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: 3737674" data-attributes="member: 33060">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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification