Greyhawk in AD&D1e presented a world where there were a great number of limitations and these limitations helped define aspects of the setting. Races were limited, for example you would not find a dwarven cleric, monk or magic-user, no paladins that were not human, no halfling assassins or elven rangers. There were set number of spells which worked in a particular way both for magic-users and clerics. Monsters were just monsters (not Player characters) for the most part and fewer in diversity if not also in number around the Flanaess.
While 2EAD&D changed some aspects of the rules what it appeared to do for the campaign is simply increase the number of spells and monsters. But 3ED&D is, from what I have been told, a complete reworking of the campaign in both its laws of magic and cultural norms.
Can anyone offer a perspective on what the Greyhawk campaign is like using the 3ED&D rule system? Has anyone played using both rule systems, AD&D1E and 3ED&D?
I've "upgraded" my campaign from AD&D to 2E to 3E to 3.5, and I haven't seen any major changes. Players talk about making uber characters, but when they get a feel for the background and history and culture of Greyhawk, they settle on something more "normal".
So sure, I've got Goliaths from Races of Stone, and Psions from the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Ninjas from Complete Adventurer. But those are my resources as a DM. My players are a human Favored Soul, a human rogue/wizard, a half-elf monk/ninja, and a human bard. Kind of a weird group, but stealthy instead of tough. And they tailored their characters to fit Greyhawk.
I didn't tailor Greyhawk to fit them.
From what I have been able to observe, most GH "old timers" DM have either flat out refused to allow certain race/class combo, or have allowed them but kept them as low in numbers as possible. Both options are perfectly good as long as both the DM and his players can agree on that. Heck! That's an option that is even outlined in the DMG IIRC.
That said, for once WotC has actually helped in this regard, at least for the "Core setting". Witness the Hero Builder's Guidebook accessory in which the newly allowed combo are presented as "rare" if not unknown.
Personally, I liked the fact that 3E allows all race/class combo without setting any limitation on the level based on the race and the stats. That was the most stupid thing back in 2E, so good riddance!
I just made sure half-orc paladins, dwarven wizards, and halfling barbarians remain as rare as a demon's smile in "my" version of GH and that's that
For instance, my halflings are more like the original rural Hobbit-ish conception than a bunch of Gypsy Kender. Gnomes are still technologists, but they pursue technology because of their love of nature. Dwarves are discouraged from magic, and would probably be cast out from their clan if they insisted on pursuing magical studies... which is not to say it hasn't happened.
As for the paladin thing, I'm not ready to DM a paladin yet. They can really take the fun out of a campaign for the rest of the players. Although there are NPC paladins, and I have no problem with the alternate-alignment paladins per Unearthed Arcana.
Anyway, just my experiences so far....
Telas
The main change is in the mechanics of the rules. The latest rules are very open, so as to allow a DM(and not neccessarily the players) to do whatever they want to with them. Just because the new rules say that ANY race can be a paladin doesn't mean you have to allow it in your campaign. 3.5e simply makes allowances for what any DM wants to do, as some DM's do feel constrained to not go against what is written in the core rulebooks. Some DM's might want to allow some wird stuff in their campaigns, and so the new rules accomodate them.
Everyone's Greyhawk is different. Some DM's allow things that other DM's do not and would cringe at. A change in the basic rules system doesn't neccessarily mean there is a change in how things are in a campaign world.
Your quote "Greyhawk in AD&D1e presented a world where there were a great number of limitations and these limitations helped define aspects of the setting. Races were limited..." is not entirely accurate. Greyhawk didn't present these rules limitations, the Players Handbook(and Unearthed Arcana) did. Though the Greyhawk setting was written with the AD&D rules in mind, it is not something that is set in stone. The Greyhawk setting can be applied to any rules set whether it is 1st or 2nd Ed. AD&D, 3.5e, GURPS, Ars Magica, or any other rules system. Just because the rules change doesn't mean the campaign setting has to change. That is purely up to the DM.
3.5e allows for all options, but you don't have to implement them all. If you see something that doesn't fit your vision of Greyhawk then don''t use it. It's as simple as that.
As to the World of Greyhawk, nothing has changed from 1e to 3.5e. Greyhawk is still exactly the same(except for some advancement in the timeline).
(snip)
3.5e allows for all options, but you don't have to implement them all. If you see something that doesn't fit your vision of Greyhawk then don''t use it. It's as simple as that.
Keep talking sense like that, and you'll take all the fun out of flamewars....
Telas
On the other hand the new D&D game has a completely different 'feeling' and 'look' then the older editions. Up to Ad&D it looked mostly like a medieval game, not a too wild fantasy setting. Of course there were scenarios like dark sun and al quadim, but the basic look and atmosphere of the game present in the essential books (players, DM guide...) was an european medieval one.
The 3/3.5 edition looks like it is the 'magic the gathering roleplaying', using plenty of images that are pure high fantasy and not a little bit reminding of the tolkien style of the AD&D. likewise, the rules are much more high magic, with half dragons, half demons, armor, weapons and utensils that look nothing like medieval Europe and class/race combinations that are completely different from the former 'Tolkienesque' feeling of Ad&D.
Also the prestige classes and the new templates are a BIG factor to make the world VERY different from what it was, you have to make room for spellswords, geomancers and thousands of others never heard before that just don't look like fitting in the original Gygax WoG.
I will not judge if this is good or bad. Of course anyone can say that the rules are just 'guidelines' and not a prision, that you use what you wish of it etc. And it is true, but, if the rules are there and a player wants to create a half dragon sorceror who'll become an dragon disciple or other weird stuff like that, and the oficial rules permit it, how many DMs will actually limitate it? Even worst, the modules use them! take a look at the return to the temple of elemental evil! It is hard to say 'no'.
Ok, In my campaign I DO limitate the characters in certain aspects even if I do permit some weird things, but the look of the world, as presented in the official material - dragon, Living greyhawk journals, modules, rule books etc - is closer to magic the gathering/superheroes than to tolkien/medieval europe, the later being my prefered style.
Y
As far as other races being previously prohibited character classes, I generally leave that up to the players. But, I will ask that they adhere to certain guidelines. Dwarves may work arcane magic, after all, dwarven magic items come from somewhere and not just clerics. But, they generally belong to a very select brotherhood that is highly secretive of what they do and are... hence, their rarity.
I don't want to limit as much as possible, I want to channel along a GH line.
The dwarven wizard ended up being a tribal shaman/wizard from the deep jungles of Hepmonaland. The PC really came up with a good story/situation... which may end up leading to an adventure in the NEW Island of Dread!
..................................Omote
FPQ