Other than a few fan sites like Cannonfire, what's left for Greyhawk?
"I am beginning to warm up to all these comparisons of the Greyhawk franchise to something undead or dead-loving. I wouldn't think of it as a stinking zombie though, it's more like a lich. No matter how many times you kill it, it reforms again later. The phylactery is well hid too. Keep one eye open, Greyhawk is going to sneak up on you all!"
Locking it as the core world and then not doing anything with it except in the living Greyhawk was killing it in my opinion.
This could give it hope as a campaignworld again.
I guess my main concern is how the Hawk community can keep recruiting new members to be wowed by the setting if its references become less and less obvious. In that respect, the loss of Dungeon / Dragon and Living Greyhawk, as well as the Core setting is damaging insofar as it may restrict the curiosity of those who have no other way of learning about it.
As a community this will be our greatest challenge. We do not want for lack of material, even if it is not 'official'; but hell, look at Cannonfire and compare much of it to some of the later splat that was published - much more imaginative, and better quality IMO.
I should know.
Many have tried to destroy the setting and failed.
I should know.
Hehe, indeed.
*waves at Waldorf*
I believe the intention is that they publish one campaign setting per year. It's already been stated that FR will come in 2008. My guess is that Eberron will be in 2009. This is only speculation, but I think it's possible that Greyhawk will receive some treatment within a couple of years after that.
That seems dubious. A couple of years after Eberron, WotC will be starting all over again with fifth edition, to fix the irreparably broken elements of 4E. :heehee
Write them a check for forty-two million tumtums.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4hook/20070824a
Enjoy.
ROB
That seems dubious. A couple of years after Eberron, WotC will be starting all over again with fifth edition, to fix the irreparably broken elements of 4E. :heehee
It's part of life, to constantly improve the system for better, easier, and faster gameplay.
It's part of life, to constantly improve the system for better, easier, and faster gameplay.
Yeah, Keith Baker said it better:
I know a lot of people are upset because it's going to make books obsolete. And I sympathize with this. I have about 50 hardcover D&D books next to my desk - and that's just the ones I use on a regular basis! At $30+ a book, that's $1,500! The idea that much of that will be useless (discounting the fluff aspects) is no small thing, considering the vast sums I make as a freelancer. But to my mind, it's like a computer. Computers become obsolete. Eventually your computer will be running too slowly and it won't be able to do the things you want to do with it. Do you just stay with it because you've spent a lot of money on games for it? Or do you design and/or purchase a new and better computer? For me, D&D 3.5 has serious flaws that limit my ability to enjoy the game. I realize that not everyone considers these to be flaws, but I do - and from what I've heard, these are specifically being targeted with the new edition. So much as I hate throwing away the money I've invested, I'm prepared to take the plunge and by that new computer.
Fighters only work in builds ("I full attack with my Greatsword/Spiked Chain"), Paladins only work against evil enemies, Rangers are a little narrow. Damn, I love Sorcerers (I'm lazy) but it only has Bluff as it Cha skill, almost zero class features (yeah, a familiar), delayed spellcasting and most of Heritage feats suck.
Keith Baker said it better:
I know a lot of people are upset because it's going to make books obsolete. And I sympathize with this. I have about 50 hardcover D&D books next to my desk - and that's just the ones I use on a regular basis! At $30+ a book, that's $1,500! The idea that much of that will be useless (discounting the fluff aspects) is no small thing, considering the vast sums I make as a freelancer. But to my mind, it's like a computer. Computers become obsolete. Eventually your computer will be running too slowly and it won't be able to do the things you want to do with it. Do you just stay with it because you've spent a lot of money on games for it? Or do you design and/or purchase a new and better computer? For me, D&D 3.5 has serious flaws that limit my ability to enjoy the game. I realize that not everyone considers these to be flaws, but I do - and from what I've heard, these are specifically being targeted with the new edition. So much as I hate throwing away the money I've invested, I'm prepared to take the plunge and by that new computer.
And there's the 3.5 bashing right on schedule, with a convenient analogy that gamers can wrap their heads around. Guess Baker got the memo about dissing 3.5 stuff in order to foist future editions on people. Thing is, he's not as subtle or practiced as the older designers are. He just comes out and bashes the game, saying, 'there are serious flaws that limit my enjoyment.' Yes, I'm sure those flaws have nothing to do with your future employment at Wotc, Keith. In the same way everyone who works there now LOVES 4e. Because if they don't play it, they're gonna get fired.
So maybe some folks at Wizards didn't get the memo that Greyhawk is dead - or they are just clearing out all the remaining Greyhawk stuff they have in their folders:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4hook/20070824aROB
If that's what qualifies as support for a setting, maybe I should start playing Eberron.
It lives.
It lives every Tuesday night in the garage I play at with my 6 buddies.
--Ghul
;)
Greyhawk forever!
Yeah, Keith Baker said it better:
I wouldn't use the computer analogy. Let's face it. Chipmakers are conspiring to withthold the release of their most powerful hardware to consumers, so that we keep buying less-than-powerful chips and upgrade it two to three years later.
And there's the 3.5 bashing right on schedule, with a convenient analogy that gamers can wrap their heads around. Guess Baker got the memo about dissing 3.5 stuff in order to foist future editions on people. Thing is, he's not as subtle or practiced as the older designers are. He just comes out and bashes the game, saying, 'there are serious flaws that limit my enjoyment.' Yes, I'm sure those flaws have nothing to do with your future employment at Wotc, Keith. In the same way everyone who works there now LOVES 4e. Because if they don't play it, they're gonna get fired.
I know you're angry for the change, so am I. But, you have to admit there were some really bad decisons in the design. I am a sorcerer player, I love them. No matter the heritage, scales , breath weapon, templates, race, I will almost always play one. Just look at it, the design falls into st*****ty.
I came up with a personal fix, but that doesn't really matter now.
Greyhawk is usually is seen as the setting to go exploring dungeons, to kill some kobolds and get some loot. There is a lot of lore on it. But a guy cannot come to this section of the forums without reading someone's whining because there is no support or a Gygax said .... comment.
I like Greyhawk thanks to mortellan. I like Vecna, Boccob, Zagyg, Falazure, Kyuss, Io, Iggwilv, Hextor, Wee Jas, Nerull. I just don't know about the countries and kingdoms (I 've heard of the Perrenlands, Suel) and there ain't much info on the heroic characters in the setting. I know of Strongheart, Warduke, Mordenkainen and Robilar, but there is always a band of adventurers to save the day (it is pretty cool for the authors to make us part of that, but GH has space but a few extra iconics). Names of kings, queens, princes, villains and other awesome characters is what I'm interested in.
I know there is plenty information in books (which might have been printed before I was born) or Dragon Magazine (which also I cannot acquire, I don't live in the US or Canada).
Complaining will not solve any situation. You're probably older than me (I'm 20), and you know both :D better than I do. I appreciate you for sticking to the game since 1st edition.
@rob_douglas: There will be 4th Edtion campaign setting books for old worlds of D&D; its a way to get some players in 4ED. But we will have to wait at least a year, because I think Dragonlance will come first with the movie on the way.
@Ranger Reg: this is D&D, our love-hate relationship. Like me and the soccer ball when playing as a goalkeeper :D .
I know you're angry for the change, so am I. But, you have to admit there were some really bad decisons in the design. I am a sorcerer player, I love them. No matter the heritage, scales , breath weapon, templates, race, I will almost always play one. Just look at it, the design falls into st*****ty.
Uh, no, I don't have to admit that. Frankly, I thought the sorceror was fine, as was most of 3.5 If you have a problem with it, then you can complain about it.
I came up with a personal fix, but that doesn't really matter now.
Of course it does. Stay with 3.5 if you like. Or go ahead and buy all those books again. It's your choice.
Greyhawk is usually is seen as the setting to go exploring dungeons, to kill some kobolds and get some loot. There is a lot of lore on it. But a guy cannot come to this section of the forums without reading someone's whining because there is no support or a Gygax said .... comment.
Please show me evidence to that Greyhawk is so one dimensional that it's capable of sustaining only dungeon crawls.
I like Greyhawk thanks to Mortellan. I like Vecna, Boccob, Zagyg, Falazure, Kyuss, Io, Iggwilv, Hextor, Wee Jas, Nerull. I just don't know about the countries and kingdoms (I 've heard of the Perrenlands, Suel) and there ain't much info on the heroic characters in the setting. I know of Strongheart, Warduke, Mordenkainen and Robilar, but there is always a band of adventurers to save the day (it is pretty cool for the authors to make us part of that, but GH has space but a few extra iconics). Names of kings, queens, princes, villains and other awesome characters is what I'm interested in.
There are numerous kings, princes, and villains in this setting. You need to read through the Living Greyhawk Gazeteer.
I know there is plenty information in books (which might have been printed before I was born) or Dragon Magazine (which also I cannot acquire, I don't live in the US or Canada).
Pre 3e reveals quite a bit of information on Greyhawk. The old boxed sets were invaluable, as were the setting books by Carl Sargent. The current Gazeteer is a good bet, as well.
Complaining will not solve any situation. You're probably older than me (I'm 20), and you know both :D better than I do. I appreciate you for sticking to the game since 1st edition.
You'll come to notice certain publishing tactics from any company that produces a new edition of D&D, or any game for that matter. They invariably tear down their own creation when sales start to drop off and theyve decided to sell you all those books again, this time 'fixing all the mistakes of the last edition.'
Yeah right, as if this edition will be error free. There's no such thing as a perfect edition. Nor is one necessarily better than the last.
@rob_douglas: There will be 4th Edtion campaign setting books for old worlds of D&D; its a way to get some players in 4ED. But we will have to wait at least a year, because I think Dragonlance will come first with the movie on the way.
I welcome any attempt to do the old settings justice. I somehow doubt we'll see anythng for Greyhawk in the forseeable future, however.
It's part of life, to constantly improve the system for better, easier, and faster gameplay.
That may be true, but planned obsolescence sure as heck is a feature of modern American capitalism, and seems suspiciously close to WotC's business model. Glowing reviews of as-yet-unreleased games are part of the Internet, too.
That allegedly perfecting a game system happens to coincide with WotC selling us the same books again and again is simply too much of a coincidence to swallow. 4E might turn out to be better, or at least there are enough fans who will think so, or enough fans who will persuade themselves that that is so. Heck, serious integration of the system with an online service might be plenty of justification for people to reinvest. I've just seen systems come and go, and so haven't yet mustered more than idle curiosity (and major cynicism) over the Next Big Thing.
I thought that third edition had some great ideas for game balance, as a matter of fact, but took the (IMO) silly-***** approach of forcing class changes to acquire new skills/feats. I was still enjoying second edition's Skills & Powers, which had the point-buy feature I love to this day. Third edition is great for one-shots with pre-generated characters, but didn't have much else to offer me.
I was still enjoying second edition's Skills & Powers, which had the point-buy feature I love to this day.
Meh.
Hated Skills & Powers then. Hate Skills & Powers now.
They were terrible to offer weapon specialization to thief. I don't care if the cost is too expensive. That was stoopid to begin with. Remember, they were created under the guise of the obsolete dual- and multi-classing systems.
...
(would be a cool name for an article in Dragon)
If you want your character to be a certain way - play him that way - rather then pour over books trying to find the combination of classes, feats or whatever to make him that way.
When I played I found the more enjoyable games and DMs for that matter sought to simplify the game. I also felt bad for the players pulling out several binders and a small library just to play.
Not to mention the added complexity just encourages "rules lawyers" and "stat munchkins".
Not to mention the added complexity just encourages "rules lawyers" and "stat munchkins".
Why is someone knowing the rules a bad thing?
Why is wanting to play by the rules a bad thing?
I wouldn't want to play baseball with someone who didn't know you were out after 3 strikes, or your half of an inning was over after 3 outs. Why would I want to play D&D with someone with a similar lack of understanding of the rules, however simple or complex they may be?
As for ability scores, is it somehow better if people generate pages of random die rolls until they get super high ability scores instead of just using a point buy system to select what high and low scores they want?
Is the game really only good if people have to play a character at random instead of something they want to play?
The only way to eliminate stats munchkins is to find a balance that favors no one or few stats.
The only way to eliminate rules lawyers is to minimize rules ambiguity.
Why would you want to eliminate the people who know the rules?
You want to play a game with rules without anyone who actually knows what they are?
It generally requires more text, and more fully elaborated subcases to minimize rules ambiguity, not less less text, and fewer distinguished subcases.
All that adds to the sheer mass of material that needs to be known, and makes this despised person who actually knows the rules of the game even more necessary.
The only way to reduce the need for comprehensive knowledge of the rules is to simplify the game to the point where said knowledge provides no advantage. You would need to simplify the game to the point of jacks or hopscotch.
The only way to eliminate stats munchkins is to find a balance that favors no one or few stats.
Any decent power gamer can abuse any stat, no matter how "irrelevant" it might seem. You just have to know the system.
There is no way to reduce this. Anytime you base success on any other value, base or derived, then there is a need to maximize that value. Making every value of equal importance and power just shifts the focus to maximizing every such value. You would need to replace every contested action with a simple random test against a standard number with no inherent character modifiers.
I can not conceive of any reason to want to exclude players who wish to master the rules of a game system.
Destructive power gaming, that is taking it to the point of collapsing the system simply for the sake of proving you can break the system, can only be controlled by personal attitude. Either you want to play the game using the system, or you want to break the system. A useful rules set can not be written that supersedes this individual choice.
Greyhawk will never die as long as people like it and play in the world.
When it comes to 4th Ed. and Greyhawk...... Iono, I kinda believe it would be better to give the world back to Gary Gygax, at least he seemed to put ALOT of work into it in the first place, to make it THE world....
Untill Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms was released in 86 - 87, that is ;)
Any game should be about enjoyment not about researching rules, any game can be destroyed under its own weight.
Heck they have developed an entire alignment around the rules lawyer and stat powergamer - Lawful Evil. :D
I am NOT saying no rules is practical but what I am saying is that when the group playing the game find the numerous rules and books becoming the focus rather then fun - something has gone wrong.
Any game should be about enjoyment not about researching rules, any game can be destroyed under its own weight.
Heck they have developed an entire alignment around the rules lawyer and stat powergamer - Lawful Evil. :D
Rules Lawyers are not Evil. They are Lawful Good or Neutral, depending on whether they want people to follow the rules so they don't wreck the game for others, or they follow the rules because they are rules.
Power Gamers are typically Chaotic Good. They know the rules so they can go around heroing at will.
Rules Weasels, which are frequently mistaken for Rules Lawyers, are typically Neutral Evil. They don't know the rules to follow them, they know rules to ignore them because they don't let them do whatever they want.
Power Destroyers, which are mistaken for regular Power Gamers, are purely Chaotic Evil. They know the rules so they can destroy the game solely to indulge themselves.
Mass of rules is not the same as individuals who know the rules, and they are not the same as individuals who abuse the rules.
A game designer should always be a Rules Lawyer before adding anything to the game rules.
This could date me as an "old time gamer" why not use the smallest number of classes and distinguish your character through role-playing not through adding more and more rules.
If you want your character to be a certain way - play him that way - rather then pour over books trying to find the combination of classes, feats or whatever to make him that way.
When I played I found the more enjoyable games and DMs for that matter sought to simplify the game. I also felt bad for the players pulling out several binders and a small library just to play.
Not to mention the added complexity just encourages "rules lawyers" and "stat munchkins".
This is a great post.
The problem with rules lawyers is they forget the first rule of D&D. The DM is always right.
I do not want to play D&D like warhammer fantasy battles where knowledge of every rule could mean a win or a loss. Personally I think it is the difference between old school players and the new school players. old schoolers like a 64 page book of rules and a pad of blank .25 inch graph paper. seems like new school players like having a stack of core books loaded to the gills with a rule for every situation.
As for greyhawk dying? nah it lives every Sunday night even if I run the game using the Lejendary adventure rules.
This is a great post.
The problem with rules lawyers is they forget the first rule of D&D. The DM is always right.
The problem with this post is that isn't the first rule of D&D.
The first rule is that having fun is the most important thing.
You rarely have fun with DMs tossing rules out, or making them up on the spot, just because they can't handle player creativity.
As for differences between Old School and New School players, that is just another misperception of the relevance of when someone starts playing. The only significant difference in attitudes and perceptions I have ever encountered is how many books from the list in the back of the DMG people they have read.
When I played I found the more enjoyable games and DMs for that matter sought to simplify the game. I also felt bad for the players pulling out several binders and a small library just to play.
I tend to have a lot of books, but the 2 I use for rules are the PHB and DMG (and, to a much lesser extent, UA). The others (MM, MMII, FF, GA, ToM etc) are just icing on the cake, used only for more monsters, spells and magic items. But what rules we use (at least for 1e) have been extremely simplified such that we rarely need to refer to either the DMG or PHB for anything other than information on spells and magic items. Makes for a much more fun and interesting game...
@Ranger Reg: this is D&D, our love-hate relationship. Like me and the soccer ball when playing as a goalkeeper :D .
Meh. My love-hate relationship has to do with WotC. Love their RPGs, Hate their TCGs. :D
The problem with rules lawyers is they forget the first rule of D&D. The DM is always right.
I disagree.
I've pointed out mistakes that DMs have made. I do so respectfully. Sometimes the DM will check the rule, appologize for the mistake, and carry on after any necessary corrections have been made. At other times the DM says that he is fully aware of the rule; I accept that there's something going on that I'm not aware of, and the game continues. The same thing happens when players point out mistakes I have made.
As a friend of mine says, "We buy these books for a reason." We all make mistakes, and the last thing you want is for a PC to die, a climatic battle to end too quickly, or anything that would take away from the fun, when it didn't need to happen.
And the last thing I want is a DM who ignores the rules, not for the fun of all, but to ensure that the story he wants to tell gets told, regardless of what the PCs do.
I disagree.
I've pointed out mistakes that DMs have made. I do so respectfully.
By "respectfully," I hope you mean outside of the game-play. To challenge the DM during game-play is undermining their authority to preside over the campaign. They lose face and credibility in front of your fellow players.
Trust me, I used to be a rules lawyer.
when Im playing WHFB or FoW on table top believe me the rule book is front and center and open and every rule is checked.
but when playing a role playing game I think it is important to believe the DMs rulings and to abide by them regardless of what the book says.
By "respectfully," I hope you mean outside of the game-play. To challenge the DM during game-play is undermining their authority to preside over the campaign. They lose face and credibility in front of your fellow players.
Trust me, I used to be a rules lawyer.
Right, and when half the party is wiped out because the DM misunderstood a rule, you'll challenge during gameplay the next time. Respectfully, of course....
By "respectfully," I hope you mean outside of the game-play. To challenge the DM during game-play is undermining their authority to preside over the campaign. They lose face and credibility in front of your fellow players.
Trust me, I used to be a rules lawyer.
Late last night, I typed out a whole response. Then the servers went down.
Let's try this again. 
Sometimes I wait until after the session, sometimes I don't. There are times when something crucial hangs on the mistake, such as a PC death. I bring it up, and typically the DM thanks me for helping the game. I don't make fun of him, and neither do the other players, because, as human beings, we all make mistakes. I don't point and yell, "You're wrong!" I ask, "Are you sure that's how it works?" And we discuss it. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong, and it's all good with us. I welcome these points from my friends when I DM.
I only do this with DMs who are my friends, and who are comfortable in the role of DM. A friend once wanted to DM one-on-one with me, so he could learn how to DM. He'd make mistakes, but in that case I didn't say anything during the game. After the session, he'd ask for feedback, and I'd give it. I also recently played with a bunch of people I didn't know (at an RPGA event). Since I didn't know the people, I wouldn't bring up anything.
Also, even among my friends who are comfortable DMing, I don't always bring up mistakes in the rules. If it's a minor error, nothing hangs on it, the PCs and monsters are still being treated equally, saying something would interrupt the flow of the game, etc, then I won't say anything.
My point is that, while it shouldn't be brought up all the time, there's nothing wrong with pointing out a mistake a DM makes. A good DM shouldn't be insecure and want to maintain some sort of arbitrary rule (and I've seen DMs more interested in telling their own stories, no matter what PCs do). And good players should be willing to make allowances for a DM, and also be willing to help move things along. Sometimes that help involves pointing out how the rules work in a particular situation. (Note that these same DMs also welcome players tossing out ideas for taverns, NPCs, etc. It relieves the DM of the burden of having to do everything.)
By "respectfully," I hope you mean outside of the game-play. To challenge the DM during game-play is undermining their authority to preside over the campaign. They lose face and credibility in front of your fellow players.
Trust me, I used to be a rules lawyer.
I've never had my authority to run undermined by someone questioning a rule at the table.
Then again, my "authority" as a DM is not based on knowing more rules than any player or players, but on running an engaging campaign. (In and of itself, again not in comparison to anyone else's campaign.)
I would turn your standard around on you though:
Did the DM respectfully inform the players of changes to the core rules system? That is, outside of game play, so the player doesn't lose face or credibility by having a tactic he believes should work disallowed, or a character build he believes is legal banned.
Gaming doesn't have to be run like a KoDT strip. It can be a cooperative effort between players and DM, and not a competition.
Gaming doesn't have to be run like a KoDT strip. It can be a cooperative effort between players and DM, and not a competition.
So eloquently put, that I'd like to sig this. If you object, let me know.
Disrupting the game session with long arguments about the rules is no fun for anyone, so should be avoided. But refusing to say anything when a non trivial mistake is being made is just stupid.
Right, and when half the party is wiped out because the DM misunderstood a rule, you'll challenge during gameplay the next time. Respectfully, of course....
Nope. Never during gameplay because there will never be a next time with said misunderstood DM running. :D
Nope. Never during gameplay because there will never be a next time with said misunderstood DM running. :D
You're crazy. If the subject is brought up in the right way, the DM should be grateful for having the mistake corrected. Maybe you need some new DM's that aren't all pissy and sensitive.
You're crazy. If the subject is brought up in the right way, the DM should be grateful for having the mistake corrected. Maybe you need some new DM's that aren't all pissy and sensitive.
Oh, we'll correct the guy, but we'll let someone else take turn as DM and he can be a player.
What, you think we only have one designated DM in the group? Even I can get tired of DMing and want to play once in a while.
Oh, we'll correct the guy, but we'll let someone else take turn as DM and he can be a player.
What, you think we only have one designated DM in the group? Even I can get tired of DMing and want to play once in a while.
We rotate DMs too, but that wasn't the premise of the statement. The premise was that you never ever challenge a ruling during a game, and that has nothing to do with who the DM is. If someone were to challenge me as a DM, and it was done respectfully, it's for the betterment of the game, not to diminish my authority or whatever. Are you saying as soon as a DM gets it wrong that he mad ea player? That seems odd and non-connected to me....
We rotate DMs too, but that wasn't the premise of the statement. The premise was that you never ever challenge a ruling during a game, and that has nothing to do with who the DM is. If someone were to challenge me as a DM, and it was done respectfully, it's for the betterment of the game, not to diminish my authority or whatever. Are you saying as soon as a DM gets it wrong that he mad ea player? That seems odd and non-connected to me....
Not soon. Just after the game, and the party is wiped out due to DM mishandling. We just tossed those character sheets or recycle them for a different campaign. It's superstitious to use dead PC's.
Not soon. Just after the game, and the party is wiped out due to DM mishandling. We just tossed those character sheets or recycle them for a different campaign. It's superstitious to use dead PC's.
If the DM in question is constantly messing things up, I can see why you might do this. I was talking about cases in which the DM is fair, a good story teller, and understands the rules, but just makes an honest mistake that could cost a single PC's life. That's when it's worth pointing out the mistake during the game.
I have been playing D&D since around 1987. Although there were some improvements with 2nd Ed., nothing quite compares to the 1st Ed. rules. The DMG was, and still is, the most authoritative book around. Nothing compares to the level of detail that Gygax put into it, not to trot out his name again... But the facts are the facts. The whole point of D&D was to take a basic set of rules and make the game your own. Role play, try something original, be creative. I think 3.0 and 3.5 destroyed the game. It was a corporate gimmick to sell crap. Just my meager opinion...
Well, probably as a product line. But that's okay. There is a ton of stuff from 1st Ed. through 3rd to satisfy me for ages.
I have been playing D&D since around 1987. Although there were some improvements with 2nd Ed., nothing quite compares to the 1st Ed. rules. The DMG was, and still is, the most authoritative book around. Nothing compares to the level of detail that Gygax put into it, not to trot out his name again... But the facts are the facts. The whole point of D&D was to take a basic set of rules and make the game your own. Role play, try something original, be creative. I think 3.0 and 3.5 destroyed the game. It was a corporate gimmick to sell crap. Just my meager opinion...
Decieving nostalgia. 1st edition was an overcomplicated, unufied mess, and 3,X brought a clean, streamlined game with better rules. Not forgetting the less stereotypical design philosophy and themes. It's a clear progress.
Nostalgia is dangerous - it make us think the past was always better, and forget the less nice aspects.
I should know it; my father have those pink goggles when he think of the time before the Quiey Revolution, forgetting the unsavory things like the omnipresent, overbearing clergy and the harsh conservatism.
I have been playing D&D since around 1987.
Me? Since 1985.
Although there were some improvements with 2nd Ed., nothing quite compares to the 1st Ed. rules. The DMG was, and still is, the most authoritative book around. Nothing compares to the level of detail that Gygax put into it, not to trot out his name again... But the facts are the facts. The whole point of D&D was to take a basic set of rules and make the game your own.
Perhaps, but over the years and many houserules, particularly those popular ones that are being used by more gaming groups, will creep into the new edition. The game and its rules, like any games and their rules simply evolves.
Personally, while I have enjoyed 1e/2e, there is something restricting about it, particularly in terms of their nonweapon proficiency system. I guess I let my 20-plus years in the RPG hobby with other games to warrant changes to the D&D rules.
Role play, try something original, be creative. I think 3.0 and 3.5 destroyed the game. It was a corporate gimmick to sell crap. Just my meager opinion...
I disagree. I like 3e for the changes that I desire in the old D&D rules. More importantly, it also introduce the d20 System so it can be played in other genres besides D&D fantasy.
If I didn't like the rules, then I wouldn't buy it. And if others don't buy it, WotC will take a loss. I mean honestly, who here is not smart enough to know their own store or mail-order business product return policy? WotC knew what happened to TSR and its warehouse of returned and unsold products. They don't want that happening to them.
P.S. Glad I don't worship Gygax anymore. Man, that was the most looniest time of my life.
Rules Lawyers are not Evil. They are Lawful Good or Neutral, depending on whether they want people to follow the rules so they don't wreck the game for others, or they follow the rules because they are rules.
Power Gamers are typically Chaotic Good. They know the rules so they can go around heroing at will.
Rules Weasels, which are frequently mistaken for Rules Lawyers, are typically Neutral Evil. They don't know the rules to follow them, they know rules to ignore them because they don't let them do whatever they want.
Power Destroyers, which are mistaken for regular Power Gamers, are purely Chaotic Evil. They know the rules so they can destroy the game solely to indulge themselves.
Mass of rules is not the same as individuals who know the rules, and they are not the same as individuals who abuse the rules.
A game designer should always be a Rules Lawyer before adding anything to the game rules.
Rules Lawyers = Lawful Good? Sure. And lawyers in general would never sell their soul to the horned guy over there...
Seriously, how is dogmatically following the rules "good"? Sure, if the DM had applied that rule you just cited, half your party wouldn´t just have been killed.
But let´s look at this: The DM gives you the opportunity to resurrect your fallen friends without the usual difficulties. He obviously would be "breaking" the rules. Would you still argue against his decision?
Seriously, how is dogmatically following the rules "good"? Sure, if the DM had applied that rule you just cited, half your party wouldn´t just have been killed.
But let´s look at this: The DM gives you the opportunity to resurrect your fallen friends without the usual difficulties. He obviously would be "breaking" the rules. Would you still argue against his decision?
If all those people with dead PCs had already left the game because the DM did not know the rules, and had to make up stuff like that cover for his lack of knowledge of the rules, arguing against his decision would be irrelevant.
Seriously, how is aggressively not knowing the rules "good"?
Rules Lawyers = Lawful Good?
More like Lawful Nuisance. Remember, I used to be one.
If all those people with dead PCs had already left the game because the DM did not know the rules, and had to make up stuff like that cover for his lack of knowledge of the rules, arguing against his decision would be irrelevant.
Seriously, how is aggressively not knowing the rules "good"?
Lol - my attitude is that this is balanced by all the pc's who survived because the DM didn't know the rules :D
I try really hard but there are just so many rules! If it's a question of life and death I agree its worth double checking. If it isn't, just roll with the punches, and look up the rules while the game moves on so that next time you all get it right. Holding up the flow of the game because you think the Jump rules have been misapplied is daft. And lets not forget that rules lawyers are often wrong.
Lol - my attitude is that this is balanced by all the pc's who survived because the DM didn't know the rules :D
I try really hard but there are just so many rules! If it's a question of life and death I agree its worth double checking. If it isn't, just roll with the punches, and look up the rules while the game moves on so that next time you all get it right. Holding up the flow of the game because you think the Jump rules have been misapplied is daft. And lets not forget that rules lawyers are often wrong.
Actually, good Rules Lawyers are rarely wrong. Their whole thing is based on knowing the rules. If they don't actually know them, then they are not really Rules Lawyers.
Rules Weasels are often wrong, but then they base their gaming on "forgetting" rules that get in the way of them doing whatever they like rather than remembering the rules.
As a DM, I have no problem with someone who wants to create their character very efficiently (powergamer), possibly even designing their character backwards from level 20 if that makes the game more enjoyable for them and doesn't ruin the game for anyone else.
I also have no problem with someone being a rules lawyer to some extent, so long as they're considerate about it. I make mistakes just like anyone else, and don't mind a little constructive criticism once in awhile (even during a session if it's urgent and crucial), so long as it's done respectfully. I try my best to keep an open mind so long as the player's intentions are good.
Rules weasels, on the other hand (sometimes mistaken for powergamers or rules lawyers), are discouraged in our game. I consider most of the rules in 3.5 to be somewhat balanced, so long as they are used in the spirit in which they were intended. Most of them are only "broken" when a player intentionally abuses them. Rules weasels are the ones who specifically look for that vague rule, loophole, etc. that they can abuse to gain an unfair advantage in a situation. This is the behavior that can ruin the game if left unchecked. So long as you caution against this beforehand and play with reasonable people, this shouldn't happen very often.
On the other hand, the fact that the DM has the final say isn't an excuse to just overrule everything and be unreasonable either. If I'm the DM and a player points out the possibility that I've overlooked something and it's at a crucial point, I hear them out and take it into consideration. If it's not crucial and can't be resolved quickly, I ask them to discuss it with me after the game. If I'm a player, I consider whether my correction/disagreement is urgent and crucial to the game at the moment, and only mention it right away if it is. Otherwise, I wait until after the game.
As for the 3.0/3.5 vs 1st/2nd matter, I've been playing since the 80's, and when 3.0 came out, I loved the fact that they made "multiclassing" a basic part of the game (and available to ALL races). I thought there were many improvements and like the newer system better, but that's just my opinion. I do wish they'd make some new greyhawk material, though.
Course not. As other have said, there's a ton of stuff out there and available if you want to play there. Remember, it's a setting, and thus 99% portable to whatever game system you care to play. The other 1% can be pushed, prodded, spindled & mutilated to fit however you like. You're the DM, it's your campaign, make it the way you like it! (I think that's easier done to Greyhawk than to FR or Eberron -- for some reason, even with the wealth of material, Greyhawk seems more open to DM interpretation to me.)
As far as it no longer being the core setting, well, take a look at this Design and Dev article on the main D&D site. They're talking about 4E demons and devils. Take note of a particular evil god that's mentioned...
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070924
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070926a
At least they are going back to the Gygaxian idea that outer planes travel is for higher level hereoes, but what does this cosmological shift do to Greyhawk itself? I am not sure yet, but it leaves me uneasy....
ROB
Did anyone read the Design & Development article on Cosmology? Is Greyhawk dead?! The whole cosmology is getting whacked. No more great wheel - the abyss moving to the elemental planes. Shadowrealm stays basically the same, but a lot of other things are changing more significantly.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070926a
At least they are going back to the Gygaxian idea that outer planes travel is for higher level hereoes, but what does this cosmological shift do to Greyhawk itself? I am not sure yet, but it leaves me uneasy....
ROB
In his blog, Rich Baker said that the Great Wheel can easily be reconstructed from what's presented in this article. The Astral Sea has room for as many planes as you want, and each world would view the relationship between them in its own way.
In his blog, Rich Baker said that the Great Wheel can easily be reconstructed from what's presented in this article. The Astral Sea has room for as many planes as you want, and each world would view the relationship between them in its own way.
He's wrong, though, in some respects. You lose something without having objective anchors defining the forces of the multiverse. If Fire is just a bubble in a sea of chaos held together by the will of powerful beings, then it isn't real in the sense that it is in a cosmology with a Plane of Fire holding it up as one of the building blocks of the cosmos. This is even more true with positive and negative energy, or Good and Evil, or even things like the Quasielemental Plane of Vacuum (Elemental nothingness! How cool is that? I've loved the idea since I saw The Neverending Story).
When the cosmology is ruled over by great poles that define it, everything is realer and more important. It takes on a vaster, more crucial scale if the Balance is a real force in its own right, defined by its own plane, as are the various forces it balances - Earth and Sky, Water and Fire, Good and Evil.
I like that Evil isn't just a collection of evil deities' realms, but a Force, a Thing, that deities and fiends are only aspects of. I love that this is true of Law, and positive energy, and Good. I love that the Beastlands are the home of the archetypes of all animals, not just a place where a bunch of powerful animal lords happen to dwell.
The only thing that's really objective in this cosmology is Chaos. Which is nice, but I want more.
In Rich Baker's vision, everything is much more subjective and muddy. There's no great cosmic pole of Evil - there's a thousand little pocket domains that may or may not be in the same place.
That's a huge, huge difference in feel. It's more different in the Elemental Chaos than it is in the Astral Sea, of course, but it's different everywhere. And I think it's important.
You lose something without having objective anchors defining the forces of the multiverse. If Fire is just a bubble in a sea of chaos held together by the will of powerful beings, then it isn't real in the sense that it is in a cosmology with a Plane of Fire holding it up as one of the building blocks of the cosmos.
I beg to differ. The four classical elements were a very real part of, say, Aristotle's physics/metaphysics, yet all their motions were caused by the rotations of the celestial spheres. There were no Elemental Planes, but the elements were still a very real and fundamental feature of the world.
When the cosmology is ruled over by great poles that define it, everything is realer and more important. It takes on a vaster, more crucial scale if the Balance is a real force in its own right, defined by its own plane, as are the various forces it balances - Earth and Sky, Water and Fire, Good and Evil.
They still can be. You can place whatever planes you like into the Astral Sea. These individual planes can each represent objective Good, Evil, etc.
It's better to think of what WotC is describing as more of a metacosmology. Any cosmology you construct within it can have all the features you're used to.
My guess is that you would know this better than I, but isn't it the case that the Great Wheel model is just one way of looking at the planes? I recall reading somewhere (probably a Planescape book, but definitely a D&D book, I just don't recall which one) that there are different ways of viewing how the planes are related to each other. The Great Wheel is just the most common model, because that's how it seems to those who travel between these various planes from the various portals. Eg, the Outlands only seems to be the "hub" of the Wheel because it has various portal towns, roughly of equal distance from the Spire, that have stable portals to the various planes, arranged in order of alignment. The planes themselves are not physically arranged in any way, because they don't have physical relationships among themselves.
So the fact that they're considered to be floating in an "Astral Sea" is just another way of modelling how they relate to each other. The main difference is that this model allows for the possibility of other planes that function on different principles. The reality of the planes that make up the Great Wheel need not be threatened just because of the mere existence of other planes. Good is still Good. Just as Good remains Good even though there's another plane that only cares about Law, Good will still remain Good even though there may be planes that only care about Vanity, Power, or the color Orange.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's as easy as that...
But there's a sense in which it is.
First of all, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not think that there's a problem with the Great Wheel cosmology itself. In fact, I think it's a pretty awsome cosmology, and I really like it.
But it's not suitable for all settings. Neither is the new cosmology, for that matter. But this new cosmology seems more inclusive. It seems like it would allow for a wider variety of possible cosmologies for use for a particular setting.
They could have possibly gone further in this regard (not that I have my own suggestions), but I think it's a good move in general.
So I don't think this new cosmology is a bad thing for Greyhawk. While the planes are important, I feel that the relevant factors can be maintained. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos are important to Oerth because of its associations with planes devoted to those ideals. What makes Greyhawk what it is has more to do with how they end up handling the Flanaess itself, moreso than the planes.
YMMV, of course. I'm just expressing my opinions and the reasons behind them.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's as easy as that...
Ideas can never be broken, nor can they be fixed. They can be wrong or right, fallacious or logical, liked or unliked. But never broken.
It's just a change. Life's full of 'em.
Greyhawk
Semi-dead. As dead as Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, and many, many more. It's in good company. As long as the fans truly support it, it will never die. Of course, if the fans continue to divide themselves amongst old school, new school, pre/post Greyhawk wars, pro/negative LG then the setting will splinter and wither...
DMing
It is a game. First and foremost this is a game. You can play it as shared storytelling but just ignore the books entirely or agree to only use certain parts ahead of time. Otherwise remember that it has rules like any other game that shouldn't be arbitrarily broken.
If you can't handle all of the rules of 3E without fights or someone questioning your judgment or calls then play something simpler. Go Fish maybe. You don't sit down and play Monopoly unless you know all the rules and know how to play, why should D&D be any different?
But, with that in mind, remember there's no right or wrong way to play. People argue about rules in Tag all the time. As long as people have fun it's not good or bad.
WotC is a buisness
Businesses make more products. They make money. That's how they continue to put out books. If they'd have stuck with 1E or 2E they'd have stopped selling books almost a decade ago and Greyhawk would really die as nobody new would ever start playing.
You can complain about the endless splatbooks or you can complain about a new edition coming out but you cannot complain about both. Those are the only two options as the third, the game is only found in seedy secondhand book stores and has been out of print for years, is not appealing.
1st Edition
It was not a great game. It was contradictory with bad design, uneven editing, sexist, confusing organization, and poor art and production values. It was also not this big open game system either. Gygax wanted to design it to have rules for every conceivable situation. If the rules didn't cover something it wasn't by design or to give DMs freedom but because it wasn't considered.
Basic D&D was the big open setting that just covered the basics. And that was partially written by someone else.