What would you like to see expanded/updated for Greyhawk?

[dead]

Greyhawk vs. FR Bloodfeud

I bought the '83 Greyhawk boxed set.

I also bought the '87 FR boxed set (the "grey box").

I have fond memories of both settings. Each gave me warm, tingly feelings when I bought 'em.

Sure, FR got a lot of GH stuff imported into it, but this was really just the *generic* D&D stuff. I still liked 1E FR a lot.

I've played in a GH campaign for 15+ years. It'd be nice to see the Greyhawk City supp. re-released and a revised version of Greyhawk Ruins. I know EGG's Castle Zagyg is coming out, but I've already placed the TSR version in my campaign.

 

[Erik Mona]

I like to see an epic series of modules. Something that starts in the City and expands and expalins the campaign world as needed. It could even stay in the City as far as I'm concerned. I want something that is a camapign (or mini-campaign) in itself.

Now that would be something.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon

 

[Wycen]

For example, if you read return to the tomb of horrors, gary gygax wrote the intro and said how much he liked the setting! The original master of greyhawk loves sean's work or at least that piece. Didnt he do Slavers or was that someone else? That was also a good piece of work by someone who knew the settiing but wanted to build on it.

Bruce Cordell wrote Return to the Tomb of Horrors.

SKR I believe did write Slavers or maybe not. He did write Scarlett Brotherhood though.

 

[MaxKaladin]

One the one hand, Ive been playing in Greyhawk since the 1983 boxed set and darlene maps so I have a lot of history (course grodog is THE oracle). On the other, hearing that previous gentleman talk about how much he disrespects sean reynolds is silly (rose estes ok I'll give you that).

I also started with the 1983 boxed set. I loved that material. I also loved the 1987 FR boxed set. The thing here is that there is a difference between dislike and disrespect. There is nothing to say you cannot disrespect someone you do not like, but one should be aware disrespect is going to look a lot more spiteful, petty and, yes, silly than disliking someone or their work. I'm not passing judgement on the validity of anyones feelings or dismissing any complaints. I'm just trying to make people aware of how the way some fans act reflects on the fan community.

 

[grodog]

I agree with this gentleman a bit. One the one hand, Ive been playing in Greyhawk since the 1983 boxed set and darlene maps so I have a lot of history (course grodog is THE oracle).

LOL. Thanks for the compliment trollwad, but there are plenty of GH fans out there who know plenty more about the setting than I do, especially the 2e era (which I missed completely and have been playing catch-up on ever since).

 

[grodog]

Now that would be something.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon

What'cha got up your sleeve Erik?

 

[Olive]

What'cha got up your sleeve Erik?

Somethign in Dungeon perhaps?

 

[MerricB]

I just enjoy how much my own campaign deviates from core Greyhawk material... but can still incorporate much of it, changed to my needs.

So, I'm running a campaign in the Great Kingdom, circa 588 C.Y... only the Greyhawk Wars didn't cause the break up of the Great Kingdom. However, the material from the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer is still really useful and is informing my game. Oh, and I've run a Ravenloft module set in the Great Kingdom - much creepier that way.

So, I'm having fun and so are my players.

Cheers!

 

[JacktheRabbit]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

No more stats for deities ever! Please, WotC, all future books involving deities should only contain useful information with respect to deities.

[\QUOTE]

Please please please stop the whining about Diety stats. If you don't like them, ignore them. Leave the rest of us alone.

You might as well be complaining about Diet Coke. If you don't like it don't drink it.

As for me, Stat all the gods!

We can complain all we want because every time WOTC wastes time stating a Deity we lose a page that could tell us something useful about the Deity.

 

[Olive]

We can complain all we want because every time WOTC wastes time stating a Deity we lose a page that could tell us something useful about the Deity.

I'm in two minds about this, because I can certainly see the need for deity stats in particular kinds of games, even low powered ones, depending on what the relationship between gods and mortals is.

In GH, it makes sense to have them:
a) a main campaign enemy is a god on earth who the PCs may interact with in a whole variety of ways.
b) a main campaign event is the binding of a varity of demigods by a mortal (who ascended later partly as a result of this I think) in a prision.
c) the large number of references to ascended mortals means that it's very possible to become one, and that means that DMs should know how to stat gods if the event arrises that a PC or major NPC does so.

That said, in my homebrew, interaction with the gods isn't a every day occurance, so I haven't needed to use gods yet.

But, all this beign said, does this mean that what people want is all or nothing in particular? There's been lots of calls for a GHCS, but very few details on what people would like to see Erik etc cover in the paizo mags.