# What is so special about Greyhawk?



## Verys Arkon (May 14, 2009)

I'm intensely curious about the campaign setting for 2010, set to be announced at GenCon this summer.  One of the frequent guesses is that it will be a revised or rebooted Greyhawk (the other front runner being Dark Sun). Some point to the recent article on the Celestian Order, others see the RPGA DM reward - the Village of Homlet, as building evidence. 

I've never had much experience with Greyhawk.  I missed it in 2E and only got a glimpse of it in 3E through its inclusion in the Core books.  

What makes Greyhawk special?  Is it primarily nostalgia?


----------



## Crothian (May 14, 2009)

It's been ages since I read through some of the cool books from past editions, but it had a lot of creativitiy and interesting adventures in it.


----------



## JeffB (May 14, 2009)

*NiteScreed said it best*

I think Nitescreed defined the nuts & bolts of the setting best



			
				Nitescreed said:
			
		

> Subj:  Grey in the Hawk1
> Date:  96-07-26 22:44:41 EDT
> From:  NiteScreed
> 
> ...


----------



## Ariosto (May 14, 2009)

For a start, it was the first major commercial D&D campaign setting after the Wilderlands of High Fantasy. Gary Gygax drew on his own, original Greyhawk campaign in designing the product, with AD&D specifically in mind.

Although much has since been written about it, the world in the original folio or later boxed set remains one sketched only in broad strokes. Some people like the sense of freedom to make the setting their own.


----------



## aboyd (May 14, 2009)

I don't think Greyhawk _is_ special the way that Dark Sun is.  Dark Sun has a clear theme and gameplay is altered to cater to that theme.  When people play Dark Sun, they know the are getting into an apocalyptic desert world, or something like that.

Greyhawk is a little different.  First, yes, there is nostalgia.  Greyhawk is where a lot of the initial big names came from -- Mordakein (sp?), Rary, all those powerful guys who have spells named after them.  For those of us playing from the beginning, history is a powerful tie.

Second, while Greyhawk doesn't have a specific theme, it is nice in the sense that many themes play well in Greyhawk, so you don't have to feel limited.  There is piracy for those who like playing Swashbucklers and such.  There is the Scarlett Brotherhood, for those who like playing asian themes.  I mean, ninjas and samurais fit in well with the Brotherhood, although they're pretty evil, so you might not have lots of friendly nice samurais running around.

Also, for DMs who like to create their own monsters, the Scarlet Brotherhood has an island called Bos Lofsok (or something like that) where they have been creating hybrids and other monstrous freaks to unleash upon their enemies.  It's nice to have an in-game place where you can slot that stuff in and feel like it fits the theme.

On the eastern side, you have a huge number of islands (can't recall the name, it's had two or three over the centuries, one was Lendore) where elves have retreated in a sorta Lord-of-the-Rings style, but with a twist in that they are pretty racist/isolationist and will just raid and kill non-elven ships that come near them.

Near those islands you have Rel Astra, possibly the biggest city in Greyhawk (bigger than Greyhawk city itself).  Rel Astra is interesting because it is run by an evil undead creature called an animus (Lord Drax) with a right-hand-man who is a two-headed demon or devil called the Fiend-Sage of Rel Astra.  These guys walk the streets and don't seem to have trouble being overthrown, apparently because they're pretty good at running the city and the citizens think that makes them pretty decent rulers.

You can throw some more mechanized/Eberron stuff into Rel Astra -- I've done a couple of "clockwork" adventures there -- while still having other lands be more traditional fantasy.

There is a lot of fascinating history to Greyhawk.  I'm currently running a game in the years right after something called the "Flight of Fiends."  This was a time when Iuz, an evil demigod or something like that, unleashed demons upon Greyhawk, essentially destroying the entire continent.  However, the Fiend-Sage turned against his own kind (I think?) and used an artifact called the Crook of Rao to run every demon/devil (except himself) off the planet.  I'm doing this in a 3.5 edition game, but what it gives me is something like the 4th edition "points of light" scenario.  Most stuff is ransacked, humanity is on the ropes, and things be wild.  

There are lots of other locations that provide good feature-rich environments for DMs to exploit.  There can be areas so backward that people live in tents & caves, all the way up to very advanced cities like Rel Astra, which probably should resemble something more like Tarant from Arcanum than anything else.

The other very compelling thing about Greyhawk is that Living Greyhawk (where locations in Greyhawk are mapped to real-world locations and then players in those locations play out and even set the course of events & history) is the first and longest-running living campaign.  Stuff that real-world players have done in Living Greyhawk has made it into official timelines and such.  There is a web site to join up, I can't recall the name.  But I have to say that such a thing is very compelling to many.

The other thing that I personally like about Greyhawk is something rather obscure -- most people don't use it, and it doesn't even show up on many official maps.  That is, Hepmonaland.  This is something like a spinoff continent to the south of Greyhawk, full of lush jungle, tribal natives, and hyper-dangerous unexplored territory.  To me, it's a great excuse to try all sorts of new things, or to throw a monkey-wrench into an otherwise predictable campaign.  Jungle, Mayan, Incan, Egyptian, Indiana Jones, all those themes might fit in very well.

Oh, and throwing Planescape portals into Greyhawk seems fitting.  Not so much in Dark Sun.  It's certainly possible for any DM to do anything he/she wishes, but I'd never have players going from Sigil to Dark Sun and back.  It simply doesn't "feel" right.  However, I'd have players going from Sigil to Greyhawk and back, no problem.  Clearly extra-planar creatures were already gateing in from Baator and such, so it's not much of a stretch.


----------



## Mikaze (May 14, 2009)

aboyd said:


> Oh, and throwing Planescape portals into Greyhawk seems fitting. Not so much in Dark Sun. It's certainly possible for any DM to do anything he/she wishes, but I'd never have players going from Sigil to Dark Sun and back. It simply doesn't "feel" right.




According to Planescape, people who arrive on the planes from Athas aren't in any real hurry to go back home anyway. (though a few do try to set up a lucrative water-trade)

Interesting read so far.  I've always seen Greyhawk as the "original generic, anything goes but with more internal consistancy than Mystara" setting.  Nothing against Mystara, of course.  The insane grab-bag of that setting was most appealed to me in that setting.


----------



## alleynbard (May 14, 2009)

Greyhawk has always been my favorite setting.  Part of that is simply a feeling that I can't describe. In many ways, what makes D&D the game it is comes from Greyhawk. It is the seed of everything we have today.

Greyhawk is wide open with opportunity.  You were given a framework and expected to color everything else in yourself. Sure you had the classic modules (Temple of Elemental Evil, Slavers, Against the Giants, Descent into the Depths of the Earth) but those were opportunities for adventure, not admonishments on how the setting should be run.  It has just enough flavor to be unique but not so much that I felt restrained.  It was the ultimate medieval setting.  

Even the post war setting produced during 2e was loose enough to allow for individual DM development.  I wasn't fond of Living Greyhawk and how it treated the world.  But that is another story all together.  

Honestly though, I am not sure how Greyhawk would look in 4e. From a mechanics standpoint, I have no worries. So long as they don't try to explain the changes in magic, I think it will be fine. Just pretend nothing has changed.  I hope they learned from the Forgotten Realms release.

What I am worried about is all the material produced for Living Greyhawk. How does that fit into the setting? If you make it all official, that is a monumental undertaking.  If you pretend it didn't happen, you risk angering people who put a lot of work into the setting during those years.  So what do you do?

In fact, Greyhawk in general is rather touchy. You have fans who believe only Gygax produced material is legit. You have other fans who don't mind the material produced during 2e but were unhappy with what happened in 3e.  Finally, you have those who came to the setting late, likely during Living  Greyhawk and/or from Paizo's time on Dungeon and Dragon. 

Each group is unique and how do you please them all?  In reality, you don't. But I wouldn't want to be the one calling the shots on that project.  You would take a ton of heat. 

In my ideal world, as a 4e fan and Greyhawk fan, the next setting is Greyhawk. I hope they don't try to integrate Living Greyhawk overly much because that task would be too vast for the format Wizards is pursuing with their settings. But I also hope they don't discard it out of hand because of the work that was put into it. Perhaps they could release a Grand History of Flanaess to help handle that? I don't know. In any case, I hope the setting would be kept simple while hearkening back to the classics.  

Beyond that, I sincerely hope they purchase the rights to do Castle Zagyg from the Gygax family (which would explain why it disappeared) and release the early levels as the primary adventure for the setting.  Subsequent levels can be released via DDI. Castle Zagyg, better known as Castle Greyhawk, is the original core of the setting and it would be nice to see it placed into context. So I would really dig that. Barring this, an update to the original Temple of Elemental Evil would be cool, likely in the same format (early levels in print form, the rest on the DDI).

As a side note, if I was a betting man, I would say the release of Hommlet is a precursor to the Temple. But I think it will be presented on the DDI exclusively.  That format is perfect for something of that magnitude.

I know, its a pipe dream. But I can hope, can't I?


----------



## alleynbard (May 14, 2009)

JeffB said:


> I think Nitescreed defined the nuts & bolts of the setting best




I agree. That is the best explanation of the setting I had ever seen.  From the day I first came across it to the present, that statement has guided every campaign I have ever run in Greyhawk.


----------



## alleynbard (May 14, 2009)

Sorry about wandering a bit off topic there.


----------



## Desdichado (May 15, 2009)

This may sound flippant, but it's not.  If you have to ask, the answer is: nothing.  Seriously; there's nothing objective about Greyhawk that makes it unique, unusual, or special.  From a purely objective standpoint, it simply fails to meet any criteria of "special" whatsoever.

However, for the folks who grew up playing it, Greyhawk and D&D are basically synonomous.  To them, Greyhawk _is_ D&D.  The flavor of D&D is Greyhawk and the flavor of Greyhawk is D&D.  It's the creation of Gary Gygax himself, it's his distillation of what fantasy gaming is supposed to be like and about.  In fact, a lot of that really long post above I'd disagree with; that doesn't characterize _early_ Greyhawk products.  Like, the original Greyhawk product, which was really more a set of houserules than anything else, nor does it really characterize what (relatively little) I know about Gary's home campaign back in the day.

Lots of its fans will try to tell you what Greyhawk means to them, what it _is_, but I don't think the actual words coming from them are nearly as convincing as the passion.  Greyhawk is D&D.  It boggles my mind a bit that the guy above who was quoted from elsewhere would cite realistic historicity, or however he worded it, as a hallmark of Greyhawk.  Greyhawk was a haphazard mash-up of whatever Gygax was interested in, and that meant jumping around all over the place without much logic or sense, quite frequently.

Just like D&D.

_All that said, I'm not really a big fan...  Greyhawk is _too_ vanilla for my tastes.  By a long shot._


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 15, 2009)

JeffB said:


> I think Nitescreed defined the nuts & bolts of the setting best




   By essentially arguing:

   1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
   2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
   3) Therefore, Greyhawk is good.

   ? 

   There may be some good stuff in that article on what makes Greyhawk distinctive--I'm not familiar enough with it to say (and before anyone assumes biases, I'm not a Realms fan either)--but it's hard to make it through the sneering contempt for those who dare to prefer a badwrongfun setting.


----------



## JeffB (May 15, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> By essentially arguing:
> 
> 1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
> 2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
> ...





Looking at it fresh today, I can see how some may interpret it that way, however I think you need to take into context WHEN & WHY this was written (and why I made sure to C&P the date of his initial post). You had a crew at TSR trying to "realmsify" GH, and certainly had "mistreated" the setting since Gary's departure.. He was clearly pointing out the differences between the approach of the two settings (in order to provide example of the "realmsifying of GH").

i.e. Its not that the Realms are bad per-se, but taking these very realms ideas/themes and shoehorning them into GH is a bad thing. 

FWIW- I AM a Realms fan (as a campaign setting), and I agreed with and understood him perfectly when I first read it, as well as now.


----------



## Nymrohd (May 15, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> By essentially arguing:
> 
> 1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
> 2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
> ...




If the only way you can describe something is by pointing how it is different from something else, then that something else probably of greater importance. This line of argumentation does a great disservice to Greyhawk, hardly describes the setting and just tries to bash the Realms with every single cliche people have been hurling at them for a decade.


----------



## alleynbard (May 15, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> By essentially arguing:
> 
> 1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
> 2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
> ...




I can see what you are saying, though I never read it that way before.  

I was always interested in the Realms so I didn't see it as sneering contempt.

But, re-reading it with that in mind, I see exactly what you are saying.

Perhaps I self edited out the stuff that I thought was insulting and just forgot how prevalent it was.


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 15, 2009)

JeffB said:


> Looking at it fresh today, I can see how some may interpret it that way, however I think you need to take into context WHEN & WHY this was written (and why I made sure to C&P the date of his initial post). You had a crew at TSR trying to "realmsify" GH, and certainly had "mistreated" the setting since Gary's departure.. He was clearly pointing out the differences between the approach of the two settings (in order to provide example of the "realmsifying of GH").
> 
> i.e. Its not that the Realms are bad per-se, but taking these very realms ideas/themes and shoehorning them into GH is a bad thing.




   Hmm...in 1996, Greyhawk had been two years on hiatus, and as I understand it, the last push of the setting had been almost _anti_-Realmsian by making it a much darker and grimmer place. I could be wrong on this point, but my opinion on the article (an opinion which is not _quite_ as old as the article, but I did read it back in the AOL Greyhawk forum days) stands.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 15, 2009)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> By essentially arguing:
> 
> 1) Forgotten Realms is bad.
> 2) Greyhawk is Not Forgotten Realms.
> ...


----------



## Sepulchrave II (May 15, 2009)

Re: OP

Its historical significance. Also, I think the 1983 boxed set is the Chateau Lafite of campaign settings.

I've revisited many times for ideas, and continue to do so. It set the original metric in campaign design.


----------



## Dykstrav (May 15, 2009)

To me, Greyhawk's appeal is that it's far more sword-and-sorcery than high fantasy. Sure, there's alot of high fantasy elements (multiple sentient races, a cosmic struggle between good and evil, and so forth), but it's more about ancient curses, battling mighty demons and the gods themselves, artifacts of world-shattering power, and thwarting the ambitions of gods and demons through sheer grit and determination. It's far more Robert E. Howard or than J.R.R. Tolkien. If you like that sort of thing, it's a great setting for it. 

For many players, it's sheer nostalgia, or if you prefer, emotional investment. I can count the number of FR campaigns I've played. I can count the number of Eberron campaigns I've played. I wouldn't even try to guess the number of Greyhawk games I've got under my belt.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 15, 2009)

JeffB said:


> I think Nitescreed defined the nuts & bolts of the setting best




I agree with all of the cited reasoning save for Number 6, which I don't believe is native to Greyhawk as a written product line or a setting but, rather, confined to specific content penned by certain authors and adventures run by certain DMs.

On a more personal note, I like Greyhawk out of the original folio better than any other _D&D_ setting because it is very broad in scope but simultaneously shallow in depth, allowing me (as a DM) to fill in the details as I see fit and make Greyhawk my own.

FWIW, I also like the FR 'grey box' quite a bit (in fact, it and Ravenloft 2e are really the only other official D&D settings that I have any interest in).


----------



## Riley (May 15, 2009)

The one thing that I haven't seen noted above is that (with the exception of the Sargeant (sp?) material from the 2e era) Greyhawk has pretty much been defined by published adventures, rather than by setting books:

The Village of Hommlet / The Temple of Elemental Evil
White Plume Mountain
Against The Giants
the Slavers quadrilogy
The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh
The Tomb of Horrors

More recently, Dungeon Magazine's Age of Worms, Shackled City, and Savage Tide Adventure Paths brought more life to the setting than anything else since its glory days.

I think it is this adventure-defined character of the world which makes Greyhawk all those other things: a place where the adventurers are the heroes, where danger lurks, and where powerful good NPC's are pretty darned rare.

Otherwise, Greyhawk is pretty much an extension of the core rules of 1st to 3rd edition D&D.  Only 4th edition has added core 'fluff' that really looked beyond the World of Greyhawk.


----------



## Dragonhelm (May 15, 2009)

For me, what made it special was the personalities.  Mordenkainen and the Circle of Eight.  Robilar.  Vecna.  Xagyg.  And so on and so forth.

They weren't there to overshadow the characters.  They just kind of nudged them along.

Something like that.  *shrugs*


----------



## Bumbles (May 15, 2009)

Is there supposed to be something special about Greyhawk?  Well, obviously not in the Dark Sun, Birthright, Planescape or Ravenloft sense.  

It's just a reasonably interesting campaign setting.  It may not be to everybody's tastes, but if you like it, more power to you!


----------



## Dykstrav (May 15, 2009)

Riley said:


> The one thing that I haven't seen noted above is that (with the exception of the Sargeant (sp?) material from the 2e era) Greyhawk has pretty much been defined by published adventures, rather than by setting books...




You know, I never really thought about it until you pointed it out, but that's a very relevant observation. It's a very distinct method of expanding the setting that I haven't seen done in many other settings.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (May 15, 2009)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> On a more personal note, I like Greyhawk out of the original folio better than any other D&D setting because it is very broad in scope but simultaneously shallow in depth, allowing me (as a DM) to fill in the details as I see fit and make Greyhawk my own.
> 
> FWIW, I also like the FR 'grey box' quite a bit




I was pondering the 1e FR set. It came late for me (I was 18), and I liked it well enough, but it didn't snare me. Cliche' was too apparent; Greyhawk seemed to exercise much better archetypal rigor, and avoided cliche' pretty well, I think. 

I've been musing about getting the folio; I've had the boxed set for years.


----------



## pawsplay (May 15, 2009)

The idea of a knight facing off against a dragon in Greyhawk is credible. In FR the same image is lah-di-dah; the knight is probably some magically empowered glowing dude, and dragons are just not as credible as opponents in a world full of the wild stuff going on in FR. Magic is a little harder to come by; not unreasonably, but it's clearly magic, and not corner-store enchantments and pseudo-technology. The tropes cleave a little closer to swords-and-sorcery. It replaces the dualism of LOTR or FR or Dragonlance with a moral realism that is embodied in specific people, creatures, and acts, not in monolithic armies. Civilization is very civilized, but also geographically isolated. It's a little easier to believe in peasants carrying out their lives in Greyhawk than in other settings. Aesthetically, it resembles the middle, middle ages more, and an airbrush painting on a van a little less. 

Probably the most striking thing about it was that it was born out of the tropes of AD&D and then fed back into them, but itself never seemed to be constrained by them. It introduced antipaladins, for instance, and gave us our first taste of the Drow. The elven races paralleled the PHB ones but were not precisely them. Iuz was a half-fiend, something not even statted in AD&D until he came along. It was very much a version of Gary's homebrew.


----------



## grodog (May 15, 2009)

As I recently opined on DF, GH modules are laced with modular interconnections, so that you can easily shape them---as well as the campaign setting---in your own image.

Plus, as Riley says, since GH is defined by adventures, many of the early adventures are still great modules today:  G1, G3, D1, D3, A1, S1, S4, WG5, B2, T1.  With those as you "adventure path" any setting you place them into will grow in stature, but because they're tied to and original within Greyhawk, the good stuff in setting and the adventures stack---they're greater than the sum of their parts.


----------



## Terramotus (May 15, 2009)

IMO, nostalgia only.  Gygax created it, and lots of D&D lore originated there.  Otherwise, it's generic fantasy.  Much of the feel of the world relies on game mechanics that have been gone for multiple editions.

Honestly, I don't think WotC has anything to gain by revisiting it.  There's little to distinguish it to someone who doesn't already have an emotional attachment, and the various fandom factions will never be happy with anything produced, and are probably playing 1E or OSRIC anyway.


----------



## Monkey Boy (May 15, 2009)

Terramotus said:


> Honestly, I don't think WotC has anything to gain by revisiting it. There's little to distinguish it to someone who doesn't already have an emotional attachment, and the various fandom factions will never be happy with anything produced, and are probably playing 1E or OSRIC anyway.




Perhaps the recent Village of Hommlet release can be seen as reaching out to what appears, on the internet at least, to be a fractured fan base? Perhaps it testing the waters to see if the disgruntled can be brought back into the fold? 

A Greyhawk campaign setting wouldn't be too big an investment. A setting book, a player book and an adventure right? It would sell to existing 4e fans, so why not reach out and try and recapture a portion of the market. Perhaps they can convince 3e holdouts to purchase other 4e material? 

Nostalgia is a powerful tool. Just look at all the retreads we are seeing movie wise. It would be interesting to see WOTC play the nostalgia card and revisit Greyhawk. I wonder what Erik would make of that?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (May 15, 2009)

Terramotus said:


> Much of the feel of the world relies on game mechanics that have been gone for multiple editions.




Explain please.


----------



## Desdichado (May 15, 2009)

Terramotus said:


> Honestly, I don't think WotC has anything to gain by revisiting it.  There's little to distinguish it to someone who doesn't already have an emotional attachment, and the various fandom factions will never be happy with anything produced, and are probably playing 1E or OSRIC anyway.



I would have agreed with that a few years ago, but the phenomenal success Paizo had with the heavily steeped in Greyhawk mythos Adventure Paths and other articles they did make me question that agreement.  In other words; Age of Worms, the Demonomicon, and the others demonstrate that there's a strong market for Greyhawk adventures and source material after all.  Granted, they're also elements that can be easily ported into other settings, but Greyhawk is their implicit setting.  Greyhawkiana was also bolstered by other late 3.5-era products, like the Fiendish Codices.  Also written, largely, by Paizo guys freelancing.

Of course, that begs the question of whether or not the Paizo guys "get" iconic D&D better than the current crop of WotC designers, but there you have it.  If WotC freelanced the writing of the Greyhawk setting to Mona, Jacobs and Co., I have no doubt that it would be a product that Greyhawk fans would almost certainly like.


----------



## billd91 (May 15, 2009)

There are a few things that keep drawing me back to Greyhawk, even after spending some time enjoying FR and its supplements in the 2e days.

1) The source materials I rely on, the Folio and to a lesser extent Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, are more sketchbook and framework than detailed. That offers me a lot of leeway while still keeping true to the source. It's also why a lot of GH DMs will refer to MY Greyhawk rather than just Greyhawk.

2) The militant neutrality aspect is fascinating to me. The Circle of Eight, for example, was established not to fight for truth, justice, whatever. But for stability. As such, it'll intervene in any direction.

3) Interesting use of reasonably realistic historical ideas. The Folio lays out some history of migration into the Flanaess (the main locale) after magical disasters. While ultimately of fairly trivial appeal, it still gives you a sense that Gygax was really thinking about how the history should develop on a macro scale. By comparison, FR always seemed a bit too compartmentalized, country by country, supplement by supplement.


----------



## timbannock (May 15, 2009)

If it helps at all, I only recently got into the setting (I've been playing D&D since red box days, though).

What spurred me into it was Yggsburgh and Castle Zagyg: Upper Works.  Those books had something in them that I couldn't identify at first, and that I started to discover was in a lot of Gary's works in the original Greyhawk stuff.

I figured it out (at least in part): sense of adventure.  To put it very simply (everyone else on this thread has done it well!) and also very personally, I find that the setting is very consistent in terms of backstory, but very open in terms of allowing the players to explore it, change it, have huge impact on it, and so on.

GH is like Shadow of the Colossus, FR is like Final Fantasy.  In GH, there's the sense of all this detail, history, character, and info in the setting, so much so that it would take hours and hours of just exploring the nooks and crannies to get a true sense of the bigger picture.  But all that crazy information is essentially just window dressing.  In FR, there's the feeling of an over-arching plot, there's a cast of tons of NPCs that are just more badass than the PCs...until some cataclysmic event and tons of level-grinding results in the PCs becoming godlike in power and finally being able to take on super NPCs #1 - 30.

GH has more backstory.

FR has more metaplot.

At least in feel.  

Gygax kept writing "take what you want, change what you want, make it yours!"  I always felt that the FR writers implied "here's what's going on in our world.  You can play in it if you want, but it's OURS."  Obviously that's not a truism, but it's just the sense I got from it all. YMMV


----------



## Hussar (May 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> The idea of a knight facing off against a dragon in Greyhawk is credible. In FR the same image is lah-di-dah; the knight is probably some magically empowered glowing dude, and dragons are just not as credible as opponents in a world full of the wild stuff going on in FR. Magic is a little harder to come by; not unreasonably, but it's clearly magic, and not corner-store enchantments and pseudo-technology. The tropes cleave a little closer to swords-and-sorcery. It replaces the dualism of LOTR or FR or Dragonlance with a moral realism that is embodied in specific people, creatures, and acts, not in monolithic armies. Civilization is very civilized, but also geographically isolated. It's a little easier to believe in peasants carrying out their lives in Greyhawk than in other settings. Aesthetically, it resembles the middle, middle ages more, and an airbrush painting on a van a little less.




I'm going to have to quibble with you on this one.  Given that Greyhawk was explored almost exclusively through modules and those modules were absolutely dripping in magic items, and very powerful magic items to boot, the idea that Greyhawk was somehow less wahoo than FR depended an awful lot on whether or not you actually played those modules.

I know the party that I played with that went through the GDQ series eventually wound up with about a MILLION gp each.  We were giving away magic items left right and center because what do you really do with twenty-five plus one swords?  

To me, Greyhawk, as presented in the modules, IS the airbrushed van sort of fantasy.  You had wahoo settings for the adventures, robots, demons and various other things popping up all over the place and you were battling GODS by the end of more than one module (or at least beings powerful enough to be able to see divinity on a clear day).   



> Probably the most striking thing about it was that it was born out of the tropes of AD&D and then fed back into them, but itself never seemed to be constrained by them. It introduced antipaladins, for instance, and gave us our first taste of the Drow. The elven races paralleled the PHB ones but were not precisely them. Iuz was a half-fiend, something not even statted in AD&D until he came along. It was very much a version of Gary's homebrew.




Very true.  And, for all its gory glory, I did love and still do love Greyhawk.


----------



## Obryn (May 15, 2009)

Has nobody mentioned the map?

Seriously, that's my favorite part of Greyhawk.  It's the archetypal fantasy world, and its map is a piece of art, IMHO.  Yeah, it's kinda awkward, but it has everything and just exudes a sense of wonder.  I mean, the Hellfurnaces, the Land of Black Ice, Ket, the Scarlet Brotherhood, the Great Kingdom, the Nyr Dyv, the mountainous barbarian penninsula...  Sure, it has some silly names, too, like "Perrenland," but it's a gorgeous map.

-O


----------



## billd91 (May 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I'm going to have to quibble with you on this one.  Given that Greyhawk was explored almost exclusively through modules and those modules were absolutely dripping in magic items, and very powerful magic items to boot, the idea that Greyhawk was somehow less wahoo than FR depended an awful lot on whether or not you actually played those modules.




But when you do read the non-module sources and compare with sources for FR, like *Volo's Guide to Waterdeep* for example, you really do realize the substantial difference between magic assumptions in the campaigns.

Adventures are always a little different because they were designed to be the main source of wealth and magic items for adventures, back in the day.


----------



## Riley (May 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> ...those modules were absolutely dripping in magic items, and very powerful magic items to boot, the idea that Greyhawk was somehow less wahoo than FR depended an awful lot on whether or not you actually played those modules.
> 
> I know the party that I played with that went through the GDQ series eventually wound up with about a MILLION gp each.




When we played old TSR modules, we routinely received far less treasure than specified.

I was just reading a used copy of UK5 Eye of the Serpent that I picked up recently, and was amused to see half the magic items in the treasure piles had already been helpfully crossed out by a previous owner.

Crossed out in pencil, thankfully.


----------



## amethal (May 15, 2009)

Hobo said:


> If WotC freelanced the writing of the Greyhawk setting to Mona, Jacobs and Co., I have no doubt that it would be a product that Greyhawk fans would almost certainly like.



I get the impression those guys are kind of busy at the moment


----------



## aboyd (May 15, 2009)

Here is Paizo's beautiful map:

http://paizo.com/download/dungeon/desktops/Greyhawk_1600x1024.jpg

You can buy issues 118 through 121 to get the full size map (which is huge and very readable):

http://paizo.com/dungeon/products/issues/greyhawkmap


----------



## Obryn (May 15, 2009)

aboyd said:


> Here is Paizo's beautiful map:
> 
> http://paizo.com/download/dungeon/desktops/Greyhawk_1600x1024.jpg
> 
> ...



It's gorgeous, but it's got 2 main problems:

(1) It's not the Darlene map
(2) It's post-Greyhawk Wars. 

-O


----------



## Riley (May 15, 2009)

I was initially quite impressed with the Paizo map, but I eventually found myself reverting to the original Darlene map - simply because her(?) map has so many beautiful hand-drawn details.

This blog illustrates that nicely:
Jeff's Gameblog: a blog about games and stuff: The Pekulish Script

See the whole map here:
http://www.gotbowie.com/arps/old_wogmap/wog-large/Greyhawk Map Left Big.jpg
http://www.gotbowie.com/arps/old_wogmap/wog-large/Greyhawk Map Right Big.jpg


----------



## pawsplay (May 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I'm going to have to quibble with you on this one.  Given that Greyhawk was explored almost exclusively through modules and those modules were absolutely dripping in magic items, and very powerful magic items to boot, the idea that Greyhawk was somehow less wahoo than FR depended an awful lot on whether or not you actually played those modules.




Those adventures and opponents were exceptional. In Greyhawk, there was a town to go back to where the 6th level sheriff was not necessarily dripping with magic items and orcs were mostly worth fighting for coin and spare weapons. A world where a death knight had an 80% chance to be equipped with a magical sword. Certainly, Greyhawk could get a little wahoo, but on average, things tended to even out, and the wahoo generally did not extend to every corner of the gameworld.


----------



## Desdichado (May 15, 2009)

amethal said:


> I get the impression those guys are kind of busy at the moment



Yeah, so WotC better start talking to them early.  Project management, people.  Project management.


----------



## alleynbard (May 15, 2009)

Riley said:


> I was initially quite impressed with the Paizo map, but I eventually found myself reverting to the original Darlene map - simply because her(?) map has so many beautiful hand-drawn details.
> 
> This blog illustrates that nicely:
> Jeff's Gameblog: a blog about games and stuff: The Pekulish Script




Thank you for that Riley, I really appreciated it. So much so, you get some XP.

I had always loved the Darlene map and have found it superior to anything produced since. 
This is a major, major part of it.  No where else do you see the kind of labeling that Darlene did.  It is one of many reasons to love that map.


----------



## Mallus (May 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Those adventures and opponents were exceptional.



But those adventures were the ones a lot of people _played_. That makes them commonplace. 



> A world where a death knight had an 80% chance to be equipped with a magical sword.



This chance went up to %100 if using a published module. 

There's a big disconnect between the item frequency (and wahoo frequency in general) described in the rule books and the published adventures. My experience is that the adventures set the baseline. The charts in the DMG and MM amount to textbook cases, with little real (real-fake?) world applicability.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> To me, Greyhawk, as presented in the modules, IS the airbrushed van sort of fantasy.  You had wahoo settings for the adventures, robots, demons and various other things popping up all over the place and you were battling GODS by the end of more than one module (or at least beings powerful enough to be able to see divinity on a clear day).




Yeah, I have to agree. Many of the modules were not at all in line with what was represented in the folio. There are some serious gonzo moments out there. This is why I always considered the modules as optional accessories, not as canon setting supplements (and, IMO, I don't think the early Greyhawk modules were ever presented that way).


----------



## aboyd (May 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> But those adventures were the ones a lot of people _played_. That makes them commonplace.



I rarely played any of them.  Most of my adventures in Greyhawk have been just as presented by others in this thread -- a sort of sword & sorcery environment, where magic exists but is not common, where the morality of those around you is likely to be questionable, and where phat loot is tempered.

Of course, one person is not a counter-example, but I think what we have here is clearly shown to be many people on each side.  Run games however you want.  High magic or low.  Whatever works.  But it's clear that some people were attracted to Greyhawk for a reason, and that reason works for them.  It's fair to let them have their reason.


----------



## C_M2008 (May 15, 2009)

I like bits and pieces of greyhawk, but the setting is still very "meh" to me, fairly bland and generic mid-magic level fantasy. 

I wouldn't be against them doing it, except it means they can't use the slot for that year for something more interesting.


----------



## ehren37 (May 15, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Those adventures and opponents were exceptional.




No they werent, they were the baseline. If you used the treasure tables, you quickly experienced similar results. There was a great disconnect between the words of the designers and the actual game experience using the published adventures and the rules they wrote. 

We were completely loaded in 1st edition, with little to actually use it on, as we didnt feel like running an army or a pile of henchmen (otherwise we'd play an actual wargame).


----------



## darjr (May 15, 2009)

I just realized one of the reasons I love Greyhawk.

Those modules were gonzo, in a world that wasn't.

I mean that most of the world up front had an almost normal historic feeling and depth, but there were dragons in those hills. That helps build a sense of adventure that is addictive and thrilling.

To go from an almost medieval town or village or city with it's medieval issues and problems to find a lost starship filled with wonder, adventure, and danger, is amazing.

Living in a world that was, day to day, almost normal and primitive, and yet know of Iuz and dragons and the planes and the whispered hidden riches guarded by unearthly dangers is deeply fulfilling.

Yea, I love Greyhawk. I missed all of 2e Greyhawk, much of the end of 1e and all but the last few moments of 3e, so the old gazateer/boxed set and the 1e adventures is still very much what my Greyhawk is.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 16, 2009)

*What is si special about Greyhawk...*

...IIRC there was a race in the box set I got that had modifiers to 5 of 6 ability scores, that is pretty special! (Valley elves? I could be misremembering though, it was a while ago)


----------



## Erik Mona (May 16, 2009)

I should point out that the map tags on the Dungeon Magazine Greyhawk map are written in a font designed by Darlene herself based on her own handwriting.

--Erik


----------



## tylerthehobo (May 16, 2009)

Never has there been so much nostalgia for so little content as Greyhawk - and don't take that the wrong way - the reason I think many folks cling to it so is that it was intentionally vague in its setting, with defined factions, nations and a handful of NPCs, so that "my" Greyhawk would of course be different from "your" Greyhawk.  Much as Gygax was often quoted saying that he felt each DM's game should be different from another with house rules, mechanics etc. so too do the same rules apply to the campaign.  

Greyhawk makes for an excellent sandbox, and also I miss the convention games from recent RPGA years.  In an era when I was mostly playing scripted Eberron games, playing more free form GH games at Cons (even with the limited time and scope of an RPGA game) was a welcome relief.  

I'm hoping 2010 does welcome a new Greyhawk - it deserves its due for a glossy setting done right.


----------



## Piratecat (May 16, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> I should point out that the map tags on the Dungeon Magazine Greyhawk map are written in a font designed by Darlene herself based on her own handwriting.
> 
> --Erik



Hey Erik, just a quick word of thanks. Over the years you've been one of the foremost people carrying the Greyhawk torch and keeping the world alive and fresh. I always read reverence and delight in your Greyhawk work; I haven't always agreed with how you've developed the world, but you've done it with joy and respect. In case I haven't said it before, that makes me really happy.


----------



## Lars Porsenna (May 16, 2009)

tylerthehobo said:


> I'm hoping 2010 does welcome a new Greyhawk - it deserves its due for a glossy setting done right.




Eh, I dunno. If WotC decides the only way they can do it is to blow up the setting, I'd rather they not..

My dream would be for the setting to be handed off to Paizo. Considering the density of GH fans there, I know they would do it justice...

Damon.


----------



## Erik Mona (May 16, 2009)

Piratecat said:


> Hey Erik, just a quick word of thanks. Over the years you've been one of the foremost people carrying the Greyhawk torch and keeping the world alive and fresh. I always read reverence and delight in your Greyhawk work; I haven't always agreed with how you've developed the world, but you've done it with joy and respect. In case I haven't said it before, that makes me really happy.




Thanks! I've enjoyed working on the setting over the years and I think Greyhawk fans are the best fans in the world. Thinking back to the AOL folders of 1992 and the "ungerground" era of Greytalk, it's amazing to still see "The Grey in the Hawk" by Nitescreed being quoted whenever this topic comes up, and it's amazing to see that the setting is still going strong almost 30 years after it first came out.

And as much as the setting minutia is popular with scholars of the setting, D&D is not really about scholarship so much as it is about adventure, and I believe the Greyhawk setting's popularity is largely due to the incredible adventures set there.

Insofar as Maure Castle and The Whispering Cairn and Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk are a part of that legacy, I'm happy to have had a chance to play in the sandbox. 

--Erik


----------



## fireinthedust (May 16, 2009)

Speaking as someone who knows of Grayhawk only through the Demonomicons and clips from 3.x sources, I honestly thought it was an only vaguely-illustrated setting that anyone could write anything for.  Granted, there was that quasi-soap opera about famous NPCs (Tasha/Iggwilv and Grazz't, Iuz, Vecna, etc.), but I really thought they were the only detailed parts of the who thing.  Like how dungeon drawl classics has a "map o the world" but the focus is on the modules.

       Specifically this is because there are loads of FR products that came out, and virtually none for Grayhawk.  I asked RPGA fans and they told me that any 3.x book not for FR was basically GH.  Like how POL is the default 4e setting, with sites like Winterhaven, sure, but nothing outside of modules that's really "canon".

Erik Mona (and everyone else, I guess):  I wouldn't want Paizo to be distracted from Pathfinder.  I'm a 4e fan, for the rules, but I really enjoy the setting; I think it's really set a high bar for any campaign I run, in terms of detail and scope for the game setting (nations, takes on classic things like the Underdark, etc.).  Thanks.


Still, if I wanted a really 1e gritty, classic feel for a campaign... I would enjoy a GH game.  Also Wilderlands (bought the boxed set, still havn't digested everything!), but I can see a lot of carry-over between, say, the City State of the Invincible Overlord and, say, a city in the Flanaess.


----------



## Hussar (May 16, 2009)

billd91 said:


> But when you do read the non-module sources and compare with sources for FR, like *Volo's Guide to Waterdeep* for example, you really do realize the substantial difference between magic assumptions in the campaigns.
> 
> Adventures are always a little different because they were designed to be the main source of wealth and magic items for adventures, back in the day.




To be honest, almost all my experience with Greyhawk came from the modules.  But, by the same token, if you start perusing the old Dragon articles, there was some pretty heavy duty assumptions there as well.

Let's not forget, if you wanted to really make out like a bandit, slaughtering the villagers in Hommlet netted you MUCH more loot than the Moathouse.    It seems pretty high magic to me when farmers have magic weapons.



pawsplay said:


> Those adventures and opponents were exceptional. In Greyhawk, there was a town to go back to where the 6th level sheriff was not necessarily dripping with magic items and orcs were mostly worth fighting for coin and spare weapons. A world where a death knight had an 80% chance to be equipped with a magical sword. Certainly, Greyhawk could get a little wahoo, but on average, things tended to even out, and the wahoo generally did not extend to every corner of the gameworld.




Again, going to disagree with you.  That 6th level sheriff, if he was statted out by a module, likely had a magical weapon, magical armor and, quite possibly, another item or two.



jdrakeh said:


> Yeah, I have to agree. Many of the modules were not at all in line with what was represented in the folio. There are some serious gonzo moments out there. This is why I always considered the modules as optional accessories, not as canon setting supplements (and, IMO, I don't think the early Greyhawk modules were ever presented that way).




But, didn't the modules predate the folio?  My history is a bit fuzzy.  I know I picked up the boxed set way back when, but, I don't remember if it was new or had been around for a while when I did so.  

On another note, Erik Mona, while I may have had some unkind words with you in the past, your work with Greyhawk has always been excellent.  Well done you.


----------



## Starfox (May 16, 2009)

What was special to me about Greyhawk was the sense of history; Suel vs Oerdian, Vecna vs Kas, Nyrond vs Great Kingdom. The emerging cosmpopolitan, merchantile cities like Greyhawk, Dyvers, and Irongate defying the old feudal states. The elven schisms, with drow and valley elves as offshots. All of these are neutrally aligned story elements. There are good and evil people on each side, fighting for loyalties more than alignment. This makes the world feel vibrant and real.

The problem is that there are few clear-cut enemies. The players can either be as Gray as the world, aligning themsleves with one faction, or they can strive to uphold the greater good and risk getting on the bad side of all the factions. In my games, the players always choose the side of good, becoming peacemakers and striving to undo the evil within each society rather than making one society dominant. Because of this, it is quite conceivable that they get into conflict with neutral or good organization in the world, such as some dogmatic paladin orders or the Circle of Eight. Knowing my players, they'd try to bring such a a conflict to a peaceful resolution, but conflict is definitely possible.

Comparing to Forgotten Realms, political divisions there are much more along alignment lines. The forces of good in FR might not cooperate well, but they do not join forces with evil allies to fight their good neighbors as they could in Greyhawk.


----------



## Tuft (May 17, 2009)

Starfox said:


> Knowing my players, they'd try to bring such a a conflict to a peaceful resolution, but conflict is definitely possible.




(Speaking as one of Starfox' players
Yes, that kind of challenge can be very frustrating, but because of that also very fun to try, and rewarding when and if you succeed.


----------



## CruelSummerLord (May 18, 2009)

One of the greatest appeals of Greyhawk, and one that Gygax himself pointed out in the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide, was that a lot of the setting's details were left deliberately sketchy so individual groups could put their own spins on it. You could make the world dark and bloody, more light-hearted and humorous, high or low magic, pulp Conan-style adventures or epic Tolkienesque battles of good and evil, whatever suits you. 

This was also elaborated in how the setting was developed through modules as opposed to the sourcebook/novel-heavy approaches of Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. There were few arbitrary additions to official canon outside of the modules themselves, and your gaming group directly influenced how they turned out. If the drow were defeated in the Against the Giants modules, for instance, then Geoff, Sterich and the Yeomanry will not be invaded and you've just radically altered a possible outcome of the Greyhawk Wars. Potentially dramatic shifts in play could be worked out by your group based on your own actions, rather than on pre-set outcomes decided on by sourcebook and novel authors. 

Hence why so many fans hated the Greyhawk Wars, and I also have a certain distaste for Living Greyhawk-from _From the Ashes_ onwards, official setting canon was now being added by TSR/WoTC fiat that many players had no say or influence over, something that to my mind goes directly against the original spirit of the setting. The one golden rule of Greyhawk is, to me, that your group alone decides what is canon. The 1983 boxed set will be an obvious jumping-off point, but from there you should feel free to take what canon you like and discard the rest, an approach I use in my own Canonfire articles, where I only do research if I feel like it and include only those canonical facts that I like. 

Don't put too much faith in Nitescreed's Grey in the Hawk, as it's largely a series of strawman attacks directed against the Forgotten Realms. That said, both that essay and some of the other posts here demonstrate the conventions that developed among devoted fans-namely, that the world is a firmer shade of neutal grey rather than a battle of good versus evil; that magic is not as prevalent as in a place like the Forgotten Realms; that it's more Robert E. Howard and Fritz Leiber than J.R.R. Tolkien in its overall tone, although there's plenty to work with if you decide to go the Tolkien route; that the forces of good and evil are somewhat more pragmatic in that good nations can be at each others' throats or can ally with ostensible enemies if they work towards a common goal; and that the overall power levels are lower than they are in FR, for instance. 

These tropes are generally accepted by Greyhawk fans, although you can and should ignore any or all of them if you think it would benefit your campaign. Greyhawk is flexible enough that you can alter the tone and power level as you see fit and still run an enjoyable game. 

Again, if there's something in canon you don't like, throw it out and make up whatever you want in its place. I personally prefer to assume that _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks _never happened, that there are no crashed starships, robots or other science fiction knicknacks in the setting, to the point where gunpowder and the internal combustion engine do not function, which precludes the rise of guns or industrialization and keeps Greyhawk more or less permanently frozen at its pseudo-medieval technological level, although gnomes can elaborate other forms of technology, like combination locks and printing presses. 

Does that have any basis in Greyhawk? Not particularly, since Gygax's and Kuntz's original games were littered with sci-fi tropes, but I prefer to keep Greyhawk pure and untouched by these things, and the setting is flexible enough that I can quietly put them in the dustbin without too much fuss.


----------



## Invisible Stalker (May 18, 2009)

It's home.



The modules and the Greyhawk guides give me plenty of inspiration and I still think of Greyhawk as "the" D&D setting. But, it's a setting where I can change things to meet my needs. It's as if Gygax/ TSR/ WOTC provide a house and I get to choose the furniture, the shrubs and if I want a garage. As a specific 4e example, I chucked the gnomes out of the Kron Hills and made it the ancient home of the dragonborn. 

I'd like to see a 4e Greyhawk published. One giant hardcover with all the classic 1e modules converted to 4e should suffice.


----------



## jdrakeh (May 18, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, didn't the modules predate the folio?  My history is a bit fuzzy.  I know I picked up the boxed set way back when, but, I don't remember if it was new or had been around for a while when I did so.




The folio isn't the same thing as the box set. The box set was released in 1983 and the folio in 1980. Only the original D and G series predated the folio in their entirety. Additionally, two of the tourney modules (S1 and S2) and Village of Hommlet (T1) predated the folio. All of the other original Greyhawk adventure modules were published the same year as the folio or came later.


----------



## Dice4Hire (May 18, 2009)

This has turned into a pretty interesting thread. As I said above, I like Greyhawk, and except for homebrew worlds, it is the only place I play in.

One reason is it is so chock-full of adventuring opportunities, and it has always seemed that different areas lend themselves to different play and campaign styles. Want to explore ancient ruins, SW. Like intrigue head E. Survival against nature, head N. And so on.


----------



## senodam (May 18, 2009)

Greyhawk is chock full of evocative ideas, from the Scarlet Brotherhood and Horned Society to the mad mayor of Greyhawk City or the Mage of the Valley.

Just like any good D&D setting, it is full of adventure potential at every turn. 
That, combined with a slightly grittier feel than most pre-3e D&D worlds and the historic ties to the game itself makes for a fascinating world.

I'm a big student of D&D lore, such as it is, and learning more about Iggwilv, Mordenkainen and the origins of this creature or that spell holds a special attraction for me.

The only real downfall is the naming conventions of the setting. A nation called Geoff? Why not the Kingdom of Harry? Most of my players and friends attended St. Cuthbert Primary School...the chuckles at the god with that name ruined him forever in our eyes.

Other than that flaw? Greyhawk is a part of D&D's history, and that's what makes it special.


----------



## Bumbles (May 18, 2009)

senodam said:


> The only real downfall is the naming conventions of the setting. A nation called Geoff? Why not the Kingdom of Harry? Most of my players and friends attended St. Cuthbert Primary School...the chuckles at the god with that name ruined him forever in our eyes.




Reminds me of somebody I know who once complained about the name I picked for some villain being a swear word in some language I didn't speak.

Me, I just thought it was some random syllables that sounded nice.

Go figure.


----------



## Lars Porsenna (May 18, 2009)

senodam said:


> The only real downfall is the naming conventions of the setting. A nation called Geoff? Why not the Kingdom of Harry? Most of my players and friends attended St. Cuthbert Primary School...the chuckles at the god with that name ruined him forever in our eyes.




I think this is a cultural thing. FREX, with St Cuthbert, here in the US St Cuthbert is an obscure English saint, and I thought it kind of an interesting parallel. 

One thing we did for the Geoff issue is pronounce it more like it was spelled. Thus it wasn't "Jeff" but "Joff." This made it a bit less lame. YMMV.

Damon.


----------



## Stogoe (May 19, 2009)

Monkey Boy said:


> A Greyhawk campaign setting wouldn't be too big an investment.



It actually is - publishing Greyhawk means anything that would actually be interesting will be pushed back at least a year.

IMO, the only right way to re-release a vintage setting would be to do a complete reboot.  Forget the metaplot, the decades of modules and supplements that nobody new to the setting could ever find to read.  Go back to what made the setting great at the beginning.  I want a complete product, not just what amounts to a book of hyperlinks to out-of-print material.


----------



## Erik Mona (May 19, 2009)

Stogoe said:


> It actually is - publishing Greyhawk means anything that would actually be interesting will be pushed back at least a year.
> 
> IMO, the only right way to re-release a vintage setting would be to do a complete reboot.  Forget the metaplot, the decades of modules and supplements that nobody new to the setting could ever find to read.  Go back to what made the setting great at the beginning.  I want a complete product, not just what amounts to a book of hyperlinks to out-of-print material.




Why is it that you think staying relatively consistent with what has come before and going back to what made the setting great at the beginning are mutually exclusive?

The Whispering Cairn (my module in Dungeon #124 and the kick-off for the Age of Worms) is absolutely 100% a Greyhawk module, but you don't need to know anything about the setting for it to be an enjoyable "first edition style" experience.

Keep the focus on adventure and what's going on RIGHT NOW, and you don't need to worry about invalidating a bunch of continuity. Advance the timeline to the year 600, keep a few marquee NPCs like Iuz and Mordenkainen, and thereafter keep the focus on the adventures of the PLAYER CHARACTERS, and not on NPCs and history, and you're back at the original formula that made the campaign setting great.

You do not need to burn down 20 years of development (including the exposure of the setting to tens of thousands of players through Living Greyhawk) to put out cool material that does not require a master's degree to understand and enjoy.

It frankly doesn't take much effort.

--Erik


----------



## timbannock (May 19, 2009)

Not sure if it's even necessary, or if it'd just end up as filler, but you could always present a chapter on "Playing in the different eras of Greyhawk."  Similar to what many Star Wars rulebooks did, where they explain not just the whole history, but also insert the "playable action points" of the various eras.

Want to play pre-Wars GH?  You can run the battle of Emridy Meadows and the fall of the TOEE.

Post-Wars GH?  You can run...whatever the hell happened then.  (Can you tell which era I know more about?)

Just a thought.

I do have reservations on how to do the setting justice with 4e's fundamental ideology.  I don't think it's impossible (or even very difficult for good designers), but I do think certain assumptions in terms of the population and some of the badguys of the setting might need tweaking.  Just a gut feeling, so I can't really provide anything more specific.

But I'd definitely like to see it!


----------



## timbannock (May 19, 2009)

double post...boo!


----------



## Verys Arkon (May 19, 2009)

Thanks everyone for answering my question in the OP.  I think I can see what makes Greyhawk different from other settings more clearly now, and I'm inspired to read more about the setting's origins.  

In a recent thread on WotC's forums, Chris Perkins listed several prerequisites for launching a campaign setting.  

How do you feel Greyhawk measures up here?



> > Originally Posted by sigil_beguiler
> > It would be nice to here how WoTC goes about deciding what settings to build. Perhaps even a bit behind their building process.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Riley (May 20, 2009)

As a Greyhawk fan:



Verys Arkon said:


> In a recent thread on WotC's forums, Chris Perkins listed several prerequisites for launching a campaign setting.
> 
> How do you feel Greyhawk measures up here?
> 
> 1. Is there a business need or opportunity for a new setting or a reincarnated old setting?



Well, they do promise to release one of these annually, so "yes."


> 2. Where is popular culture heading? Can we create a setting that isn't irrelevant one or two years from now?



Greyhawk will be no less relevant two years from now than it already is today.


> 3. Are there any non-active settings that we're revitalizing in other arenas (digital games, novels, Hollywood, etc.)?



How did TOEE (the video game) do?  I haven't heard of any other Greyhawk tie-ins.


> 4. Is there an important niche that a new or old setting can fill?



Not really.  It overlaps heavily with Forgotten Realms in flavor.  Well, with 1e-3e FR, anyway.


> 5. Is there a particular setting that a significant number of D&D players want to see resurrected or reincarnated?



Yes, Greyhawk does have these.


> 6. Is there a setting that we can turn into a  million sub-brand with multiple revenue streams?



It's never really caught on in the past as a distinct brand.


> 7. Can we design a setting that doesn't fracture the D&D audience into a dozen squabbling sects that utterly loathe one another (a la TSR circa 1997)?



I think it overlaps too much with FR, which means that the two camps can get all worked up over the trivial differences between them.  Sort of like edition wars.

I love Greyhawk, and I may always run a Greyhawk game, but I don't see why WOTC should bother to publish a new edition of the world.  Given Chris Perkins' criteria, Dark Sun seems to be a much better choice for the next setting.  It's very distinct, and it has more potential for novels/movies/etc distinct from the D&D brand itself.


----------



## pawsplay (May 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Again, going to disagree with you.  That 6th level sheriff, if he was statted out by a module, likely had a magical weapon, magical armor and, quite possibly, another item or two.




I will note:
* This doesn't contradict what I said about the modules being exceptional circumstances. Thus, you could very well be right and you still would not have a reason to state you disagree with me about Greyhawk. You would have to furnish a different reason. 
* I'd like to see some examples from modules to compare. I haven't looked at one of those things in ages. 
* I didn't say anything about characters statted up in the modules. I said the world. I can flip through the NPC guidelines, the treasure tables, and the rest and quickly satisfy myself that a 6th level NPC is not likely, as the rules are set forth, to have many magic iterms, and is likely to have none. Thus, even if I run several Greyhawk modules, I can still, as I said, have the players go back to town and discover that it is still quite town-ish. The sheriff of a town in the grips of an evil conspiracy, or built right next door to a kobold mining operation, or that serves a town home to a special magic item that has been stolen, may very well be more exceptional than your average 6th level NPC.


----------



## meomwt (May 20, 2009)

Having seen what happened to The Realms when WotC "re-invigorated" the setting for 4E, I'd be more than happy for Greyhawk to be quietly ignored by the Powers that Be. I'd much rather keep the Greyhawk I have now (FtA, LGG, Oerth Journal and the three _Dragon_ AP's) than have Mordenkainen turned into a half-devil, Iuz convert to a Champion of Orcus and The Scarlet Brotherhood become a dance-troop. 

As might happen 

ETA: Though, if you look at Mike Mearls' Blog, his home campaign is set on Greyhawk (seemingly, City of Greyhawk), so there may be some play-testing going on there on the quiet. Shh!


----------



## M.L. Martin (May 21, 2009)

Verys Arkon said:


> 7. Can we design a setting that doesn't fracture the D&D audience into a dozen squabbling sects that utterly loathe one another (a la TSR circa 1997)?




   Am I the only one who saw this and thought "*Now* you're worrying about this?" 
   (I was around in 1997, and the setting snobbery and squabbles could get bad, but only among the hardest fringe, like a few who demanded people be fired over a Greyhawk reference in _On Hallowed Ground_, did it approach the venom of the present edition wars.)


----------



## Gentlegamer (May 21, 2009)

Greyhawk is a campaign where there can be barbarians and cavaliers in the same party, and it makes sense.


----------



## GSHamster (May 21, 2009)

This maybe wrong, but I've always thought of Greyhawk as setting that deliberately tries _not_ to be epic. It has history and events, but they seem to be local and personal in scope, rather than world-shaking.

But I never really played much Greyhawk, so that may be an outsider's perspective.


----------



## grodog (May 24, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> The folio isn't the same thing as the box set. The box set was released in 1983 and the folio in 1980. Only the original D and G series predated the folio in their entirety. Additionally, two of the tourney modules (S1 and S2) and Village of Hommlet (T1) predated the folio. All of the other original Greyhawk adventure modules were published the same year as the folio or came later.




Just to clarify the publishing chronology, here's the the GH products through 1983 with the box set, pulled from Russ Taylor's site, with a few tweaks of my own:



> 1976 Lost Caverns of Tsojconth tourney (see grodog's site @ Greyhawk's "Lost" Dungeon Levels:  S4 The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth for info on the publishing history of Tsojconth/S4)
> 
> 1978
> 
> ...




Dragon Magazine was also a huge source for GH data during these years, and if you're curious, see Dragon Magazine Greyhawk Article Index and Roger Moore's Revised GH Campaign Index @ http://www.canonfire.com/cfhtml/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=12

So, even by the end of 1980, there were a decent number of GH products available to purchase, most of them being modules.


----------



## grodog (May 24, 2009)

neuronphaser said:


> Not sure if it's even necessary, or if it'd just end up as filler, but you could always present a chapter on "Playing in the different eras of Greyhawk."  Similar to what many Star Wars rulebooks did, where they explain not just the whole history, but also insert the "playable action points" of the various eras.




This is a great idea, neuronphaser, and one that should be an introductory article at Canonfire!.  You can also extend the idea a little further by applying the rules systems to the eras of history/publishing, and matrix them to help people see that the Greyhawk Wars are just as viable an era when played with 1e as 4e, for example, or help folks see how 576 CY would change when run under OD&D vs. 3.5e.


----------



## Bumbles (May 24, 2009)

> Dungeons and Dragons coloring book (set in Greyhawk!)Dungeons and Dragons coloring book (set in Greyhawk!)




Most awesome product ever!


----------



## Hussar (May 24, 2009)

Lars Porsenna said:


> I think this is a cultural thing. FREX, with St Cuthbert, here in the US St Cuthbert is an obscure English saint, and I thought it kind of an interesting parallel.
> 
> One thing we did for the Geoff issue is pronounce it more like it was spelled. Thus it wasn't "Jeff" but "Joff." This made it a bit less lame. YMMV.
> 
> Damon.




Hey!  We did that too.  Gee off.  Mostly because my DM at the time was Jeff.  



			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> Keep the focus on adventure and what's going on RIGHT NOW, and you don't need to worry about invalidating a bunch of continuity. Advance the timeline to the year 600, keep a few marquee NPCs like Iuz and Mordenkainen, and thereafter keep the focus on the adventures of the PLAYER CHARACTERS, and not on NPCs and history, and you're back at the original formula that made the campaign setting great.




Well, that didn't work out completely well for Forgotten Realms, judging by the reaction here on En World.  A lot of people were pretty set against advancing the time line.  Note, I do 100% agree with you, just saying.



pawsplay said:


> I will note:
> * This doesn't contradict what I said about the modules being exceptional circumstances. Thus, you could very well be right and you still would not have a reason to state you disagree with me about Greyhawk. You would have to furnish a different reason.
> * I'd like to see some examples from modules to compare. I haven't looked at one of those things in ages.
> * I didn't say anything about characters statted up in the modules. I said the world. I can flip through the NPC guidelines, the treasure tables, and the rest and quickly satisfy myself that a 6th level NPC is not likely, as the rules are set forth, to have many magic iterms, and is likely to have none. Thus, even if I run several Greyhawk modules, I can still, as I said, have the players go back to town and discover that it is still quite town-ish. The sheriff of a town in the grips of an evil conspiracy, or built right next door to a kobold mining operation, or that serves a town home to a special magic item that has been stolen, may very well be more exceptional than your average 6th level NPC.




I don't believe we get to pick and choose canon.  The established canon of the setting, as presented in the modules, has a Greyhawk that is absolutely dripping in magic items.  While I agree that what's presented in the DMG may contradict this, it doesn't stop it from being true.  

So, yes, if you ran Greyhawk and ignore 99% of the canon, it's a low magic setting where magic items are rare.  I'm in complete agreement here.


----------



## grodog (May 24, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I don't believe we get to pick and choose canon.  The established canon of the setting, as presented in the modules, has a Greyhawk that is absolutely dripping in magic items.  While I agree that what's presented in the DMG may contradict this, it doesn't stop it from being true.
> 
> So, yes, if you ran Greyhawk and ignore 99% of the canon, it's a low magic setting where magic items are rare.  I'm in complete agreement here.




While there is a general sense that GH is "low magic" that label often doesn't take into account the campaign-changing magical cataclysms that drive the settings history (Rain of Colorless Fire, Invoked Devestation, whatever magical event created the Rift Valley, the sinking of the Isles of Woe, etc., etc.), and the fact that a good number of 1e DMG artifacts are firmly grounded in Greyhawk (heck, Gygax, Sargent, and Moore each placed one [or suggested its placement in Moore's case] in WG6 Isle of the Ape, Ivid the Undying, and Return of the Eight, respectively).  So, Greyhawk certainly has its high magic side.  

Even with all of that in mind, however, I think the point that the earlier folks were trying to make is that, yes, while the modules are in fact dripping with magic items, the setting as it's generally established _in canon_ doesn't employ the idea of "magic as a utility" such that every big city has continual light lanterns, that every sergent of the watch wields a magical weapon, and that you can casually run into archmages masquerading as beggars while strolling down the streets of Greyhawk City.  I think that's the "low magic" distinction that folks are trying to draw (by default, in comparison to the FR), and even though GH isn't really "low magic" in the way that REH's Hyborian World is, magic is still not common in the daily lives of non-adventurers---it's still uncommon, perhaps even rare.  The demographics of magic's availability don't put it into the hands of most of the setting's population.

Not sure if that helps or not, but that's my take on it.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2009)

See, Grodog, that's the problem I've got.  I agree with you that that is the feel that fans try to promote, but, I'm not sure if it's really supported by canon all that well.  Even in very low level modules, like Hommlet, commoners have magic weapons.  You were much better off looting the town in Cult of the Reptile God than doing the actual adventure.  

That's the stumbling point that I have.  Sure, you don't have continual light lanterns  on the street (and don't in Forgotten Realms either to my knowledge), but, the modules certainly paint magic as pretty ubiquitous.


----------



## billd91 (May 25, 2009)

Hussar said:


> See, Grodog, that's the problem I've got.  I agree with you that that is the feel that fans try to promote, but, I'm not sure if it's really supported by canon all that well.  Even in very low level modules, like Hommlet, commoners have magic weapons.




But who were those commoners? Elmo had magical gear, but he was an agent keeping an eye on the town. The priests and druid had magic weapons. The moneychanger had two (but was pretty rich). And the trading post guys had some, but they were agents of the Temple. 
Sure, there was magical gear about, but really not that much and the characters who had them had some justification. I don't believe there were any 0-level commoners who had them.

As for whether it's more worthwhile to loot a town rather than the ruins outside it, I don't see why that would be surprising. You could raid for whatever wealth was stashed away decades, maybe centuries ago, or you could prey on the fruits of a vibrant and active economy. Historically speaking, vikings didn't plunder towns because they were poor targets. So I don't see why raiding the town couldn't be an even better target given D&D's cash-based economy. The challenge for PCs in an adventuring party is that doing so will probably be worse, in the long term, than exploring and plundering ruins. They'll get current governments after them, trying to bring them to justice. In the ruins, you get whatever monsters moved in... and most people will applaud their demise.


----------



## haakon1 (May 27, 2009)

Hobo said:


> Seriously; there's nothing objective about Greyhawk that makes it unique, unusual, or special.




I disagree with your initial statement, which I think is a nonsequitor with the rest.  The rest, however, is 100% right.

I guess it depends on whether you think "D&D original flavor, as its creator intended" is unique, unusual, and special, or not, because it's been copied so extensively by all that comes after it.

My dad was a professor of English literature, and once had a student say, "Why do people think Shakespeare is so good?  It's full of cliches."  The point of course being -- they were not cliches when he invented them.



Hobo said:


> However, for the folks who grew up playing it, Greyhawk and D&D are basically synonomous.  To them, Greyhawk _is_ D&D.  The flavor of D&D is Greyhawk and the flavor of Greyhawk is D&D.  It's the creation of Gary Gygax himself, it's his distillation of what fantasy gaming is supposed to be like and about.
> . . .
> Greyhawk is D&D.
> . . .
> ...




QFT.


----------



## haakon1 (May 27, 2009)

darjr said:


> I just realized one of the reasons I love Greyhawk.
> 
> Those modules were gonzo, in a world that wasn't.
> 
> ...




Good point.  I always expressed it by saying, "You need to have a Shire."  That is, Tolkien achieved the same effect by starting his mega fantasy not with painting on a van stuff, but with an unexpected tea party in a small village where nothing much ever happens.

Greyhawk had in the Keep, Hommlett, etc.


----------



## Maldin (May 28, 2009)

I think many of things that have already been pointed out throughout this thread help make Greyhawk special. High magic aspects in a low magic (common)world. An initial rough framework of a world that would not be constrictive to DMs, that was then built on and developed through adventures (both the classics, all the way up to the modern Adventure Paths), rather then novels. The whole D&D is Greyhawk, Greyhawk is D&D arguement. Shades of good and evil, law and chaos. The lack of super-NPCs that seem to meddle directly with even the most insignificant adventuring party. And so much more. So I'll agree with many of the previous posters.

There is, however, another huge reason why I think Greyhawk is special that hasn't been mentioned at all yet.

"Its fan-built, w/ lots of contributions *I* have made"

I don't just mean "me, personally", and I don't mean fan websites (like mine) either. Greyhawk, more then any other campaign world, has had significant contributions made by people who were fans first and foremost... In my case it has been things I've done like the City of Greyhawk and Irongate materials that have been published, the influence I've had (and my campaign has had) on other avenues (such as my input into things like the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer), and several other projects, some revealed, and some not.

But many others have had similar experiences as I, some more tangible, others less so. Erik Mona contributed as a fan first, before he was hired full time by WotC (as a result of the quality of work he did as a fan). Gary Holian, Fred Weining, Eric Boyd, Steve Greer, Sam Weiss, Robert Mullin, Joe Bloch, Noel Graham, Scott Casper, Greg Vaughn, Creighton Broadhurst, Paul Looby, Andy Miller, Dave Howery, Scott Bennie, and many others, all were fans who contributed to official published Greyhawk. People just like you and me. Anybody could have the opportunity to contribute. I know I've missed a lot of other Greyhawk fan-authors. If you think of any, post them to this thread.

Then there is the massive force of creativity that was known as the Living Greyhawk Campaign. Hundreds of writers, hundreds of adventures, tens of thousands of pages of development covering virtually every region on the map. Aspects of which have been canonized in published articles and map-locations. NO campaign world put out by ANY company for ANY game system has ever had such an important contribution by the people who actually play the game.

That is how today's Greyhawk has come to be... what, in my opinion, is what today's Greyhawk is all about. It's initial flavor and charm came from its beginnings as someone's (Gygax's) home campaign world, lovingly built. Forgotten Realms began as someone's (Greenwood's) lovingly built home campaign, and then became the corporate Realm. Likewise, Greyhawk evolved, is no longer EGG's home campaign world, and hasn't been for a very long time (well, actually, published GH never really was that).
It's *everyone's* home campaign world. And *you* had the opportunity to help it become that.

Denis, aka "Maldin" (my own PC who also has become an official World of Greyhawk NPC!)
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com
Loads of edition-independent official and unofficial Greyhawk Goodness... maps, magic, mysteries, mechanics, and more!


----------



## Maldin (May 28, 2009)

I'd like to make one further comment, but I wanted to keep it separate from my previous post.

It pains me greatly that the above reason why I think Greyhawk is special, is no longer possible. The avenues through which fans made all those contributions to Greyhawk are gone. WotC has gone through periods (though not as long as the most recent epoch) where very little Greyhawk material was published, and I wouldn't be surprised to see periods where they decide to publish something Greyhawkian again. However Dragon and Dungeon magazines were always there. It disturbs me that all signs seem to indicate that fan contributions are effectively (even if not officially) no longer being accepted by those epublications. There is no more Greyhawk being published anywhere (and no, using things like the gods of Greyhawk as generic core articles does not count - I'm talking actually campaign setting material). Greyhawk, as a setting, seems to have been banned. As well, Living Greyhawk is officially dead, and that vast library of material is lost (as in no longer available to anyone, ever).

But, you say, Greyhawk may appear as a campaign setting in the next few years. Yes, I've heard all the rumors, and hopes, and prayers... however, even if a new Greyhawk campaign setting book(s) were to come out (in the style of the recent setting re-releases)... that would not bring back the vibrancy of: Greyhawk, Everyone's Home Campaign World. Unless that avenue of continued fan contribution were to open up again. When Erik Mona (as a fan!) was asked to tackle the 3E relaunch of Greyhawk (and Living Greyhawk) with the creation of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, he called on many people from the Greyhawk community (and incorporated material written and published by many other fans over the years), to build it. I don't see that happening again. Frankly, I'm not interested in seeing the complete reinvention of the setting by a single staff writer with a bizarre "hook" (such as jumping the timeline, or gutting the world's canon) working in a vacuum.

I WOULD be interested in seeing a new setting book that stayed true to Greyhawk's published past, expanded on new areas of the campaign world, and set the stage for continued support and fan contributions to keep the setting vibrant.

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com
Loads of edition-independent Greyhawk Goodness... maps, magic, mysteries, mechanics, and more!


----------



## Mortellan (May 29, 2009)

I agree with all Maldin states above. If Greyhawk is to get a proper footing into the next edition it must have a way for fans to contribute either in new development or through official adaptation of old canon materials. This is the only way to bring the fans into the new rules set and not fracture us away even further.


----------



## grodog (Jun 4, 2009)

Fan contributions are particularly important in Greyhawk, since the setting was OOP and officially dead/on extended hiatus for two long interregnums.  Plus, as Denis justifiably stated, the work of many fans has been incorporated into the setting over time, once unofficial fan works became canon when published by WotC (which doesn't make them any less ignorable 

A good example:  I'm using the term "Jasidian" for a cult of heretical Wee Jas worshippers in 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I'm running this weekend at the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.  The term always stuck in my head as one I liked, so I decided to use it for these bad guys:  fan works being transformed when used by other fans is part-and-parcel of the GH setting, and the fanbase's culture!


----------



## haakon1 (Jun 5, 2009)

grodog said:


> fan works being transformed when used by other fans is part-and-parcel of the GH setting, and the fanbase's culture!




Three snips in my campaign from the old Greyhawk on AOL discussion board:
-- Hardby is a city of spice trading, and still independent from Greyhawk, though still under the thumb of its ally politically.  (I'm not sure how much of that I made up versus others.  I know I was part of the discussion.)
-- Suel survivors of the Sea of Dust have a city that worships Wee Jas, with three castes and bronze-age tech.  (I snipped the whole post into the background docs for my campaign, and one of the PC's is from that culture.)
-- Clockworks come from Dyvers.

Basically, my campaign is an amalgamation of the original Greyhawk boxed set, the 3rd Edition WOTC materials, stuff I've heard over the years from fans, stuff I made up, and 3rd party materials that I snipped, whether they were officially for Greyhawk or not.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 7, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> The Whispering Cairn (my module in Dungeon #124 and the kick-off for the Age of Worms) is absolutely 100% a Greyhawk module, but you don't need to know anything about the setting for it to be an enjoyable "first edition style" experience.




My GM wanted to run the AoW.  We already had our campaign established in FR, however.  To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY thing he did to convert the module from Greyhawk to FR was change the name of the town to a town located on the FR map close to our starting location.

I really don't think there is as big a difference between GH and FR as a lot of people like to believe.  I almost always pick FR as a campaign setting...yet I have read very very few of the novels or setting books, don't really care much about the overarching backstories, nor do I ever include the famous FR characters people get tired of seeing.

DS


----------



## Quartz (Jun 8, 2009)

Erik Mona said:


> Advance the timeline to the year 600, keep a few marquee NPCs like Iuz and Mordenkainen, and thereafter keep the focus on the adventures of the PLAYER CHARACTERS, and not on NPCs and history, and you're back at the original formula that made the campaign setting great.




I can't help but think that a reboot would do Greyhawk a lot of good. Advance the timeline to Smuffet Pledger's era and you can still keep key NPCs. The Great Kingdom and the Lands of Iuz have become the sources of tieflings, the elves of the Lendore Isles have become eladrin, the nations are roughly as they were. No great magical changes a la Spellplague but rather just the gradual tide of history.


----------



## rounser (Jun 8, 2009)

> 2. Where is popular culture heading? Can we create a setting that isn't irrelevant one or two years from now?



I do all my homebrews based on what's "so hot right now".  Got the idea from Cosmo.

HOT:
Vampire boyfriends
Giant transforming robots
Sentient computers fighting wars with robots
Batman

NOT:
Vampire slayers
Zombies
Student wizards
The Macarena

Now, how can we integrate this information into Greyhawk?  It should definitely _not_ involve zombies doing the macarena, I'll tell you that now.  That is, like, so last decade.  And tell Bigby to lose the bell bottoms.


----------



## JohnBiles (Jun 8, 2009)

rounser said:


> I do all my homebrews based on what's "so hot right now".  Got the idea from Cosmo.
> 
> HOT:
> Vampire boyfriends
> ...




In the ancient days of Greyhawk, before the fall of the Suel and Baklunish empires, before even the days of the RISE of the Suel and the Baklunish empires, the enigmatic Ur-Flan ruled the Flanness from cities of stone and steel and crystal, warring with each other for the cosmic power contained in the places they built their cities.  They built giant golem armies, piloted by young Flan who were guided by each city's 'Great Brain', a huge crystalline structure which contained the souls of past pilots, pooling their resources to guide new generations of warriors.  

These endless struggles, however, depleted most of the cosmic power and the cities wiped each other out in a final apocalyptic struggle which forced most of the Great Brains into hibernation and destroyed most evidence these machines ever existed.  Only a handful of lesser war machines survived, such as the Machine of Lum the Mad and the Mighty Servant of Leuk-o.

But now, the cosmic power has finally replenished itself and the Great Brains are awakening to re-open their ancient war and to find young, gullible teenagers to become their proxies to finally settle who is the Greatest Brain of All.  (Research shows those teens foolish enough to date vampires are most ideal for this process!!!)

The Animal Lord of Bats is rumored to have subverted one of the Great Brains to his will, however, and recruited his own army of teenagers to try and stop the war before it destroys the Flaaness.  Or possibly he's just trying to save the vampire boyfriends of the pilots.

Time will tell.


----------



## Sunderstone (Jun 8, 2009)

Im almost afraid to see what WotC does to this setting. I have nightmares about Warforged running through the streets of Greyhawk rounding up Gnomes for public executions.


----------



## Sturtevant (Jun 9, 2009)

Sunderstone said:


> ... rounding up Gnomes for public executions.



That wouldn't be so bad, would it?


----------

