So, with all the regular praise with the setting I started thinking if its only me that don't like it. So, if you are like me, what is the turnoff for you with Greyhawk?
For me its mostly all the silly sounding names on the nations, places and environmental features. And each time I have read in the book and see some of the barbarian tribes like frosti/frutzi or whatever I laugh my ass off.
I must say that both FR and Eberron have much better naming on nations, places than Greyhawk.
Would I buy an updated Greyhawk book? no, don't think so.
|
I'm pretty indifferent to GH. I think the fuss is for people who adventured there in 1E and 2E and have great memories. I didn't, so for me I can't really get excited. And you are right about the names: the Duchy of Geoff? How about the Kingdom of Dave and the Principality of Phil? And Verbobonc? Sounds like French slang for VD.
|
I must say that both FR and Eberron have much better naming on nations, places than Greyhawk.
I'm not sure about Eberron since, to quote Roy Greenhilt, "I wouldn't touch it with a standard 10 ft pole", but I have to say that while FR has some great names of places and even people, it has its share of silly names.
Although I don't think that all the names in Greyhawk are bad: Vecna, Kyuss, Mordenkainen, The Scarlet Brotherhood, The Shield Lands - those are just some examples of cool names. And what about the name Greyhawk itself? Is that silly when you compare it to Waterdeep, or Longsaddle?
And just for the record, while I am a fan of Greyhawk, I would never discount FR since I've played some great games in that world. I probably like both of them equally, but for different reasons.
And there is something that turns me off of Greyhawk... the fact that they don't have a Core book focusing on that world.
What about the Rocky Mountains, The Great Lakes and the Grand Canyon. I think that silly names are going to occur in any culture or civilization whether they're real or not.
I don't care for FR much but I'm looking forward to playing in it as I believe that the DM and players make the setting more than anything.
FR and Eberron owe their existance to GH. The people who created those game worlds cut their teeth ing GH. Its ok not to like GH. There were parts of it I never liked but its the old wise man in the D&D world and to ignore its presence or pretend that it isn't a defining infuence on all later campaign settings takes some large blinders.
It might be that some old timers wax nostaligic but some of the best dungeons ever came right out of that setting. Temple of Elemental Evil, Slavelords, Against the Giants, and the legendary Drow series.
So, don't knock it till you try it and I agree; someone should get off their but and publish a core book on GH. I mean millions of gamers cut their teeth on the setting. I'd be willing to bet a number of them would willing gobble up a 3.5 update.
|
|
FR and Eberron owe their existance to GH. The people who created those game worlds cut their teeth ing GH. Its ok not to like GH. There were parts of it I never liked but its the old wise man in the D&D world and to ignore its presence or pretend that it isn't a defining infuence on all later campaign settings takes some large blinders.
It might be that some old timers wax nostaligic but some of the best dungeons ever came right out of that setting. Temple of Elemental Evil, Slavelords, Against the Giants, and the legendary Drow series.
So, don't knock it till you try it and I agree; someone should get off their but and publish a core book on GH. I mean millions of gamers cut their teeth on the setting. I'd be willing to bet a number of them would willing gobble up a 3.5 update.
I agree completely - I'm not knocking GH, it just doesn't really feature in my personal D&D history.
Re the names, I guess it's only Geoff that sounds really silly. It is murder coming up with a good fantasy name for anything - place, person or whatever.
When I started playing as a kid (age 10) I had only so much $$$ and so I had to choose one setting to collect, so it was Forgotten Realms over Greyhawk as there was never too much GH in the store...
Over time GH faded away and FOR gained strength...Dragon Lance was a flash-in-the-pan for RGP stuff and TSR kept trying to repeat their success with FOR
I have nothing against GH, it has the greatest adventure modules in it's game setting, but I have always found it more drier than FOR and I just prefer to run a game with more "classic" fantasy than the realism of the feudal "middle ages"...GH is like the movie Excalibur to FOR being the movie Willow
What I really dislike is that GH being the "official" RPG setting, it makes absolutely no sense as there hasn't been any real new GH products in years, and the market is flooded with Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance...and no, I don't want FOR to be the official setting, I want the core rule books to be based in NO official setting, the core rules should be neutral and not for any one world (prime example: the "official" D&D pantheon of gods)
If GH was still a viable campaign world then produce official products for it, if it doesn't sell then that sucks but there are Dark Sun and Birthright fans that wish WoC would do something for them
and the fact that there is no real GH products being made for the core rules (the dogma of GH) it shows that the "crunchers" and "sellers" know that GH isn't really a seller...and that is too bad :(
Kalin
...the fact that there is no real GH products being made for the core rules (the dogma of GH) it shows that the "crunchers" and "sellers" know that GH isn't really a seller...and that is too bad :(
It is too bad, but don't assume they "know" anything for sure. I love companies such as WotC (despite my gripes) and have backed that up with much $$ over the years, but let's face it, game companies in general are legendary for their poor business decisions in no small part because most are filled with gamers and not businessmen (which isn't such a bad thing).
I recall a certain game company that practically ran themselves into the ground over a tragic over-estimatation of the popularity of Dragon Dice (or so word has it), among other things...
my two copper bits here. Greyhawk has a feeling of history if you look at the whole picture. But the gazeteer, in its various forms, has really only given us sketchy information. It largely took shape by the tastes of the DMs and players who lived in it. And the fact that those who cared for it united to make Living Greyhawk, letting it evolve further, has given it a life and breath that goes beyond what most campaign worlds have, in the end. But that came from those playing it as much or more than from the creation. As for silly names....i'll put that paragraph at the end of this, because it addresses all of the campaign settings.
Forgotten Realms was a campaign that had grown and had a full living feel to it, was deeply thought out and expanded before the public got to see it, continued to grow, and it evolved through play, feedback, and modifications to fit the conversions as the game itself evolved. This one had a more distinctly declared feeling. Certain areas had the standard 'european' flair, others had the 'arabian knights' feel, we had/have Kara-Tur, the 'oriental' section, The Hordelands, Maztica, basically, a pre set starting point or gaming point for any traditional gaming cultural backdrop.
Eberron looks to create a new feeling, and to my mind succeeds in some aspects, doesn't work for me personally in others. Like my own campaign world, there is a moral ambiguity behind many of the characters that makes it more difficult to play those characters who are strongly alignment driven, but at the same time, motivates them more. Eberron is as well presented as the Forgotten Realms were when they first appeared, and is still finding its 'feet' as it were.
Dragonlance, mentioned in an earlier post, may have been a 'flash in the pan' as far as campaign worlds go, but it still had and has fans beyond the scope of what the other campaign worlds can claim. The sense of history, the stories that drove the campaign were so powerful that they had fans who never went near gaming, and many gamers came to D and D because of a certain band of misplaced adventurers trying to find the truth and their own ways....but personally i also have to say that because of the extreme feeling of the depth and scope of history around them, players in Dragonlance also tended to feel helpless to become an influence on destiny, as it so often seemed that the job was being done by others.
Many of the 'fallen' campaigns were, and are, as vital as any of these in their way, particularly Dark Sun and Planescape, (the latter of which was one of my favorite campaign settings of all time) and much of the depth they gained came from the process of play. A campaign world, any and all of them, is a starting point, and potentially flat in the hands of a DM who won't give it the breath of life. And once that breath goes into it, This particular campaign isn't exactly the same as the next version over, even if it uses the exact same sourcebooks and maps. My Forgotten Realms would not match yours, necessarily, nor would either match Mr. Greenwood's. My Greyhawk would also have its own flavor and play.
Now about the names. Yes, there are some oddities in names in some or most of the campaigns. We alternate between structured gibberish and translated names that border on sounding mundane. They could have easily translated Greyhawk into LiathSibakh and it would have sounded somewhat evocative...they could have named it something totally 'original' and it would have sounded different. But in naming Greyhawk, he was looking for something that had a European medieval type feel. The names of other regions were often based on naming conventions or translations into "common" which in greyhawk more often than not sounded like English. The Fruztii may sound like a silly name to you, but if that's what they called themselves, so be it. One of the most deadly families in the Japanese Yakuza has a name i think sounds goofy as hell, but that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous people that i'd never dare cross (the Yama Guchi-Gumi). Places named with compound words are far from uncommon, look at any historical or detailed map of California (Dead Mule). Particularly if it lists what are now caled ghost towns. Kansas City in the US originally was one of about six towns that grew together, including Westport and Possum Trot. Luck of the draw that Kansas City grew fastest. One of the towns in my campaign world is stolen directly from the name of a small town I ran into while doing a customer service job, Bad Axe. Strange Names abound. And never forget the story (perhaps aprocryphal) of how the kangaroo got its name....How a european explorer asked what that hopping animal was, and misunderstood the guide's muttering in his own language 'i don't know' as the proper name for the type of creature.
Greyhawk always had allure for me as a true sword-and-sorcery setting. Lots of bad guys, and NPC wizards, but alot fo the nitty-gritty adventuring was done by the PCs. No Elminster/Khelben/Drizzt to run in and save the day. No Heroes of the Lance to finish things. The PCs were the stars, facing off with the Scarlet Brotherhood, the Horned Society, Iuz, the Horde of Elemental Evil.
The game has a romance to it, a setting where I prized my few magic items and knew we were always in for some s*#+. A setting where around every corner was a bad guy. It was always fun.
A world where the humans were different from each other in different places. Cults of demons and summoners, savage hordes on the edge of the world and artifacts to kick your ass like the Sword of Kas.
Some of the names are goofy, sure. But the "frutzi" is a Flan word. Flan is not really the standard. Oeridian, Baklunish or Suloise would have it differently. Or the Overking's Common Tongue.
And when 2nd Ed came out, and made everything politically correct and cutout good stuff, GH was where the treasure was left. In the words of an advertisment ran when GH was brought back in the late 90s, "what the hell is a Baatezu?" GH was the place where devils never went away. GH is where you pried the gems out of the demon's eyes.
GH is where Ivid the Undying was perched on the Fiend-seeing throne raising hell while the circle of eight was getting blasted to pieces. This is where Acererak meant DEATH. And you debated who had survived.
So I guess it is really about playstyle and nostalgia. If you didn't play before like 1995, you probably aren't a fan. if you have good memories and look past some minor things, you would love it.
Some of the names are goofy, sure. But the "frutzi" is a Flan word. Flan is not really the standard. Oeridian, Baklunish or Suloise would have it differently. Or the Overking's Common Tongue.
I thought "Fruztii," "Schnai," and "Cruskii" were the names of those barbarian tribes in their own tongue (the Cold Tongue, which is derived from Suloise). I don't have my gamebooks handy right now, so I'll need to double check.
That little detail aside, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.
And just looking at a map of the US, I'm seeing names like Walla Walla, Fargo, Altoona, Muncie, Oshkosh, Hibbing, the list goes on and on. Plunk those names on the Greyhawk (or FR, or Eberron) map, and they'll stand out and seem just as goofy as Verbobonc. And then there's Gary, Indiana (or Miles City, or Williamstown, etc.)... is that so much better than the Grand Duchy of Geoff? I think unusual (and yes, even goofy) names add versimilitude to the campaign... does every place name need to evoke something grandiose or mystical/mythical?
Yes folks, why should anyone like Greyhawk. A campaign like the Forgetable Realms based around a pathetic wizard who has sex with mortals and gods alike, and where archmages are so abundant that they bust tables part-time for extra income. Or how about Ebberon, where heroes racing to save the kingdom can catch the 10:45 train to Xendrik just in time. Who needs fireballs or teleportation, we've got mass transportation. Why would anyone prefer Greyhawk over that?
|
While the real world is full of odd names (e.g., the Grand Tetons), fiction is (or perhaps "should be") a bit different. You can get away with nearly anything if you establish it early enough. But once you're past the grace period at the beginning of the campaign, I contend that you should have less odd details in fiction than in real life.
Real life is full of the most bizarre coincidences, but in fiction these would be seen as contrived. Character and place names are the same sort of thing.
In part this is because oddity is distracting and you don't want to distract from the main story line. In part this is because fiction inherently tends to the strange at its core, so when you add strangeness on the fringes, the total becomes distractingly unbelievable.
(But I don't think Greyhawk is especially bad at naming.)
|
|
Yes folks, why should anyone like Greyhawk. A campaign like the Forgetable Realms based around a pathetic wizard who has sex with mortals and gods alike, and where archmages are so abundant that they bust tables part-time for extra income. Or how about Ebberon, where heroes racing to save the kingdom can catch the 10:45 train to Xendrik just in time. Who needs fireballs or teleportation, we've got mass transportation. Why would anyone prefer Greyhawk over that?
Yeah! What you said!
|
|
Greyhawk always had allure for me as a true sword-and-sorcery setting. Lots of bad guys, and NPC wizards, but alot fo the nitty-gritty adventuring was done by the PCs. No Elminster/Khelben/Drizzt to run in and save the day. No Heroes of the Lance to finish things. The PCs were the stars, facing off with the Scarlet Brotherhood, the Horned Society, Iuz, the Horde of Elemental Evil.......
Brother, you bring a tear to my eye. When you wax poetic on a beloved subject, you bring the old beauty back into focus.
People can rant and rave against the Greyhawk Fans but what has been stripped from us is criminal. I hope the Ebberooni fans, and Realms fans don't ever have to lose their favorite setting, the setting they first played their very first 1st level, corebook, character through. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
FH (curled up in a fetal position)
Yes folks, why should anyone like Greyhawk. A campaign like the Forgetable Realms based around a pathetic wizard who has sex with mortals and gods alike, and where archmages are so abundant that they bust tables part-time for extra income. Or how about Ebberon, where heroes racing to save the kingdom can catch the 10:45 train to Xendrik just in time. Who needs fireballs or teleportation, we've got mass transportation. Why would anyone prefer Greyhawk over that?
I have really been holding my tongue for a while. Can you post in a thread without tearing into FR or Eberron? It would really be more convincing if you could make your arguements for Greyhawk without throwing out cheap shots about other settings.
Contrary to what you might think, there isn't some grand conspiracy to keep Greyhawk down. I'm not saying the setting wouldn't have done well if things had happened differently in the 80s, but the point is, FR sold, and sold well. It sold so well that it was the ONLY thing that was making enough money to keep TSR from closing its doors for a long time. A lot of people love the setting, and a lot of people buy the novels. Its has a proven track record. You don't have to like the setting, but its not really a mystery why its still around.
In my mind having a good dm and gaming group is way more important than setting anyday. A good dm can make even the lamest setting cool, and likewise a crappy dm will make the coolest setting lame.
If you don't like something about a setting change it, especially names (they're probably the easiest thing to change of all).
Although I do have to say that I have some things I love and dislike about all the settings.
Great hawk
-like the great wheel cosmology, but the pantheon doesn't do much for me.
-like the feudal style, but there are a few too many kingdoms that all seem more or less the same.
-not a big fan of how they deal with demihumans, which is to say they haven't done anything particualarly interesting with them.
-like that there are several nasty evil nations.
Forgotten Realms
- too many city states
- too many wizards
- like the gods a little more than greyhawk
- geography is more interesting
- not a fan of how they redid the cosmology for 3E
Eberron
- not a big fan of how they worked in a lot industrialized aspects into the setting- ie mass transist & communication.
- like how they deal with demihumans
- not a big fan of the cosmology or religion, although I like that priests of the same religion can have very diverse alignments
Not so; the creation of the Realms predates the World of Greyhawk by several years.
Well, the World of Greyhawk book was released in 1975, and had been played by Gygax and Co. for a while. Forgotten Realms was Ed's personal playland that was adapted to RPGs when D&D came out, roughly coterminous with the Greyhawk books.
So while Ed's ideas for the world may be older, it is older in the fact that he had notes for it only he saw in the late 60s. Greyhawk was a campaign setting, and a playtested one, before FR worked its way up through Dragons pages. By the time FR became a true setting, D&D had learned many lessons in Greyhawk, Blackmoor and the Known World first.
So sure, maybe Ed though of Faerun prior to Gygax thinking of Oerth, but nonethless, Greyhawk is an older -->campaign setting<--. They were cutting their teeth with the rules built and tested in Greyhawk, and adapting them to FR.
Mr. Errant Jr., I merely stated several observations about FR and Eberron as I see them. My remarks are solely commentary and are not intended to persuade you to believe as I do. Nor do I have to justify them. You're free to believe what you like, and to attempt to point out where you think I'm wrong if you so desire. While I don't wish to blatantly offend anyone, 'Cheap shots' have a propensity to encourage others who disagree to make their feelings known, and makes for a more lively conversation. Your response is proof.
I respectfully disagree with your statement that FR sales were what burried Greyhawk. Many other 2nd edition settings undoubtedly sold less than Greyhawk. Rather, I believe that when TSR parted ways with Gygax, they sent his campaign packing with him. FR was the unworthy successor. Were Greyhawk further developed it may have remained number one, we'll never know. If you don't like what I say, we'll agree to disagree. Rest easy that they'll keep printing the stuff you love to the neglect of that which I love in the forseeable future.
|
|
Brah, Greyhawk? I care about it. Really.
The funny names? Plains of the Paynims? 'Paynim' is a word for pagan in Milton's Paradise Lost. Ironic...funny names equates to 'meh.' Eberron is kind of a funny name.
I like all those funny names from cheesy (Verbobonc...Bigby/Rigby...)
to cool (Mordenkainen).
And give Eberron 5-10 years, they'll be chock full of Superman epic characters. With funny names.
Greyhawk is an interesting mix of good and bad names. Many of these "bad" names came from Gary Gygax and co. rearranging real names into silly place names (egg of coot), or simply changing the spelling of a real person's name (Ahlissa, Geoff). It's these names that I have a problem with.
My players are not Greyhawk veterans, and when I say a name like "Verbobonc" they look at me like I'm crazy. There's a few names I haven't ever told them and would rather change (egg of coot for example). I will certainly be renaming the Duchy of Geoff. Some names are pretty darn cool though. The Invoked Devastation? Awesome. The Hellfurnaces? Hell yeah.
Mr. Errant Jr., I merely stated several observations about FR and Eberron as I see them. My remarks are solely commentary and are not intended to persuade you to believe as I do. Nor do I have to justify them. You're free to believe what you like, and to attempt to point out where you think I'm wrong if you so desire. While I don't wish to blatantly offend anyone, 'Cheap shots' have a propensity to encourage others who disagree to make their feelings known, and makes for a more lively conversation. Your response is proof.
I respectfully disagree with your statement that FR sales were what burried Greyhawk. Many other 2nd edition settings undoubtedly sold less than Greyhawk. Rather, I believe that when TSR parted ways with Gygax, they sent his campaign packing with him. FR was the unworthy successor. Were Greyhawk further developed it may have remained number one, we'll never know. If you don't like what I say, we'll agree to disagree. Rest easy that they'll keep printing the stuff you love to the neglect of that which I love in the forseeable future.
I you reread my post, you will notice that I did not, at any time, critisize Greyhawk. I pointed out, that due to various factors, Greyhawk was not as developed in the 80s as it could have been. Because of this, TSR sought another setting that they had more of a free hand in. It sold REALLY well, and did a lot for TSR during their stewardship of the setting. You can refute whatever you like, the Realms outsold everything that TSR put out.
Director of Narrative
|
One of the towns in my campaign world is stolen directly from the name of a small town I ran into while doing a customer service job, Bad Axe. Strange Names abound. And never forget the story (perhaps aprocryphal) of how the kangaroo got its name....How a european explorer asked what that hopping animal was, and misunderstood the guide's muttering in his own language 'i don't know' as the proper name for the type of creature.
Texas stems from a mispronuciation. Possum Trot is a street name here in Austin. And recently my company was refered a client from Blacklick, OH. Silly names abound. Ask hippies when you see them in the store what their infant's name is. (And go ahead an pay more for the organic produce - really, it tastes better.) Then again silly is in the eye of the jester beholder.
For the record, my newest campaign started in the Keoish village of Seven Wheels. Named so by the caravan that broke seven wheels on a four wagon caravan riding too fast over the rock studded back roads, avoiding the soldier movements on the main north-south road in Keoland towards the end of the Greyhawk wars.
So the whole of the complaints I seem to get are on goofy placenames. If that stops you, you're being pretty picky.
I have always pronounced Geoff as "Joff" or "Gee-off"
Remember this is the setting that spawned the most recognizable cool names like Vecna and Kas, Hextor and Eryhtnul.
And I still feel silly for quibbling over how a few silly names can ruin a whole setting so irreversibly for someone.
I'm a huge fan of Greyhawk, and have been only as recently as the released of 3e D&D. Before that, I never really played D&D with the exception of the Baldur's Gate series. In fact, I never even knew what Greyhawk was until I played Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil in my first real D&D campaign.
I love Greyhawk. I am currently running a campaign in Greyhawk, but I am bringing it to a close so that I can kickstart an Eberron campaign in a few months. Why? Because my players had a hard time grasping the setting of Greyhawk.
The players in my campaign are either new to D&D as a whole or new to Greyhawk as a setting. They like the generic approach, especially when dealing with WotC's "core setting" approach to their generic supplements. However, there's no single resource for them to reference when trying to get a feel of what the setting entails. Secondly, if I move the party to another region for the next adventure, most recently Istivin for the three-part story arc in Dungeon Magazine, they have no idea about the significance certain aspects of that region/city in relation to the history of the campaign world. For example, Lolth's attempt to absorb the city, the giant invasion, the drow responsible, etc. have no impact on their impression of the adventure. It's all just filler to them.
That's when I recognized a larger problem with Greyhawk. It's actually a setting littered with mini-settings that sometimes have no bearing on one another; they're disparate. It just seems that Greyhawk lacks a feeling of cohesion with it's history, especially when it comes to incorporating past 1e and 2e adventure modules as part of that history.
Eberron is very streamlined as a campaign setting. Already, my players see a drastic difference between Eberron and Greyhawk. It has a common, shared history that the players can easily digest and remember. Having a single source of reference helps them, too. With Greyhawk, they always seemed to have a bit of difficulty grasping what the setting was about as I tried to provide multiple resources from different eras. With Eberron, it's laid out very clearly.
Please keep in mind, this is not to say that I think Eberron is better. I just find Eberron to be more convenient in many respects. I love Greyhawk. I love my laminated poster maps of the City of Greyhawk and 4-part map of the Flanaess. I love the Regional Feats of Oerth. I love the plans I had laid out for adventuring through Old Almor. I love the Istivin: City of Shadows campaign arc. But I hate the fact that there's not a 3.5 Player's Guide to Greyhawk like there is for Eberron. Like I said - convenience, not just for me, but for my players as well.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Greyhawk does have some pretty silly names, but they're really no worse than Australia.
Actually, I take that back. Australia has far sillier names. It's like they got a 6 year old to name every location on the continent. I'd say that only 1/4 of the GH names have that feel.
I came into D&D right as 2e was taking off and GH was the old fuddy duddy setting. My gaming group scoffed at the idea of playing GH and wondered if anyone liked it and why it was still supported. We were much more interested in the "cool" settings, like Spelljammer, Darksun, and Planescape.
With the great work done by Dungeon and Dragon, I have grown to like GH much more than I ever thought I would. That being said, I ultimately do not have any use for a generic setting campaign. If I want to play a typical sword & sorcery style campaign, I'll just make it up as I go along. I don't see any reason to subscribe to a particular campaign setting. If I do choose to play in a campaign setting, I want one that makes me ooh and aah, that tweaks the old conventions, and moves in directions I wouldn't have considered. Thus, to the extent I play published settings, I still choose SJ, DS, PS, and, yes, Eberron over GH, FR, DL, or something like Birthright.
What I love most about 3e GH is the lack of support and the genericness. I love that I can plug almost any element of a GH campaign into my on the fly homebrew and not have to make any significant changes. I wouldn't mind a hardcover to have all that stuff in one place, but I definitely would not want a full line of products.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That's when I recognized a larger problem with Greyhawk. It's actually a setting littered with mini-settings that sometimes have no bearing on one another; they're disparate. It just seems that Greyhawk lacks a feeling of cohesion with it's history, especially when it comes to incorporating past 1e and 2e adventure modules as part of that history.
That's a good point, though I'm inclined to say that the mini-setting aspect is one of GH's strengths. It makes it a more versitile plug and play setting. It also means that players can feel comfortable operating in a specific region and not feel like they have to know the entire history of the campaign setting.
I never set any campaigns in Greyhawk, but I would have to say that a series of books by Rose Estes broadened my enjoyment of fantasy literature. I think the books were Master Wolf, Demon Hand, and I can't remember the other one. I don't think I would used an updated Greyhawk book, but I would check it out just for new ideas and sentimental value.
Greyhawk is an interesting mix of good and bad names. Many of these "bad" names came from Gary Gygax and co. rearranging real names into silly place names (egg of coot), or simply changing the spelling of a real person's name (Ahlissa, Geoff). It's these names that I have a problem with.
My players are not Greyhawk veterans, and when I say a name like "Verbobonc" they look at me like I'm crazy. There's a few names I haven't ever told them and would rather change (egg of coot for example). I will certainly be renaming the Duchy of Geoff. Some names are pretty darn cool though. The Invoked Devastation? Awesome. The Hellfurnaces? Hell yeah.
Yeah, Verbobonc, Hochoch, and Furyondy ("furry undies???") are three of the places at which my players raised their eyebrows, but they got over them quickly. I try to pronounce Verbobonc with a distinctive accent (rolling the "r" while pronouncing the word quickly in a quasi-mutter)... and if they inquire as to its origins, I'll probably end up saying that it's the Oeridian spelling/pronunciation of a badly corrupted Flan name. For Furyondy, I emphasize the "Fury," and make sure that ondy is pronounced "awndy," not "undy." I end up doing this for quite a few places, but I don't mind. The Egg of Coot may sound silly, but I also think the very strangeness of the name may make characters that much more curious about the place, and may spur them to investigate it. Yet I understand that those names may not appeal to everyone... and if names are the only things that are stopping some people from playing GH, then it's a shame that they are judging the setting in such a superficial way. I think the political intrigue (and ethnic tensions between certain human groups) in GH is second to none, but that's just my opinion.
A few Greyhawk place names I like alot: Stonehold (formerly known as the Hold of Stonefist); Hookhill; Stoneheim; the Jotens (pronunce the "j" as a "y", as you would in Norwegian); the Rakers; the Drachensgrab; the list goes on...
What's so wrong with the name Verbobonc? Or Nyr Dyv?
Names from my homebrew (mostly all made up by me): Saern, Orbyon, Merithil, Nermav, Calrothe, Khaerman, Thror, Chantuul, Fjaaldak, Talas Swamp, Mhor Khalsad, Enn Ermoi, Thaynnan, Drallen, the Barrens of Golan, Nysil, Esekar, Standalafan, Sea of Stars, Cerrain Ocean, Goltoran, Amunkha, Areviek, Sundered Lands, Dagger Bay City; that's just a few.
How do those measure up? I particularly like them. It's really hard to come up with "good" fantasy names. I try to just use syllables from words that symbolize that the place is "About", and then twist them around until I get a name I like. Sometimes I just make one that sounds more familiar, like Farthington or Silvershield. I also like naming conventions: All the cities in Thaynnan, and most in the surrounding region of Merithil, start with the word "Enn". All major dwarven cities start with "Mohr" and most smaller settlements start with "Gun".
Now, the Egg of Coot, I'll give you. That's pretty laughable. But to otherwise simply say that a setting is bad because of naming conventions is... illogical, at best. Personally, I find it a sign of immaturity when you can't look past a name and simply accept it. I mean, think about if ninja, something most people hold to be "cool" were named something else? Then "ninja" would sound stupid.
There's an ancient city of summoners in my homebrew called Cyrkul, and my players all got a good laugh at the name "circle." Not that I named it after the word circle, it just developed on its own and happened to sound similar. There's a big temptation to try and avoid naming things in ways that anyone could laugh at them, as that feels like a personal ridicule, but there's no way around it.
As far as my feelings on Greyhawk- I've never played the setting and never been given a chance, since I came into gaming with 3.0 and there's virtually nothing out there for the world anymore. From what I've heard, I agree with it's philosophy of a low-magic, low-level world and I admire it's "gritty" feel and the room that it leaves for development and expansion. I also know that I really love the Great Wheel and the pantheon. I feel that through these messageboards, I do have a sense of what the setting is like, and I like what I've heard.
Not to mention that it's prudent to respect the classics, whatever your personal tastes are. They're classics for a reason, and it's just a sign of maturity and intelligence on one's own part when you can acknowledge that.
I've nevery really grasped the ethnic tension aspect of Greyhaw, although I'm aware that it exists.
I pronounce Furyondy as Fur-yondy.
|
|
Indifference really not a good thing to boast about.
Names aren't a matter of good and bad but of personal aesthetics. Personally, give me 'silly' names over 'cool' ones.
I think the fuss is for people who adventured there in 1E and 2E and have great memories.Writing off other people's preferences as nostalgia is nothing more than an insult.
Sorry, sunshine, but I am indifferent. I don't care. Lots of people do, I don't, and I'm entitled. I'm also entitled to say so, as the original post was asking for people's opinion on the subject. Don't accuse me of insulting people when all I am doing is stating the bleeding obvious.
Most people who love GH played it in the earlier incarnations in 1E and 2E. I didn't. I have tried reading the old "classic" modules like the Giants/Drow and, frankly, find them very unrewarding - it's mainly a format issue, but they strike as dull dungeon-hacks and the maps are riduculous (the Hill Giant Steading, for example, is just a dungeon built above ground). So the reason why they are classics is surely more to do with people's experience playing, which most people will have done quite a long time ago. I'm not disrespecting those experiences, but I didn't have them, so it is not a factor for me in assessing how great or not GH is. I also have the GH Gazeteer, for what it's worth (no offense Erik, but as you are doubtless aware it doesn't quite have the same status as a campaign setting sourcebook) and, well, it was OK but I didn't feel particularly inspired by it.
So I can't understand the fuss. That's it. Sorry if you feel insulted, but I can only assume you have a very thin skin. And I hate to say it, but it is largely generational - most people who came to D&D with 3E (nor strictly true for me, but effectively it is) don't have strong feelings about GH. It isn't a supported setting, so it doesn't really figure on the radar.
Re the naming issue, it is true that some of the names, from reading this thread, are actually quite cool in GH. But Geoff just gets to me (how is it pronounced - Gay-Off, or just Jeff?). No big deal, and it doesn't put me off the setting. The sentimental hype versus the reality does that.
(Sorry to anyone with deeply held views about GH who is willing to express them without being deeply patronising.)
That's when I recognized a larger problem with Greyhawk. It's actually a setting littered with mini-settings that sometimes have no bearing on one another; they're disparate. It just seems that Greyhawk lacks a feeling of cohesion with it's history, especially when it comes to incorporating past 1e and 2e adventure modules as part of that history.
I think part of Greyhawk's problems in this regard are because Greyhawk jumped from author to author, going long periods without a main "advocate-author" -- FR had/has Ed Greenwood, Eberron has Keith Baker, but after the departure of Gygax from TSR, Greyhawk was bandied about. Carl Sargent, Anne Brown, David Cook, Sean Reynolds, Roger Moore, and others strongly contributed to the setting at times, for which I'm grateful, but it seeemed to largely lose its soul in the late 1980s.
Its default setting status at times led many modules to be nominally based there, whether they were good adventures, bad adventures, silly or serious. It's no wonder that without such a "gatekeeper" these variances occurred. For a time, TSR seemed to purposely place farcical modules in Greyhawk, in what seemed to be a thumbing nose gesture at Gygax.What Greyhawk needs is a reliable team of authors with a love for the setting and the writing chops to bring lif e back to this wonderful setting. (I'd love to see what Mona and company could do if they had free reign...)
As far as the mini-setting aspect, I don't find GH much worse than FR -- both have many similar areas slapped together but FR benefited from extra development in the border regions. On the good side, Greyhawk has it all; deserts and areas suitable for ancient ruins? check, jungle areas? check, barbarian-filled northlands? check, countries controlled by evil or insane rulers? check, areas with possible high-technology? check (I'm thinking Barrier Peaks and old-Blackmoor here, thankfully Greyhawk authors had the wisdom to keep such things rare and thus optional for the DM) ... etc, etc. Greyhawk holds great potential for any DM or author with imagination.
As far as names, sorry, but letting a few odd names put you off a campaign setting seems silly to me. (I recall an ancient review article of the now-revered Fiend Folio in Dragon making fun of all the odd monster names in that book and others ... ixitxachitl indeed!) As mentioned above, both the real world and most all campaign settings are filled with oddball names. And personally, I think Furyondy (emphasis on "Fury") is a pretty cool name.
I'm still really curious why Verbobonc isn't a good name. I like it. It sticks in my mind from somewhere, for some reason, and was the inspiration for the name of an NPC necromancer I recently made (Verbonic).
Most people who love GH played it in the earlier incarnations in 1E and 2E. I didn't. I have tried reading the old "classic" modules like the Giants/Drow and, frankly, find them very unrewarding - it's mainly a format issue, but they strike as dull dungeon-hacks and the maps are riduculous (the Hill Giant Steading, for example, is just a dungeon built above ground). So the reason why they are classics is surely more to do with people's experience playing, which most people will have done quite a long time ago. I'm not disrespecting those experiences, but I didn't have them, so it is not a factor for me in assessing how great or not GH is. I also have the GH Gazeteer, for what it's worth (no offense Erik, but as you are doubtless aware it doesn't quite have the same status as a campaign setting sourcebook) and, well, it was OK but I didn't feel particularly inspired by it.
Aubrey's point is well-taken in that nostalgia holds a place, but, at least in my case, I also find it a good setting. I started with Greyhawk, tried FR for a time, and migrated back to the gritty, low-magic world of Oerth.
Many early modules are "hack & slash" or dungeoncrawls simply because that was the style back then. Modules were written as skeletons for a DM to flesh out. Faulting old modules for being dungeoncrawls is like faulting rock bands for having big hair in the Eighties.Some, like G3 Halls of the Fire Giant King, still hold up well if DMed properly -- this module had many of the elements that have become routine in adventures. (Why does the use of a wooden fort in G1 make the map ridiculous? The adventure wasn't billed as an "un-dungeon" -- the giants lived in a fort, so Gygax designed a fort.)
So I can't understand the fuss. That's it. Sorry if you feel insulted, but I can only assume you have a very thin skin. And I hate to say it, but it is largely generational - most people who came to D&D with 3E (nor strictly true for me, but effectively it is) don't have strong feelings about GH. It isn't a supported setting, so it doesn't really figure on the radar.
Implying that the majority of Greyhawk-lovers are "old fogies" probably isn't much better than saying Eberrron only appeals to "young videogame players" -- but I'll agree that exposure is a factor; many players introduced to D&D with 3e/d20 have never experienced or read GH material (because WotC doesn't support it), and thus may not know what they're missing. I'll give you credit Aubrey for reading the Gazeteer and modules before forming an opinion.
I don't feel insulted if other folks prefer other settings -- to each their own! -- my only insult comes from the setting not being supported or licensed by WotC. The mere presence of these lively Greyhawk threads (and arguments) demonstrate the strong feelings that many hold for a setting that by all rights should be officially supported to some degree.
|
|
I'm still really curious why Verbobonc isn't a good name. I like it. It sticks in my mind from somewhere, for some reason, and was the inspiration for the name of an NPC necromancer I recently made (Verbonic).
Dunno - it sounds sort of French, but isn't quite right. And, to the British ear, the -bonc bit at the end sounds silly - bonking is slang for sex (in case that is one aspect of British "culture" that hasn't crossed the Atlantic - the slang that is :-P ) so the quasi-French bonking thing just doesn't work for me.
|
|
Many early modules are "hack & slash" or dungeoncrawls simply because that was the style back then. Modules were written as skeletons for a DM to flesh out. Faulting old modules for being dungeoncrawls is like faulting rock bands for having big hair in the Eighties.
Point well made. I find the old-style "kill the monster, take the treasure" a bit dull, but that is partly because the game has come on since then, partly personal preference. Of course, the xp system also was predicated upon the value of treasure looted, which led to a certain style of play.
Some, like G3 Halls of the Fire Giant King, still hold up well if DMed properly -- this module had many of the elements that have become routine in adventures. (Why does the use of a wooden fort in G1 make the map ridiculous? The adventure wasn't billed as an "un-dungeon" -- the giants lived in a fort, so Gygax designed a fort.)
It's more a minor quibble than anything, but the fort isn't a fort anyone who actually wanted to design a fortress would actually build. It really looks like an underground complex, built above ground with wooden walls. It completely lacks any verisimilitude for me (OK, let's not get into the "Realism in D&D" argument, but there are basic principles - it isn't secure or easily defensible). The other alternative might be some sort of greathall like the vikings had (though obviously on a giant scale) but instead you have a peculiar sort of labyrinth. Now, in its own terms, the map is fine - as an adventure space for PCs to kill giants in. But it doesn't really work as a building for me.
Implying that the majority of Greyhawk-lovers are "old fogies" probably isn't much better than saying Eberrron only appeals to "young videogame players" -- but I'll agree that exposure is a factor; many players introduced to D&D with 3e/d20 have never experienced or read GH material (because WotC doesn't support it), and thus may not know what they're missing.
In RPG terms I go back to the early 80's - only not much with D&D. I'm certainly not trying to imply GH-lovers are "out of touch". I'm just saying that the lack of support in 3E, which to be fair did bring a big boost to the hobby, means GH doesn't mean a lot to anyone who doesn't have much pre-3E experience.
I don't feel insulted if other folks prefer other settings -- to each their own! -- my only insult comes from the setting not being supported or licensed by WotC. The mere presence of these lively Greyhawk threads (and arguments) demonstrate the strong feelings that many hold for a setting that by all rights should be officially supported to some degree.
Frankly, I'd probably buy the setting sourcebook if it came out. I have FR, I have Eberron (Fake Healer, that is how you spell it ;-) ), I even have the Dragonlance 3E one somewhere (not that I care for it much) so I would probably get it as a matter of course.
|
|
I think part of Greyhawk's problems in this regard are because Greyhawk jumped from author to author, going long periods without a main "advocate-author" -- FR had/has Ed Greenwood, Eberron has Keith Baker, but after the departure of Gygax from TSR, Greyhawk was bandied about. Carl Sargent, Anne Brown, David Cook, Sean Reynolds, Roger Moore, and others strongly contributed to the setting at times, for which I'm grateful, but it seeemed to largely lose its soul in the late 1980s.....
As far as the mini-setting aspect, I don't find GH much worse than FR -- both have many similar areas slapped together but FR benefited from extra development in the border regions.
Quite. FR is pretty "pick-and-mix" as a setting - the western areas are fairly Tolkien-esque, but you have the Arabian Nights feel of the southern areas like Calimshan (and Zakhara was supposed to be on Toril too) and the Egyptian/Babylonian bits with Unther and so on.
Eberron isn't like that, but then it is new. Give it time....
In regards to the many mini-settings:
First, this is alot like the RW, where you have many different groups spread out all over.
I think the reason there are all of the assembled mini-settings is that it was a homebrew built piece by piece. They would add new lands as they became neccessary, and so it comes off as sort of piecemeal. I think its part of the charm.
On the naming:
The names get pretty fun if you realize there was a self-aware humor in the names. Drawmij Ocean, cool! The Jim Ward Ocean (I think the spelling has changed since then). Zagyg Yragerne (almost erne gary gygax backwards). Several of the names are self-referential to the early players, and I, for one, like it. These are just the examples off the top of my head.
I must reiterate how silly it is to dislike the setting over names.
And I also like the name Verbobonc. Even if the Brits think its funny, I like it. U-S-A! (-; What do they know about english anyways?!
|
|
I must reiterate how silly it is to dislike the setting over names.
Well, maybe. I think that naming is quite important, because a good name communicates effectively what a place is about. It can be like, for example, "Waterdeep", quite an evocative name for a port city. Or, alternatively, "The Scarlet Brotherhood", which is a sinister organisation, monks, maybe fanatical. Or even "ninja", which communicates sneaky assassin, but also a cool, non-European-ness.
So a name which isn't really appropriate, or has strange connotations pops up, it can undermine the suspension of disbelief. So, for example, "Geoff" merely evokes my uncle, and there isn't anything very magical about him. :-) Verbobonc has a sort of French vibe to it (for me) but it really doesn't fit with the place itself - just another fantasy city - and as such doesn't fit so well. In fact, it seems a random collection of syllables.
This isn't really a Greyhawk thing, as I am happy to admit (now) that there are plenty of cool names in GH, and plenty of duff ones elsewhere. But I think names do matter, because they set tone in a subtle, but important way. So while it might be fun to have anagrams of your friends' names in the setting, it is questionable in establishing a fantasy "feel" for the setting. Yes, of course you can change them, but I think your perception of the "coolness" of the setting as a whole is shaped by names to an extent, and this can be undermined. A gritty world of dark adventure would be completely undermined if it was called Aadvark, for example.
This isn't really a Greyhawk thing, as I am happy to admit (now) that there are plenty of cool names in GH, and plenty of duff ones elsewhere. But I think names do matter, because they set tone in a subtle, but important way. So while it might be fun to have anagrams of your friends' names in the setting, it is questionable in establishing a fantasy "feel" for the setting. Yes, of course you can change them, but I think your perception of the "coolness" of the setting as a whole is shaped by names to an extent, and this can be undermined. A gritty world of dark adventure would be completely undermined if it was called Aadvark, for example.
Point taken!
I guess all the settings have enough serious-sounding names not to ruin my fun, but I'll admit that learning of all the Gygaxian wordplay (many examples of which I've only discovered in the last few years -- or Drawmij in the last few minutes) causes a mixture of both amusement and dismay.