good stuff in that article on what makes Greyhawk distinctive--I'm not familiar enough with it to say (and before anyone assumes biases, I'm not a Realms fan either)--but it's hard to make it through the sneering contempt for those who dare to prefer a badwrongfun setting.

I can see what you are saying, though I never read it that way before.

I was always interested in the Realms so I didn't see it as sneering contempt.

But, re-reading it with that in mind, I see exactly what you are saying.

Perhaps I self edited out the stuff that I thought was insulting and just forgot how prevalent it was.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Looking at it fresh today, I can see how some may interpret it that way, however I think you need to take into context WHEN & WHY this was written (and why I made sure to C&P the date of his initial post). You had a crew at TSR trying to "realmsify" GH, and certainly had "mistreated" the setting since Gary's departure.. He was clearly pointing out the differences between the approach of the two settings (in order to provide example of the "realmsifying of GH").

i.e. Its not that the Realms are bad per-se, but taking these very realms ideas/themes and shoehorning them into GH is a bad thing.

Hmm...in 1996, Greyhawk had been two years on hiatus, and as I understand it, the last push of the setting had been almost anti-Realmsian by making it a much darker and grimmer place. I could be wrong on this point, but my opinion on the article (an opinion which is not quite as old as the article, but I did read it back in the AOL Greyhawk forum days) stands.

 

[Dice4Hire]

By essentially arguing:

1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
3) Therefore, Greyhawk is good.

?
QUOTE]

Note the argument style. It says:

Greyhawk is this. (X)
Explaination of what that means
Forgotten Realms is that. (Y)
More info on why Greyhawk is this (X) vbased on comments in the FR section)

The above quote is really not very accurate.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Re: OP

Its historical significance. Also, I think the 1983 boxed set is the Chateau Lafite of campaign settings.

I've revisited many times for ideas, and continue to do so. It set the original metric in campaign design.

 

[Dykstrav]

To me, Greyhawk's appeal is that it's far more sword-and-sorcery than high fantasy. Sure, there's alot of high fantasy elements (multiple sentient races, a cosmic struggle between good and evil, and so forth), but it's more about ancient curses, battling mighty demons and the gods themselves, artifacts of world-shattering power, and thwarting the ambitions of gods and demons through sheer grit and determination. It's far more Robert E. Howard or than J.R.R. Tolkien. If you like that sort of thing, it's a great setting for it.

For many players, it's sheer nostalgia, or if you prefer, emotional investment. I can count the number of FR campaigns I've played. I can count the number of Eberron campaigns I've played. I wouldn't even try to guess the number of Greyhawk games I've got under my belt.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think Nitescreed defined the nuts & bolts of the setting best

I agree with all of the cited reasoning save for Number 6, which I don't believe is native to Greyhawk as a written product line or a setting but, rather, confined to specific content penned by certain authors and adventures run by certain DMs.

On a more personal note, I like Greyhawk out of the original folio better than any other D&D setting because it is very broad in scope but simultaneously shallow in depth, allowing me (as a DM) to fill in the details as I see fit and make Greyhawk my own.

FWIW, I also like the FR 'grey box' quite a bit (in fact, it and Ravenloft 2e are really the only other official D&D settings that I have any interest in).

 

[Riley]

The one thing that I haven't seen noted above is that (with the exception of the Sargeant (sp?) material from the 2e era) Greyhawk has pretty much been defined by published adventures, rather than by setting books:

The Village of Hommlet / The Temple of Elemental Evil
White Plume Mountain
Against The Giants
the Slavers quadrilogy
The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh
The Tomb of Horrors

More recently, Dungeon Magazine's Age of Worms, Shackled City, and Savage Tide Adventure Paths brought more life to the setting than anything else since its glory days.

I think it is this adventure-defined character of the world which makes Greyhawk all those other things: a place where the adventurers are the heroes, where danger lurks, and where powerful good NPC's are pretty darned rare.

Otherwise, Greyhawk is pretty much an extension of the core rules of 1st to 3rd edition D&D. Only 4th edition has added core 'fluff' that really looked beyond the World of Greyhawk.