Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shiroiken" data-source="post: 7138599" data-attributes="member: 6775477">Actually Greyhawk got &quot;over-exposed&quot; during 3E, when it became the default setting. The most common thing I hear about Greyhawk from 3E and later players is &quot;it's boring,&quot; because what they played was NOT actually Greyhawk, but a homebrew game that used the default 3E information. I will agree though, that the actual setting never got anywhere near the hype and publicity that Dragonlance and FR got. Whether that was good or bad, I cannot say.QFT. The original idea for after the 1983 boxed set was to expand the world outside of the Flanaess, and leave 576 CY as the starting year for every group. That would allow DMs to take the (deliberately sketchy) information and make it their own, with the actions of the PCs determining the future.&nbsp;I actually think this is overrated. I've never known anyone who had an interest in Greyhawk because of this, because (with the exception of ToEE), most of those adventure were easily ported over into homebrew game. NPCs could be ported over with similar ease, if desired, because little to no information was given about them until after Gygax was fired.Amen! When I ran Vault of the Drow, I had to remind my players constantly that everything they know about Drow was wrong (because 90% came from FR). They were also amazed when I pointed out the high level of a printed Mordenkainen was only level 16 (remember, nothing after 1985 is really Greyhawk <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; ).Not sure how I feel about this. Technically true, but that wasn't common knowledge until the age of the internet. Those D&amp;D-isms originated in the rulebooks... which were heavily influenced by Gygax's original Greyhawk campaign. However that Greyhawk and the Greyhawk we know are completely different animals.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shiroiken, post: 7138599, member: 6775477"] Actually Greyhawk got "over-exposed" during 3E, when it became the default setting. The most common thing I hear about Greyhawk from 3E and later players is "it's boring," because what they played was NOT actually Greyhawk, but a homebrew game that used the default 3E information. I will agree though, that the actual setting never got anywhere near the hype and publicity that Dragonlance and FR got. Whether that was good or bad, I cannot say. QFT. The original idea for after the 1983 boxed set was to expand the world outside of the Flanaess, and leave 576 CY as the starting year for every group. That would allow DMs to take the (deliberately sketchy) information and make it their own, with the actions of the PCs determining the future. I actually think this is overrated. I've never known anyone who had an interest in Greyhawk because of this, because (with the exception of ToEE), most of those adventure were easily ported over into homebrew game. NPCs could be ported over with similar ease, if desired, because little to no information was given about them until after Gygax was fired. Amen! When I ran Vault of the Drow, I had to remind my players constantly that everything they know about Drow was wrong (because 90% came from FR). They were also amazed when I pointed out the high level of a printed Mordenkainen was only level 16 (remember, nothing after 1985 is really Greyhawk ;) ). Not sure how I feel about this. Technically true, but that wasn't common knowledge until the age of the internet. Those D&D-isms originated in the rulebooks... which were heavily influenced by Gygax's original Greyhawk campaign. However that Greyhawk and the Greyhawk we know are completely different animals. [/QUOTE]

Verification