I think this would be the best thing that could happen but I have to wonder if that would be the end of Greyhawk in Dungeon magazine. Obviously if the Shackled City is a preview of published adventure material we could get our Greyhawk adventures in a more permanent form and with some great authors in the stable. Still it would be sad to see Greyhawk completely gone from Dragon and Dungeon.
If Paizo was getting the rights and was going in the direction of "Dungeon magazine" + "Greyhawk products", I think that Greyhawk could still figure in the magazine, but more like the FR or Eberron are currently doing it.
There would actually be three supported settings getting occasional adventures in Dungeon instead of two. You could have two truly generic adventures per magazine + one setting-related. It would make 4 FR, 4 Eberron and 4 really Greyhawk adventures a year.
Bocklin
I've played GH since the late 1970's using only sporadic published materials throughout 2nd Edition; I've yet to even see any 3.0 or 3.5 d20 material on GH.
I don't know what people mean by 'bland', but I've played GH over FR, Ebberon or any other setting without complaint by me or player alike - the world is what the DM makes of it.
I learned years ago how to avoid playing the "buy the current rule system and keep our business afloat" game...
...Squad Leader, anyone?
My total expenditures on gaming materials over the years probably totals less than $100; not necessarily by choice, but I got by - and will still get by.
GH has been my 'Core Campaign Setting' for 25 years and nothing will change anytime soon - since whomever publishes with the rights will have absolutely no bearing on which setting I use or don't use.
M
I will admit that the misconception some people (like me) have about GH being "bland" is probably a result of people DMing, maybe for the first time, and not bothering to make up any background for a campaign, which they will just run as the "standard" setting. I agree that the world is what the DM makes of it, but FR and Eberron might give a DM more to work with, and even give them a little help in making the world unique without the DM having to make a campaign handout and do all the work themselves. So, basically, I prefer FR and Eberron because they give you a nice map and enough background information for the DM to work with without presenting the daunting task of making your own world (basically) from scratch.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I have to agree with Mark Chin - the world is what you make of it.
I *like* the plain vanilla ness of the Greyhawk setting - it drops into any campaign with little or no tweaking, and it gives newbies an easy-to-digest setting without going into the depth and crunch of say FR or Eberron.
I would hate to see this one go - it provided many a foundation for a lot of games, and with the popularity of the Greyhawk adventure settings (esp the Shackled City Adventure Path) in Dungeon, it would be a damn shame.
I have to agree with Mark Chin - the world is what you make of it.
I *like* the plain vanilla ness of the Greyhawk setting - it drops into any campaign with little or no tweaking, and it gives newbies an easy-to-digest setting without going into the depth and crunch of say FR or Eberron.
I would hate to see this one go - it provided many a foundation for a lot of games, and with the popularity of the Greyhawk adventure settings (esp the Shackled City Adventure Path) in Dungeon, it would be a damn shame.
I agree, and I enjoy having all the adventure paths in Dungeon being a plain vanilla setting, so you can run it in GH if you wish, or you can easily convert it into FR or Eberron.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I would hate to see this one go - it provided many a foundation for a lot of games, and with the popularity of the Greyhawk adventure settings (esp the Shackled City Adventure Path) in Dungeon, it would be a damn shame.
I think AP popularity has more to do with the fact that they're a complete campaign, from level one to level twenty. They're also written well and are well supported by Paizo. I don't think the setting is the number one reason. If anything, there are already a few people in the AP board who are either skipping the AP because it's too bland for their tastes or too much work to integrate into Eberron or they're going to run it in Greyhawk as it was designed for initially. Personally I'm running it because Keith Baker is involved; I have no desire to run Shackled City as it seems like it would be a lot of work to convert.
Default isn't always popular because it's better, it's just more readily available. If Eberron or FR became the default setting for D&D then I'm guessing interest in Greyhawk, in general, would wane. Already there are many people who clamor for Greyhawk material yet know nothing about the hundreds of 3.x adventures in LG that flesh out the world. You can play these even if you aren't a part of the RPGA and many of them are pretty good.
Personally, I think Paizo should drop Greyhawk as the default setting in Dungeon and relaunch the Living Greyhawk Journal with new adventures and setting material.
As far as I'm aware the Living Greyhawk adventures are only available to RGPA members. I've never been able to get hold of any.
I'd personally like to see more Greyhawk in Dungeon and the return of the LGJ.
As far as I'm aware the Living Greyhawk adventures are only available to RGPA members. I've never been able to get hold of any.
I'd personally like to see more Greyhawk in Dungeon and the return of the LGJ.
Doing both is a bit of overkill IMO.
If you know a DM who is registered for home play in the RPGA then he can order adventures, download them and print them out for use. They're free and there's almost no work involved to get them. Once you have them at home you can do pretty much whatever you want with them, and they provide a lot of neat info about the setting.
Non-RPGA members can also check out the regional web sites. There are dozens of prestige classes and tons of background info available.
Still, I would like to learn more about GH and I think that by having adventrues set itn the world and the areas around the adventure detailed, the world gains strength beyond just a nice Gazetter to read, but an adventure/location/enviroment to explore.
Give me something to play, not just something to read.
ASEO
Most people's personal investment with Greyhawk stems from classics like G1-3, Vault of the Drow, the S series, the A series etc. These modules had very little background information but they were so cool that most people have fond memories of Greyhawk because of them.
Anyway the idea of basing Greyhawk development from adventures is definitely a good idea. Its the whole foundation of the campaign world after all. It is certainly gut-check time for Greyhawk fans.
|
I agree that the world is what the DM makes of it, but FR and Eberron might give a DM more to work with, and even give them a little help in making the world unique without the DM having to make a campaign handout and do all the work themselves. So, basically, I prefer FR and Eberron because they give you a nice map and enough background information for the DM to work with without presenting the daunting task of making your own world (basically) from scratch.
Greyhawk is as diverse and has as much background-material as the settings you mentioned (it definitly has much more background than Eberron!). Greyhawk has a rich and interesting history and doesn't have to hide when compared to FR.
The difference might be the fact, that a DM has to do a little more research to use the setting. He can't go to his FLGS and buy the GHCS. But as you can see, there's much of the information avaiable for free on the net.Greyhawk has great fans and i don't know of another setting that is that strongly supported by its followers like this one.
The difference might be the fact, that a DM has to do a little more research to use the setting. He can't go to his FLGS and buy the GHCS. But as you can see, there's much of the information avaiable for free on the net.
No, but he can go get the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. My problem with WotC's reasoning is that they claim there isn't enough demand for a Greyhawk Campaign Setting hardcover, but my hypothesis is that the demand isn't there because it isn't promoted nearly as much as FR or Eberron are. If they marketed Greyhawk as much as they did FR with the notion that it's the "core" setting, I think most new players would prefer it. However, it would mean that FR wouldn't be as popular among the newer players, and it would take some serious cuts in its share of the market. WotC doesn't want to hurt one of its primary sources of income.
My first exposure to D&D was through Baldur's Gate, which was set in FR. When I first played a tabletop campaign, it was in the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil using the 3e rules. My DM announced we were playing in Greyhawk and I was like "Grey-what? I thought Forgotten Realms was the standard D&D setting." That just shows how much exposure FR gets when compared to Greyhawk.
Getting to know Greyhawk was the best thing that ever happened to my gaming experience. Now as a DM running Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, I am obsessed with it. I'm constantly grabbing bits and peices from the generic D&D books and integrating them into my campaign. I recognize the references littered throughout WotC's generic books.
There's so much potential. If WotC would only embrace it.
Perhaps if X4/5/10 were done, it could be Rary and Robolar leading the forces out of the blight desert (or which ever desert they are hiding in at the moment...I don't have any of my books with me)Now that would be interesting. :) I though of a similiar situation when Dungeon did that series of articles on Rary and Blight Desert.
Issue #s?
MI
If WotC drops Greyhawk, I personally don't want to see it in Dungeon or Dragon except for the Campaign Classics issues...
I can't agree.
For a while there I thought TSR & WotC were doing the right thing in abandonding GH -- there just didn't seem to be enough loyalty from customers.
I was way wrong.
Clearly there is a large base of diehard 'Hawkers that remain interested in quality products. Furthermore, they are often older gamers -- which is to say they likely have larger incomes with which they can buy supplements and adventures. Increasingly, I'm confused by WotC's fixation with what may be a deeply flawed marketing strategy.
Just two more cents :)
Jack
|
With the way Paizo has handled Greyhawk, it has turned me and my group into fans. The giant poster map...the adventure paths...the demonomicon of Iggwilv...If WOTC isn't going to support the setting they should give it to Erik Mona.
Greyhawk generic or bland? No way.
There is soooo much oportunity for adventure in this great setting.
and as for the RPGA? I have alot of issues about the way they are run. I never got my membership number, despite playing in a con adventure and later passing their hereld level DM test online. And the adventure I played in was boring hack-n-slash with poor discriptions and no roleplay, while my super obese RPGA DM breast fed her three year old. THREE. I hope the yokels running the RPGA (or at least the ones in the pacific northwest)DO NOT get the rights to Greyhawk.
As far as rights go, is the Birthright setting available for sale? anyone know?
If the GH rights are even up for grabs, I'd like to see Mr. Mona and Paizo get it. I'm starting to get the notion that Paizo is starting to push the gaming industry moreso than WotC.
But, regardless, it won't do any good talkin' about it here. I figure this thread should be copied to the Wizards' Forums.
If the rights to publish Greyhawk were to become available, you can bet that Paizo would go after them. We have asked about it in the past on a couple of occasions, and the rights have never been available.
--Erik
I'd have to wonder if what might be better idea is to negoitiate with the another licence holder to make adventures set in Greyhawk. Leave the 15 setting books to another party.
You already have the staff and a compny designed to make magazines to a high level of quality. I'd wonder if expansion in that field might not be a better idea. I'd think there is room currently for several Dungeon semi-annuals focusing on some of the more neglected settings like Darksun etc. Obvously these too require negoitiating with liscence holders but most of these companies could use the exposure. Finally there might be a market for a Dungeon style magazine done quarterly for the varous other D20 systems like Modern or Apocalypse or maybe especially Star Wars.
I'd not be suprised to find that Dragon could be expanded along similier lines with semi-annual extra editions devoted to other d20 settings and genres.
Obvously I really don't now your companies model is but normally I would expect a company to focus on their strengths as opposed to expanding into new fields unless there is no more that can be done in area's that are thier recognized strengths.
Perhaps if X4/5/10 were done, it could be Rary and Robolar leading the forces out of the blight desert (or which ever desert they are hiding in at the moment...I don't have any of my books with me)Now that would be interesting. :) I though of a similiar situation when Dungeon did that series of articles on Rary and Blight Desert.Issue #s?
MI
Look for Dungeon #98, Into the Bright Desert which was a good mini-gazetteer of the, you guessed it, the Bright Desert and Dungeon #103, Denizens of the Bright Desert. This issue provides stats for Rary.
--Ray.
|
|
I think AP popularity has more to do with the fact that they're a complete campaign, from level one to level twenty. They're also written well and are well supported by Paizo. I don't think the setting is the number one reason. If anything, there are already a few people in the AP board who are either skipping the AP because it's too bland for their tastes or too much work to integrate into Eberron or they're going to run it in Greyhawk as it was designed for initially. Personally I'm running it because Keith Baker is involved; I have no desire to run Shackled City as it seems like it would be a lot of work to convert.Default isn't always popular because it's better, it's just more readily available. If Eberron or FR became the default setting for D&D then I'm guessing interest in Greyhawk, in general, would wane. Already there are many people who clamor for Greyhawk material yet know nothing about the hundreds of 3.x adventures in LG that flesh out the world. You can play these even if you aren't a part of the RPGA and many of them are pretty good.
Personally, I think Paizo should drop Greyhawk as the default setting in Dungeon and relaunch the Living Greyhawk Journal with new adventures and setting material.
What kind of sick, demented anti-D&D propaganda is this? Greyhawk is the one true Dungeons and Dragons world, and all others are pretenders to the throne! It saddens me greatly that WotC doesn't give Greyhawk its due support. It is far too rich a campaign world to abandon. I had almost given up hope on Dungeons and Dragons completely when Mr. Mona brought new hope to me in the simple form of a giant poster map. You know, Paizo got those ENies for a good reason...
I would like to see Paizo aquire the publication rights to GH.
Honestly, I have created my own setting, using GH, FR, and Eb. But more recently, for the AoW Adventure Path, I have literaly dropped Free City, Diamond Lake, and even Greysmere into my setting. They fit one region in paticular perfectly. Then that inspired me to develop some of the realms surrounding that one.
Anyhow, just voicing (or typing) my opinion.
Good Luck Erik! Good luck Paizo!
|
I am finding myself more and more disgusted by what wotc is doing to D&D in general. It absolutely follows the current trend of theirs to crap on certain groups of gamers. They have out priced ALL corebooks so that in order to start playing D&D you have to have a fairly good career/job, making it so pricey to get into that most younger persons can't even really test the game out(the basic game box is a joke). I can't buy a freakin' minature without acting like a Yu-Gi-Oh addict and plopping down $15, praying I don't get the same junk I already got. I started playing D&D at 11 years old. I don't know an eleven yr old who can afford to play this game. Why are they ignoring this market? Now they may want to cut Greyhawk?!? There goes alot of the older market! Just tell us that you only want 20-28 yr. olds to play so we "others" can find another game system. I was hoping that WOTC would expand the gaming community, making it easier to find a game.
Greyhawk was a place where your group was allowed to take center stage. No Elminsters, no cataclysms, just a rich beautiful world that was in need of heroes. Maybe S&S needs heroes now... I'll start looking into it since I'm no longer feeling welcome in WOTC's world.
Sorry guys, I needed to vent.....I feel better now.
FH
Clearly there is a large base of diehard 'Hawkers that remain interested in quality products. Furthermore, they are often older gamers -- which is to say they likely have larger incomes with which they can buy supplements and adventures. Increasingly, I'm confused by WotC's fixation with what may be a deeply flawed marketing strategy.Jack
I wrote something similar a month or 2 ago in another thread. I mean, I am in my mid thirties and make a very healthy salary. I was a fanatic when i was younger and used my paper delivery income to buy every TSR module that came out, even the really bad ones.
In university I bought dungeon religiously and wasted precious beer drinking money on FR crapfests like Nightmare keep and the Great Glacier.
Now that I have a real job and lots of disposable income I can afford to spend more on this stuff, but I am tired on buying crap. So I direct my dollars to stuff I like, such as dungeon issues that capture the flavour that got me addicted back in the early 80's.
The early greyhawk stuff was great in that it was great writing but never elborated enough..so you always hungered for more.
Greenwood did that to time in his early Dragon mags. But I think my interest in Relams faded when the novels started coming out and dictating history. No, I liked the original FR setting and I, the DM, would dicate history, not some random hack author.
Greyhawk didn't get novelized to death..I mean, I never read Gygax's stories and it seems to have little or no impact on my understanding of Greyhawk history. You can't say that about FR.
So, I am not buying all these complete warrior supplements, nor ghostwalk, nor frostbrun or stormwreck...I am buying Dungeon magazine regularly, why, cause they are giving me my Greyhawk fix.
I simply do not understand the marketing strategy at WOTC. Why are they producing all this nonsense that just gathers dust on dealers shelves. I am not exaggerating. I was at Cangames in May and picked up several FR hardcover gazzeteers at half price. Get Rob Kuntz a contract to do some Greyhawk super modules and I will buy each one. Coax Gary out of semi-tirement and pay him well for some real castle greyhawk stuff, and the buyers will be there.
sigh...its not rocket science. The only thing that would explain it is a legal quagmire.
Frankly, the prospect of Greyhawk being developed by Paizo has me giddy as a schoolboy, though I would loathe the prospect of Greyhawk related material disappearing from the magazines.
Let's face it, Greyhawk is always going to represent the old school home of D&D players, and it will always have that mystique about it. It's incredibly appealing to me to run my games there, and I think Paizo has done a great job with the new "Adventure Path" series of creating new classics for the setting. The Shackled City campaign, and what I've seen of Age of Worms so far, are full of modules that I would consider more than worthy companions to Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors, et al.
If Wizards of the Coast doesn't want Greyhawk, good! They're not really doing anything with it anyhow. Paizo, and Eric Mona in particular, you more than have my blessing to lead us into a new age of Greyhawk gaming. Good work, sir. Good work.
Tonight was the first that I had heard about WOTC possibly dropping Greyhawk from the Core Rules. To tell you the truth, I can't think of anything that would make me happier. In my opinion, the Core Rules should be completely generic so as to compel players and DMs to either purchase published material or make up their own. It can only increase business for all publishers as well as increase the customers creativity.
As for WOTC handing the rights over to another publisher, I have mixed feelings about this.
Part of me thinks that they should keep it as they have the most resources to develop it.
Part of me feels that selling the rights to a third publisher who wants to devote their own resources to the setting would also make sense. However, that course of action would only create arguments over who should have control and who should have input into what has become a legendary and living campaign setting.
There's another part of me that believes that WOTC should show loyalty to the RPGA and allow them and encourage them to actually publish their version of the setting. After all, they are the ones who right now are carrying most of the burden of creating new material. I'm sure that the RPGA could use some money to keep the system going.
But I think the idea that is winning me over right now would be to continue what they started with the d20 system. Personally, I'd love to see Greyhawk open-sourced. It would allow not just new people to chart its course, but would also permit the original and current developers to map its past. If the setting was open-sourced, it would even allow competing game systems to support the setting. In my opinion, this would be the best win-win scenario possible.
|
|
If WOTC was deciding not to have any generic D&D world then I really wouldn't care, its just another dumb act by a company that is trying desperately to drain money from its consumers by giving in to the current trends and releasing second rate products (3.0 anyone? miniatures?). If Greyhawk is replaced by Forgotten Realms, I personally feel that people over at WOTC should be fired or retire because they honestly don't care about the experience that is D&D. If Greyhawk is replaced by Eberron, I think burning at the stake should be considered. I find Eberron to be a trendy worthless piece of junk that proves that WOTC's marketing team just couldn't think up any other way of trying to make money. Now we all pay for a lack of imagination and integrety. I don't want a campaign that I need an update for every couple of months just to know what is going on there. I wish there was a way of organizing a protest, but WOTC has been deaf to the cries of the masses for so long that I feel this wouldn't be heard. Not to mention that there are just enough newbs to justify WOTC screwing up traditional campaign worlds. They oughta sell the whole D&D license and do us all a favor.
Greyhawk has great fans and i don't know of another setting that is that strongly supported by its followers like this one.
I do. Don't forget Greyhawk's brother and primary old skool competitor, Mystara! The Vaults of Pandius, http://pandius.com/index.html has loads of good stuff for the setting and the Mystaran Message Board at WotC, http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=291 is very active.
--Ray.
Hi Erik,
Has WoTC entered into any serious discussion with Paizo about selling the Greyhawk product line? or at least enter into a more extensive licensing arrangement with Paizo to give them more creative license to develop and sell it more than just through the magazine subscriptions?
It's interesting. Even though many have speculated that Mona is under pressure to dilute the uniqueness of Greyhawk in Dungeon of late, I think it may be the opposite case: by making Greyhawk more generic in the adventure path series, Mona is actually positioning the setting for its liberation at the hands of 4e. Ingenious, Eric. Truly ingenious.
I wouldn't put it past him. ;)
Now that I have a real job and lots of disposable income I can afford to spend more on this stuff, but I am tired on buying crap. So I direct my dollars to stuff I like, such as dungeon issues...
So, I am not buying all these complete warrior supplements, nor ghostwalk, nor frostbrun or stormwreck...I am buying Dungeon magazine regularly, why, cause they are giving me my Greyhawk fix.I simply do not understand the marketing strategy at WOTC. Why are they producing all this nonsense that just gathers dust on dealers shelves. I am not exaggerating. I was at Cangames in May and picked up several FR...
My thoughts exactly. I am so tired of how WoTC are incessantly churning out crap by the truckload, while at the same time neglecting any kind of RPG material I would find useful or appealing myself. For God's sake, they don't even publish adventures anymore, just addenda to the rules system! Why would I want to buy 12 more books just full of rules, rules, and more rules (plus the now usual candies for munchkin powergamers, like new feats and prestige classes). All the "Complete" series, plus the new "meteorology" books are just that: crap for munchkins or rules-obssessed people. No adventures, no setting, no background, no story. In one word: no more roleplaying, just dice ROLLING.
Greenwood did that to time in his early Dragon mags. But I think my interest in Relams faded when the novels started coming out and dictating history. No, I liked the original FR setting and I, the DM, would dicate history, not some random hack author.
Another very interesting point. While I love the FR setting, I couldn't agree more with you. I would actually prefer NOT having to deal with endless changes to the setting, and being more or less forced to comply with the "canon" set by a plethora of hack authors. The Bane, Bhaal and Myrkul deities being replaced by Cyric is a very good example of ruining a setting, IMO.
Just to play Devil's Advocate here, I really would stick up for the most recent "class" of FR authors in the novels right now. Richard Lee Byers, Paul S. Kemp, Thomas Reid, Lisa Smedman, and Richard Baker (not to leave anyone out, I'm just going over author I know I have read) are all awesome authors that not only have a respect for the setting but also have brilliant ideas of their own for their novels.
I will aknowlage that in the nineties there were a slew of authors, some normally good authors mind you, that when they wrote their "I work for TSR so I get to do a FR novel" book just cut and pasted a few Realms words onto a generic fantasy novel, but I didn't want the current group of regular authors to get painted with the same brush.
|
|
This entire topic is obviously a very inflammatory one, and it has fans of all of the different D&D worlds up in arms. Some want WotC to support Greyhawk, and others want more out of other worlds. Despite what I said earlier in this thread, I feel that every D&D world does have its place and its fans. Greyhawk is the only world for me, however, which leads me to what I would most like to know: What is the future of Greyhawk going to be? Someone out there knows facts, not theories, and I would very much like to hear them.
|
For God's sake, they don't even publish adventures anymore, just addenda to the rules system! Why would I want to buy 12 more books just full of rules, rules, and more rules (plus the now usual candies for munchkin powergamers, like new feats and prestige classes).
See, this is exactly the same problem I have with WotC these days. No Adventures. No modules in the classic sense. A whiel back, the guys a Paizo did that feature which counted down the top 30 adventures. Sometimes it seems that they might as well just freeze that list, because the only place we get any decent adventures is Dungeon.
Of course, tha being said, I have yet to look through this new "Sons of Gruumsh" adventure they put out for the realms, and I doubt I will. I mean come on, a hardcover adventure, No thanks. The accessories and other rule books are expensive enough as it is.
|
|
I agree completely, Ab. As I wrote in another thread somewhere, Greyhawk is and always has been about the adventures. I think that the Realms is more popular with WotC simply because they can come out with the fourteenth update to Waterdeep, City of Splendors, and people still buy it. More sourcebooks have been published for the Realms than adventures. With Greyhawk, it is the opposite. I guess that adventures don't pad the bottom line as well as sourcebooks do. That being said, when was the last time anyone had a nostalgic discussion about one of the rules on page 164 of the original DMG? Players come back for the adventures, not for the background information. It is true that there are a lot of DMs that write their own stuff and I am sure that much of it is quite good. However, at conventions, the history of specific published adventures is what brings many of the players together.
Greyhawk may only be about the adventures, but then again, so is D&D.
|
|
Interesting development, or lack of one if WotC won't sell it. Several points:
1) I would like it removed as the Core setting, that way it could get more source material from the owninig publisher, should that publisher wish to do so (which WotC don't seem interested in, RttToEE is the last "official" book I can recall). I am assuming if someone purchases the license they would want to develop it.
2) If it is sold, sell it to Paizo. I know Gygax and Kuntz created it but I generally feel that the torch should be passed on. Just because someone founded something, doesn't mean they are best placed to run it, operate it etc. For example, I prefer Eric L Boyd's FR sourcebooks to Ed's, I also preferred Sean K Reynolds FR and GH sourcebooks to Ed's (although as he didn't write any GH books I might be being unfair to Ed). Mona & Jacobs love this setting to death...actually to resurrection if they get their happy little hands on it. Hmm, Mona & Jacobs, sounds like an old law firm :)
Does leave several problems though. If you don't have a core setting at all, and leave D&D core rulebooks as generic fantasy, how do you describe panthestic religions and domains without examples? Choosing a real world "fantasy" pantheon, such as ancient greek, immediately lends the game a classical air, using the Norse pantheon would have similar problems of excessive mead consumption and a fondness for beards (apart from Kirk Douglas).
Possibly using a "real" historical god or gods under generic templates could work i.e. War God, sample domains: destruction, war, strength, sample alignments: chaotic, neutral, evil, example god: Ares etc. Then use Loki as a god of trickery etc.
Something to bear in mind though was that 1st and 2nd edition rulebooks managed fine without having an oficially sanctioned campaign setting within their pages. It seems to be purely a 3rd edition concept, it could be dropped.
Finally I prefer GH to FR these days. I own everything for FR since 1st edition but there is something so satisfying about tracking down odd bits of GH lore, buying .pdf scans for tidbits, I just like to investigate and explore you see, Theo!, as Curiosity Cosby of the House of Cosbys would say. The last bit makes no sense unless you have watched The Cosby Show and then the House of Cosbys. Being unsane helps as well.
This entire topic is obviously a very inflammatory one, and it has fans of all of the different D&D worlds up in arms. Some want WotC to support Greyhawk, and others want more out of other worlds. Despite what I said earlier in this thread, I feel that every D&D world does have its place and its fans. Greyhawk is the only world for me, however, which leads me to what I would most like to know: What is the future of Greyhawk going to be? Someone out there knows facts, not theories, and I would very much like to hear them.
I agree. I mostly homebrew as DM, but the Greyhawk world holds a special position in D&D, and I for one would like to see it properly supported, like FR and Eberron (both of which I do like for different reasons). You've pleased and disappointed us on so many occasions WOTC. Don't blow this one ;).
I'd even appreciate a compilation of LGJ material such as the various PrCs, monsters, and other crunchy material. Sure I have most of this material, but my players don't. Even a more detailed write up for the various organizations found accross the Flanaess would be appreciated.
If I were to drop in a personal request, it would be a document detailing the Prelacy of Almor in its current states and an adventure in ruined Chathold.
2) If it is sold, sell it to Paizo. I know Gygax and Kuntz created it but I generally feel that the torch should be passed on. Just because someone founded something, doesn't mean they are best placed to run it, operate it etc. For example, I prefer Eric L Boyd's FR sourcebooks to Ed's, I also preferred Sean K Reynolds FR and GH sourcebooks to Ed's (although as he didn't write any GH books I might be being unfair to Ed). Mona & Jacobs love this setting to death...actually to resurrection if they get their happy little hands on it. Hmm, Mona & Jacobs, sounds like an old law firm :)
A creator's right to his creation needs to be respected as a matter of morality, superceding more selfish concerns.
|
|
2) If it is sold, sell it to Paizo. I know Gygax and Kuntz created it but I generally feel that the torch should be passed on. Just because someone founded something, doesn't mean they are best placed to run it, operate it etc. For example, I prefer Eric L Boyd's FR sourcebooks to Ed's, I also preferred Sean K Reynolds FR and GH sourcebooks to Ed's (although as he didn't write any GH books I might be being unfair to Ed). Mona & Jacobs love this setting to death...actually to resurrection if they get their happy little hands on it. Hmm, Mona & Jacobs, sounds like an old law firm :)A creator's right to his creation needs to be respected as a matter of morality, superceding more selfish concerns.
I actually agree with both Craig and Yamo on some aspects of this. Wouldn't the dream team be all of the above? The law firm of Gygax, Mona, Jacobs and Kuntz?
Anyhoo, if Paizo is allowed to update and reprint articles of Dragon Magazine, wouldn't Paizo also be allowed to create a folio of Greyhawk articles from Dragon Magazine? Just a thought.
Strangely enough, I read adventures kinda like novels. I have a voracious appetite for them. Hey, Erik-I know you guys are busy, but do you think that you could make Dungeon a weekly? :)
BTW-does anyone from WotC read these message boards? If so, I would like to hear your two cents on the future of Greyhawk. Thanks in advance!
|
|
So, here we are at 90+ posts of speculation, and no definitive answer.
- when do you think we will hear what's up with Greyhawk from WOTC?
- when do you think we will hear what's up with Greyhawk from Paizo?
- who should we be asking about this?
- is this tied to the delay in getting the Greyhawk regional feats for the RPGA from WOTC?
So, let's hunt down some answers, eh? This calls for a [WOOF!] post at the WOTC boards ...
|
|
And here's what I found over at the WOTC boards:
==============================================================
We are not currently interested in supporting additional material for Greyhawk, either with inhouse products or through a licensee.
We believe our audience is best served by a very limited number of well-supported campaign settings, and we've chosen to support Forgotten Realms and Eberron, and, through a licensee, Dragonlance. As someone else has already pointed out, the audience for Greyhawk (and other old TSR settings) may be fiercely loyal, but they aren't numerous enough to support the line. If we diverted resources toward those settings, we may make a few thousand (or few tens of thousands of) fans happy, but we'd be pulling resources away from settings that have hundreds of thousands of fans.
My apologies to the Greyhawk fans out there, but that's the way it is!
__________________
Charles Ryan
Brand Manager, Roleplaying Games
Wizards of the Coast
=============================================================
Thanks for the feedback everyone. As a good friend of mine commented recently of Greyhawk fans, "Nobody is more dedicated and faithful than you." I knew this was going to be a rough thread when I answered the question.
A few years back, WotC purchased TSR, a company that was on the rocks and no longer able to publish D&D products. There were a number of factors that led to TSR's state, but in the analysis of the business team at the time, one of the single largest factors was a fragmentation of the market base through the development and support of too many campaign settings.
In light of that and other observations, a strategy was developed for 3rd edition, and a major part of that stategy was to support only a very limited selection of campaign settings. The factors that went into that strategy continue to be completely valid, and are vindicated by D&D's current level of success--the highest level of playership, sales, and public recognition in the game's history.
There were a number of factors that went into the decision of which campaign settings to support--factors that go well beyond commercial viability of RPG products. Greyhawk simply didn't make the cut, but it did provide a great basis for D&D's baseline, so that's how we made use of it.
Over the years, D&D has seen a number of really great campaign settings. It would be terrific if we could support them all forever, but we simply can't. Sometimes campaign settings simply need to retire. Sorry.
__________________
Charles Ryan
Brand Manager, Roleplaying Games
Wizards of the Coast
=============================================================
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brom Blackforge
You could continue to support the Realms with reams and reams of new materials, while putting out keeping Greyhawk as essentially an bare-bone, do-it-yourself setting.
That is, in fact, exactly what we're doing!
Every core D&D product is, first and foremost, compatible with Greyhawk. The other campaign settings vary from that gold standard.
__________________
Charles Ryan
Brand Manager, Roleplaying Games
Wizards of the Coast
===========================================================
|
|
And here's what I found over at the WOTC boards:
A few years back, WotC purchased TSR, a company that was on the rocks and no longer able to publish D&D products. There were a number of factors that led to TSR's state, but in the analysis of the business team at the time, one of the single largest factors was a fragmentation of the market base through the development and support of too many campaign settings.
In light of that and other observations, a strategy was developed for 3rd edition, and a major part of that stategy was to support only a very limited selection of campaign settings. The factors that went into that strategy continue to be completely valid, and are vindicated by D&D's current level of success--the highest level of playership, sales, and public recognition in the game's history.
...
So, the first thing they did with this strategy, was to add a new campaign world (Eberron). Then they had more campaign worlds then they wanted, so bye bye Greyhawk. This sounds to me like it was more of a concerted effort on behalf of people who didn't like Greyhawk to finally have an excuse to do away with it.
And here's what I found over at the WOTC boards:
==============================================================
we've chosen to support Forgotten Realms and Eberron, and, through a licensee, Dragonlance.
Well.....isn't that's limiting. Doesn't look like WotC will be getting as much of my $$$ in the near future. :( I like Dragonlance but not the other two.
--Ray.
As a lifetime, exclusive Greyhawk player, I would figure that any of my gaming $$$ will, in the future, be going to whatever company eventually winds up with the rights; WoTC has made their decision, and they'll be sticking to it.
Any previous guilt I had for acquiring .pdf's of their books has now been absolved.
M
|
|
Well.....isn't that's limiting. Doesn't look like WotC will be getting as much of my $$$ in the near future. :( I like Dragonlance but not the other two.
--Ray.
Yep, my wallet is giving a big F.U. to WoTC, as well.
I've never cared that much for FR and am not interested in Ebberon.
Although, in some respects, I've been bracing for this since the day Eric mentioned "Greyhawk" content (the quotes being his).
|
|
Wow ... what a lot of hostility over a setting that is nominally supported "officially" and heavily supported "unofficially". With Living Greyhawk and Dungeon/Dragon, you guys have it not badly (not great, but not badly).
Of course, this is coming from a guy who used the setting Harn for 10 years, and contented himself with 2 products a year -- tops.
|
|
It is disappointing to me that wotc is ditching Greyhawk for Eberron. I will continue to support Paizo, as the Greyhawk related material coming out in Dungeon and Dragon is quite good. However, until I see the Greyhawk logo on the top of the front cover of a book, I think that I am done with buying new Dungeons and Dragons materials (other than the aforementioned magazines--KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK ERIK!!!!)
Sad, considering that I have literally spent tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of my life with this hobby.
By the way, does Eb-error-world really have hundreds of thousands of fans, like Charles Ryan insinuated? Just curious.
Thank you, Archade, for the definitive information. I feel now as if I have some sort of closure, although I also feel as if I have just witnessed the murder of a good friend.
I need to go mourn.
|
So, the first thing they did with this strategy, was to add a new campaign world (Eberron). Then they had more campaign worlds then they wanted, so bye bye Greyhawk. This sounds to me like it was more of a concerted effort on behalf of people who didn't like Greyhawk to finally have an excuse to do away with it.
I hate to say it, but it isn't true. Greyhawk in some sense is "generic D&D". Most homebrews are compatible with Greyhawk the way they aren't with most other campaign worlds.
Greyhawk appears to have been "discontinued" because it wasn't "sexy" enough. There was nothing about the tone or feel that said "This is different".
So, I understand WotC's decision. Still, Dragon & Dungeon have been giving me about all I want. A few supplements would be nice, but I don't want them with the frequency of Forgotten Realms. And I can understand how fragmenting the market is a recipe for failure.
So, while it isn't my personal preference, I can see why they made their decision, and I can't fault their logic. I have to admit, they're doing the right thing for the hobby as a whole, even if they're not doing the right thing for Greyhawk fans specificially.