In memory of Gary Gygax I think we should lobby WotC to make Greyhawk a part of 4E or license it for development under the OGL and GSL.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the most effective and practical method to make this happen?
Greyhawk is still on the table as a campaign setting for 4e already.
|
Greyhawk is still on the table as a campaign setting for 4e already.In memory of Gary Gygax I think we should lobby WotC to make Greyhawk a part of 4E or license it for development under the OGL and GSL.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the most effective and practical method to make this happen?
I know but after yesterday I feel it should be a priority and not just "on the table".
In memory of Gary Gygax I think we should lobby WotC to make Greyhawk a part of 4E or license it for development under the OGL and GSL.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the most effective and practical method to make this happen?
I'd love to see Gygax's memory honored by the release of Greyhawk (with all of its classic elements left intact) for 4th edition.
I cut my teeth with Greyhawk and it has always been my escapist home.
|
|
I created a quick petition.
Here is the URL - http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/greyhawk/
I will be working on a small graphic that folks can add to their blogs.
Ok, it's final, I'm laying down my guns, nice and slow, CWM - nice and slow.
|
I created a quick petition.
Here is the URL - http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/greyhawk/
I will be working on a small graphic that folks can add to their blogs.
First off, take a look here:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/internet.aspSecond, if you are serious about wanting WotC to do something with Greyhawk, write a physical letter, sign it, and mail it the old fashioned way.
Wizards of the Coast
Attn Scott Rouse (Brand Manager)
PO Box 707
Renton, WA 98057-0707
Any letter should be polite, civil, and short. I'm sure you can find a form letter out there somewhere, but it is worth the time and effort to write your own (just so that the folks reading it can see that they aren't getting form letters).
You know, I loved Greyhawk... in fact, the only thing I hated about it... and really, really hated this one... was that cowboy god I remember reading about....
Does anyone know who/what I'm talking about? Do I even know what I'm talking about? (that's probably the larger question at hand)
I just remember hating that one feature... ah well, you can all but ignore him if one likes.
You know, I loved Greyhawk... in fact, the only thing I hated about it... and really, really hated this one... was that cowboy god I remember reading about....
Does anyone know who/what I'm talking about? Do I even know what I'm talking about? (that's probably the larger question at hand)I just remember hating that one feature... ah well, you can all but ignore him if one likes.
I believe that you are talking about the gun-slinging Murlynd, an early D&D-Boot Hill cross-over.
I believe that you are talking about the gun-slinging Murlynd, an early D&D-Boot Hill cross-over.You know, I loved Greyhawk... in fact, the only thing I hated about it... and really, really hated this one... was that cowboy god I remember reading about....
Does anyone know who/what I'm talking about? Do I even know what I'm talking about? (that's probably the larger question at hand)I just remember hating that one feature... ah well, you can all but ignore him if one likes.
Yeah, that was the one... did they remove him later on?
That was the only thing I hated... other than that, Greyhawk was awesome...And I think it would be a good dedication to Gygax, after all, WotC pretty much owes their whole existence to him (arguably MTG included).
I believe that you are talking about the gun-slinging Murlynd, an early D&D-Boot Hill cross-over.You know, I loved Greyhawk... in fact, the only thing I hated about it... and really, really hated this one... was that cowboy god I remember reading about....
Does anyone know who/what I'm talking about? Do I even know what I'm talking about? (that's probably the larger question at hand)I just remember hating that one feature... ah well, you can all but ignore him if one likes.
Yeah, that was the one... did they remove him later on?
That was the only thing I hated... other than that, Greyhawk was awesome...And I think it would be a good dedication to Gygax, after all, WotC pretty much owes their whole existence to him (arguably MTG included).
I'm not sure what his official status is as of this time, but he was referenced in the Expedition to Castle Greyhawk.
Even the demi human deities like Moradin and Corellon aren't "Greyhawk" until the 2e era of printing.
Deities & Demigods/Legends & Lore, actually (presented in a collection of non-human specific deities, where the original Greyhawk setting material covered human or non-race specific deities). Unearthed Arcana also expanded upon that in Appendix S, Non-Human Deities.
|
Greyhawk is probably the hardest setting in the stable of D&D worlds to do right. It's also probably the easiest one to do poorly.
Greyhawk has been stuck in this middle ground of years of benign neglect, punctuated with brief periods of tinkering and change. You have two customers you can chase with a Greyhawk book, and I think that puts up a really, really big hurdle to doing it right:
1. Greyhawk has existing fans who have studied the details, internalized the setting, and have a strong sense of ownership over it. When TSR let Greyhawk lie fallow, these were the guys who kept it going.
2. There are lots of potential Greyhawk fans out there who might like the setting if its presented to them correctly. They might know a little bit about the setting via the 3e core books and via the iconic adventures set there, but they don't know the details.
The problem is that these two groups want products that are mutually exclusive. You can't make both happy. Which one do you chase?
Other settings don't face this divide. They were put to pasture precisely because their fan bases had shrunk to the point they couldn't be sustained. Greyhawk has been cursed with existing at the edge of sustainability. It also still suffers from FR's "promotion" over it back in the 1980s; Yes, I, you, and most people reading this thread can rattle off how FR and GH are different, but can the typical D&D player?
Balancing the needs of the existing fans with the need to bring in new fans is probably one of the hardest things to do in game design, as 4e demonstrates. With Greyhawk, I think those difficulties are all the more daunting.
Of course, that doesn't mean we don't think about it. My desktop image is the awesome Greyhawk map that came in Dungeon.
Good to see you here, Mike, and thanks for your insights on the setting. Stick around for a while.
Good to see you here, Mike, and thanks for your insights on the setting. Stick around for a while.
Yes, please. Come often. Insight by you and your fellow co-workers is always welcome here. And thank you for helping us see your point of view on GH. Tricky. Not Easy.
Yah Mike, thank you. Just so you know, it's a major relief to know that you're not afraid to post here.
[anymore]
IMO, there are great new campaign settings coming out and I'm not really very upset about Greyhawk's support disappearing entirely, and I say that as a guy who played Greyhawk through the 80s. Sure, it would be cool to get a big final authoritative encyclopedia of Greyhawk, but it ain't gonna happen.
I've got Golarion and I know that sooner or later Wizards is going to try something new and I'll probably have a look at that.
Still, even though the guy gives me slurpee headaches, I'd sign anything CWM sets up because I love GH.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
The problem is that these two groups want products that are mutually exclusive. You can't make both happy. Which one do you chase?
With respect and love, I think this is absolute balderdash.
The problem with Greyhawk is and has always been that certain elements involved in the official publication of it don't want to force their design staff to do any research or work to ensure that both segments of the audience are pleased.
I'm curious, Mike, where you think "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk" fits on the scale? I certainly believe that it appeals equally to the casual and hard-core fans without making any sacrifices in quality (beyond the "delve" format, that is).
The same is true of the Age of Worms Adventure Path and Maure Castle.
Sure, it isn't easy and takes a bit more work than usual. That's a management problem, not a campaign setting problem.
IMHO.
--Erik
|
|
There are several reasons Greyhawk has so much trouble selling as a setting.
1. Non-customer fans badmouthing the setting
These come in a variety of flavors. There are the harcore Gygaxians who refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything not written by Gary. There are the rejectionists who insist the statement about "the world being yours now" in the original folio must stand forever, and the company is violating some promise based on that whenever they put out a new supplement. There are some people who do not want an area they have developed having it contradicted by an official product. There are some who do not want the timeline to ever advance.
All of them are people who have committed to not only refusing to buy anything, but also actively trashing anything that comes out, even the best product gets trashed before it sees the light of day.
2. Disappointed LG fans
A new group, all the LG players who have time invested in the background developed for LG will be sorely disappointed when so little can be used, and some may find their way to being a new subset of the previous problem.
3. Canon
A well constructed and consistent background always helps a setting. The problem is making sure it remains both. While the first is always a burden on a writer, the second builds and builds, and eventually overwhelms any writer, as well as the researchers and editors. Even though people are hating on the Spellplague, Greyhawk could use something similar. A nice hearty timeline advance to remove various NPCs and get away from a bunch of lingering hooks that are sure to wind up messed up if someone starts working with them after so long. It would also help to really apply some firm decisions to resolving some canon issues that keep getting left to the next product that inevitably winds up cancelled. Of course, that is sure to upset quite a few people, so perhaps the best that can be hoped for is to just clean up the background, and shift things forward a bit.
There is also the problem of writers who do not get the canon right, or do not use it well. I am sure most people can make their own list for that.
4. Setting partisan delusions
After all these years it is time to really and truly accept the most awful truth about Greyhawk:
It is just another setting.
It is not unique, or special, or superior, or any other positive or superlative adjective you want to attach to it. It is just like Forgotten Realms, or Eberron, or any other setting out there.
Oh sure, it does this or that differently. Deep down though, they are all the same. They all tweak the flavor text a bit differently, some toss around casual special rules, but the only unique thing any of them have are the personal nouns. Beyond that, it is just another D&D setting.
Does that mean people should not be so attached to it?
Not at all! That is something that is consistently missed when any setting is casually dismissed, especially for being "just" like another. Beef is food. So is fish. Chicken also counts. And whatever else. Everyone has their own preference in food just as they have their preference in game settings.
There is nothing wrong with being utterly dedicated to Greyhawk. The problem is people who take it too far, and spend as much effort denouncing other settings as they do supporting Greyhawk. That makes the setting look like it only attracts troublemakers, and it invites annoying responses.
5. Setting overload
WotC suffered from it in 2nd ed and they had issues with it in 3E. Hopefully they can avoid them with 4E, but it is pretty much axiomatic that setting tagged material is going to have issues selling outside the setting fans. Some will make the effort to convert, but many more will not. This relates directly to the previous problem, as there are just as many fans of other settings who will not touch anything labeled Greyhawk with a 10' pole as there are Greyhawk fans who will not touch other settings with an 11' pole.
None of that means Greyhawk can not sell. Most of those problems have more to do with proper promotion and damage control than they do with the setting not selling well. The question is, can whoever is making the Greyhawk products overcome those problems, or will they let the problems drive them away from Greyhawk?
The problem is that these two groups want products that are mutually exclusive. You can't make both happy. Which one do you chase?
With respect and love, I think this is absolute balderdash.
(snip)
--Erik
(Sshh Erik!)
No No Mike you are right, couldn't possibly work, best thing to do for WOTC would be to ship it off entirely to some independent publisher. See to that will you? : )
Seriously though
-this thread and the disagreement about what was 'original' greyhawk is IMO the main problem(not insurmountable)
for example ericthecleric says certain things were greyhawk which i would say were generic and other things were generic which I would say were greyhawk specific.
It can be a bit daunting playing a game when you dont know as much as the others at the table - and greyhawk has a lot of baggage- some original some retrofitted, totally legit and greyhawk- but baggage none the less.
It can turn you off the game when you dont get what Telchur's relationship is to Vatun and Dalt and some other people do.
I am not sure I want greyhawk to go the way of 4th edition. I mean if 4e is that different to 1st 2nd and 3rd maybe greyhawk should remain as a pre 4e world. I dont know.
[warning Golarion rave ahead] I love to see Golarion handled with care by Paizo designers, I love that the designers have all experienced greyhawk disconnect and many have tried to keep greyhawk consistent because it fills me with hope Golarion will be consistent. It is the first time a world has been released that makes me feel greyhawk may be surpassed in its mystery, conflict, life, mixed plots, interesting places. I love that Golarion is being released slowly- it is getting time to grow, feeling its way- I have got to know some of Varisia and look forward to meeting/discovering the rest and the world. If greyhawk could do this again then it would be awesome [sorry for straying so badly off topic]
The problem is that these two groups want products that are mutually exclusive. You can't make both happy. Which one do you chase?
With respect and love, I think this is absolute balderdash.
(snip)
--Erik
(Sshh Erik!)
No No Mike you are right, couldn't possibly work, best thing to do for WOTC would be to ship it off entirely to some independent publisher. See to that will you? : )
LOL! Now that was a subtle hint if I ever saw one.
To be honest, I don´t care much who would publish GH - as long as it is good. I fear that paizo would not have the capacity for taking it over right now...
Samwise´ idea of advancing the timeline and shaking up the setting a bit to get rid of the inconsistencies in the background (or at least minimize their effects) and make the setting attractive to many gamers again has its merits, but if you want to catch the fans of the setting and attract new gamers to it, this would not be easy. And it would be impossible to please them all, admittedly.
If you advance the timeline to, say, 650 CY or thereabouts, and introduce an element that shakes the setting thoroughly, but leaves it still recognizable, you could get rid of most NPCs and introduce a new balance of power overall.
This shaking event could build upon the Rary storyline - while I don´t know what transpired exactly in the bright sands storyline for LG, the general idea behind Rarys new empire surely has the potential to become world-shaking. Dwell on the obvious parallels to Vecna and Kas, as an attempt to integrate it into the history of the setting.
This could mean another war, a magical upheaval, some intervention by deities or nearly anything else the designers need to make it work.
Just my 2c.
Stefan
|
|
After what they've done to Forgotten Realms, I'm positive, really, really positive, that I don't want them anywhere near the Greyhawk setting.
And yeah, balderdash. Write it like any other setting, from the point of light outwards. Start with 'starter town' of Hommlet or whatever, and set some adventures around it, and slowly widen the focus. Nothing needs to be contradicted, so long as the writers realize one important detail, *we don't need everything all at once.* And we sure as heck don't need some world-shaking event to 'prune it down' or 'shake it up' or otherwise mutilate it beyond recognition just to kludge some new race or class in. (Given Greyhawk is the setting that birthed the notion of half-demons, which they called Cambions instead of Tieflings, and of Dragons, Greyhawk Dragons, to be precise, that lived in human form in human cities, with children of mixed parentage, it's not like you'd *need* to blow up Greyhawk to have Tieflings and Dragonborn become a slightly more visible presence in the setting!)
Eke it out, get it right.
But I don't trust writers who don't care about the setting to get it right, and so I'm totally against WotC revisiting Greyhawk (and feel similarly about the Realms, which could really benefit by being restored to the hands of people who are devoted to what makes it special, and just stay the hell away from Al-Qadim while you're at it, I'm not kidding!). License it out to someone who loves it and will buy it flowers and whisper sweet nothings in it's ear.
Ok, can anyone speculate why Mr. Mearls took the time to give us that post? This thread just got started so I'm guessing that the Paizo board is montitored fairly closely (as I assume other sites are as well). All I pretty much got out of his post was....Greyhawk would be to difficult to work with. Now there are similiar threads on other sites as well, some which are even more pro Greyhawk than Paizo. Stepping up to indicate that Greyhawk is to difficult to work with seems really odd to me. He could have just as easily ignored the thread. I can see posting if he wanted to make a positive announcement which would please folks here, but that wasn't the case. So really, why did he post in the first place? Anybody?
I can think of 2 reasons:
To show his face.
Because WotC has been accused of ignoring people.
I bet there are even folks who like Rose Estes' novels for Greyhawk.
EEEK! Well,some folks have really strange likes and dislikes... ;-)
But throwing up one's hands and saying "OMG, its too hard" is kind of weak, imho.
It surely is not too hard. But it is quite a task. Granted, FR has a lot material printed also. But there are settings that have less material printed (like Eberron) and are probably easier to convert. And FR is so hugely popular that not converting it would be like shooting your knee at the start of a new race. The decision to convert FR to 4e is a no-brainer, really.
So it is only logical for WotC to do FR first. Eberron is quite popular as well, it seems, and has less material published, so to take it as second setting is reasonable as well (and both settings were supported under 3e as well).
Now, Greyhawk was supported as LG under 3e, so seeing it in 4e, even if changed, is not that far off - closer than, say, reviving Mystara or other long-unsupported settings. (Not that I would dislike to see new material on Mystara, or Al-Qadim, or Spelljammer - and Mystara had this "point of light" idea within the old expert set and the town of Threshold already. But that is another thread entirely.)
While I´m sure that I will dislike some of the changes to GH if it gets adapted to 4e, I could still plunder the 4e stuff for ideas - and I think that a new book would have new ideas in it. Who knows, a good GH book might even convince me to try 4e :-)
Stefan
So really, why did he post in the first place? Anybody?
To show that WotC is still in the process to make a decision about GH?
If so, and if WotC decides to do GH for 4e, take your time. I´d rather have a good GH sourcebook in 2012 than a rushed one in 2010.
Stefan
I really don't want to see a 4e Greyhawk? Let it be as it is...
|
|
Ok, can anyone speculate why Mr. Mearls took the time to give us that post? This thread just got started so I'm guessing that the Paizo board is montitored fairly closely (as I assume other sites are as well). All I pretty much got out of his post was....Greyhawk would be to difficult to work with. Now there are similiar threads on other sites as well, some which are even more pro Greyhawk than Paizo. Stepping up to indicate that Greyhawk is to difficult to work with seems really odd to me. He could have just as easily ignored the thread. I can see posting if he wanted to make a positive announcement which would please folks here, but that wasn't the case. So really, why did he post in the first place? Anybody?
Uhhhh.... I like Greyhawk? I cruise the boards once in a while because I like Paizo, like the Paizo crew, and like Paizo's products?
I like attempting difficult things. Doing Greyhawk right is hard. Hence, it's something that interests me.
In any event, really interesting posts here, lots of stuff to digest...
Ok, can anyone speculate why Mr. Mearls took the time to give us that post? This thread just got started so I'm guessing that the Paizo board is montitored fairly closely (as I assume other sites are as well). All I pretty much got out of his post was....Greyhawk would be to difficult to work with. Now there are similiar threads on other sites as well, some which are even more pro Greyhawk than Paizo. Stepping up to indicate that Greyhawk is to difficult to work with seems really odd to me. He could have just as easily ignored the thread. I can see posting if he wanted to make a positive announcement which would please folks here, but that wasn't the case. So really, why did he post in the first place? Anybody?Uhhhh.... I like Greyhawk? I cruise the boards once in a while because I like Paizo, like the Paizo crew, and like Paizo's products?
I like attempting difficult things. Doing Greyhawk right is hard. Hence, it's something that interests me.
In any event, really interesting posts here, lots of stuff to digest...
I meant no disrespect Mr. Mearls, so hopefully it wasn't perceived that way. I realize that nothing concrete is going to be said in regards to the future of Greyhawk, but I do thank you for your response. In case your keeping track of pro-Greyhawk....I do hope we get considerable Greyhawk material from some source in the future. I think this limbo status Greyhawk has been given is the worst thing that can happen. Those who don't like new Greyhawk material because it advances a timeline, alters events, leaves out detail, whatever, will most likely cherry pick what they want. For those that want to move on with Greyhawk it will be a sigh of relief. For new fans, it will be just that, something new. It would bring me back to playing D&D.
Mearls is correct. A revived Greyhawk is problematic. Too problematic in all likelihood.
I have to disagree that a revived Greyhawk is too problematic. IMHO it just needs a team dedicated to tidying up the loose ends and the inconsistency that has evolved over the years and publish a coherent campaign sourcebook for Greyhawk - maybe advance the timeline to incorporate the developments in LG such as the Bright Desert plot line and so on. This then would be a perfect springboard for a new line of products.
There will always be some fan of GH who will not like timeline/plot developments - but what GH needs more than anything else is a solid and detailed campaign source book to start from.
The only problem I can see is if there was to be a new line of GH products is if it is designed for 4E - it just will not work with all the fluff changes etc. Best to be made for 3.5 and by being 3.5 it can be interpreted back to 2E and 1E fans with out too much hassle.
GH only needs some TLC - I understand Erik, from what I have read, has researched and compiled GH material very well over the years for his own campaign - a perfect steward for GH.
Furthermore all the articles for the GH gods and the Demonicon of Iggwilv is absolutely astounding and should be compiled and completed as source books. Surely these will sell like hot cakes? Isn't there enough proof from the popularity of Dragon and Dungeon sales in recent years, that these articles plus the GH APs/Maure Castle etc are in high demand. It's a no brainer from what I can see ...
Cheers
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I don't think anyone should be suspicious of Mike's involvement in this thread. He's been on the Paizo boards for ages, and I know he likes Greyhawk and his heart is in the right place.
GVD, I concede that Expedition is not a setting-wide treatment, but I think a knowledgeable author could put together a Greyhawk "core" book that appealed to long-term fans and new readers, though I think doing so would be more difficult than just designing something new.
Because it would be more difficult, it would thus involve more man-hours, and would thus be more expensive to produce and less optimal in the view of some than a new product set in Eberron or something.
Also, from what I have seen of 4e so far, I really do not think it is a good match for Greyhawk. I think melding those two approaches to fantasy is the real challenge, here, and since Mike says he enjoys difficult jobs, perhaps he is just the man for it. :)
--Erik
... and since Mike says he enjoys difficult jobs, perhaps he is just the man for it. :)
No doubt.
Let's not talk him out of trying. :D
This is actually an honest question because I'm NOT all that familiar with Greyhawk: what, exactly, is it about Greyhawk/4E that makes you think they are not compatible?
since Mike says he enjoys difficult jobs, perhaps he is just the man for it. :)
I once saw Mike lead a camel through the eye of a needle.
(The gory clean-up took days... it was like someone shoved an M80 up that poor thing's wazoo.)
I saw him solve the issue of mideast peace.
(By intimidating them with what was left of the camel he'd mauled.)
And he also tackled world hunger.
(Surprisingingly owing nothing to camel burgers. Mike discovered a way to convert one billion unsold Mystara box sets into protein. SOYLENT BLUE IS 2nd edition!)
This is actually an honest question because I'm NOT all that familiar with Greyhawk: what, exactly, is it about Greyhawk/4E that makes you think they are not compatible?
I'm really curious about this too..
As an Edition Neutral person this is a golden question.
Because if you can do Greyhawk, the next question, why can't you do Pathfinder?
Now, I'm not posing that question (yet). Let's stick with Greyhawk (appropriate for a Greyhawk thread!)
I'm just saying.. it's a good future tangent conversation.
Please let's not chase these WOTC guys away. This is awesome stuff for a Friday afternoon.
I would rather like some of the old settings to get revived in 4E.
In fact, I'd love to know what the prospects for some of the old settings are. I know when 3rd edition came out, Ravenloft got optioned to a third party compnay, though nothing much came of it from what i understand. Is there any chance of that happening with Al-Qadim or something like it which has fallen into disuse?