Over in Zachary's Greyhawk Poll, a couple of folks have said that they did not like Greyhawk and many said they would not buy a new version.
As I'm doing this (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=13), I'm more than a little interested in what folks who did not like Greyhawk as a setting would change. If you do not/did not like Greyhawk - was it beyond hope? What would you change to make it to your liking?
Bearing in mind that I'm only familiar with the 1e Greyhawk box set (the last Gygax-written version TSR put out)... Greyhawk has always struck me as a world where the forces of good and evil are more or less balanced, which is less interesting to me - powerful good kingdoms in the setting make players more inclined to say "Hey, we should probably go tell Good Kingdom about this - they'll know what to do". If the position of the forces of good was far, far more desperate and tenuous it'd make it more exciting for me. (Of course, if alignment-based politics weren't an issue it'd be even better, but in the version of GH I'm familiar with alignment is a big deal).
Quote from: WarthurBearing in mind that I'm only familiar with the 1e Greyhawk box set (the last Gygax-written version TSR put out)... Greyhawk has always struck me as a world where the forces of good and evil are more or less balanced, which is less interesting to me - powerful good kingdoms in the setting make players more inclined to say "Hey, we should probably go tell Good Kingdom about this - they'll know what to do". If the position of the forces of good was far, far more desperate and tenuous it'd make it more exciting for me. (Of course, if alignment-based politics weren't an issue it'd be even better, but in the version of GH I'm familiar with alignment is a big deal).
That's ironic, Warthur. I was just reading through From the Ashes - the crossover into 2nd Edition, and it's all the-forces-of-good-are-precariously-balanced-on-the-edge stuff.
What if the setting didn't make the battle lines so clear. So keep the WoG Gazetteer feel, but with less absolute good/evil kingdoms - a little more gray in Greyhawk as it were?
See, I liked that the situation re:good and evil was balanced. The original Greyhawk folio and boxed set showed a world where there was a lot of potential conflict (and From the Ashes demonstrated where that potential was), and let the DM decide when and where the flashpoints were. That way, players would not have the advantage of knowing precisely where to focus their attention and efforts, and could either witness or be in on saving (or at least attempting to save) the Flanaess as it went up in flames. From the Ashes essentially took away that flexibility. I guess FtA could be used as a good example of what could happen, but I don't like it as the starting point in the campaign timeline.
I guess, then, that I'd retcon From the Ashes as being a potential future for Greyhawk, rather than the canonical present.
I am with the Col., it was the potential, the powderkeg within the balance. Because of the balance the players had the chance to be the difference.
I don't think I'd change anything about Greyhawk, it's just not my thing. It's scaled way too big for my liking, and it's way too civilized, in terms of everything being divided into countries. I'd love to play a fantasy wargame set in the world of Greyhawk, but it doesn't give me much I can work with for running a hex-crawl. The tone is also unappealing - not enough fallen kingdoms, degenerate races, mysterious ruins, bizarre ecologies, sinister cults and other exotica that I enjoy.
So in other words, I'd like Greyhawk if it was a lot more like the Wilderlands of High Fantasy. But then, I already have the Wilderlands, so...
Never thought much of the world as whole, but I do like a lot of the classic dungeons and would like to see more of them updated( especially a newly designed Expedition to the Barrier Peaks) But as a whole, I think Forgoten Realms has been their best setting. Skull Port was one of the coolist things ever written for the series. It reminded me a lot of an Arduin undercity.
Greyhawk does have some smaller bughunt areas but yes it is mostly a political and social structure with a sprinkle of dungeon crawls. There isn't a lot said about the untraveled areas. It can also feel bog standard because it has been the d&d standard for so long. *shrug*
Quote from: James J SkachThat's ironic, Warthur. I was just reading through From the Ashes - the crossover into 2nd Edition, and it's all the-forces-of-good-are-precariously-balanced-on-the-edge stuff.
What if the setting didn't make the battle lines so clear. So keep the WoG Gazetteer feel, but with less absolute good/evil kingdoms - a little more gray in Greyhawk as it were?
That's it. I agree with the Colonel's point about how it's nice to show a world teetering on the brink of chaos and letting the DM decide precisely which powder keg is going to explode - and "From the Ashes" does seem to take away that choice. A more nuanced world would be good - what I don't like is the assumption that all good nations will generally be inclined to be friendly with each other (ISTR that in the Gazetteer the two largest good nations are actually planning a dynastic marriage which could lead to a merger), and I have little sympathy with the idea that every society can potentially have an alignment applied to it en mass.
I get the problem with the alignment though I think that is really only talking about the leadership and prevailing morales. It probably never bothered me because I mostly ignore 'alignment'.
Quote from: blakkieI get the problem with the alignment though I think that is really only talking about the leadership and prevailing morales. It probably never bothered me because I mostly ignore 'alignment'.
Except it tends to pan out that evil nations tend to fight good nations, good nations tend to be friends with good nations, and evil nations spend more time fighting the (more organised, slightly better) good nations instead of the other (fractious, kind of weak) evil nations - or at least that's the impression the Gazetteer tends to give me. It would be interesting to have, say, an evil nation which is willing to act as mercenaries for the good nations in a war against another evil nation, for example - they'd be the sort of people who commit horrible atrocities in the name of other nations, and enrich themselves with land and loot in the bargain, but which nonetheless the good nations find themselves forced to deal with because they're better than the alternative.
I guess I always took G to mean 'can play with others'. Just because you aren't in open war doesn't mean you aren't jockeying for advantage or that you won't stand by and watch your G neighbour get gutted by an aggressor. In fact there is an amount of that specifically there. Also having middle management subcontracting out smaller scale dirty work isn't precluded. This stuff just isnt spelled out exsplicitly.
Edit: notice how a G normally doesn't overtly aggress against anyone? G is more like 'passive'.
Things I hated about Greyhawk:
-The stupid names of certain places, "Gnarley Forest" being first and foremost on that list. It's a surefire way to have your entire table break into either TMNT or Bill and Ted's impersonations. "Wooley Bay was pretty bad too".
-The patchwork quilt of cultures living next to each other that made no sense, like Arabs living next to Feudal European-like cultures, with no cultural mixing or anything. Some of it was really silly.
Things I liked:
-From the Ashes - man that made Greyhawk awesome and grim, like Midnight with some sort of hope for good.
-Lots of D&Disms. The setting just feels D&D. But I can't play it with anything but the AD&D rules. I tried using 3.0 for Greyhawk and it felt weird.
-=Grim=-
If they do redesign the Greyhawk, I hope they take a look at Warhammer game system to get a bit of inspiration. For me, Warhammer always felt more like the fantasy world Greyhawk wished it could of been.
Quote from: GrimJestaThings I hated about Greyhawk:
-The stupid names of certain places, "Gnarley Forest" being first and foremost on that list. It's a surefire way to have your entire table break into either TMNT or Bill and Ted's impersonations. "Wooley Bay was pretty bad too".
You do realize that the Gnarley Forest pre-dated the modern slang by some, and as such is an entirely appropriate name. Greyhawk has some stupid names (I'm looking at you, Melf) but Gnarley Forest isn't one of them.
Quote-Lots of D&Disms. The setting just feels D&D. But I can't play it with anything but the AD&D rules. I tried using 3.0 for Greyhawk and it felt weird.
I've seen play of it done with different systems and it's pliable enough that it'll take on the feel of the system you use for it (yeah, the country Alignment is dumb but no more so IMO than Alignment period ;) ).
I guess that's the biggest thing, it is a fairly pliable world because it hasn't been completely fleshed out like, just an example of the most extreme, Forgotten Realms.
Quote from: GrimJesta-From the Ashes - man that made Greyhawk awesome and grim, like Midnight with some sort of hope for good.
See, I didn't have a problem with FtA being a grim & gritty
possible future for Greyhawk. It's just that the way the Greyhawk Wars went, and their aftermath, seemed kinda blah to me. Run of the mill "bad guys have the upper hand" kind of stuff. Whoopee. :emot-geno: Again, I liked how precariously balanced the original, vintage Greyhawk was.
Besides, I liked Greyhawk 2000, the "modern" Greyhawk setting in Dragon from soon after the release of 3e. In that one, they literally nuked Iuz.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonSee, I didn't have a problem with FtA being a grim & gritty possible future for Greyhawk.
FtA! is "Forward... to Adventure!". FTA is From The Ashes.
QuoteIt's just that the way the Greyhawk Wars went, and their aftermath, seemed kinda blah to me. Run of the mill "bad guys have the upper hand" kind of stuff. Whoopee. :emot-geno: Again, I liked how precariously balanced the original, vintage Greyhawk was.
But after the wars things were more precariously balanced; good had technically "won" in many ways, but now it was being corrupted by the Scarlet Brotherhood, Iuz was advancing. The great kingdom had fallen but left a land full of utter anarchy in its wake, which I think is especially good for gaming.
RPGPundit
The Scarlet Brotherhood was already in some courts originally. Not as overtly, instead something on a more managable type level for a team of PCs. They could literally and meaningfully contribute save the world without being a pack of lvl 15+ characters. Deeper cover operatives I would think. FtA was just the maturing of the network [if left unchecked].
P.S. It could use a little cleaning up of course. There are rough edges, some of them already mentioned in this thread. Otherwise why would I buy it instead of just using what I have?
Quote from: RPGPunditFtA! is "Forward... to Adventure!". FTA is From The Ashes.
FtA will always be From the Ashes to me. If I ever need to distinguish between the two, I'll use the exclamation point.
Quote from: RPGPunditBut after the wars things were more precariously balanced; good had technically "won" in many ways, but now it was being corrupted by the Scarlet Brotherhood, Iuz was advancing. The great kingdom had fallen but left a land full of utter anarchy in its wake, which I think is especially good for gaming.
RPGPundit
Yeah, but it essentially took away any chance of the PCs being able to influence how the Greyhawk wars went, if the DM had never seen any iteration of Greyhawk besides FtA. Wanna save the Duchy of Geoff from the giants? Oops, too late. The Great Kingdom could have fallen into chaos in a lot of other ways, ways that were suggested in the original Greyhawk. Like I said, FtA is one OK version of how things could have gone; there are many others that individual DMs and their players should have had the chance to explore for themselves.
Quote from: blakkieYou do realize that the Gnarley Forest pre-dated the modern slang by some, and as such is an entirely appropriate name.
Doesn't matter. It was slang during 2e and 3e and it'll be slang still if there's a 4e Greyhawk. Once it becomes slang new players aren't going to take it seriously. When I run the game it's The Gnarled Forest, since "gnarley" is just going to disrupt the game, predating the slang or not.
-=Grim=-
They could change it to "Gnarled Forest" and that would quickly remove the funny aspects. But I suspect that many greyhawk fans kind of dig the funny aspect of the name.
RPGPundit
Slang comes and goes. And some people snicker at just about anything [cue Beavis and Butthead giggling over the world 'breastplate'].
I suppose if 'realms' ever becomes a jokey slang term, they'll have to change the Forgotten Realms to the Forgotten Lands or something like that, so 15-year-olds don't snicker every time they hear the word.
Seriously, I don't consider gnarley to be that common a slang term. And my players happen to know that gnarley is a way to describe trees or other twisted objects. The fact you couldn't use the term without players laughing says more about your players than about Greyhawk.
Occasionally the way the language morphs and words and phrases take on new meanings can provide some amusement. Gnarley Woods? Eh, at least it's not the Judges Guild module entitled "Glory Hole Dwarven Mine."
Quote from: ColonelHardissonOccasionally the way the language morphs and words and phrases take on new meanings can provide some amusement. Gnarley Woods? Eh, at least it's not the Judges Guild module entitled "Glory Hole Dwarven Mine."
LOL, indeed.
Yeah, they could change it to Gnarled Forest and it wouldn't really bother me though it is a change. But I'm with Haffrung on this, getting hung up on "Gnarley Forest" seems more like a player/table issue. Not to say that it's good to tempt people but it's pretty hard to scrub every possible "joke" trigger. Beavis & Butthead are pretty darn determined to pounce on every possible word that way and drag it to where they are. IMO best to go to the real source of the issue and give Beavis & Butthead a good thrashing. :)