D&D 5E (2014) Which Greyhawk?

[Azzy]

Personally, I'd also like the art direction to be different for Greyhawk than what's been used for FR and the core books. I'd like a more "historical realism" in regards to clothes, arms, and armor depicted and an overall grittier, dirtier tone to differentiate from the high fantasy of the Realms or dungeon-punk of 3e.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Ask and ye shall receive.

Nitescreed's (in)famous treatise Grey in the Hawk

The post at the link says 1998, but IIRC it was originally posted a few years before this..around the time of FTA's release.

Really, now, come on. I've been following the recent spate of Greyhawk chat with interest - not least because I regard Greyhawk as a dull setting only popular thanks to Gygax's influence, and I wanted to see whether anything would dissuade me of that notion. This article puts me off the setting even more though, since it instantly manages to capture the very worst of grognardia:

1st - Greyhawk is, or should be, a setting for experienced gamers. This is by default as it has been around so long and because gaming has also matured. There are plenty of other settings available for the kids.

In a word, get frelled.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I'd just like a decent player's guide that is actually good at introducing the setting, its people, history, and gods to new players without bogging them down with encyclopedic minutia and unnecessary (to the new player) information. Provide things like what people of one nation think of each surrounding nation, general stereotypes, styles of dress, common arms and armor, etc. Stuff that characters would know, and players can use to give their characters life.

Isn't that the LGG?

Really, now, come on. I've been following the recent spate of Greyhawk chat with interest - not least because I regard Greyhawk as a dull setting only popular thanks to Gygax's influence, and I wanted to see whether anything would dissuade me of that notion. This article puts me off the setting even more though, since it instantly manages to capture the very worst of grognardia:

Pretty sure the poster was posting it in jest. Greyhawk is a very rich setting that has enough room for a DM to breath without overwhelming them. FR is different in that every little tiny detail has been covered, ten times over. If you like having a hundred times the amount of material you need to run a campaign, then FR is for you. But if you like to be inspired by a rich backdrop, then Greyhawk is a good option.

 

[Azzy]

Isn't that the LGG?

Nah, LGG is pretty bogged down in encyclopedic minutia and really more of a DM's guide than anything.

 

[JeffB]

Really, now, come on. I've been following the recent spate of Greyhawk chat with interest - not least because I regard Greyhawk as a dull setting only popular thanks to Gygax's influence, and I wanted to see whether anything would dissuade me of that notion. This article puts me off the setting even more though, since it instantly manages to capture the very worst of grognardia:

1st - Greyhawk is, or should be, a setting for experienced gamers. This is by default as it has been around so long and because gaming has also matured. There are plenty of other settings available for the kids.

In a word, get frelled.

You have to put it into 1993-ish context.

And say what you will but Moore, Stevens, Mona (Iquander), etc pretty much followed Nitescreed's "fixes" verbatim with the reboot of 1998 and expanded upon it for the LGG.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Nah, LGG is pretty bogged down in encyclopedic minutia and really more of a DM's guide than anything.

I really have to disagree. I find it light reading and a great player introduction to GH. It concisely presented GH in an easily digestible fashion. That it was a soft-cover and only had b&w images may have given it the impression of being dry and boring, but I think that only added to the old school feel of it.

And say what you will but Moore, Stevens, Mona (Iquander), etc pretty much followed Nitescreed's "fixes" verbatim with the reboot of 1998 and expanded upon it for the LGG.

Wait, what? I'd really like to see Holian and Mona comment on that...

 

[JeffB]

Wait, what? I'd really like to see Holian and Mona comment on that...

If you know FTA, read Nitescreed's "plot" fixes towards the end, then read TAB, its all readily apparent. TAB was mostly Roger's work. Erik Mona ("Iquander", from the old mailing lists) knows Nitescreed's post very well. We have discussed it here many many moons ago long before Pathfinder and probably was before Paizo, too.

 

[MerricB]

I'm not a fan of Nitescreed's article; much of it is based on things that were never really part of Greyhawk, or are just good (or bad) advice for games in general. The only part of it that actually says "Greyhawk" is the line about Militant Neutrality, and that's derived solely from Gary Gygax's Gord novels. Try and discover where it exists in any Gygaxian-era Greyhawk product...

I am hoping that Greyhawk will appear on the DMs Guild sooner rather than later, and thus choosing an era in which to write products becomes quite important. I suspect I'll end up defaulting to the 576 CY datepoint, as I have the least interference with later events that I disike... (not all of the events, just some of them!)

I do know that Mike Mearls has spoken of a possibility of - if there was a Greyhawk supplement - of just doing it set in 576...

Cheers!

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I do know that Mike Mearls has spoken of a possibility of - if there was a Greyhawk supplement - of just doing it set in 576...

So no Sargent

 

[MerricB]

So no Sargent

Doesn't mean that Wizards *wouldn't* do a later release; just that Mike's own preference is for the original era.

That said, it's really important to note that there'll be nothing stopping you from writing supplements for the later eras; they won't have disappeared.