Let's get Greyhawk back!


4th Edition

101 to 107 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Takasi wrote:
If system x (3.5) doesn't have an element (warforged) in setting y (Eberron), then I don't see how you can fault system z (4E) for not having them.

But if system x (3.5) does have an element (Vancian magic) in setting y (Greyhawk), then I do think you can fault system z (4e) for nothing having it -- or at least fault its designers.


This is a very interesting thread. As a Greyhawk lover from 1E, I would definitely be interested in a re-launch, provided that it DID uphold the "classic" feel that goes along with the setting. It wouldn't be easy and, for that reason, I'm not sure if it would be considered worthwhile, but with the changes happening in the FR, and the tone of Eberron, GH would be different BECAUSE it was "classic", and that's something WotC could use on their side.

Once again, very interesting thread. Very intelligent responses from everyone.


DaveMage wrote:

I'm not sure, but I think Erik Mona may be a little bit passionate about Greyhawk.

Hard to say...

;)

Possibly...:)

My biggest problem with Greyhawk is that there is a wealth of information out there, but there is not a consistent presentation of the material. The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (which I managed to snag a hard copy of) works...sorta. Every time I look into it, I get the distinct impression that it is for people who are familiar with the world setting already, and not for somebody who is relatively new to the setting (like myself). The judicious use of pronouns without contextual relevance makes my head spin in the LGG (it was either that, or the fact that I was trying to read the LGG post-surgery - could be both).

I want a shiny new hardcover setting sourcebook. Something that makes a valiant attempt to give me bite size pieces of the glorious and ignominious history of Oerth without overwhelming me, yet gives me an answer (or a direction to go with) when I'm trying to get a mental picture of what an Ur-Flan necromancer lich would look like.


I’m reading notions that “Greyhawk is a ‘classic’ setting” and that, with the changes to the Realms, such “classicism” might be just the ticket to sufficiently distinguish Greyhawk from the Realms. I do not think so.

4e is not a classic rules set in the same sense that Greyhawk, or the Forgotten Realms, is a classic setting. As Eric notes, the Realms was reimagined in large measure to bring it in line with the new 4e rules.

Given that Wotc feels the need to establish a new classic with 4e, why would they support deconstructing 4e to support something of the earlier style of classic play that is in strong measure Greyhawk? They would not, IMO. It would be counter productive. With 4e being the current rule set, it would make little sense to attempt to rework 4e to more closely resemble the design parameters or feel of some earlier edition just so they could relaunch Greyhawk. Earlier editions are over. The now belongs to 4e. If Greyhawk were to relaunch, every logic suggests that it would have to fully accommodate the 4e rules set.

While it might be possible to make small concessions and banish dragonborn etc., Vancian magic is certainly gone. And with Vancian magic goes much of what makes a classic Greyhawk wizard classic. Vancian magic is not just a rules system but a philosophy about how the magic of the setting operates as well. And, of course, such effects more than just wizards.

At the same time, Wotc has invested a great deal in the idea of its new cosmology. As any reading of practically any D&D message board will reveal, this is not an easy sell. Backing away from the new cosmology by allowing Greyhawk to utilize the Great Wheel would, in all likelihood, be counter productive to what Wotc is trying to make the new classic cosmology of D&D. In their place, I would never allow such a thing, particularly as attached to something as iconic in D&D’s history as Greyhawk. The downside possibility of seeing gamers even more widely reject the new cosmology would be very real, IMO.

One could go on but you take the point.

No. If Greyhawk were to relaunch, it would in all likelihood have to more accommodate 4e than see 4e altered to accommodate Greyhawk. Given this, there remains the unresolved matter of how to clearly, immediately and strongly distinguish a revived Greyhawk from the Realms, as Greyhawk’s “classic” status would not be sufficient as Greyhawk would have to accommodate 4e much as the Realms has had to accommodate 4e. Subtle distinctions, being subtle, like “wheels with wheels” would not be enough.

Contrary to Eileen’s opinon, IMO “doing nothing” with Greyhawk is an entirely viable option. Nothing is done with Dark Sun. Nothing is done with Mystara. Nothing is done with Birthright. Nothing is done with Al-Qadim. Doing nothing with older settings designed for rules sets with different design philosophies is, in fact, the norm. To the degree newer rules would significantly alter older settings, it is even likely the best course.

My thinking is that Greyhawk is best left to the glory that was once Rome. Greyhawk had a great run under very different rules sets but in that process Greyhawk became more and more divergent from its roots and I agree with Eric that Greyhawk is a “roots” setting. Even the adventure paths overseen by Eric are more well crafted tributes to classic Greyhawk than classic Greyhawk in esse. Could Greyhawk be reborn under 4e? Sure. I am not convinced it would be recognizable as such in more than name, however. Given that, I’d prefer not to see a 4e Greyhawk.


maliszew wrote:
Takasi wrote:
If system x (3.5) doesn't have an element (warforged) in setting y (Eberron), then I don't see how you can fault system z (4E) for not having them.
But if system x (3.5) does have an element (Vancian magic) in setting y (Greyhawk), then I do think you can fault system z (4e) for nothing having it -- or at least fault its designers.

I disagree.

3.5 d20 is strong enough for a Vancian system and other magic systems. I don't see how 4th edition would be any different.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if we saw Greyhawk 4e with a 'new' magic system.

Probably a topic for another post, but what new 4e innovations have we seen so far that 'castrates' the adaptability of d20?

At its core I see 4e as the same face, different haircut. Compared to other systems it's an evolution and add on, not a revolution or replacement.


Lilith wrote:
My biggest problem with Greyhawk is that there is a wealth of information out there, but there is not a consistent presentation of the material. The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer (which I managed to snag a hard copy of) works...sorta. Every time I look into it, I get the distinct impression that it is for people who are familiar with the world setting already, and not for somebody who is relatively new to the setting (like myself).

I think this is absolutely true. What is more, that wealth of information tends to accumulate until a picture emerges, more than any of the individual features leaping off the page at you to define the setting.

By way of example, warforged leap from the page to help define Eberron. So does the lightning train. So does magic as a sort of technology substitute. So do dragon riding halflings. Like these features or loath them, they are immediately attention grabbing and help define what makes Eberron unique.

Greyhawk has many fewer signature features that leap off the page at you in similar like. Greyhawk's uniqueness is in its accumulation of detail and its subtle sense of "wheels with wheels," as much as anything else. Neither leaps off the page like the aforementioned warforged for example. Greyhawk is by such measures then harder to quickly define to potential new players.

Any relaunched Greyhawk, IMO, would need some "leap from the page" features if it was to be sufficiently distinguishable from the Realms and just to attract new players who are being educated to look for "leap from the page" features by settings like Eberron. Once you are hooked on Greyhawk, subtle sells, but that won't get you alot of sales right out of the shute.

Greyhawk's presentation would need serious work. To the extent this would mean significantly adding to or altering the setting, one must return to the conundrum that Mearls first postulated - which customers do you chase? Its easy to say "both" but far more difficult to say specifically how that might be accomplished given the general state of affairs circa 4e.


I'd also like to throw in a comment I think it relevant to Greyhawk:

New Coke saved Coca Cola Classic

If 4E PHB is like BECMI and the Realms and Eberron take on a more modern level of fantasy then the market will be ready for a new Greyhawk hardcover.

(Or a setting like Golarion...)

Dark Archive

GVDammerung wrote:
... Even the adventure paths overseen by Eric are more well crafted tributes to classic Greyhawk than classic Greyhawk in esse. Could Greyhawk be reborn under 4e? Sure. I am not convinced it would be recognizable as such in more than name, however. Given that, I’d prefer not to see a 4e Greyhawk

I don't necessarily disagree with some of GVD's thoughts, especially concerning the relative benefit -- and drawbacks -- for WotC by resurrecting Greyhawk. But this last bit caught my eye.

My actual play experience with Greyhawk is limited to the Mona-era Dungeon adventures, Expedition to Castle Greyhawk and to a lesser extent, Return to ToEE. I started playing 2e after Greyhawk had been set aside, and stopped 2e before it's brief relaunch shortly before 3rd. I've since delved into the back catalogue fairly extensively, but all as a result of the Paizo-era Greyhawk from Dungeon.

Personally, that's the version of Greyhawk I prefer and, if possible, would like to see more of in the future. I'm sure that's partly because of familiarity, but what I appreciate about Greyhawk-P (for lack of a better term) is that it's a "presentation" of Greyhawk and not a reinterpretation. The APs, Maure Castle, etc., in many ways cherry-picked the most compelling aspects of the setting to focus on and reference. But they didn't reimagine or retcon or contradict the other bits.

I think there's a real attraction to that approach -- taking all that tradition and vague references and building them up with an eye toward current sensibilities. The temptation, of course, is to just take the choicest morsels and hand-wave the rest away, which is my take on the current 4E core cosmology, ie., "Vecna's cool, so we'll use him. Hextor and Heironeous, not so much -- how 'bout Paladine, er Bahamut, and Bane?"

After taking that route with the core "assumed" setting, I think WotC has made it even more difficult for themselves to go back and do an authentic/faithful presentation of Greyhawk for 4E -- I think readers will be all the more confused because, while many things (Pelor, etc.) will jive with the core campaign, others won't.

Add to that conflicts between Greyhawks grim, old-school feel and implied play-style of the new edition (which, of course, we have limited information about but seems to favor more of a wuxia/superhero/anime/cinematic/pick-your-flavor style) and you're talking about a very tall order. But hey, Paizo wrangled Greyhawk into 3e/3.5, so it's possible. I mean, Erik's Age of Worms campaign had a demon-like Halfling Sorcerer, Priestess/Binder, Scout, shape-shifting druid, murderous gnome ... etc. Working in Warlocks and Warlords shouldn't be hard, although I agree with Erik about things like Dragonborn, Devil succubi and Tieflings-redux.

Anyway, I'm interested in what others think. Were the Paizo adventures "true to Greyhawk"?


Greyhawk has plenty of magic, monsters, etc. But they are generally more divorced from 'everyday life' than you find in the Forgotten Realms (or Ebberon, of course). The adventurer just seems more of a wanderer/outcast hero. You have high level characters, but they are fewer and farther between. It doesn't feel routine to find beholders and mindflayers lurking in the cities. The adventures are generally about dungeons in out of the way places... Yeah, most D&D adventures are, but Greyhawk was /defined/ by its dungeons. Not by supplements or anything else.

Temple of Elemental Evil, Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan, Castle Greyhawk, Maure Castle, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, etc... That's where the world was explored and explained to those learning it in the 1e era. You didn't buy "Keoland, the Slumbering Giant" to find out about that part of the world. You got "Against the Giants", "Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh",
"Cult of the Reptile God", and so on.

Greyhawk didn't talk about adventurers like it was just a lifestyle choice...kind of like a violent fantasy hippy movement or something... which I rather feel the FR does. To me, it felt more like the PCs were the outsiders reluctantly used.. In ToEE, the agents of Verbobanc and the Church of St. Cuthbert are up to stuff to deal with the bad guys, but the PCs have to really prove themselves to be given overt help. In Against the Giants, the government agents shuffle the PCs off to do "less important stuff" so they get credit for the 'big stuff'.. not that that works :P In Ghost Tower of Inverness, they are hired because they are expendable..

Everyone reads a setting differently, but these are the things I took from Greyhawk when I was picking up its stuff in the early 80s. And things that immediately distinguished it from the FR boxed set when I picked that up in 1987 or thereabouts. I have a hard time seeing something like Catoblepas farmers and "Death Cheese" making an appearance in a Greyhawk product. The crazy nasty monsters are mostly "out there in the dark".

In that sense, Greyhawk works for "points of light". But in Greyhawk, the points of light applies to regions. The Wild Coast, Bone March, Pomarj, Sterich & Geoff, The Bandit Kingdoms, etc. The borderlands of nations in general. You still have the heartlands of Furyondy, Keoland, and the rest to provide the 'breadbasket' that supports all the finery and intrigue that pure PoL doesn't.

The other thing that always seemed particular to GH (among D&D settings) is that its about nations, not extra governmental organizations. Yeah, there is a Circle of Eight, but they aren't the Harpers by any stretch of the imagination. When Tsojcanth's Lost Caverns are discovered, its a competition between nations to get an exploration team there. There just aren't dozens of private international conspiracies about. The conspiracies are firmly tied to governments.

Without the rules, its hard to say if 4e will do violence to the setting. I think the design philosophy being marketed with it would. The actual mechanics, I don't know. That we'll have to wait on.


Erik Mona wrote:
...Gunning up the "super" powers of PCs so that even "gritty" non-magic classes like rogues and fighters end up with multi-use powers that "feel" magical.

This is my biggest gripe with the 4/e.

For lack of a better phrase, 4/e seems to be locking itself into an increasingly 'high fantasy' model. The super-powers aren't just options I can choose to ignore -- they are fundamental abilities of each class.

And while it's true that we haven't actually seen 4/e yet, information trickling out reinforces this perception.

So I agree, 4/e doesn't appear to be up to the challenge of syncing with GH. It might have been -- I think, for example, that GH could survive (quite well) the elimination of Vancian magic. But so far, 4/e seems to be a less versatile ruleset than 3.5.

IMO :)


Takasi wrote:
I'd also like to throw in a comment I think it relevant to Greyhawk: New Coke saved Coca Cola Classic

Yeah, but the Coca-Cola Company didn't fire everyone that knew Coke Classic's formula.

WotC has, IMO, lost (or fired) anyone who actually liked the original D&D. Sure, it's a bit of an exageration, but not without some truth to it.

But I think this might be a strikingly good analogy. I wonder: where would Coca-Cola be today, had they not switched back? WotC, take note!


I mean no disrespect for Greyhawk fan but I only hope that by reviving Greyhawk from his ashes this will not give ideas to Eric Mona and Paizo to write future adventures path in Greyhawk instead of Golarion ...as we all notice is passion for Greyhawk... :-)

As GVD post previously, Greyhawk have not much that distinguish it from others 'standard' DnD campaign world... For me the 'feel' of Greyhawk are vague memory of playing Temple of Elemental Evil when I was 14, 20 years ago (an even then we didn't have a clue that this adventure was set in Greyhawk because we simply put Hommlet in our own homebrew world).

The previous adventures Path were not good because they were set in Greyhawk but because they were well written (and well illustrated)... They could have been set in Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Golarion or whatever campaign world and been as good... Reference and nostalgia to old Greyhawk adventures was not even taken in consideration when I read the adventures and I'm sure most readers of Dungeons magazine had no clue to what those adventures were referring too...

At least Golarion have some unique feel... the inclusion of Lovecraftian elements, for exemple, make this setting unique and really interesting... so can we let mister Mona and friends make this world even better even if he could represent the incarnation of the true classical Greyhawk...? Thanks :-)


There is a debate right now at canonfire.com in the 4e section on what should be done with Greyhawk in light of 4e. Some don't care because they will continue to play D&D with X edition (being one that is not 4e), others want to advance the time line and keep the history intact, and then there is me. I am advocating a Battlestar Galatica 2.0 re-imagining of the setting.

I think that the only way to introduce the setting to new players is to identify the core concepts of the Greyhawk campaign and then use them as a springboards to new ideas and fresh content instead of a straightjacket.

Find the nuggets, forge them in to shiny golden jewelry and make the setting a place of wonder again. I can't tell you how disheartening it is to have someone tell you, you can't do that because Module X or Supplement Y has already said that Z is this way and you cannot contradict that.

I would go back to the concentric ring idea that Gygax had when he originally published the setting: develop the center and give less and less info as you go out. This dovetails nicely into the points of light concept.

I want to be excited about Greyhawk again, like I was when I bought the original folio edition back in the 80s or the modules prior to that (The G series, the D series, Tomb of Horrors). As someone who cut their teeth on the setting it is creaking under its own weight and I think nostalgia is bringing out a lot of no you can't that will continue to isolate Greyhawk from a modern audience.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the work of Mona, Jacobs, SKR, GLH and a host of other Greyhawkers out there that have kept the flame alive for so long. I just think we need to blow the dust off it and make it exciting again.

By Your Command,

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus


etrigan wrote:


As GVD post previously, Greyhawk have not much that distinguish it from others 'standard' DnD campaign world... For me the 'feel' of Greyhawk are vague memory of playing Temple of Elemental Evil when I was 14, 20 years ago (an even then we didn't have a clue that this adventure was set in Greyhawk because we simply put Hommlet in our own homebrew world).

I'd just like to say its a bit disingenuous to make the argument that Greyhawk isn't distinct enough when you turn right around and point out that you don't actually have any knowledge of Greyhawk.

I think that its clear that the FR was released to deliberately take the same slot in TSR's line up as Greyhawk in the post Gygax era. But the two worlds are quite distinct if you are familiar with both. If you look at them both just through back cover text, then no there isn't much difference.


RE GVDammerung's post about nothing being done with Mystara and Al-Qadim settings, Wizards aren't doing anything themselves but have licensed official fan based websites (of Mystara anyway, there's a good fansite for Al-Qadim)

Mystara - www.pandius.com
Al-Qadim - http://www.al-qadim.com
Birthright - www.birthright.net (doesn't say licensed but does say it's official.)

Don't want to go off topic, it would be great if Wizards aren't going to prioritise Greyhawk, that other's could do so, but it is the grandaddy of D&D settings. If they've pulled the licenses for Dragonlance and Ravenloft, I can't see them letting anyone have Greyhawk


To Timothy Mallory:

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I didn't known anything about the Greyhawk setting... To te contrary, I've read everything, from the orginial box set to the 3.0 gazetters and I really tried to find something interesting in this compaign world (as it was at first the only official one available when WoC launch 3.0) but in 20 years I've never encounter any gaming group willing to play in Greyhawk (and I played with a lot of different groups) because the setting lack this little something that make it appealing like FR is for exemple...
It's probably because they're been no fiction (or not much) published for this setting and probably because the setting popularity is mostly base on a few memorable dungeons and that dungeoncrawl as never been my cup of tea and my style of play (except when I begin to play DnD)...
I think that most Greyhawk fan like this setting because this is were they learned to play the game when they were young, but for those who never played or enjoyed the Tomb of Horror or the ToEE I think it will be pretty tough to sell it to the new generation of gamers that were attracted to DnD because of Heroes like Drizt or Elminster... Even if you try to sell the 'Classical' feel of Greyhawk, I'm not sure that there's really a market (big enough) for that now...
But my point was (as I really don't want to start a debate about Greyhawk vs Forgotten Realms vs Eberron vs ... to each is own preference): Don't forget that Golarion is publish by peoples that are tainted (in a good way) and are very passionate by the Greyhawk setting... So I guess that Golarion could very well be the modern incarnation of this setting... And I prefer that Eric Mona and Paizo develop this one to his full potential instead of going back to Greyhawk... A least, they own this setting and can do whatever they want with it and don't need to follow Wotc design or marketing decisions...

Dark Archive

Even if I don't know the 4th edition rules yet, there are some parts I know that won't sit well with a new GH with 4th edition rules:

Dragonborn and Tiefling races

And now imagine a new aspiring gamer buying the PHB. He simply loves the dragonborn and wants to play one.
But then his DM tells him: Nope, not possible because we play in GH.
Yeah, that is frustrating.

What I want to say: it is easy to add elements to campaign settings. Gnomes, half Orcs, Bards and Druids. No problem to ADD them to the setting.

But it will be a big problem to SUBTRACT Dragonborn and Tieflings from a campaign setting.

Not only will it frustrate players (see eaxample above) it will also be hard to use generi 4th adventures in GH and vice versa.

That said, if GH were to go 4th, Dragonborn and Tieflings somehow would have to "squeezed" into th setting.
As IMHO it was done very heavyhanded in FR it would involve even more timeline advancing, world merging or whatever to explain these new races.


Gavgoyle wrote:
The Jade wrote:
ericthecleric wrote:
Roan, I've just checked. It's in Dragon Annual #1, page 72. Enjoy!
Thanks, J!!

I think you can also find it on the Cannonfire site, at least in shillouette.

and there are some views of various quality here, here, and here.

And thank you, Gav!


Savage Tide Spoiler:

Spoiler:
Wouldn't Iggwilv's empire of 'New Thanaclan', which she sets up on The Isle of Dread at the end of the Adventure Path, provide at least one source where tieflings might come from- although I'm not saying that it would make them common and a Player would clearly have to clear a tiefling with the DM. Or is the Savage Tide Adventure Path not considered part of the official Greyhawk canon?


Tatterdemalion wrote:
But I think this might be a strikingly good analogy. I wonder: where would Coca-Cola be today, had they not switched back? WotC, take note!

Ironically the New Coke formula was used for Diet Coke, which is a better seller. (And IMO tastes better. I can't remember the last time I drank a Coca Cola Classic.)


Takasi wrote:
Ironically the New Coke formula was used for Diet Coke, which is a better seller.

That would be difficult, since Diet Coke was introduced in 1982, three years before New Coke.

In fact, the Diet Coke formula was used for New Coke. They just swapped out the sweeteners for high-fructose corn syrup, and then tinkered with it to get the flavor balance right.


etrigan wrote:

To Timothy Mallory:

So I guess that Golarion could very well be the modern incarnation of this setting... And I prefer that Eric Mona and Paizo develop this one to his full potential instead of going back to Greyhawk... A least, they own this setting and can do whatever they want with it and don't need to follow Wotc design or marketing decisions...

First I'll address this point. I find it highly unlikely that Golarion is in any danger of losing Erik Mona. WotC is not going to license the GH brand out to a third party. They would have done so already if they had any such intention. Secondly, I don't see any reason to believe that Erik would dump Paizo to return to WotC as their brand manager for Greyhawk if such a position came open. We aren't personal friends or anything, so maybe I'm completely wrong about that. But worrying about it seems a really unproductive way to spend time.

Regarding Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, I don't think one is better than the other (unless you mean "better for me", though I don't run either world in my home campaign. I have used both for NWN communal projects). And I can see how it would be hard to distinguish them if you came into the hobby in the 90s.

But if you were around in, say 1987, when both worlds essentially consisted of a boxed set each it was pretty easy to tell the difference in the two settings just from that. Greyhawk is all about locations and the world itself. The Forgotten Realms was all about the personalities and characters in it.

The Greyhawk set talked about human ethnicities, languages, flora, history, culture, ethnic pantheons, and adventures in some detail. It didn't reference any of the "famous NPCs" in a meaningful way. Greyhawk didn't go all Glorantha/Harn/Tekumel academic dissertation level on the subject, but it dropped intriguing details that the DM could use or ignore.

On the other hand, the FR "world" was pretty clearly just a backdrop for the shiny iconic characters. This was further reinforced by the novels. (Greyhawk had novels, but the "iconic" characters had very minor roles in them and they weren't considered canon for the setting even before Gygax left the company).

This is why Ed Greenwood got all that whinging about his superhero NPCs despite vehemently denying they overshadowed the DMs' campaigns. The world was marketed through them. Things like Elminister's Ecologies and the Volo Guides further reinforced that.

Over the last twenty years there's been some efforts to develop a similar "cult of personalities" for GH characters like Mordenkainen while the FR has gotten a lot more development of the world itself. This has noticably diluted the distinction and its only likely to erode further, given the same company is going to develop both (if they develop GH at all). But both things are still rather alien to their respective settings.

Its easy to imagine Greyhawk rumbling along merrily without Mordenkainen or any other "Iconic" figure in it. Its really hard to imagine the FR without all its host of personalities. Its easy to imagine a FR campaign where no one knows or cares what ethnicity the majority of Cormyrians are (though that information now exists, unlike before), but its hard to imagine a Greyhawk where the Urnstmen's Suel heritage was papered over.

As an aside.. and this isn't directed at anyone in particular.. I always find it kind of amusing when people say that Greyhawk hasn't done enough to distinguish itself from the FR. Its kind of like when this guy tried to tell me the Bangles were Spice Girls wannabes even though the Bangles were hugely successful 15 years before the Spice Girls formed...


CNB wrote:
Takasi wrote:
Ironically the New Coke formula was used for Diet Coke, which is a better seller.
That would be difficult, since Diet Coke was introduced in 1982, three years before New Coke.

Wikipedia says Diet Coke was introduced in 1985, but regardless, the New Coke formula was (and still is) used to make Diet Coke.

So while it may not have been marketed well, the actual formula is still a winner. (Like 4E?)

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Takasi wrote:

Wikipedia says Diet Coke was introduced in 1985, but regardless, the New Coke formula was (and still is) used to make Diet Coke.

So while it may not have been marketed well, the actual formula is still a winner. (Like 4E?)

Well again, as the thread says, Diet Coke's formula was used to make New Coke, not the other way around. That's central to the whole point of the New Coke debacle, really - that they were SURE they had a winner, because people liked Diet Coke so much. I'd argue WotC is SURE they have a winner with 4th, and naysayers think they are going to pull a New Coke, so it is a valid comparison. Time will tell if it is accurate.

If you re-check that Wikipedia article, it refers to 1982 marketing campaigns for Diet Coke. I'm tempted to correct the 1985 error :)

This link should make it clear it is from 1982:
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/presscenter/nr_20070709_diet_coke_25th_a nniversary.html


Russ Taylor wrote:
Takasi wrote:

Wikipedia says Diet Coke was introduced in 1985, but regardless, the New Coke formula was (and still is) used to make Diet Coke.

So while it may not have been marketed well, the actual formula is still a winner. (Like 4E?)

Well again, as the thread says, Diet Coke's formula was used to make New Coke, not the other way around. That's central to the whole point of the New Coke debacle, really - that they were SURE they had a winner, because people liked Diet Coke so much. I'd argue WotC is SURE they have a winner with 4th, and naysayers think they are going to pull a New Coke, so it is a valid comparison. Time will tell if it is accurate.

But the formula IS a winner (see Diet Coke), and in the end boosted sales of Coca-Cola Classic.

I see the same happening with this new formula (4E fantasy) and how it could help relaunch an old brand (older D&D settings, like Greyhawk).

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Just a suggestion to the WotC guys, but maybe like 2-3 years down the road, offer a (for lack of a better term) "basic" version of 4E where the thread of death was real as well as other 1E elements that have been slowly ebbed out over the years. Make the crunch compatable (or reasonably so) with 4E. Default setting with this: Greyhawk.

Just a thought.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Erik Mona wrote:

FR is in a slightly different position, it being the most popular and best-selling campaign setting. "Blowing it up" really needed to be done, for two reasons:

1) Your best-selling, most popular campaign setting really ought to follow the rules as written.

2) Continuity is hard. Starting over so that your in-house designers and freelancers only have to "know" one book is a lot easier on managing internal resources.

Morphing the Forgotten Realms allows WotC R&D to neatly solve both problems with a single stroke.

I'll concede the point, even if I don't like it (or ever expect to play in the nFR).

Dark Archive

Aww man, how did I miss this thread? Good comments from my fellow Greyhawkers. After readign this thread, I have a new position on bringing back GH. Following the FR fiasco, I am eagerly awaiting what will happen to Eberron to make it 4e compatible. I have this gut feeling that the two settings will become more alike in this edition than people realize right now. Paradoxically that is the main criticism of bringing GH back. My plan would be to wait out 4e and build some hype for GH for the following edition. By then it would certainly have a better chance at integration because all the bugs and uncertainties of 4e will have been explored already.


mortellan wrote:
Aww man, how did I miss this thread?

Hey you can still read it!

I didn't miss it, I'm just staying out of it. There are some serious GHers in here and I don't want to parade my ignorance. Great discussion.


Does anyone know what happened to Canonfire? I can't get the site to come up at all.


Looks like its back!


Given some of the reports emerging from GAMA suggesting that Greyhawk may indeed be on the list of Campaign setting to be released under 4E rules, I thought that I would bump this thread up the board, in case Greyhawk fans wished to discuss this further.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Given some of the reports emerging from GAMA suggesting that Greyhawk may indeed be on the list of Campaign setting to be released under 4E rules, I thought that I would bump this thread up the board, in case Greyhawk fans wished to discuss this further.

Well Charles,

I imagine that it will go something like this for a lot of Greyhawkers:

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."

::SMIRK::

Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus


I don't think that the problems of a 4E Greyhawk setting stem from superficialities such as the lack of gnomes or half-orcs. The lack of monks and druids (at least initially) is going to be somewhat more difficult to get around, considering how central both are to some canonical sources, but if they're coming eventually, that can be dealt with.

I am less sanguine about the necessity of introducing wholesale changes in the setting just to accommodate the new rules, however. Choices of races should be setting-specific; Dark Sun has its half-giants, etc. Why do we need to fold, staple, and otherwise mutilate the setting just to accommodate new PC races? The rules should, ideally, be flexible enough to bend to the needs of the setting, rather than forcing the setting to go through dramatic changes to accommodate a change of system.

But what really seals the deal for me is the very notion of the "points of light" concept. It is completely at odds with the underlying design philosophy of the Greyhawk setting, which has, as the movers and shakers of its story arcs, the clash of realms and the behind-the-scenes machinations of secret cabals and powerful individuals (such as the Circle of Eight, the Scarlet Brotherhood, Iuz, etc.).

The Flanaess is not a place where isolated pockets of good struggle heroically against the impending darkness. It is a place where the forces of light and darkness contend openly, in relative parity, where the PCs can make a difference in a close contest.

I just don't understand why 4E seems to force milieu-specific changes on campaign settings. Just look at what we already know is in store for the Forgotten Realms; the whole setting is being turned upside-down to accommodate the 4E changes, and it's not superficial. I have to wonder what will differentiate GH from FR from, say, Mystara, when they all are forced to conform to the philosophical demands of the new system.

Push the timeline ahead a hundred years, collapse most of the kingdoms and remove most of the power centers, and you get a 4E setting. But what do you gain? Just a couple of names? Why bother?

Joe


Thulcondar2 wrote:
But what really seals the deal for me is the very notion of the "points of light" concept. It is completely at odds with the underlying design philosophy of the Greyhawk setting... The Flanaess is not a place where isolated pockets of good struggle heroically against the impending darkness. It is a place where the forces of light and darkness contend openly, in relative parity...

I agree that Greyhawk is completely incompatible with the new paradigm for D&D play. If WotC is seriously considering supporting GH, I expect one of two outcomes:

  • WotC will recognize that GH cannot be adapted to the 4/e paradigm -- they will reject the setting.
  • WotC will not recognize that GH cannot be adapted to the 4/e paradigm -- they will maim the setting irreparably, and fans will reject the setting.

No one wants GH to return more than me, but I'm very pessimistic.

I hope I'm wrong -- I often am. Take any of this for what it's worth, which is probably very little :)


Thulcondar2 wrote:
I just don't understand why 4E seems to force milieu-specific changes on campaign settings. Just look at what we already know is in store for the Forgotten Realms...

Because WotC evidently knows the best way to play fantasy RPG, and is stamping out alternatives. I'd like to believe their claims to the contrary but, since I haven't been lobotomized, that's impossible.

Don't take me too seriously -- I'm just venting a bit.

Edit: actually, I think I am serious.


Having complained for two posts, I'll say this -- faithful, well-done, imaginative support for GH is the one thing that will make me buy 4/e.

And I'd do it in a heartbeat. That's saying a lot -- 4/e has not endeared itself to me.


Tatterdemalion wrote:

Having complained for two posts, I'll say this -- faithful, well-done, imaginative support for GH is the one thing that will make me buy 4/e.

And I'd do it in a heartbeat. That's saying a lot -- 4/e has not endeared itself to me.

You care to wager that that is the way WotC is going to approach it?


Tatterdemalion wrote:
Having complained for two posts, I'll say this -- faithful, well-done, imaginative support for GH is the one thing that will make me buy 4/e....
Thulcondar2 wrote:
You care to wager that that is the way WotC is going to approach it?

Not in a million years.

I suspect my bank account is permanently safe from WotC's predation.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Tatterdemalion wrote:
Having complained for two posts, I'll say this -- faithful, well-done, imaginative support for GH is the one thing that will make me buy 4/e.
Thulcondar2 wrote:

You care to wager that that is the way WotC is going to approach it?

It depends entirely on who over at Wizards gets to work on the project. There are people over there who respect Greyhawk deeply and want to do right by her. Rodney, I suspect, is among those folks.

There are also people working at Wizards who have different favorite projects and would probably not dig deeply enough into the characteristic feel of Greyhawk to get it right.

And there are some people working at the Hasbro subsidiary who don't have enough of a background in D&D to realize why it's important to do Greyhawk right.

Is it possible to capture Greyhawk with 4th Edition rules? Frankly, I think it'd be hard, but there are people currently at Wizards who are up to hard tasks. If they end up on the project, and are given enough resources and freedom to do what they think needs to be done, I think that a 4th Edition Greyhawk would be great.

But I'd rather have no Greyhawk at all than a mediocre or poor one.


We know that WotC will be introducing further classes in the PHB2 (and the PHB3, ...), so I'm sure the bard, druid, etc., will make an appearance at some point. I'm also sure they'll want some space between the release of campaign settings, so if there is a 4E Greyhawk, it won't be coming out in the near future.


(Edited)
Unless he has lost all his remaining Sanity Points from stress surrounding 4th Edition release, and has had to go into retreat somewhere quiet to recover, I suspect that Mr. Mearls will still occasionally be visiting the Paizo Boards, out of professional curiousity if for no other reason.
To assist WotC/Hasbro in doing Greyhawk justice, what about a group of Oerth experts assembling here on the Paizo boards to consider:

  • 1) What is essential for the flavour of the Greyhawk Setting, which makes it uniquely Greyhawk?
  • 2) How will 4E be best adapted to fit the requirements of the Greyhawk system?

    On an entirely unofficial basis, of course, unpaid by anyone for what would be a labour of love.


  • Charles Evans 25 wrote:
    (Edited) Unless he has lost all his remaining Sanity Points from stress surrounding 4th Edition release, and has had to go into retreat somewhere quiet to recover...

    I actually sympathize with the WotC staff. There've been a lot of mean things said, some by me. Despite that, I know they're just trying to do the best job they can as they try to satisfy both customers and their bosses.

    But I still disagree with a lot of what they're doing.

    Charles Evans 25 wrote:
    ...To assist WotC/Hasbro in doing Greyhawk justice, what about a group of Oerth experts assembling here on the Paizo boards to consider...

    I think these boards would be a great place for such discussion, even if it doesn't get back to WotC. Lord knows there are a lot of knowledgeable GH fans hereabouts.

    I think there should be a separate section for campaign setting discussions (hint, hint...).

    101 to 107 of 107 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Let's get Greyhawk back! All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in 4th Edition