Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4165338" data-attributes="member: 1054">We have very different definitions of &quot;Setting&quot;. The monsters are not &quot;greyhawk specific&quot; in 1e, because, at the time the MM was published, there was no &quot;Greyhawk&quot; -- not as a commercial setting anyone could reference. They were not made &quot;Greyhawk monsters&quot; until much later -- they were just *monsters*. Race relation tables are not setting, not when they come with no history, background, or details. Grey elves and drow? First, they came much later in the product's life (Unearthed Arcana), and second, again, there was no 'greyhawk' association -- they were just monsters anyone could use. The strong linking of them to a specific world came later. By this logic, dwarves and halflings were 'greyhawk races', because they were in Greyhawk!Artifacts you have a better claim on, but even that was sparse indeed. A few names, at most. No maps, no details, no histories...I'd challenge anyone to play in the &quot;World of Greyhawk&quot; based solely on the information in the Artifacts chapter.Claiming 1e is &quot;filled with greyhawk lore&quot; because the *game* *itself* evolved in Gary's campaign -- it WAS D&amp;D. To argue that beholders, mind flayers, or gelatinous cubes are &quot;setting&quot;, because Gary used them in his own game and then included them in the published game manuals raises &quot;disingenuous&quot; to a true art form.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4165338, member: 1054"] We have very different definitions of "Setting". The monsters are not "greyhawk specific" in 1e, because, at the time the MM was published, there was no "Greyhawk" -- not as a commercial setting anyone could reference. They were not made "Greyhawk monsters" until much later -- they were just *monsters*. Race relation tables are not setting, not when they come with no history, background, or details. Grey elves and drow? First, they came much later in the product's life (Unearthed Arcana), and second, again, there was no 'greyhawk' association -- they were just monsters anyone could use. The strong linking of them to a specific world came later. By this logic, dwarves and halflings were 'greyhawk races', because they were in Greyhawk! Artifacts you have a better claim on, but even that was sparse indeed. A few names, at most. No maps, no details, no histories...I'd challenge anyone to play in the "World of Greyhawk" based solely on the information in the Artifacts chapter. Claiming 1e is "filled with greyhawk lore" because the *game* *itself* evolved in Gary's campaign -- it WAS D&D. To argue that beholders, mind flayers, or gelatinous cubes are "setting", because Gary used them in his own game and then included them in the published game manuals raises "disingenuous" to a true art form. [/QUOTE]

Verification