I don't know. I think thats really going to depend on your definition of Greyhawk.
That said I don't really think its that much harder to swallow then 3.x Greyhawk but I think 3.x Greyhawk was a pretty big shift from the look and feel of the original setting. The easy access to magic probably being the most significant aspect but also the increase in the number of playable races and such. Suddenly Aasamar and Teiflings where coming out of the wood work and I think if you were a Greyhawk purist from way back that just seemed wrong.
I feel that as time went on many of the Greyhawk purists got increasingly used to the easy access to magic items and the plethora of unusual races and classes in 3.5. Essentially the view of what 'Greyhawk' was slowly shifted as the years went by and you became increasingly comfortable with 3.x's core assumptions.
Hence its possible that the same might happen with 4E. Their really are some fundamental changes to the way the game plays. Mages like Tenser would seem a lot less powerful in 4E then the setting seems to assume for example. In general 4E wizards just don't have the same kind of earth shattering magic available to a high level 3.5 mage. Still thats the sort of thing that really seems off initially but can, eventually, be swallowed. Tenser can't do some of the stuff that he could in earlier editions - but he's still a heck of a lot more powerful then the commoners.
Hmmm... I've been thinking about this too. You'd have to make some cosmetic changes - I'd call Eladrin High Elves and Elves wood or wild Elves. Tieflings and Dragonborn might not fit into your idea of what greyhawk is (particularly with their racial history), but if you wanted to include them it would be easy. The Oerth is a big and undetailed place - these two races could be recent additions to the Flaeness from the west across the sea of dust.
In terms of the power levels of NPC's, if you want Tenser and Mordenkainen to be really powerful I'd make them epic level and give them the Archmage epic destiny. They'd have all sorts of unique rituals of their own design.
There aren't any monks, druids, or bards yet thought (I'm sure that they'll be coming along) so that might be a problem depending on what area you're playing in.
In terms of the power levels of NPC's, if you want Tenser and Mordenkainen to be really powerful I'd make them epic level and give them the Archmage epic destiny. They'd have all sorts of unique rituals of their own design.
Another aspect might be giving access to potent power sources of really powerful nature. I mean Zagyg had this bad habit of taking Gods hostage - I have a difficult time seeing how thats really possible in 4E. That said there is something of a tradition that Zagyg built Castle Greyhawk over some kind of potent magical power source so one could explain snagging Gods using that.
|
The easy access to magic probably being the most significant aspect but also the increase in the number of playable races and such.
I feel that as time went on many of the Greyhawk purists got increasingly used to the easy access to magic items and the plethora of unusual races and classes in 3.5.
hmm, yeah, but if you look more closely ... 1e GH modules where crawling with magic. Ever played Temple of Elemental Evil ? I remember there was more than 100 magic items in that one alone.
I do agree that the feeling changed, though over the years, but is it not true of everything ?
|
I really have no way to qualify this, since I don't have the books yet, but I can't help but wonder: if I wrote a Greyhawk setting for 4e, then tweaked the 4e rules to allow for a traditional/1E-v3.5 setting, wouldn't I just wind up back at the beginning, with a v3.5 Greyhawk (and very little, if any of it, 4e)?
I really have no way to qualify this, since I don't have the books yet, but I can't help but wonder: if I wrote a Greyhawk setting for 4e, then tweaked the 4e rules to allow for a traditional/1E-v3.5 setting, wouldn't I just wind up back at the beginning, with a v3.5 Greyhawk (and very little, if any of it, 4e)?
I'm not sure I understand what your saying.
Fundamentally you can't really tweak the power sources in 4E. There is no real Vancian magic. I don't really see how you get around that with a tweak. Essentially I think the best solution is pretend that there never was Vancian magic - just the arcane power source and a whole lot of rituals plus some potent magic items.
I don't think you can easily tweak the rules back to 1E or 3E. You can add stuff, for example Valley Elves just make an elf race that follows the theme of the Valley Elves. But adding things is not the same as tweaking something back to an older edition.
The easy access to magic probably being the most significant aspect but also the increase in the number of playable races and such.
I feel that as time went on many of the Greyhawk purists got increasingly used to the easy access to magic items and the plethora of unusual races and classes in 3.5.
hmm, yeah, but if you look more closely ... 1e GH modules where crawling with magic. Ever played Temple of Elemental Evil ? I remember there was more than 100 magic items in that one alone.
I do agree that the feeling changed, though over the years, but is it not true of everything ?
By easy access I mean the magic shop model.
I absolutely agree that 1E modules had way more treasure then 3.x. I did a conversion of Keep on the Borderlands for the first adventure of 3.x for my group. My god where they above their wealth by level. It was insane. I basically gave them 1/3rd the expected treasure per encounter for the next three levels before I had them back within the wealth by level guidelines.
You can convert it easily.
Actually I think 4e captures the Greyhawk feel more than 3.0 ever did.
And as for Vancian, 4e magic system feel damn Vancian to me.
I am currently working on Divinity feats for GH gods, I canpost them later if you want to take a looksy.
Another aspect might be giving access to potent power sources of really powerful nature. I mean Zagyg had this bad habit of taking Gods hostage - I have a difficult time seeing how thats really possible in 4E. That said there is something of a tradition that Zagyg built Castle Greyhawk over some kind of potent magical power source so one could explain snagging Gods using that.
In terms of the power levels of NPC's, if you want Tenser and Mordenkainen to be really powerful I'd make them epic level and give them the Archmage epic destiny. They'd have all sorts of unique rituals of their own design.
I think rituals can go a long way to explaining the power of the notable arch-mages and Zagyg. They're pretty much NPC resources and anything they need to do for or to the PCs can be based on rituals on a per-need basis, even the creation of new NPC-only rituals made by DM fiat.
I think rituals can go a long way to explaining the power of the notable arch-mages and Zagyg. They're pretty much NPC resources and anything they need to do for or to the PCs can be based on rituals on a per-need basis, even the creation of new NPC-only rituals made by DM fiat.Another aspect might be giving access to potent power sources of really powerful nature. I mean Zagyg had this bad habit of taking Gods hostage - I have a difficult time seeing how thats really possible in 4E. That said there is something of a tradition that Zagyg built Castle Greyhawk over some kind of potent magical power source so one could explain snagging Gods using that.
In terms of the power levels of NPC's, if you want Tenser and Mordenkainen to be really powerful I'd make them epic level and give them the Archmage epic destiny. They'd have all sorts of unique rituals of their own design.
And besides Xagyg divinity came with the help of other gods, Boccob and St. Cuthberth. They both help Zagyg capture and steal a portion of divinity from 8 other godlings ( Iuz, Vatuun, Waukeen,Zaoken, etc.). So this is mostly plot device. Regardless there is a Epic path in the PHB for demigodhood, so YMMV.
I am currently working on Divinity feats for GH gods, I canpost them later if you want to take a looksy.
Cool, I'd like to see that. Some of the gods I think could be substituted for one another: Bahamut = Heironeus, Bane = Hextor, Ioun = Boccob.
I think rituals can go a long way to explaining the power of the notable arch-mages and Zagyg. They're pretty much NPC resources and anything they need to do for or to the PCs can be based on rituals on a per-need basis, even the creation of new NPC-only rituals made by DM fiat.Another aspect might be giving access to potent power sources of really powerful nature. I mean Zagyg had this bad habit of taking Gods hostage - I have a difficult time seeing how thats really possible in 4E. That said there is something of a tradition that Zagyg built Castle Greyhawk over some kind of potent magical power source so one could explain snagging Gods using that.
In terms of the power levels of NPC's, if you want Tenser and Mordenkainen to be really powerful I'd make them epic level and give them the Archmage epic destiny. They'd have all sorts of unique rituals of their own design.And besides Xagyg divinity came with the help of other gods, Boccob and St. Cuthberth. They both help Zagyg capture and steal a portion of divinity from 8 other godlings ( Iuz, Vatuun, Waukeen,Zaoken, etc.). So this is mostly plot device. Regardless there is a Epic path in the PHB for demigodhood, so YMMV.
Actually the Demigod destiny ends with you being promoted by your divine patron to the rank of an actual god.. but at that point you no longer play the character.
|
|
To everyone who has the books:
How hard would it be to create a Greyhawk campaign with the new system?
As hard as you would find it to create the half dozen or so subraces you feel necessary, and however many divine channeling feats you wanted.
It is a game system. Barring massive hardwiring, almost any system can be used with any setting, it just requires adding the flavor mechanics in.Now as for how hard it would be to convert old Greyhawk adventures to 4E with a high equivalence of flavor and function, I would say nearly impossible. The systems are too radically different to function properly.
Of course converting from 2nd ed to 3E is a major kludge in several places, and converting from 1st ed to 2nd ed has some significant issues as well, so that is hardly unique to 4E.
|
|
I really have no way to qualify this, since I don't have the books yet, but I can't help but wonder: if I wrote a Greyhawk setting for 4e, then tweaked the 4e rules to allow for a traditional/1E-v3.5 setting, wouldn't I just wind up back at the beginning, with a v3.5 Greyhawk (and very little, if any of it, 4e)?I'm not sure I understand what your saying.
Fundamentally you can't really tweak the power sources in 4E. There is no real Vancian magic. I don't really see how you get around that with a tweak. Essentially I think the best solution is pretend that there never was Vancian magic - just the arcane power source and a whole lot of rituals plus some potent magic items.
I don't think you can easily tweak the rules back to 1E or 3E. You can add stuff, for example Valley Elves just make an elf race that follows the theme of the Valley Elves. But adding things is not the same as tweaking something back to an older edition.
That's what I was really trying to say, but you said it better: based on what I know (or think I know, without having the books) about 4e, the only way to build a Greyhawk setting that looks and feels like the old Greyhawk is to use 3e and earlier rules sets--I don't think it's really possible with the 4e rules.
Hmmm... I've been thinking about this too... I'd call Eladrin High Elves and Elves wood or wild Elves. Tieflings and Dragonborn might not fit into your idea of what greyhawk... There aren't any monks, druids, or bards...
A few thoughts, not all of them original to me:
- I'd make grey elves into eladrin and just tweak high elves and wood elves into the same thing (there's already lots of overlap IMC)
- Tieflings could be a new appearance in the Lands of Iuz, a leftover since the Flight of Fiends
- Monks are avoidable, IMO, if you avoid the Scarlet Brotherhood, after which they'll need to be included -- I'd wait for a playtested version to come with some official rules
- Druids are necessary -- an official version would be best, but it would be hard to wait
- I don't consider bards necessary
- IMC gnomes are important, so either the 4e version or the campaign will need to be tweaked
My two cents :)
Another aspect might be giving access to potent power sources of really powerful nature. I mean Zagyg had this bad habit of taking Gods hostage - I have a difficult time seeing how thats really possible in 4E. That said there is something of a tradition that Zagyg built Castle Greyhawk over some kind of potent magical power source so one could explain snagging Gods using that.
Yeah, I think the movers and shakers of Greyhawk (mostly wizards and clerics) will be hard to recreate with 4e rules.
Much to my surprise, the epic levels of 4e aren't as epic as I expected.
It is a game system. Barring massive hardwiring, almost any system can be used with any setting, it just requires adding the flavor mechanics in.
I don't agree completely. Greyhawk would be profoundly difficult to do with White Wolf Storyteller rules. 4e would be easier, but 4e contains a lot of details and assumptions that are inconsistent with setting.
Methinks :)
To everyone who has the books:
How hard would it be to create a Greyhawk campaign with the new system?
Careful what you wish for. Remember Forgotten Realms.
How hard would it be to create a Greyhawk campaign with the new system?
Careful what you wish for. Remember Forgotten Realms.
I'm assuming Andrew means a home-built Greyhawk campaign.
I have no confidence in WotC's ability to rebuild Greyhawk (or any previous campaign). IMO they have shown a complete disregard for decades of D&D history -- as an example, it appears that the only similarity between 4e FR and Greenwood's FR is the name.
We have absolutley no reason to believe they will do anything different with other settings. I would rudely and unrepentantly accuse people who think otherwise of being fawning WotC fanboys.
Yes, this is a big deal to me.
Sorry for the vitriol -- we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming :/
I'm assuming Andrew means a home-built Greyhawk campaign.I have no confidence in WotC's ability to rebuild Greyhawk (or any previous campaign). IMO they have shown a complete disregard for decades of D&D history -- as an example, it appears that the only similarity between 4e FR and Greenwood's FR is the name.
We have absolutley no reason to believe they will do anything different with other settings. I would rudely and unrepentantly accuse people who think otherwise of being fawning WotC fanboys.
Yes, this is a big deal to me.
Sorry for the vitriol -- we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming :/
I'll let you get back to your vitriol in just a moment, but I'd like to point out that, unless there's been another pdf leak and no one told me, we so far have not seen the 4E version of FR. Sure we've been given rumors and tidbits, but I don't think anyone has actually held the entire thing in their hands yet. Kinda early to be making calls on only having the name as similar.
Cheers! :)
Yeah, I think the movers and shakers of Greyhawk (mostly wizards and clerics) will be hard to recreate with 4e rules.
Not especially... just throw together a monster stat block type-deal and give them some unique powers that you feel suit the character. Besides, you don't need stat blocks for them if you aren't going to fight them.
The Zagyg question? He used some super-high level rituals to trap the gods in question.
Careful what you wish for. Remember Forgotten Realms.
The Forgotten Realms will be just fine. Trust me. My chunk's lookin' good ;)
Not especially... just throw together a monster stat block type-deal and give them some unique powers that you feel suit the character. Besides, you don't need stat blocks for them if you aren't going to fight them.The Zagyg question? He used some super-high level rituals to trap the gods in question.
Good answer Rock, and something I meant to post but forgot. 4E provides a really easy way to pick out exemplary individuals from out of the crowd, better than 3E ever did, at least in my mind. Now you can make the really big powerful Wizards Elite or Solo, to represent their vast power cosmic, or whatever. Also, I'd load them up on some custom made Rituals to give them advanced foreknowledge and mysterious powers. I think it'd be pretty easy, really. (Remember to not use 4E against itself, only PCs need to be statted up as such, if no one is playing Mordenkainen as a character, he doesn't need to function precisely as one).
Cheers! :)
Not especially... just throw together a monster stat block type-deal and give them some unique powers that you feel suit the character. Besides, you don't need stat blocks for them if you aren't going to fight them.The Zagyg question? He used some super-high level rituals to trap the gods in question.
Good answer Rock, and something I meant to post but forgot. 4E provides a really easy way to pick out exemplary individuals from out of the crowd, better than 3E ever did, at least in my mind. Now you can make the really big powerful Wizards Elite or Solo, to represent their vast power cosmic, or whatever. Also, I'd load them up on some custom made Rituals to give them advanced foreknowledge and mysterious powers. I think it'd be pretty easy, really. (Remember to not use 4E against itself, only PCs need to be statted up as such, if no one is playing Mordenkainen as a character, he doesn't need to function precisely as one).
Cheers! :)
Good call, David. That's exactly what I was thinking. I'd say that Mordenkainen is a level 28 solo controller... heh... I like where this is going.
Iuz would be roughly about Orcus' power level, for example... you could actually probably use a lot of Orcus' powers, or even just his stat block with a couple of minute changes (IE: different weapons, slightly different powers... but he'd make a good baseline).
Sounds like there's a good plan here, actually...
Was Iuz a necromancer? Forgive my ignorance, I haven't read too much into the GH lore besides knowing he's a major badass and the offspring of Iggwilv and Graz'zt...
*clears throat* The genasi nation is called "Akanul".
Beyond that, I'll say it again. The 4e Forgotten Realms are shaping up to be just fine in my books. Now, I'm going to get back on topic:
Iuz wasn't exactly a necromancer. He's more of a wicked-evil demigod with a global domination agenda. He's one of the many villainous beings who has attempted to tap the power of the Temple of Elemental Evil, and was voted one of the 20 top D&D villains of all time. If I'm not mistaken, it was partly his shenaniggans that kicked off the Greyhawk Wars, and he was a major player during the Greyhawk Wars as well.
'll be nice and open minded about 4e in general, but not about what's been done to my Realms. While there are plenty of details we haven't seen yet, we have been told the overall outline for what happens to the Realms in various sources:
*spoiler omitted* (does everyone do this by hand? I thought it'd be omitted when I quoted but I had to cut it all out ...)
We may not have seen how the new Realms will look exactly, but I think its fair to say that we've seen enough to know there will be extensive changes, and if you are a fan of the current Realms, I think its fair to be upset by this.
I don't want to derail this thread, so this will be my only post on the matter, just as forewarning.
That said, yes I understand FR fans being upset, and I'm not claiming that 4E FR is going to well received by all of them. But I think the claim that there is no similarity at all beyond the name "The Forgotten Realms" is a stretch of the honest truth. Yes, many things are changed, many deities died, and many nations wiped out, with new nations in their place. But many other areas escaped more unscathed, some heroes remain, and both settings share the same histories. Pantheons are relatively the same (ignoring the dead deities; I don't believe I've heard of any new gods really, just a paring down of the old ones). Many differences, but many similarities as well.
As an aside, the Weave didn't extend to other planes? How did spellcasting there work, supposedly? I thought it was only possible in FR because of the Weave?
Ok, sorry for thread jacking, back to GH please! :)
I deleted my posts because I didn't want to cause any derailment in the thread, sorry about the off topic ramblings.
|
|
How hard would it be to create a Greyhawk campaign with the new system?
Careful what you wish for. Remember Forgotten Realms.
I'm assuming Andrew means a home-built Greyhawk campaign...
Yes, to clarify: I'm talking about sitting around in your study with all your old Greyhawk stuff and writing up your own campaign using the 4e rules set.
i agree, i am starting a greyhawk 4e campain in the fall. from what i have worked on, i think it will be fairly easy to do.
whats fluff is fluff, whats crunch is negotiable.
"The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play." E Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeon Masters Guide, page 9, 1979.
this is the line, that allows edition changes. This is the line that allows us to Dungon Master Greyhawk with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Rules, or 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons rules.
Get together, Drink Beer, Role dice.
Get over your 4e cant do this or that. get over 3.5 cant do this or that. you have been given permission to make the game whatever you want it to be. back before some of you were even born, you were given permission to change, to update, to make house rules, to fudge dice rolls.
Get together, Drink Beer, Role dice.
I came into Greyhawk pretty late, learned about it mostly as the 3.0 core setting and never got to really know it before then. I really came to love it greatly. I'd say the same thing about it that I would about Pathfinder. I love 4e, but if you play Greyhawk, do it with 3rd edition. So much is different. It just won't feel the same.
That said, you could tweak together your own version really easily. It's all in the DMG. You basically just replace class powers with powers that feel right from monsters, or make your own using elements from what's been written so far. Once you get the hang of the formula you can find yourself making some dang fine mods.
Ultimately though, it's really all about what you think Greyhawk is and how much of that can change before you get uncomfortable. Are you okay with dragonborn? Is it okay if magic works way differently? You okay with either a totally different pantheon or using the rules to cobble together the old ones? You okay with chucking a lot of the new backstory and suggested ways of playing the game? If so, then I think you'll be fine.
That said, there's a lot of Greyhawk being put into the core 4e setting. I don't know if it wouldn't be smoother just to work from the other end--run a 4e game in the 4e setting and import all the stuff you love from Greyhawk into the new game. Then again, lots of Greyhawk fans would rather commit suicide with a pencil sharpener than do that.
I think I'm going to arrange a mini-campaign with AD&D in Greyhawk. This thread makes me nostalgic. I'll keep it ready in case not everyone shows one day for the regular campaign.
I need a Sword of Sharpness!!!1
How hard would it be to create a Greyhawk campaign with the new system?Careful what you wish for. Remember Forgotten Realms.I'm assuming Andrew means a home-built Greyhawk campaign...Yes, to clarify: I'm talking about sitting around in your study with all your old Greyhawk stuff and writing up your own campaign using the 4e rules set.
arent all campaigns "home brew" in that sense?
just wondering.
there is only one official forgotten realms, and there is only one official greyhawk. anything you, or i or eric mona play in, unless it is DMed by greenwood or gygax (which would have been the most awsume game ever ever ever) isnt going to be official. official is whatever story you and your buddies make up as the game goes along. in my greyhawk game, the council of eight were bad guys and they sided with iuz, all of them. and they were killed by orcus, because they wouldnt let him play in their reindeer games.
Get together, Drink Beer, Role Dice
<pauses to glower in a suitably saturnine fashion at David Marks who apparently has relatively little experience of FR history, and just what 4E deeds are 'perpetrated' by A Grand History of the Realms>
Getting back on topic, as far as I can see magic (particularly Vancian magic and schools) may be one of the biggest difficulties with matching Greyhawk to 4E.
There are 3 solutions to this that I presently see:
Retcon (rewrite Greyhawk history) so that 'things were in fact always this way' or inflict some sort of catastrophe to explain why magic has suddenly changed. (Neither of which will go down terribly well with the old-time supporters of the setting, I suspect.)
Invent a 'parallel universe' Greyhawk which has much of the same maps, names, history, etc, but where magic has always functioned differently. (This may still annoy old-time supporters of the setting.)
Rewrite the wizard class for the benefit of 4E Greyhawk. One problem with saying 'Mordenkainen can do that because he's a 28th level exception based design human monster' is that some day the PCs are going to want to do that.
Expanding the number and function of rituals is an interesting idea, but the PCs have a right to expect all these wonderful new toys to fall into their hands at some point, and game balance might end up being adversely affected in favour of character classes able to use rituals most effectively.However you try to resolve the difficulties of the non-compatible magic systems, I suspect that it will be quite hard.
I think part of the idea behind 4E monster design is that PCs AREN'T expected to be able to do anything a monster can do. That proves too much of a handicap, either to monster design or DM sanity. Obviously, Mordenkainen would be a corner case since he is a Human, but I think that same design principle should still carry on.
That said, not being overly familiar with Greyhawk, how big of a role do things like vancian casting and schools of magic play in the setting? I mean I know Monks and Druids have organizations and stuff, so they're obviously important. But are things like vancian casting and schools of magic actually called out in the setting specific stuff?
i dont ever remember hearing the term vanican magic before the discussions of 4e started. i have been a off, mostly on d&d player since 1979.
i have to admit, that i havent read every word ever written for d&d, i meerly skim.
i dont recall that magic schools were that important in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. that being said, it shouldnt be that important in Greyhawk.
i feel sorry for anybody who has to play with rules lawers, or powergamers. they can really throw crunch into my fluff. and crunchy fluff rubs in the craw.
not that anybody cares. but i still think that greyhawk will make a great campain for 4e.
get together, Drink Beer, Role dice
|
|
i agree, i am starting a greyhawk 4e campain in the fall. from what i have worked on, i think it will be fairly easy to do.
whats fluff is fluff, whats crunch is negotiable.
"The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play." E Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeon Masters Guide, page 9, 1979.
this is the line, that allows edition changes. This is the line that allows us to Dungon Master Greyhawk with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Rules, or 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons rules.
Get together, Drink Beer, Role dice.
Get over your 4e cant do this or that. get over 3.5 cant do this or that. you have been given permission to make the game whatever you want it to be. back before some of you were even born, you were given permission to change, to update, to make house rules, to fudge dice rolls.
Get together, Drink Beer, Role dice.
Very nicely put! I shall raise a pint of Guinness to you tonight.
I feel sorry for anybody who has to play with rules lawers, or powergamers. they can really throw crunch into my fluff. and crunchy fluff rubs in the craw.
Not quite sure what you mean here. Crunchy fluff? I mean presumably the crunch is the mechanical representation of the fluff, right? A ghost is supposed to be insubstancial, so the rules say he can pass through walls and can't be physically attacked; because stuff passes through him. The crunch is what gives the fluff something solid to hold onto, makes it actually apply in game. Not sure how that's a bad thing.
With regards to 4e in Greyhawk, the fluff suggests a lot of races and classes that just don't exist in the crunch unless you make them up. The kind of magic that exists in the fluff is limited, but potent--whereas now the magic is pretty much unlimited, but much more rigidly defined in what it can do.
That said, you could make 4e characters and play in the Greyhawk setting--just the same as you could make World of Darkness (or heck even Traveller characters) and play in the Greyhawk setting. It's all about what you're cool with. We did a game once where we played in the Forgotten Realms, but as a lark, swapped out the usual races for the Star Wars races from the Ultimate Alien Anthology. It was a blast!
Oh, and about Vancian magic, the term comes from the works of an author named Jack Vance, whose stories (the Dying Earth series) describe a form of magic very much like D&D magic--right down to some of the spell names. It was one of the sources from which Gary Gygax borrowed generously for ideas to put into the D&D game. It's kind of neat how many obscure literary references creep their way into our games.
I apologise; I have consulted with senior sages and Greyhawk specialists, and the general feeling I get is that magic & schools being lost from Greyhawk is no problem at all. There is some debate about the needed cosmology, and whether or not the presented 4E Monster Manual version of Orcus is tough enough for the Greyhawk setting, since 'Tenser & Mordenkainen together shouldn't be able to take him down' if I understood the general direction of the debate.
Hehe, well Tenser and Mordenkainen aren't set in stone. It would always be possible to scale them to whatever level should be appropriate for them, leaving them as Elites or Solos as their own cases may be (having only a passing knowledge of Greyhawk, I know the names and the barebones of who these characters are, but that is about it.) Either way, I don't think statting up famous characters/monsters would be an issue (and I'd say that for most settings, not just Greyhawk)
Cheers! :)
Oh, and about Vancian magic, the term comes from the works of an author named Jack Vance, whose stories (the Dying Earth series) describe a form of magic very much like D&D magic--right down to some of the spell names. It was one of the sources from which Gary Gygax borrowed generously for ideas to put into the D&D game. It's kind of neat how many obscure literary references creep their way into our games.
Indeed, I picked up a Jack Vance anthology many years after I started playing DnD, and it was cool to FINALLY see something approaching DnD magic in a literary setting (that wasn't a DnD novel). When they started busting out prismatic sprays and stuff it was even better! Makes me want to go look up some of the spells.
Still, if I remember my Vance, didn't the Wizards have plenty of lesser magics, it was only the "big-bangs" that they had one for the day of?
I'm by no means a greyhawk scholar, but I'm pretty well versed with my greylore. Vancian magic and the schools of magic (which didn't really have a huge impact on the game until second edition - other than illusionists who were a separate class and might be again in fourth)aren't tied in with the setting of Greyhawk. These things are tied in with the feeling of older versions of D&D which many people used to play in those settings, but not the settings themselves. I don't really see any reason why still using the same setting information wizards couldn't have learned their craft in the tower of the silent ones of keoland or in greyhawk university - they still use spellbooks, and needed to be taught their craft by someone, same as before.
Vancian magic and the schools of magic (which didn't really have a huge impact on the game until second edition - other than illusionists who were a separate class and might be again in fourth)aren't tied in with the setting of Greyhawk.
For what it's worth, I think this is true -- Vancian magic is an easily-eliminated component of the setting.
I think racial characteristics and a few classes are much more problematic. Not all of them, but some important ones.
Very nicely put! I shall raise a pint of Guinness to you tonight.i agree, i am starting a greyhawk 4e campain in the fall. from what i have worked on, i think it will be fairly easy to do.
whats fluff is fluff, whats crunch is negotiable.
"The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play." E Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, Dungeon Masters Guide, page 9, 1979.
this is the line, that allows edition changes. This is the line that allows us to Dungon Master Greyhawk with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Rules, or 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons rules.
Get together, Drink Beer, Role dice.
Get over your 4e cant do this or that. get over 3.5 cant do this or that. you have been given permission to make the game whatever you want it to be. back before some of you were even born, you were given permission to change, to update, to make house rules, to fudge dice rolls.
Get together, Drink Beer, Role dice.
I second that...and am already three sheets to the wind.
Now as for how hard it would be to convert old Greyhawk adventures to 4E with a high equivalence of flavor and function, I would say nearly impossible. The systems are too radically different to function properly.
Of course converting from 2nd ed to 3E is a major kludge in several places, and converting from 1st ed to 2nd ed has some significant issues as well, so that is hardly unique to 4E.
I'm going to disagree that converting from 1st to 2nd was at all difficult. In fact I'm not sure if I even bothered for most adventures and I don't recall it causing any hiccups. Well so long as the adventure did not feature dragons anyway. If it did then their were big problems since a 1st edition Great Wyrm Red did not stand a chance against a 5th level party of 5 adventures - while in 2nd edition the Dragons were so nasty that I did not loose a single dragon through all of 2nd edition. I beat my PCs in every fight but one (which was a draw) through that whole era (I almost cried real tears when I lost my first dragon in 3rd - I kid you not, I was angry for two days before I got over it).
Anyway I think converting the modules is not really that tough. Most 1st edition modules are pretty hack heavy and you should not have to much trouble emulating the plot. I personally plan to convert Isle of the Ape and I actually think it will work better in 4E then in 3.5. The first scene with, what was it 80 human tribesmen?, should be much more playable - I was having a hard time figuring out how to get that so that the tribes men where a challenge in 3.5. If their even a few levels to low for the PCs my players would be immune to them since they'd never hit the players AC except with natural 20s. If they are high enough to hit the players AC then they are probably so powerful that they'd kill my PCs.
Beyond that the module is mainly about dinosaurs - which concerned me more in high level 3.5. My players might easily be able to stay far out of reach and pepper any dinosaurs they met and they'd just rest in rope trick. In 4E I've not yet (though I've not looked very hard either) seen an ability to so easily leave and then come back - and on the Isle of the Ape they won't get any extended rests unless they can find some kind of a poulder.
Another example is 2nd editions Dragon of Firetop Mountain. Again I was really having a hard time thinking of how I'd run this in 3.5 but I think it'll actually run really well in 4E. Kobolds are far more dangerous to 10th level characters in 4E then they are to 10th level characters in 3.5. The attrition motif is far more problematic as PCs don't have (that I am aware of) many easy ways to rest in non dimensional pockets to get all their hps and spells back.
I guess what I'm saying is that 1st and 2nd edition modules often relied on an attrition motif (A Paladin in Hell is another example of attrition and a module I'm itching to convert) that simply did not easily play out in 3.5.
I'll admit that when I'm more deeply versed in the rules I'll have a better feel for whether the edition is going to allow me to convert but so far I'm liking what I'm seeing in terms of converting some old favourites. Even if I'm wrong and there are a few powers that get in my way I suspect that the highly modular exceptions based system of 4E will make removing those few powers, magic items or rituals easy. Its harder (though by no means impossible) in 3.5 because the game system is less modular and more interconnected.
One problem with saying 'Mordenkainen can do that because he's a 28th level exception based design human monster' is that some day the PCs are going to want to do that.
Expanding the number and function of rituals is an interesting idea, but the PCs have a right to expect all these wonderful new toys to fall into their hands at some point, and game balance might end up being adversely affected in favour of character classes able to use rituals most effectively.
Nah. This is Greyhawk. The DM can do all sorts of things you'll never be allowed to do, no matter what, is part of the core assumption. Those who feel the PCs should be allowed to do the same sort of things that the DM is allowed to do have been playing that heretic 3.x version of the game for far too long.
Actually I was totally pumped by the design goal of making the DM and the players play by the same rules when I first started playing 3.x. Though having now actually played for years under this design paradigm I feel that it does come with some significant limitations. Limitations I did not recognize or appreciate until I had played 3.5.
And I'll jump on this bandwagon. NPCs strictly following rules? Gah!
I build NPCs and monster however I bloody well please. Sure, understanding the rules for making them helps to keep things balanced, but strictly following rules in these cases is just a DM headache and a limit to my imagination.
I do, incidentally, allow my players to bend and break rules as well provided it has a basis in character and reasonable role playing.
Another attrition motiff module that might work pretty well in 4e that was published in 2nd ed. is the Night Below campaign.
Well if we are on to modules we can't wait to see a conversion of I'm putting my vote in for Tomb of Horrors. I'm shivering in anticipation (or is that fear?) over the thought of that conversion.