I am looking for a solid source of GH info.
Most of the submissions are by fans of the setting, and so are not really cannon, but the articles are all of high quality and help to flesh out the setting.
-wn
Some of it that I was going over looked excellent, like the copyrighted material by WoTC on the history of Oerth, the egyptian-like race that existed before the Flan... some good articles....
But some of it seemed really off par, or contradictory...
Obviously a DM can decide to use only what he likes, but I find that a bit annoying, kind of home brew, and I can do all that myself...
I suppose I am more annoyed with the fact that WoTC totally neglects Greyhawk now and we see no solid sources or core books... I'de like to know if Greyhawk dwarves truely shun magic, or if they embraced it, some fleshing on the full pantheon... that faiths and pantheons book(or whatever that 3.0 deity book was) was absolutely horrid!
It didn't even have a quarter of the Greyhawk Pantheon, and the ones it did have it gave so little info on.
I just hate having to dig for material and even when you find it, you have to tape the pieces together to get anything worth having.
I'm sorry, but I am extremely dissapointed in WoTC.
Not to offend any of you who have dedicated your work to Canonfire, I certianly can appreciate your work and effort, I am merely annoyed
Based on our various discussions, we didn't think that it would be a very worthwhile endeavor since a) there's no single definition of canon to which most GH fans ascribe general acceptance, and b) many articles---even the most heretical ones---employ existing canon as a basis from which to launch into individual inspiration beyond canon. If folks got in the habit of reading only the "canon 584CY articles" (to pick something at random), then they would miss out on wonderful stuff that didn't happen to match that narrow definition (assuming that a definition could be agreed upon, of course).
Does that help at all?
Originally posted by grodog
One of the various suggestions we've gotten about running CF! is to be able to flag articles as canon, canon for a certain era of GH (576CY, 584 CY, 591CY, etc.), heretical, or some combination thereof.
I like that idea. If people would limit themselves, that is their choice. At least with notes, it would be easier for DM's to sort out what is what, and what coincides with other things.
When I did Greyhawk material for my campaign, I would make notes in different colors for whether it was cannon, GH novel info, or my own creation.
Halber
Originally posted by Spooky_Jester
Canonfire, is this reliable TRUE source info, or a compilation credited to what many people just made up and added?
I am looking for a solid source of GH info.
If you're looking for a big source of material created by actual Greyhawk fans, canonfire is for you.
If you're just looking for something official by folks at WotC who have no love for or knowledge of the setting, canonfire is not for you. Go ahead and start another thread here whining for a shiny new hardbound Greyhawk book, that's what everyone else seems to do.
Originally posted by Spooky_Jester
Not to offend any of you who have dedicated your work to Canonfire, I certianly can appreciate your work and effort, I am merely annoyed
We are a fan site. We do not get paid to run the site. We cannot pay the contributors.
If you are trying to say there are no articles on gods or pantheons on the site, frankly, you are wrong. I can speak authoritatively on this, having written and submitted over a dozen of them myself.
Your comments suggest a brief skimming over of the site and a lack of real exploration of our content. Please revisit the site and get to know what we do have before casting further dispersions.
What I DID try to make a point of, was it not being fully to MY taste, as I PERSONALLY do not like to compile home brew information unless I am the one who wrote it, it is PERSONAL preference and valid in my OPINION.
I place emphasis on those words so you do not further think that I am discrediting your work.
Okay, Pokemon?
In MY opinion, varying sources of conflicting information opens the gate for error in your campaign, leaving you, the DM looking like an idiot.
DM: The strange looking dwarf in the red, the one I described, you remember, right?
Player: Yep
DM: *gestures to the figure* He glares at you strangely focusing and makes a quick hand gesture which ends with him pointing at you and 5 magic missles flying from his fingertips!
Player: ...
DM: You take 19 dmg!
Player: ...
DM: What?
Player: I thought you said dwarves are not capable of magic when we started this campaign!
DM: ...
Players: Ya, you did!
Obviously you can filter it, but chances are something will evade you from time to time and you will not remember all of what you implement... not like if you drafted and integrated all your own material.
Though, that is only MY opinion, everyone else is entitled to thier own.
Originally posted by Spooky_Jester
What I DID try to make a point of, was it not being fully to MY taste, as I PERSONALLY do not like to compile home brew information unless I am the one who wrote it
Then like I said, Canonfire is not for you.
Originally posted by Spooky_Jester
I place emphasis on those words so you do not further think that I am discrediting your work.
The very fact that you came here to complain about our content leads me to believe that you were indeed hoping to discredit our work and create some kind of demand for change. We have forums, and liberally provide links to our staff via email for people to voice their suggestions, you chose not to use those and instead complained about our site here. I am responding to that criticism.
First off, we are not an official fansite, never have been, never will be.
Second, we exist through donated material alone. If some fan doesn't write it up (or draw it up in the case of maps), we don't post it.
Third, unlike other D&D fansites, our site is completely free, and comes with a 100% money back promise that you'll be satisfied :D
Fourth, as I said before, we cannot pay contributors, that leads to the fact that we cannot stipulate what will be contributed. This in turns means that we can't, per your example, detail every god in the pantheon.
Fifth, this isn't the first time someone has taken it upon themselves to criticize our site on this forum. If you have suggestions or complaints about canonfire, why not address them to us? We do listen and implement new features and changes when they are warranted. Complaining here accomplishing nothing.
In MY opinion, varying sources of conflicting information opens the gate for error in your campaign, leaving you, the DM looking like an idiot.
Not to make you feel like you're being ganged up on, but official canon material has more conflictions then the whole of Canonfire, and that is a simple and undeniable fact.
WotC has never sanctioned an official website for the setting. There are the varying LG Triad websites, and the LG material in the RPGA section, but that is all.
I you want published material, you should pick up a copy of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer at your local store, or scrounge around for OOP copies of From the Ashes, The World of Greyhawk Campaign Setting, or Greyhawk: The Adventure Begins, or any other old published items. Those are the only solid, TRUE sources of infor GH that have ever existed, and copies of them can not be found on a legitimate fan site like Canonfire!
As for your comment on a magic using dwarf, that has nothing to do with either Canonfire! or the Greyhawk setting, and sounds more like an Edition War complaint. That is also not relevant to any discussion of Canonfire!
I have a hard time accepting that there are actually people who will complain about FREE stuff...seriously, no one on Canonfire HAD to submit thier articles for your use, no one HAD to volunteer thier time to run the site, and no one HAD to even bother to start a Greyhawk fansite. But someone did, and like 100 people sent in articles and you just complain? Listen buddy, I don't like being a jerk, but I'm pretty ticked with this crap people spout, like as if the 300+ articles on CF HAVE to be there and that they ALL become useless to a campaign because they aren't canon.
I also resent that BS comment you made of:
"Obviously a DM can decide to use only what he likes, but I find that a bit annoying, kind of home brew, and I can do all that myself..."
Thanks, I guess next time I won't put up an article at CF because someone else can do it all by themself.
As for your comment on a magic using dwarf, that has nothing to do with either Canonfire!
I believe he was referring to Wesley's "Magic of the Dwarves" article on Canonfire.
Canonfire, is this reliable TRUE source info, or a compilation credited to what many people just made up and added?
Yes, obviously I was just comming here to vent about how much I hate Canonfire... infact, I NEVER said a bad word about it, how many times does that need to be said?
I unsulted WoTC Faiths and Pantheons book, yes!
All I did was comment that Canonfire has conflicting information because it has multiple contributors... that is fact and in no way insulting.
But why then is it you believe I am insulting your work, I even specifically stated that I was not... I even specifically stated that I was agitated with WoTC!
If you wan't to accuse me of flaming Canonfire, believe me, I can flame away... but I have no intention because I have an understanding that like all things, it appeals to a certian crowd.
I intially only sought an answer to what Canonfire IS.
I did not post on Canonfire for a reason, I did not visit the forums and I did not feel like registering, which I speculated I would need to do.
So if more of you would like to jump on the glory ***** wagon, by all means do... if I am going to be accused of flaming Canonfire, I may as well do it.
Otherwise, leave it at that, because as the first post indicates, I was ONLY trying to find out what Canonfire is and thus make a choice of if it would be any use to me, I asked a question, I did not flame, I did not insult... it was an IMPARTIAL QUESTION.
Spooky, in addition to what CP said, many of the folks on Cannonfire! have been playing in the Greyhawk setting for 20+ years. The site is also maintained by Gary Holian, one of the contributors to the LGG.
Now the above was a good post!
One of the various suggestions we've gotten about running CF! is to be able to flag articles as canon, canon for a certain era of GH (576CY, 584 CY, 591CY, etc.), heretical, or some combination thereof.
Yet another good post!
These posts which point the finger and tell me I am ungrateful for the site, especially since I thought I made it clear I did not have intention of using CF, get nothing accomplished.
I had specifically stated:
Not to offend any of you who have dedicated your work to Canonfire, I certianly can appreciate your work and effort, I am merely annoyed
And that "merely annoyed" at the end is in reference to WoTC, not CF.
With all that said, let me state AGAIN:
I can appreciate the work put into CF, however I do not feel that all the information suits my needs. I did find some of it to be factual and interesting, mostly because I KNEW it was from the horses mouth. I PERSONALLY would rather build my own homebrew if I am going to use homebrew, it is ONLY a PERSONAL preference, and as they say,"different strokes for different folks".
Why would I rather use my homebrew? Because I enjoy making it if there is not already solid (true) material, I have absolute control over my own work, and it sparks my creativity... I personally prefer my own ideas better, obviously because it is in the exact image of what I want.
Clear enough?
I do NOT have any problems with CF.
Originally posted by Spooky_Jester
I do NOT have any problems with CF.
I understood your original intent, Spooky. I'm sorry that some of your comments were misunderstood. But, we know that you were not flaming Canonfire. It's cool, man.
Canonfire has been a source of inspiration and online friendships, for me, personally. Like many have said, some content suits me, and other content does not. But, it is the sense of community that I appreciate the most at Canonfire. Next important to me about Canonfire is what Allan said - there are many, many years of Greyhawk experience at that Web site. So, I really enjoy the exchange of ideas that Canonfire provides an arena for. You should also check out the Thursday evening chats hosted by Canonfire. There, you will see an impressive display of Greyhawk knowledge.
I suggest that you keep browsing Canonfire. Rake through it until you find what suits you. And, if you see something missing or an issue disagrees with your personal Greyhawk sentiments, then submit an article and share your perception of the Flanaess with us. We all enjoy reasing each others' interpretations of the best D&D fantasy setting.
Originally posted by Spooky_Jester
I did not post on Canonfire for a reason, I did not visit the forums and I did not feel like registering, which I speculated I would need to do.
Actually, the Canonfire & Greytalk Help & Feedback forum on CF! is open to any visitor, registered or not.
I run the forum there, and encourage you, and others, who have specific suggestions, complaints or other issues with the site to address them there, where our entire staff can respond.
The entire goal of Canonfire was to create a more permanent and "fancy" showcase for greyhawk fan material. A place, like Greytalk has been for years, where we can get together and share our ideas.
Is one expected to take everything there and use it? Of course not, aside from the material I've contributed (which I , obviously, use) there is some that i liked and adopted pronto, other that inspired new ideas of my own, and some that just doesn't fit my Greyhawk at all.
Canonfire isn't meant to be, and can't ever be due to the fan based unofficial nature, an encyclopedic directory of all things greyhawk. There may not be what you were looking for, but browsing around has a pretty good chance of turning up at least something you might find useful.
Also, as Samwise pointed out, the dwarves and magic thing is a 1e/2e vs. 3e issue, not any flaw in greyhawk material. The flaw is that WotC, via the LGG or D&D core books, never bothered to present any "in game" justification for the change. Articles like the "Magic of the Dwarves" on canonfire attempt to do just that, and are in fact an attempt to remedy the conflicts in canon that you cited. The reasoning given may not suit your game (and in fact, it didn't suit mine, but I just overruled 3e's changes and kept dwarven mages out of my game) but that is exactly what the articles on canonfire are intended to do; fill the gaps that WotC has left open.
I would hope that someone new to these boards would give Canonfire a few visits just to see what type of articles they come across. But if for any reason you feel this material is not for you then fine your entitled to your opinion.
I for one have played Greyhawk for about ten years while playing D&D for over 15 of those years. One of the things I liked most about Greyhawk was the fact that it wasn't over developed. It's not supported by WoTC but you have a very healthy spinoff of the setting known as Living Greyhawk which is a fan supported game run by the RPGA. It is also the most successful of all the Living Campaigns.
So as you can see Canonfire has for the most part become a sort of canon as it is the only place where new Greyhawk material can be found.
People such as myself contribute article's to the site and the best part of all is that anyone can take what they want and incorporate it into their campaigns. The reverse is also true if you come across an article that you don't like or one that doesn't gel with your GH campaign then don't use it.
It's amazing to me that so many people argue and out right flame each other because someones campaigns is not 100% the same as the published work. Since first edition it was stated that this game belongs to all of us and we should play it as we see fit. So no rules or published referrence should keep us from enjoying the game.
I also prefer articles of which I have written personally. I don't think anyone can say I dislike Canonfire. But their have been a few articles or stories on the site which I find very useful in my campaign. I didn't like the dwarves magic article myself, but it was written well. So guess what I didn't use the article.
Most of all where else can you get a great map of our favorite gameworld for free. Trust me if you haven't seen it then your definitely missing out. Check out an Anodson map and you will spit at the published maps for they are pale in comparison to an Anodson map.
I would like to see new people come to the Thursday night chats and share their opinions with all of us who attend these sessions. Without the fear of flaming that I hear some people complain about other sites envoking!
Remember everybodies Hawk is different and that's ok!