Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 3739056" data-attributes="member: 33060">As a published setting and as specifically Greyhawk, not merely grabbing some names, I think Greyhawk is dead for at least 3 years.  And I think that is a very good thing because IMO Greyhawk can use a period to detox from being 1) the 3x default, 2) Paizoed (which is not the same as published as Greyhawk, though I laud the effort all the same), and 3) being RPGAed with Ether Threats and similar silliness.  Everybody needs a time out to catch their breath and think about what's been done to Greyhawk and where it might go from there.With respect to the D&D Insider, I have no doubt the Greyhawk "steal this name" game will continue for at least a little while.  However, a) the mere invocation of a Greyhawk name, even if fleshed out, is not Greyhawk published as such and b) electronic ephemera is just that - ephemeral.After a time, the question will be whether Greyhawk is better off resting in peace or revived.  If Greyhawk is better off revived, then in what form becomes the question.IMO, more of the same only different is a non-starter.  IMO, there are but two options -1) Restart the setting taking the best of what's been published but ignoring the rest, or2) Advancing the timeline by 100 + years so that it is the same as starting over with the best stuff and ignoring the rest.Both will sell if Wotc backs the release.  In case it has escaped notice, hordes will blindly follow where Wotc leads.  Getting Wotc to lead on GH will be the rub, which brings me back to maybe GH is better off if left in peace.The wild card, IMO, is a GH license to a 3rd party.  Possible, certainly.  Likely?  Not so far.  Perhaps, not enough zeroes have been put into the license fee; if not, I don't see that being fixable - so no license, IMO.  Still, one can daydream about the possibility.</blockquote>

Verification