I think the big deal with some is defining a cohesive history/feel that is consistent and "true" to the original intent of the setting. I'm not sure that's possible, but that's my understanding. Some believe the route LG is taking is better than Paizo's, others are the opposite. I see both as adding material useful for D&D in general and Greyhawk in particular. I haven't liked some of the things out of LG (like the weird Ether-whatever creatures invading Tenh and the surrounding area) but other areas got a lot more detail than ever before (my home region of the Yeomanry, Geoff, etc.). So, there's good stuff in there. Paizo, meanwhile, is producing nice "expansions" to the setting, off the map areas, etc. Some of it doesn't tie directly into the "old stuff" (the cities of Cauldron and Sasserine having caused much debate) but overall the quality of the material is such that I can use it no matter what, and fix any thing to match "my" Greyhawk anyway.
Ignore all "canon" debates. Find whatever you like for your campaign, and use that. When I run GH (I'll admit it's not my preferred setting) I use old Greyhawk supplements, LG material (I used to write mods for one of the regions), Paizo material, random stuff I find on the web, etc. Canonfire's got some cool stuff if you haven't seen it yet.
So, basically I'm in the "what's the big deal" camp with you...
|
Just as D&D has a fanbase divided among the various settings, GH winds up with fans divided among the various incarnations. And some of them tend to be very offensive towards anything they don't want to have to acknowledge as existing.
So there is no LG vs. Paizo. Each makes different products for a different purpose. Paizo publishes magazines, that sometimes include references to GH. LG produces a campaign for the RPGA that is set in GH. Both have their limits on what they can do in the materials they publish, and for both those limits show.
As for why the old LG adventures are not available for the general public, that is very simple. WotC didn't buy full rights to them, they just bought limited rights to use them in the LG campaign for a short time. Indeed, they aren't even buying the rights to anything but core adventures now. So after the adventures retire, they revert to their authors and, theoretically, if all the setting references were completely stripped away, the authors could do what they want with them.
There are regular requests to change this, but WotC has not yet chosen to do so. Some people have made arrangements with authors to make their adventures available for downloading for free after they have retired.
|
Hi there,
this is not exactly true.
You still get hands on old adventures - in pdf form.
Have a look into the Paizo store or at other pdf selling sites and you will find plenty of old edition Greyhawk material.
Quality differs, but at least Paizo tries to rescan bad scans and make them available to those people who downloaded bad files.
Those files which I acquired so far, were of good to high quality.
Downside: *Some* files have poor quality and you still have to print them out.
Advantage: Not expensive, and some of the more recent files are even searchable.
Greetings,
Günther
Hi there,
this is not exactly true.
You still get hands on old adventures - in pdf form.
Thats right, but the OP inquired specifically with regard to the _Living_ Greyhawk material - and these are not available for the general public, only if you are a DM in the LG campaign. And even then, AFAIK, you only get those for your region and current campaign year, or generic adventures.
That reminds me, I wanted to buy a second copy of the LGG for keeping - my FLGS has one still. Well, probably next year.
Stefan
I've had some involvement with Living Greyhawk -- I much prefer Paizo's material, and use it as canon IMC.
1) LG has little or no cohesive vision and flavor, given the huge numbers of writers and regional Triads determining directions for the campaign.
2) Access to LG scenarios can be very limited (especially across regions) and, even then, they typically provide little to no useful background information that can be ported into a home campaign.
3) Paizo has great, professional writers and editors, producing great material; this material provides both good adventures and useful, informative background material that is applicable beyond the limits of the adventure. Add to this some backdrop articles, and the value skyrockets.
4) I just think Paizo's material is truer to the traditional feel of GH. -- IMHO :)
Truth be known, I think Paizo (for the most part) makes better GH supplements than TSR did. I immediately think of the Bright Desert articles, which are some of the most valuable GH articles ever IMC. True to what came before, but providing a lot of new framework to work within.
To be fair, my Living Greyhawk Gazetteer is indispensible (but it's the first and last LG source I've used IMC).
Others will disagree, of course. But they'd be wrong :P
Jack
|
|
I've had some involvement with Living Greyhawk -- I much prefer Paizo's material, and use it as canon IMC.
. . .
Others will disagree, of course. But they'd be wrong :P
Jack
Let's see . . .
1) Is true across the whole campaign. Within individual regions, metaregions, and developing in the core, there are definitely cohesive visions. And yes, there is variety of quality within that, but there is a lot more direction that some think when just looking at one, ten, or even twenty adventures.
2) The limited access is both loved and hated. For every person that loathes that regional adventures are not more available, I have encountered people that think ending that would utterly destroy the flavor of the campaign.
As for useful background, that is also a 50/50 thing. Some adventures don't require much background. Others get overloaded with a ton of trivial irrelevance that only the DM will ever read, and will often not care about. Further, given the size of some adventures, it is necessary to cut down on the amount of background included with them. Instead, background goes where it belongs, on the regional websites.
3) A bit of a search will reveal a rather large number of former LG authors who are now professional writers, including some now with Paizo. I expect for several their LG work was their springboard to professional status. For a number of authors, the main difference between writing for LG and writing for Paizo is getting paid.
(Note: I highly prefer, and thoroughly endorse, the "getting paid" option. :-P)
4) It depends on the particular piece.
Paizo vs. TSR - Given that the original GH boxed set published by TSR, that statement seems a bit odd.
As for the Bright Desert articles, which do you mean exactly? I know there is a bunch of LG material on the Bright Desert.
As for the LGG, it isn't really an LG source. It is the GH setting book advanced to 591 CY. Note, I don't say "updated to 3E" because it has virtually no rules content in it. (Domains for the deities and classes and levels for NPCs is all.) It has the original LG character creation rules in it, but that was merely part of a marketing tactic that was quickly abandoned. If anyone imagines they shouldn't consider the LGG because of the L, they are confused about the content. It should just be titled the Greyhawk Gazetteer.
|
|
Sam has explained the problem better than any explanation I have had previously. I must admit that it did seem to me that LG as a whole just didn't want to make the stuff available, period. I hope in future that some of the great stuff being produced becomes more available to the fans.
No, there's a distinct group that wants retired adventures to be more accessible. It would just be a major mess for WotC to try securing the rights to most of it now, or even switch to buying all rights in the future. The best that can be hoped for is that the various campaign staff people keep a running record of the background material, and make it available as needed.
Oh, and although it might not seem that way, there's a lot less detail about some things than you might imagine. There's just no room in most LG adventures for any significant amount of detail about a town or what not. Most of such that is developed is posted at websites for reference.|
Raging Swan Press
|
Truth be known, I think Paizo (for the most part) makes better GH supplements than TSR did. I immediately think of the Bright Desert articles, which are some of the most valuable GH articles ever IMC. True to what came before, but providing a lot of new framework to work within.
CB> Wow. Thanks for the compliment. I wrote those articles and I am really glad you liked them. That said, you should defintiely check out some of the recent Living Greyhawk core adventures. "Blight on Bright Sands" is a two-year plot arc focusing on the Bright Lands and the machinations of their emperor. I should also point out, that I am a member of LG's Circle of Six, so I don't see those articles as being contary to the campaign.
;-)
Creighton Broadhurst
Living Greyhawk Core Supremo
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I should also point out that Mr. Publisher founded the Living Greyhawk campaign, managed its first couple years, wrote three rounds of adventures for it, and edited its official magazine.
Any sort of formal conflict between LG and Paizo is imagined. We have published articles that directly support the campaign in the past and would be happy to do so again.
Making sure that every detail matches events in an evolving campaign is impossible, and we explicitly avoid areas with strong LG development (witness our focus on the Free City, Sterich, Rift Canyon, the Amedio, etc.) for this reason.
All of it is for the enjoyment of Greyhawk fans, and D&D fans in general. Take what you like and toss the rest.
--Erik Mona
Take what you like and toss the rest.
Which is, IIRC, the philosophy EGG took regarding published Greyhawk material.
As a LG player/judge, a Dungeon subscriber/DM, and a Greyhawk fan, I don't see any conflict. When running a homebrew Greyhawk campaign, or a Greyhawk version of one of the Adventure paths, each campaign I run takes place in a separate 'reality' where the events of the previous campaign either never happened, or happened far away and don't influence my current one.
Likewise, though I may inject things that happened in retired LG modules I have played or run as fluff, rumors, and happenstance in my home games, I don't worry about keeping the home games on track with 'canon'. As long as the big stuff stays consistant, my players don't care if the local lord/baron's daughter in Furyulekboboncvers who they have never met, and will never meet, has the same name in my Savage Tide campaign as she did in my last campaign.
As far as using retired adventures for lore/information, I keep a print-out of every module I've run, and after they retire, will sometimes reuse an NPC or situation if I think it fits my current game. There's a certain halfling ship's captain that will make a fan-service appearance in my Savage Tide campaign at some point next year. He won't play a big part, but I imagine that my players who are also LG players will get a kick out of having him turn up far far away from his home port, and in some sort of trouble.
As for the LGG, it isn't really an LG source. It is the GH setting book advanced to 591 CY. Note, I don't say "updated to 3E" because it has virtually no rules content in it....
That being said, I am starting two campaigns in January. One will be the STAP and another a generic Greyhawk campaign. I know that in LG the year will be 597, but the most recent material is the LGG at 591. None of my players play LG so I think I will just pretend it's 592 and ignore anything that has happened in LG. Does anyone know of a reason I shouldn't?
Also, I don't play LG. What HAS happened (briefly) in that time span?
Does anyone know of a reason I shouldn't?
Nope, the way I see it, all "official" GH content, whether LG or Paizo or OD&D stuff is an ingredient for you to stir into your own recipe, your own massive GH stewpot of gaming glory.