D&D 5E Why Greyhawk is Loved

[Warpiglet]

Why do I love Greyhawk?

Because it is, to me, ur-D&D. It takes me back to a place and a time when I had the freedom to create endlessly. Greyhawk wasn't about lore; it was about hooks. What else was on Oerik? What was south of the Jungles? What was in the Sea of Dust?

There were little comments- a purported "City of Gods" in Blackmoor. The "terrible curse" in the Drachensgrab. It was a campaign setting that provided questions, and left it for the reader to imagine the answer.

I loved that thing. And the map ... oh, that map.

But it was also a philosophy. I can understand why people like the "good v. evil" type of thing. But I always loved the whole swords and sorcery, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, fantasy Indiana Jones vibe to Greyhawk. You weren't battling the forces of evil- you were adventuring!

Things being spelled out can at times ruin them. Exhibit A: I thought the Force was a lot cooler before we had machines looking at mitochondria or some such sh*t in people's cells.

I am perfectly happy hearing that an area is ruled by goblin kings. A few better known ones are x, y, z. You do not have to have every square mile populated. I like the mystery and freedom to create.

In a sense then FR is TMI for me. Greyhawk is more mysterious and more ripe for the adventuring.

 

[Ganymede81]

I like Greyhawk in a general sense because, while I started playing D&D in 1e, 3e incorporated the Greyhawk pantheon as the game's default pantheon. I ended up getting used to that default pantheon and now use it in all of my games.

My old Adventure League character has written in the Deity line "Whatever the Kord equivalent is in FR."

 

[Dragonhelm]

I'm coming to this thread as a Dragonlance fan first, but also a fan of all the D&D settings in one form or another. Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Mystara, and Dragonlance have been categorized as "generic fantasy," which in turn means that products from one setting may compete with products from another setting. Mike Mearls even recently said that he would personally love to produce Greyhawk, but WotC has to make certain that it stands on its own as a setting. Fans from each setting will say how their setting differs, but it isn't like the difference between (example) Greyawk and Dark Sun, or Greyhawk and Spelljammer.

When I think of Greyhawk, I think of old school D&D. This is great for a certain percentage of the crowd, but there's not really much there to get new players involved with the setting. Some of the races of the Player's Handbook, for example, don't seem to have a place yet, such as tieflings and dragonborn.

I do agree with the idea that Greyhawk is much more of a sandbox setting that doesn't have uber-powerful NPCs running around the place. That's to its benefit as well.

I wanted to address a few points from the original poster as well.

4. The classic D&D adventures are associated with Greyhawk. Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Greyhawk, Temple of Elemental Evil, Greyhawk, Vault of the Drow, Greyhawk, Tomb of Horrors, Greyhawk, Against the Giants, Greyhawk. Even the 3 APs in Dungeon in 3E- Shackled City, Savage Tide, Are of Worms all Greyhawk.

I once thought that Greyhawk could be the "setting of classic dungeons." However, Tales of the Yawning Portal is all about taking these classic adventures and putting them in other worlds, whether published or your own.

5. Classic D&D PHB names, Greyhawk- Bigby, Mordenkainen (AKA Gary's PC), Melf, Tenser, Nystal etc. From the DMG Vecna and Kas.

This is a definite draw for me. I remember getting the City of Greyhawk boxed set so I could learn about all these characters.

Personally, I think Greyhawk needs a few things to make it successful:

1. A new starting point. That could be a slight timeline advance, or it could be a reset a la Dark Sun.

2. It needs to be modernized. I know many old school fans may disagree with me on this. However, to keep Greyhawk alive, you have to have it be enticing to all D&D fans, old school and new. You need those new races, like tieflings and dragonborn. You need the newer classes, like warlocks.

3. WotC should feel free to explore the rest of the continent. There are more areas to explore.

4. Above all, Greyhawk needs to figure out what its identity is and what sets it apart from the Realms.

Anyway, that's my two steel.

 

[jasper]

Because Greyhawk has hooks and not much lore. You have permission to change the location of things.
G1 says in starts in foot hills Alabama you have permission to move to somewhere in the Rocky Mountains. The blank spaces lets the DM fill his world with his and his players world.

 

[Mercule]

Because it is, to me, ur-D&D. It takes me back to a place and a time when I had the freedom to create endlessly. Greyhawk wasn't about lore; it was about hooks. What else was on Oerik? What was south of the Jungles? What was in the Sea of Dust?

This, in spades.

Greyhawk is the setting equivalent of "Gygaxian prose". This came up on the FR thread, but Gary had a way of somehow creating inspiring hooks without any bloody detail.

I'm still utterly fascinated by the "Vale of the Mage" and I really don't know hardly anything about it other than: 1) It's a vale (and roughly where), 2) it has tall elves, and 3) there's a mage there. Yeah, I know there was an adventure set there, but I never picked it up -- in part because I wanted to play with the idea on my own.

 

[Mercule]

Personally, I think Greyhawk needs a few things to make it successful:

1. A new starting point. That could be a slight timeline advance, or it could be a reset a la Dark Sun.

Bad plan and one of the reasons I actually lean towards leaving Greyhawk alone. Greyhawk Wars and From the Ashes kind of split the fan base. Most of the grognards prefer the 1983 box, IME. Sure, some folks liked the changes and timeline advancement, but I felt like it actually somewhat corrupted the charm of the setting.

2. It needs to be modernized. I know many old school fans may disagree with me on this. However, to keep Greyhawk alive, you have to have it be enticing to all D&D fans, old school and new. You need those new races, like tieflings and dragonborn. You need the newer classes, like warlocks.

I'm definitely on board with the new classes. Really, there's no excuse even needed. They exist, the end. I've never understood the FR need to explain mechanical changes at every edition. Why didn't we see Warlocks before? Nobody asked -- next. Or, we did, but they were handled as wizards. Or, they used the Witch class from Dragon magazine.

As far as races, I'm actually OK with settings that don't feel obligated to include all the races, especially from expansion books (but I'd also be cool with a setting that used only expansion races). One of the things you get told in art class is to know when you're done. Sometimes, more isn't better and what you leave out matters as much as what you put in. Same goes for settings. Nevertheless, the tieflings would work well in the Great Kingdom or Iuz and the dragonborn would be fine with a home on some island just off the map.

I have a bit of a problem with the tieflings, though, because I still prefer the origin of "Surprise! Someone in your family tree, maybe even hundreds of years ago, slept with a demon and your genetic roll of the dice came up snake eyes." That's how I play them, and I think that would fit pretty well with Greyhawk.

3. WotC should feel free to explore the rest of the continent. There are more areas to explore.

Sounds good. Just be careful to not over-define things. Hooks, not details.

4. Above all, Greyhawk needs to figure out what its identity is and what sets it apart from the Realms.

I think there's been pretty good consensus from its fans, in this thread:
1) Hooks, not details. Greyhawk is a starting point for your own work.
2) Sword and sorcery adventures, not epic heroics. You might save the world, but it's a side effect of protecting your treasure stash.

 

[hastur_nz]

I loved GH, not just because it represents all the old-school D&D philosophies (which are not necessarily an asset these days), but primarily because when I read the AD&D DMG, and the original Greyhawk Boxed Set, it all made sense, not just the present world, but the (limited) back-story that went with it. Like for example, the world was once greater than it is now, full of elven magic, dwarven greatness, and so on; now it's crumbled and fraying at the edges. The human tribes were once in different places, with different cultures, and once Vecna ruled a huge portion the Flanaess, etc etc.

The great echoes of the past were still very much felt in the present day. It totally supported the default, old-school D&D "find ancient, crumbling ruin, avoid its traps and monsters, get the loot" way of playing, with a good back-story that wasn't taken straight from Tolkien (more like R E Howard).

Last thing I liked - while most of the human tribes were obviously modeled on real-world tropes, I feel they were really well done (not over-done), unlike the mess I see in FR which just feels stupid like every part of the real world needs a similar place in FR so much so that it doesn't even feel like Fantasy any more.

For me, Greyhawk always did and still does make a lot more sense, when you sit down and think about it. The cities and towns are the right scale for a fantasy-medieval type of setting, they seem set in the right places, with enough wilderness etc between them. I can't help but look at parts of the FR and think it really doesn't make sense even if you try and say "it's supported by magic" or whatever (e.g. Waterdeep, a stupidly huge over-populated city supported by trade, but with who and how?)

p.s. I haven't actually run a GH game since 3.5 days, except for Age of Worms converted to 5e. It's always been a setting that I'm the only one who knows anything about it, which is fine if you have a strong campaign plot, but I don't do whole-cloth home-brew these days.

 

[Demetrios1453]

For me, Greyhawk always did and still does make a lot more sense, when you sit down and think about it. The cities and towns are the right scale for a fantasy-medieval type of setting, they seem set in the right places, with enough wilderness etc between them. I can't help but look at parts of the FR and think it really doesn't make sense even if you try and say "it's supported by magic" or whatever (e.g. Waterdeep, a stupidly huge over-populated city supported by trade, but with who and how?)

(I know this is a Greyhawk thread, so I'm not trying to derail anything, just answer the question posed).

Waterdeep is supported by all the trade from the dwarf and human settlements to the North. There's a lot of gold, gems, precious metals (especially mithril), mundane metals, and furs that funnel down from the North to Waterdeep along the River Dessarin and the Long Road. These commodities are shipped to markets further south such as Baldur's Gate (which in turn re-ships them along the River Chionthar towards the lands around the Inner Sea), Amn, Tethyr, and Calimshan. These in turn would ship manufactured goods and other products not available in the North to Waterdeep both for use within the city and for re-export back up the River Dessarin and the Long Road to the settlements of the North. When it comes to food, Waterdeep should be self-sufficient given the agricultural area under its control (we calculated in another thread that it's far and away large enough, even with the city's large population), the presence of Goldenfields, fishing, and ranching outside the agricultural hinterlands, enough so that it likely exports food to less-blessed settlements to its north...

 

[billd91]

I'm definitely on board with the new classes. Really, there's no excuse even needed. They exist, the end. I've never understood the FR need to explain mechanical changes at every edition. Why didn't we see Warlocks before? Nobody asked -- next. Or, we did, but they were handled as wizards. Or, they used the Witch class from Dragon magazine.

As far as races, I'm actually OK with settings that don't feel obligated to include all the races, especially from expansion books (but I'd also be cool with a setting that used only expansion races). One of the things you get told in art class is to know when you're done. Sometimes, more isn't better and what you leave out matters as much as what you put in. Same goes for settings. Nevertheless, the tieflings would work well in the Great Kingdom or Iuz and the dragonborn would be fine with a home on some island just off the map.

I have a bit of a problem with the tieflings, though, because I still prefer the origin of "Surprise! Someone in your family tree, maybe even hundreds of years ago, slept with a demon and your genetic roll of the dice came up snake eyes." That's how I play them, and I think that would fit pretty well with Greyhawk.

100% agreement here on most of these sentiments. D&D never needed any campaign-transformative events to initiate any changes due to new editions. And I too prefer the Planescape/2e/3e tieflings to every version that's come since (and aasimar while we're at it).
I'd be wary of introducing dragonborn, though. I'd probably be happier with making them a variation of lizard men without the dragon connection and breath weapon (maybe a venomous spittle).

I think there's been pretty good consensus from its fans, in this thread:
1) Hooks, not details. Greyhawk is a starting point for your own work.
2) Sword and sorcery adventures, not epic heroics. You might save the world, but it's a side effect of protecting your treasure stash.

Neutrality is also a significant political force, particularly embodied by the Circle of Eight. It's not just good (Furyondy, Veluna, Nyrond) vs evil (Iuz, the Great Kingdom). There's also neutral trying to maintain a status quo.

 

[BMaC]

For me Greyhawk was the ultimate sandbox setting. Our group spent hours pouring over the map identifying spots where our level 9 characters could build a keep.