When did you start using Greyhawk?

[Angel Tarragon]

1992 with the 1st Edition Box set.

 

[jokamachi]

Ha ha ha.

Your poll proves this: Most of the people who love Greyhawk fell in love with it when it was not treated like a piece of on a shoe by its publisher.

AT BEST Greyhawk has been treated with benign neglect since the departure of Gygax, so the "fact" that fewer people fell in love with it in the era of "Puppets" and "Childsplay" or in the modern era when there have been three Greyhawk products for the entire edition should hardly be surprising.

Kids don't like it, of course.

Except that most of the respondents fell in love with Greyhawk when they _were_ kids.

--Erik

LOL

Erik nailed it.

 

[Thanael]

Hmmm... So far the numbers seem to support my theory: Greyhawk seems to be mostly popular with gamers who started using it a long time ago.

And that's not encouraging for those who wish to see it released anew as one of WotC's flagship setting on par with the Forgotten Realms or Eberron - after all, if a setting cannot attract many new customers, it is unlikely to sell well enough to justify the expense. At least for a publisher on the scale of WotC, that is...

I started playing D&D in 2E times and dug into Greyhawk when I learned that there was indeed a setting that all those named spells and items originate from or the story of Vecna in the 2E DMG. And it had a rich history. I researched back into 1E and started collecting. So it's not nostalgia in my case as I never played 1E. Greyhawk is simply greyt. As Erik said in KQ, I too love that it's hardwired into the rules. I think it is really bad that 3E didn't want to explore/support that.

 

[Thanael]

Ha ha ha.

Your poll proves this: Most of the people who love Greyhawk fell in love with it when it was not treated like a piece of on a shoe by its publisher.

AT BEST Greyhawk has been treated with benign neglect since the departure of Gygax, so the "fact" that fewer people fell in love with it in the era of "Puppets" and "Childsplay" or in the modern era when there have been three Greyhawk products for the entire edition should hardly be surprising.

Kids don't like it, of course.

Except that most of the respondents fell in love with Greyhawk when they _were_ kids.

--Erik

And yet i got into GH shortly after that time. I know Childsplay and Puppets were still on the shelves in my FLGS. But so was From the Ashes. And then I found Greytalk.

 

[meomwt]

Except that most of the respondents fell in love with Greyhawk when they _were_ kids.

--Erik

I shied away from D&D when I was a kid. No one I knew was into RPG's and I ususally played T&T solos.

It was only when I found a regular gaming group in the 90's, had played D&D (and enjoyed it) and was looking for a setting that I 'discovered' Greyhawk.

And I'm keeping it.

PS Thanks to Erik for keeping the flame burning with all the GH stuff in Dungeon recently - not to mention a certain book which has just come out...

 

[Boregar]

Reading through this thread, I can't see anyone else who has responded who started running Greyhawk at the same time as I did, which was with Roger Moore's Return of The Eight, and then the products that followed it, at the tale end of 2nd edition. My first Greyhawk campaign was actually based on the Silver Aniversary Against The Giants book, and was converted over from 2nd to 3rd edition.

However, since then I've tried to track down older material and fill in the gaps, and I dearly hope that the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer (good though it is), isn't the last overview of Oerth that we see.

 

[The Lost Muse]

I purchased the living greyhawk book, but there wasn't enough interest to run a game.

 

[gizmo33]

Your poll proves this: Most of the people who love Greyhawk fell in love with it when it was not treated like a piece of on a shoe by its publisher.

IMO Greyhawk is great because it's a legend. And like King Arthur and other legends, I don't really know much about it and so as a kid my imagination filled in the details with some vague imagery that seemed more fantastic. I'm not sure it would have ever made it any better to be more developed. Kids who started playing DnD when there were such things as detailed campaign worlds (like Forgotten Realms) were probably just not in the right place at the right time to really appreciate Greyhawk in the way that us kids saw it. Of course around 1983 I was told that a "Castle Greyhawk" supplement would be forthcoming. I can't wait.

 

[Crossroads]

Got the Folio in 1980 (81 maybe?) for Christmas.

So I was 17 or 18. I guess that qualifies as a kid -

So far it's been mostly homebrew or Greyhawk. But the settings I designed were heavily influenced by Greyhawk.

I have FR materials (grey box set and the 3E hardcover) and tried to run a campaign in it but the players "knew" way more material than I did.

As far as publishing broad sweeping Greyhawk campaign related materials please DON'T. I'd rather see a product that expands on the rich history of the world and describes motives for the movers and shakers.

The appeal for me in the beginning were the modules based in Greyhawk that left it up to the DM to fill in the details.

I say support Greyhawk by producing modules that are consistent with the setting (ala Paizo in the now defunct Dungeon and Dragon ) and leave open the Oerth shaking events to the DM.

 

[GVDammerung]

On the other hand, what themes distinguish Greyhawk strongly enough from the Forgotten Realms that would justify supporting the setting as a full-fledged line without cutting into FR sales?

If WotC supports multiple settings, they need to be strongly different from each other to be profitable. Eberron is clearly distinguishable in its themes from the Forgotten Realms. But is Greyhawk?

Allowing that both GH and FR are "medieval fantasy," there are two principle distinctions - one approach based and one thematic.

With respect to approach, GH is a toolbox setting that requires the DM to help assemble the final campaign look and feel. FR is much more preassembled for you out of the box. This is not a criticism of FR, btw. FR is "easier" to run because so much of the detail work is done for you. GH gives you a framework but expects you as DM to put the work in to make the setting go. GH is then a "harder" setting to use.

While there might be a tendency to see the "easier," "more ready out of the box" FR as the superior approach, Wotc's own research indicates that the majority of D&D is played in homebrews - in other words, in settings where the DM did the work. The prevalence of homebrews suggests that there is a place for a setting that provides a framework but which also intends the DM to then, essentially homebrew within that framework. Herein is the first distinction of note between FR and GH that could distinguish the two in the marketplace. GH occupies a middle ground between "you do everything" homebrews and "we do most of it for you" preassembled and heavily detailed settings, like FR. Of course, GH support products would have to provide further framework and not detail of the FR model.

With respect to theme, GH is all about balance between good and evil and between law and chaos. FR is about the triumph of the good over the evil. FR is simplier or bolder in its themes (please note this is not saying FR is a simple setting as the exploration of the theme of good over evil can be quite complex). Greyhawk is more complicated and shaded in its themes (please note this is a general observation not an absolute one as From the Ashes was pretty much good vs evil and rather more simple than classic Greyhawk). Both of these statements are necessarily generalities and as such admit of exceptions but, I think, will hold generally true all the same.

FR is, again, easier to describe as its themes are simplier. It is also easier to design for, for the same reasons. Again, this is not a criticism of FR. If anything it is a criticism of GH because GH has had difficulty articulating how it is different from FR for a great many people. On casual observation it is easy to describe the Realms but not so easily Greyhawk, which many people then describe as "generic." Of course, no effort from Wotc having been made to make Greyhawk's case only compounds matters.

Beyond these two broad categories of difference - that of approach and that of broad theme - there are any number of specific differences with the ambit of the "medieval fantasy" definition, more than can be definitively and simply cataloged. Herein, one might look at the role of the gods within the setting, one might look at the role of the iconic NPCS of each setting within the respective settings, one might look at the structure of the nations and city states of each settings etc. Suffice to say significant differences exist but that no effort has been made by Wotc to draw out those differences.

Finally, there is the matter of the respective muse of each of the settings' creators that continues to resonate in each setting. EGG had a clear interest in actual history and historic cultures and this interest animates Greyhawk. Ed Greenwood, whatever his interest in actual history, displays in the Realms a greater penchant for classic fantasy tropes. GH then has more of an air of the (pseudo-) historic to it, whereas FR is the more purely fantastic.

Edit - Oh. By the way - Folio.