Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Luz" data-source="post: 7084803" data-attributes="member: 94725">My knowledge of Mystara is pretty limited, but it has always struck me as more monarchy/nobility focused than GH or the FR. I do think GH's identity, while somewhat muddled over the decades, still separates itself significantly from FR. While both include many of the same fantasy tropes (magic, elves, dwarves, gods, etc.), Greyhawk has a more bleak geographical and political landscape than FR. Good and evil have battered each other to a standstill, evil with the slight upper hand. So the world has a more dark, oppressive tone compared to FR's brighter, good-shall-prevail outlook. Of course, FR has its share of gloominess, just as GH has its beacons of hope and light, but the overall grim atmosphere of Greyhawk is what distinguishes it from FR. &nbsp;I agree with most of this, but I don't think that's to Greyhawk's detriment. Its pulp fantasy-era roots define it as a setting and it isn't any more dated than reading Howard or Leiber or Moorcock today, and certainly no more (or less) dated than an 80s/90s vision of the FR. Both have very different but equally valid approaches on the fantasy genre. &nbsp;Only once 4th edition was released in 2008, but until that point Greyhawk was still very much a prominent presence to WotC and TSR before them. Sargent, Cook, and Moore all guided Greyhawk into the 3rd Edition era, where writers like Holian, Mona and Jacobs then carried the torch. That's a pretty respectable roster. Sure, some of the changes these authors brought created strife among GH fans, just as changes like the Spellplague was divisive for FR fans. Changes to the campaign setting are as inevitable as the schisms it creates, but that isn't something wholly exclusive to Greyhawk.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Luz, post: 7084803, member: 94725"] My knowledge of Mystara is pretty limited, but it has always struck me as more monarchy/nobility focused than GH or the FR. I do think GH's identity, while somewhat muddled over the decades, still separates itself significantly from FR. While both include many of the same fantasy tropes (magic, elves, dwarves, gods, etc.), Greyhawk has a more bleak geographical and political landscape than FR. Good and evil have battered each other to a standstill, evil with the slight upper hand. So the world has a more dark, oppressive tone compared to FR's brighter, good-shall-prevail outlook. Of course, FR has its share of gloominess, just as GH has its beacons of hope and light, but the overall grim atmosphere of Greyhawk is what distinguishes it from FR. I agree with most of this, but I don't think that's to Greyhawk's detriment. Its pulp fantasy-era roots define it as a setting and it isn't any more dated than reading Howard or Leiber or Moorcock today, and certainly no more (or less) dated than an 80s/90s vision of the FR. Both have very different but equally valid approaches on the fantasy genre. Only once 4th edition was released in 2008, but until that point Greyhawk was still very much a prominent presence to WotC and TSR before them. Sargent, Cook, and Moore all guided Greyhawk into the 3rd Edition era, where writers like Holian, Mona and Jacobs then carried the torch. That's a pretty respectable roster. Sure, some of the changes these authors brought created strife among GH fans, just as changes like the Spellplague was divisive for FR fans. Changes to the campaign setting are as inevitable as the schisms it creates, but that isn't something wholly exclusive to Greyhawk. [/QUOTE]

Verification