The notion that GH is "too close" to FR is a canard that I see almost as often as the "generic" criticism of GH. My response in 4 broad points -
Allowing that both GH and FR are "medieval fantasy," there are two principle distinctions - one approach based and one thematic.
With respect to approach, GH is a toolbox setting that requires the DM to help assemble the final campaign look and feel. FR is much more preassembled for you out of the box. This is not a criticism of FR, btw. FR is "easier" to run because so much of the detail work is done for you. GH gives you a framework but expects you as DM to put the work in to make the setting go. GH is then a "harder" setting to use.
While there might be a tendency to see the "easier," "more ready out of the box" FR as the superior approach, Wotc's own research indicates that the majority of D&D is played in homebrews - in other words, in settings where the DM did the work. The prevalence of homebrews suggests that there is a place for a setting that provides a framework but which also intends the DM to then, essentially homebrew within that framework. Herein is the first distinction of note between FR and GH that could distinguish the two in the marketplace. GH occupies a middle ground between "you do everything" homebrews and "we do most of it for you" preassembled and heavily detailed settings, like FR. Of course, GH support products would have to provide further framework and not detail of the FR model.
With respect to theme, GH is all about balance between good and evil and between law and chaos. FR is about the triumph of the good over the evil. FR is simpler or bolder in its themes (please note this is not saying FR is a simple setting as the exploration of the theme of good over evil can be quite complex). Greyhawk is more complicated and shaded in its themes (please note this is a general observation not an absolute one as From the Ashes was pretty much good vs evil and rather more simple than classic Greyhawk). Both of these statements are necessarily generalities and as such admit of exceptions but, I think, will hold generally true all the same.
FR is, again, easier to describe as its themes are simpler. It is also easier to design for, for the same reasons. Again, this is not a criticism of FR. If anything it is a criticism of GH because GH has had difficulty articulating how it is different from FR for a great many people. On casual observation it is easy to describe the Realms but not so easily Greyhawk, which many people then describe as "generic." Of course, no effort from Wotc having been made to make Greyhawk's case only compounds matters.
Beyond these two broad categories of difference - that of approach and that of broad theme - there are any number of specific differences within the ambit of the "medieval fantasy" definition, more than can be definitively and simply cataloged. Herein, one might look at the role of the gods within the setting, one might look at the role of the iconic NPCS of each setting within the respective settings, one might look at the structure of the nations and city states of each settings etc. Suffice to say significant differences exist but that no effort has been made by Wotc to draw out those differences.
Finally, there is the matter of the respective muse of each of the settings' creators that continues to resonate in each setting. EGG had a clear interest in actual history and historic cultures and this interest animates Greyhawk. Ed Greenwood, whatever his interest in actual history, displays in the Realms a greater penchant for classic fantasy tropes. GH then has more of an air of the (pseudo-) historic to it, whereas FR is the more purely fantastic. _________________ GVD
Good essay GVD. It is food for thought and I wonder what spurred you to write it since this is a discussion that ebbs and flows every year.
Not to pick any of it apart since I mostly agree with all the above, I will air something that is rattling in my head. I dislike assertions that FR is 'high magic' and GH is not or less than FR. What is the line crossed for high magic campaigns? Without going into point for point comparison I think they are both high magic worlds, as is Eberron for that matter (so much for Wizards not wanting two similar settings). The similarities end there however in what each author does with that magic.
Those are good points from both of you, mortellan and GVD. I never really understood the "high magic" debate either as it seems to me that is all a matter of personal preference and each DM will adjust this to his/her tastes and that of the players involved.There is a great deal of magic in both worlds, in or out of the game.
My personal take is a simple one: GH has far darker undertones than FR.It offers a much more grittier setting that probably more closely resembles 'reality' in the D&D game. GH is the dark and edgey Batman to FR's shinier, happier Superman. Like everyone else here, that isn't a slap at FR, just one observation.
Neither of them are Low Magic. Low Magic is Harn or something like that. Greyhawk is "generally" lower level than the FR and has fewer wizards and clerics of high power running around.
This was especially true in the early going, but is getting progressively less of a distinguishing point in the later GH releases and Paizo's GH material in particular.
The FRCS quite clearly assumes there are lvl 17+ wizards in most major cities and quite a few other places as well. So many are mentioned in the FRCS that most don't even merit a name. This constrasts with GH, where there are certainly powerful wizards but they are relatively few and far between. The tradition for GH is generally that the "epic" level characters wander off to the planes and do Quasidiety stuff rather than hanging around small villages or ruling big cities.
GH also has traditionally had less of the Beholders/dragons/mind flayers/liches hanging out in the cities and 'doing stuff'. Again, not saying that that kind of thing never happens in GH. Just that its commonplace in the FR to have those kinds of creatures interacting with ordinary world fairly openly.
Its not so much that the FR differs in kind. You could certainly argue that Lolth's invasion of Sterich and Iuz' Greyhawk wars exploits are not different in kind from Netherese flying cities full of shades blowing things up at will. The FR just does more of it, more often, and a lot more casually.
Nowadays it is pretty hard to make a distinction on this point, though. The Sargent era was a big boost, Paizo's GH work is very much 'high powered monsters right in everyone's face' material and various products seem to have promoted all manner of folks from historical figures and quasi dieties (imho, a synonym for epic level) to full fledged gods. Granted, none of the mortals became greater gods, as frequently happens in the FR. But its still a pretty routine occurence to become a minor godling, seemingly.
For me, though, the distinction between GH and FR rests on two things, both mentioned in GVD's post: GH is far less predefined. And GH makes more than a passing nod at historical verisimmilitude. GH has far more of an emphasis on countries, politics, and the like in its background. And far less on transnational groups and ex adventurers. Again, they weren't absent, but they weren't the focus of the setting and they didn't have the power/prominence they do in the FR. And, again, that's a distinction that's been steadily eroded in later releases.
My personal take is a simple one: GH has far darker undertones than FR. It offers a much more grittier setting that probably more closely resembles 'reality' in the D&D game. GH is the dark and edgey Batman to FR's shinier, happier Superman.
Seconded.
Ever since I discovered the writings of the great H.P. Lovecraft, I've been wanting a bit more darkness and horror in my fantasy. Less world spaning organisations dedicated to good, and more unnamable eldrich monstrosities waiting to devour the souls of the damned.
About two thirds of the Forgotten Realms dieties are good aligned. I'll have to get out my copy of Complete Divine and do a head count, but I don't believe the Oerth pathenons are that unbalanced.
I like the idea of balance being the dominant concern of the world. It gives a lot of opputunites of morally grey actions that could really change a more moralistic player.
My personal take is a simple one: GH has far darker undertones than FR. It offers a much more grittier setting that probably more closely resembles 'reality' in the D&D game. GH is the dark and edgey Batman to FR's shinier, happier Superman.
It is food for thought and I wonder what spurred you to write it since this is a discussion that ebbs and flows every year.
With the demise of GH in the 3x Default, PaizoHawk and Living GH, I have seem emerging from the wood grain those who put forth the opinion that Greyhawk never really was and never really will be. One common line of attack is that "Greyhawk is generic" the second most common line of attack is "Greyhawk is too close to the Realms" to ever be viable. This moved me to wax eloquent.
mortellan wrote:
Not to pick any of it apart since I mostly agree with all the above, I will air something that is rattling in my head. I dislike assertions that FR is 'high magic' and GH is not or less than FR. What is the line crossed for high magic campaigns? Without going into point for point comparison I think they are both high magic worlds, as is Eberron for that matter (so much for Wizards not wanting two similar settings). The similarities end there however in what each author does with that magic.
The high vs low magic is not part of my thesis actually. My point that GH is more historically inspired while FR is more inspired by fantasy topes is not intended to be the high vs low magic argument recast or in disguise. I frankly don't buy the argument.
As Vormaerin points out, both settings are highly magical. FR is, however, much more commonly fantastic:
Vormaerin wrote:
. . . GH also has traditionally had less of the Beholders/dragons/mind flayers/liches hanging out in the cities and 'doing stuff'. Again, not saying that that kind of thing never happens in GH. Just that its commonplace in the FR to have those kinds of creatures interacting with ordinary world fairly openly.
Its not so much that the FR differs in kind. . . . The FR just does more of it, more often, and a lot more casually.
Very well observed! Vormaerin goes on to note:
Vormaerin wrote:
Nowadays it is pretty hard to make a distinction on this point, though. The Sargent era was a big boost, Paizo's GH work is very much 'high powered monsters right in everyone's face' material and various products seem to have promoted all manner of folks from historical figures and quasi dieties (imho, a synonym for epic level) to full fledged gods.
This too makes a good, if IMO unfortunate, point. Greyhawk's identity as presented up to about 1986 has not been preserved intact or even in principle. Vormaerin speks of "erosion," which is a good term. One could also say, I think, that Greyhawk has followed a fashion set by FR to a great degree, although thankfully not to so great a degree that is has become FR-Lite.
I would discard the entire low vs high magic proposition when comparing or distinguishing GH and FR.
___
The dark vs light distinction is an interesting one but one that can be carried too far, too easily, IMO. Greyhawk has always been about Balance and the day that Greyhawk is more about being dark than light, rather than Balance, is the day Greyhawk becomes completely unmoored from its foundation IMV. Balance gives equal time to dark and light, good and evil, law and chaos. Greyhawk mixes up its punches and this, to me, is one of its greatest attractions. Other settings are more uniform in their presentation. Greyhawk as "the dark" setting would be too uniform for my taste and, if taken literally by Wotc lets say, could have some VERY unhappy design results. Please note this is not a criticism of "darkness" or those who like that style, rather, I'm explaining why I did not include the dark vs light comparison in my initial post. _________________ GVD
There's no way I can let this thread pass by without responding.
All of the above points are ones I agree with, most notably Vomaerin's about the Sargent era and the Paizo GH work tilting the setting much more towards good versus evil than any sort of balance-something which breaks my heart.
However, I think there are some other points that bear mentioning:
-How common is the fantastic?: In FR, creatures such as tieflings, air genasi, surface drow, and other such creatures are becoming increasingly common, and it seems as if people are broadly becoming more accepting of these things. Whereas, in Greyhawk, such creatures would likely receive a lot of uncomfortable stares at the best of times, and be stoned and driven away at worst. These kinds of beings are far rarer, and are exceedingly unlikely to adventure, much less to interact on any large scale with humans or demihumans. Humans, elves and orcs are the norm, not water genasi, alaghi, tieflings, templated creatures, or any of the strange and weird creatures now available as player races in 3E.
Similarly, high level characters and magic simply don't show up as often as they do in FR. In Toril, it seems, powerful archmages and liches are a dime a dozen; epic-level characters of all sorts abound, and different gods sponsor Chosen. In Greyhawk, very few wizards ever reach such high levels, and few if any characters ever reach Epic level. Spectacular feats of magic and powerful artifacts do exist, but they simply don't show up as often as they do in FR.
-Not so much dark as grim: Dark, in this case, is Cthulu-inspired fantasy, creepiness, and evil entities. Such things obviously exist, as with Dread Tharizdun, the Elder Elemental God (who is NOT the same being as the Dark Lord, thank you very much), and other similar beings, but overall Greyhawk is rather grim than out-and-out evil.
If you look at the roster of FR NPCs, you'll see how many of them are women, and how many of those women are in positions of power. Compare that to Greyhawk's list of movers and shakers, and you'll see that, quite often, women don't get the same shake. FR novels and sourcebooks repeatedly give the emphasis that egalitarianism is the way of the world-in Greyhawk, it's clearly humans that dominate, and it's often men that are on top.
My own writings, which rally somewhat against political correctness in gaming, IMO fit much better into Greyhawk than they would in FR. Keeping in mind the balance, of course, there are also many areas, like Sunndi, Keoland or Geoff, where racism and/or sexism are not standard social norms. And, as I've said before, nothing prevents a woman from emulating the likes of Queen Bodaceia or Jeanne d'Arc.
FR's NPCs are, from what I've seen, much more likely to act based on idealism or values of good and evil. Greyhawk's NPCs are rather more pragmatic; just because they're both of good alignment doesn't mean Nyrond and Urnst are the best of friends. They could just as easily seek to undermine each other; keeping Nyrond wallowing in poverty might be seen as advantageous to Urnst. Similarly, Furyondy and the Shield Lands often aren't on speaking terms. Furyondy would likely have taken advantage of the Shield Lands' weakness and annexed them after the Horned Society had withdrawn from the country right before Iuz's invasion.Drax of Rel Astra was oftentimes an ally of the good-aligned folk of the Grandwood against their common enemy in the Overking. Practical considerations trump idealism and matters of alignment.
-Fewer secret societies and political groups: The Cult of the Dragon, the Zhentarim, the Harpers, the Red Wizards, and all the way down the line to the likes of the Iron Throne and the Kraken Society: FR's political landscape is rife with power groups that wield just as much power as any national government.
You don't see this in Greyhawk-the power groups that do exist, such as the various orders of knighthood, the Old Lore, and the People of the Testing, either lack large-scale political agendas, are subordinate to national governments, or simply don't have the resources and clout of their FR counterparts. The only groups that might conceivably rival a state government might be the Circle of Eight, the Scarlet Brotherhood, or the Horned Society, and two of these three actually form countries of their own.
It's much more likely that PCs get mixed up in the intrigues of Overking Xavener and Graf Reydrich, or the plots of King Belvor of Furyondy against his northern enemies, than the massive political agenda of some secret society or political group. It is quite likely that even the most good-aligned of countries, peoples and governments, including the Sunndians, the Geoffites, the Onnwalians, the Furyonds, or the Urnstmen, would not appreciate the meddling of the Harpers, for example. _________________ <div align="left">Going to war without Keoland is like going to war without a pipe organ. They both make a lot of noise and they're both a lot of dead weight, so what's the point in taking them along? </div>
Last edited by CruelSummerLord on Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
From deities and personages like St. Cuthbert, Pholtus, Zagyg, Murlynd, and Wastri to the demiplanes of Castle Greyhawk to the crashed spaceship in the Barrier Peaks, Greyhawk doesn't take itself as seriously as the Realms do. Love it or hate it, that's a real distinction between the settings. Whether or not Greyhawk is darker and grittier than the Realms is open to debate, but it's certainly "zanier" at times. St. Cuthbert and Pholtus, though they can be treated in a more serious way, are parodies in origin and intent.
In fact, I get the feeling that WG7 is hated by Greyhawk fans not so much because it doesn't fit into the setting, but because it fits too well, and shows them a side of the campaign world that they'd rather sweep under the rug.
Greyhawk is multiethnic
While there is much of Europe in the Flanaess, the races of the Flanaess were designed to subvert the strictly European fantasy standard, with the Flan and Baklunish sizable minorities in the Flanaess proper. In Faerun, you have to travel far off the map to get dark-skinned or golden-skinned humans - the heart of the setting is as whitebread as they come.
Meanwhile, in Greyhawk the "cannibal savages" of the jungles to the south are pale-skinned Suel, a deliberate inversion of expectations. In Faerun, the only dark-skinned humans you'll see are the savages of Chult. The addition of the Olman watered down this distinction, unfortunately, but it's still part of Greyhawk's original design.
Greyhawk is smaller
Faerun is huge. A conqueror like Iuz would be a notable local threat there, but would scarcely be noticed on the other side of the subcontinent. The Flanaess is tighter and more integrated - it's true that people in Scant are more concerned with the Scarlet Brotherhood than with the Old One, but the politics of the nation-states of the Flanaess are still much more tightly interwoven than in the scattered dales and city-states of Faerun.
Greyhawk is more like D&D
The Forgotten Realms began as a setting for Ed Greenwood's early attempts at fantasy fiction, and only became the home of his D&D campaign later on. The needs of fiction have driven that setting ever since. Greyhawk, by contrast, started out as Gary Gygax's dungeon-delving campaign and was always conceived with D&D in mind. While it's had novelizations, none of them are considered canon - the first two Gord books got quite a bit of them integrated into the setting from City of Greyhawk on, but always reinterpreted for the game's needs. Playing a Greyhawk campaign has never been about meeting Gord or retracing his adventures - we would never have seen "Leda's Guide to the Underdark" in the way that the Forgotten Realms had "Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark." We never saw Gord, Chert, Mika-Oba, and the Justicator statted in the core setting the way Elminster and Dove Falconhand have been in their world, or how Tanis Half-Elven and Laurana have been for Dragonlance, for that matter.
Greyhawk is, besides this, intimately bound together with the Dungeons & Dragons game and its cosmology, with the artifacts and spell names found in the core books, with the planes of existence and major demon lords described elsewhere. In Greyhawk, the D&D alignments (all 17 of them) dominate the cosmos, while other settings would often rather sweep such aspects of D&D under the rug, concentrating solely on the good-evil axis or on other themes like nature and the environment (and this applies to some degree to the Realms as much as Dark Sun). Oerth is the only world that contains the grey elves and high elves you'll see in the Monster Manual; it's the only one where monks and assassins are really a core part of the world, reflected in the nations and gods.
Wrong button notwithstanding, Cruelsummerlord, that made a hell of lot of sense to me.
Rasgon, I admit that I'm one of those DM's with an aversion to "wacky" but, again, what you are saying reveals further differences between FR and GH. The more you think about it, the further apart they become in both style and, perhaps more importantly, substance.
From deities and personages like St. Cuthbert, Pholtus, Zagyg, Murlynd, and Wastri to the demiplanes of Castle Greyhawk to the crashed spaceship in the Barrier Peaks, Greyhawk doesn't take itself as seriously as the Realms do. Love it or hate it, that's a real distinction between the settings. Whether or not Greyhawk is darker and grittier than the Realms is open to debate, but it's certainly "zanier" at times. St. Cuthbert and Pholtus, though they can be treated in a more serious way, are parodies in origin and intent.
In fact, I get the feeling that WG7 is hated by Greyhawk fans not so much because it doesn't fit into the setting, but because it fits too well, and shows them a side of the campaign world that they'd rather sweep under the rug.
Greyhawk is multiethnic
While there is much of Europe in the Flanaess, the races of the Flanaess were designed to subvert the strictly European fantasy standard, with the Flan and Baklunish sizable minorities in the Flanaess proper. In Faerun, you have to travel far off the map to get dark-skinned or golden-skinned humans - the heart of the setting is as whitebread as they come.
Meanwhile, in Greyhawk the "cannibal savages" of the jungles to the south are pale-skinned Suel, a deliberate inversion of expectations. In Faerun, the only dark-skinned humans you'll see are the savages of Chult. The addition of the Olman watered down this distinction, unfortunately, but it's still part of Greyhawk's original design.
Greyhawk is smaller
Faerun is huge. A conqueror like Iuz would be a notable local threat there, but would scarcely be noticed on the other side of the subcontinent. The Flanaess is tighter and more integrated - it's true that people in Scant are more concerned with the Scarlet Brotherhood than with the Old One, but the politics of the nation-states of the Flanaess are still much more tightly interwoven than in the scattered dales and city-states of Faerun.
These two aspects can be fused into one, I think. The Flanaess, in my view, is not so much Europe as North America. To me, the Flan reflect the First Nations of North America in their canonical depictions. Both are bronze-skinned, dark-haired races who were royally screwed over by the new arrivals, and often marginalized in the states and countries the Suel and Oeridians were creating for themselves. Their reverence of nature, to my mind, only reinforces the distinction. As such, while North America might seem like an Anglo-Celtic continent to the casual observer, one unfortunately forgets the original inhabitants of the land and their contributions to it.
Some might object to drawing comparisons between fantasy cultures and real-life ones, but it would be absurd to deny that different human groups are patterned after different cultures.
Pale-skinned humans who use European noble titles like king, baron and earl, and wield wide-bladed broadswords and European-style mail armor?
Darker-skinned humans who use titles like sheik, sultan, and pasha, wielding curved swords and having onion-domed architecture?
The parallels are obvious-just look at the Olman with their Mesoamerican naming patterns.
How does all this tie into the size of the Oerth? Easy-with so little of the Oerth fully defined, who's to say there isn't an equivalent to Africa or Asia out there in western Oerik, or on the southern continent? Areas where black- or golden-skinned humans are the norm rather than the pale and bronze-skinned ones of the Flanaess.
Faerun itself is white-bread, but other areas of FR-the Shou Lung empire, Zakhara, Maztica, arguably make FR just as ethnically diverse as the Flanaess, if not more so. Remember, the Olman and the Baklunish aren't major players in the Flanaess any more than the Shou or the Zakharans are in Faerun itself-and even Faerun has places like Calimshan and Turmish.
Oerth, to my mind, is more akin to the real-world Earth in centuries past than Faerun. The human populations are more broadly spread around, and aren't as closely integrated as they are today, or as they are in Faerun.
And, I have to say, I sometimes wish Greyhawk took itself more seriously. I personally loathe camp, "zany" or "wacky" humor. I freely admit that I probably fit into that category of fan who wishes Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and WG7 would both be blotted from history and never be spoken of again.
[Faerun itself is white-bread, but other areas of FR-the Shou Lung empire, Zakhara, Maztica, arguably make FR just as ethnically diverse as the Flanaess, if not more so.
There's a real distinction to be made here. You're vanishingly unlikely to meet a Shou human in Faerun - they're for the most part way on the other end of a wilderness so vast that it's called the Endless Waste. Zakhara's nearly as far away. The Baklunish kingdoms, by contrast, are the Flanaess's close neighbors, separated by nothing but a single mountain pass, and there are, what's more, Baklunish nations within the Flanaess proper: the Wolf and Tiger nomads, and the Paynims imported by Rary in the Bright Desert - and Bakluni have a fairly large minority presence in major metropolitan areas like the Free City of Greyhawk itself (you see a monastery full of Baklunish monks of Zuoken there in Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, for example).
There are Olman (and even Touv) in the Flanaess, too, in the Hold of the Sea Princes and the Duchy of Berghof, and similar regions.
I suppose you could make the argument that Faerun was as ethnically diverse as the Flanaess (as opposed to the planets Toril and Oerth, which are a different consideration requiring more travel and convoluted explanations to explain the presence of a certain PC), but you'd be wrong. It isn't anywhere close.
It occurs to me after having read this thread and other related threads that the real differences lie not so much in the settings themselves as in the origins and influences on the settings as originally conceived.
Consider the characterization of Greyhawk as being “dark and gritty” compared to the “bright and sunny” view of Forgotten Realms. The above-mentioned idea of GH being “balanced” while FR is “good-centric” is closely related to this comparison, as is the perception that FR is “high magic” and GH is “low magic”. Personally, I’ve never considered Greyhawk as being all that dark or gritty, nor have I seen it has being particularly focused on balance. I also don’t see FR as being that much sunnier or good-centered.
My personal preference is to use the phrases “more realistic” when describing GH and “more fantastic” when describing FR. The reasons for this are simple: Gygax was born in 1938, so he had relatively little influence from television or anything resembling modern pop culture. Greenwood is Canadian and much more a child of the 1970’s. Gygax was raised with WW II, the Korean War, and Viet Nam ever looming in the background. His parents were intimately familiar with the Great Depression. Greenwood was either quite young during most of these events, or else missed them entirely. Even his parents shared that distinction. Gygax’s mind was formed around chess, strategy games, pulp novels, and most of the other things stereotypically attached to boys of his era. Gygax is also an avid student of history and other nonfictional subjects. Greenwood, while he undoubtedly shared some of Gygax’s influences, is a writer with all the literary characteristics that attend his profession. He, too, has studied various subjects, but his focus has always been his literature. Even the fiction enjoyed by these two differs, with Gygax immersed in old pulp fiction while Greenwood is influenced by more contemporary authors.
None of this is to say that Gygax is superior to Greenwood or vice versa – both have more than adequately proven their worth as writers and game designers. I am simply suggesting that Gygax’s setting is based much more on real-world information and incorporates the more pragmatic philosophy and worldview of older generations. Greenwood is from a culture much more heavily influenced by mass-market fiction, television, movies, and other phenomena we would describe as pop culture. Thus the different flavors of their respective campaign settings. These differences explain the different "feel" of the two settings, and, I think, provide useful insights as to why FR appeals more to the younger audience while GH appeals more to older players.
There have been a lot of interesting viewpoints here. I can remember being part of the Dragonlance era, and then getting into the FR setting, only to be taken back to the beginning that I missed out on that is Greyhawk. I think age does have a little something to do with the setting differences. I think also that is why Mystara if anything is closer to GH than FR is. If anything I would love to add old Known World stuff to my GH homebrew.
There's some random bits on converting some of the classic (basic, expert, et al) D&D material, mostly set in the Known World, to Greyhawk. _________________ What would Raxivort do?<br />
FR's NPCs are, from what I've seen, much more likely to act based on idealism or values of good and evil. Greyhawk's NPCs are rather more pragmatic; just because they're both of good alignment doesn't mean Nyrond and Urnst are the best of friends. They could just as easily seek to undermine each other; keeping Nyrond wallowing in poverty might be seen as advantageous to Urnst. Similarly, Furyondy and the Shield Lands often aren't on speaking terms. Furyondy would likely have taken advantage of the Shield Lands' weakness and annexed them after the Horned Society had withdrawn from the country right before Iuz's invasion.Drax of Rel Astra was oftentimes an ally of the good-aligned folk of the Grandwood against their common enemy in the Overking. Practical considerations trump idealism and matters of alignment.
This can also be seen in the general alignments of areas, where it is seen that even those countries whose rulers or ruling groups are for instance LG, will have a general LN alignment, representing this trend away from idealism towards the realities of political intrigue and expediency.
CruelSummerLord wrote:
-Fewer secret societies and political groups: The Cult of the Dragon, the Zhentarim, the Harpers, the Red Wizards, and all the way down the line to the likes of the Iron Throne and the Kraken Society: FR's political landscape is rife with power groups that wield just as much power as any national government.
You don't see this in Greyhawk-the power groups that do exist, such as the various orders of knighthood, the Old Lore, and the People of the Testing, either lack large-scale political agendas, are subordinate to national governments, or simply don't have the resources and clout of their FR counterparts. The only groups that might conceivably rival a state government might be the Circle of Eight, the Scarlet Brotherhood, or the Horned Society, and two of these three actually form countries of their own.
It's much more likely that PCs get mixed up in the intrigues of Overking Xavener and Graf Reydrich, or the plots of King Belvor of Furyondy against his northern enemies, than the massive political agenda of some secret society or political group. It is quite likely that even the most good-aligned of countries, peoples and governments, including the Sunndians, the Geoffites, the Onnwalians, the Furyonds, or the Urnstmen, would not appreciate the meddling of the Harpers, for example.
Yes, and again see above point re. alignments. Another important point is the nature of the countries. In FR, few kingdoms exert real "territorial" authority, and pretty much any adventurer will be able to set up shop anywhere, even in an established country and build a keep and lord it out, provided he is good and defends the people against evil. This is not so in Greyhawk, where the landscape has definite borders, definite lines of legitimacy of authority and so on.
But there should be another few points mentioned.
1. The FR grey box is a fundamentally different beast from later editions of the setting, as much as the 83 Greyhawk boxed set is from the From The Ashes boxed set. The initial box was a little darker, a little less defined than the latter publications. Obviously, the popularity of the setting made it much more probable that it would be exploited completely with every little bit of it described, but initially the feel between the two settings was not as different as it was latter.
2. Similarly, we should define what Greyhawk one is talking about. To me, an old grognard from the 83 box set, who started using it in 84, From the Ashes does not represent what I think Greyhawk should be, and the Living Greyhawk is almost anathema.
3. Greyhawk has an organic feeling, because a lot of the things described in the initial releases of the setting were generated during actual play with actual characters, therefore defying any sort of logic or sequentialness. Greyhawk was not designed, it sort of grew out of actual play, and out of Gary Gygax's and Rob Kuntz's players expectations. Whereas FR was designed from the beginning to Ed Greenwoods expectations and desires. This does not take away from his setting, but it is an important point of what bmakes the "flavor" of GH so distinct in its initial publications. _________________ Lisbon Portugal<br />
Just bringing my little stone.
I agree with Bubbagump about the principles under each setting.
I began a long time ago with the D&D box and, as a DM, has to do all the work by myself, with only a toolset of rules. I believe that what Gygax and Arneson first intented : create your own world.
ANd I still believe is what GreyHawk is : a world where main lines are drawn but where any DM should take what he needs and leave the rest.
I always had ( and still have ) great difficulties to appropriate for myself the FR setting : to much epic NPCs, secret societies, power groups and whatever secret-great-scale-overwhelming-conspiracy. I never felt any latitude into the Realms : besides novels, setting books, canon work in various articles, how my players can find their place where they won't be in contradiction with this or that "canon" material ?
IMO, GreyHawk is like a decor and a backdrop with much liberty given to players and DMs whereas FR is a fixed world where players must play their role without much space to improvisation. _________________ What does not kill us, makes us stronger. Friedrich Nietzsche
It is interesting to see different folks' interpretations. Here are some rambling thoughts to add to the mix:
1. I did not buy the argument for balance, or "grey in the hawk", back when Nightscreed and Randy Richards were arguing over whom came up with the concept, nor do I buy such an argument today. As others have pointed out, Greyhawkian motivations seem based upon practicality rather than ethics.
2. I wholeheartedly concur with the notion that Greyhawk feels more grounded in history while the Realms are more grounded in fantasy tropes. Greyhawk's history feels as if it could have followed a similar path even if all magical/fantastical elements were removed. I cannot say the same for the Realms.
3. Since I easily have 10 times as much Greyhawk material as I have Realms material, when I run a campaign, Greyhawk feels far more fleshed out and the Realms feels like the DM toolbox setting.
4. Greyhawk seems far more concerned with the forest rather than the trees in its glossographies, e.g. I know a whole lot about Keoland but pretty much know nothing about Niole Dra. The Realms seem more concerned about the individual trees than the forest, e.g. look at all the site descriptions in the FRCS.
5. Since I view most of the gods as ascended mortals, and a great many of them ascending during/after the migrations, Greyhawk feels every bit as high powered as the Realms.
6. As Rasgon ably described, Greyhawk is more like D&D. Such will not appear to be the case in a few scant months.
3. Greyhawk has an organic feeling, because a lot of the things described in the initial releases of the setting were generated during actual play with actual characters, therefore defying any sort of logic or sequentialness. Greyhawk was not designed, it sort of grew out of actual play, and out of Gary Gygax's and Rob Kuntz's players expectations. Whereas FR was designed from the beginning to Ed Greenwoods expectations and desires. This does not take away from his setting, but it is an important point of what bmakes the "flavor" of GH so distinct in its initial publications.
I'm afraid this is total bunk. The Forgotten Realms started as Greenwood's home campaign. It was developed into something different by TSR/WotC staffers. Greyhawk was, if anything, less of campaign at start, because what was published in the boxed set was not what EGG actually ran.
The map was made specifically for publication combining elements of Gary's and Rob's campaign with stuff from Len Lakofka's and Dave Arneson's campaigns as well. The Suel and their gods never appeared in Gary's campaign, for instance.
There is a difference in feel in the development, but it is not a result of one being someone's homebrew and the other not. Its because of the sort of material published. Greyhawk was developed in adventures...sometimes based on ones from Gary and Rob's campaign, sometimes not. But it was always an adventure that just happened to have lots of background flavor. On the other hand, the FR was largely developed through supplements. The adventures published mainly seemed to be "Just" adventures (though I didn't read many FR adventures, so I could be wrong about that).
Greyhawk didn't get much in the way of supplements ever and none until the 2e era of Marklands, Iuz the Evil, etc. FR obviously got lots and lots of supplements.
The FR was not developed through game play, it was developed as Ed's setting for his fantasy stories. It existed WAY before Ed started gaming and it wasn't until later that he started gaming in it. Much like Prof. Barker's Tekumel setting. The arguments you make re. adventures is on the other hand very much true, and is (IMHO) part of the organic feeling. Personally, I think it was a good idea to keep the setting evolving through adventures and to keep sourcebooks down to a minimum. I suppose it also means less sales.
GH was developed AFTER EGG started playing D&D. In the beginning there hardly was a campaign. It was as play developed and PCs joined that the campaign developed, and my argument is that it makes for a different feel from a world which was already fleshed out when the first gamer ever set foot on it, as players expectations make a lot of difference in where your campaign is going, as anyone who runs a regular campaign with PCs that have achieved level enough to interact with the rulers knows. Is this relevant? Maybe, maybe not. But to dismiss it as total bunk is probably a little exaggerated (not to mention impolite). I happen to think that it is relevant but probably only as far as 1985-86. Sure, the campaign was fleshed out some more and changed when it was published, but it incorporated a lot of personal stuff. I would say that this is less true for FR, perhaps with the exception of the Dalelands area, and the feel is different. _________________ Lisbon Portugal<br />
If you look at Ed's old Dragon magazine articles, prior to FR being released as a setting, you can get a better feel for his vision of the setting.
Also, the 1st edition material for FR, namely the original grey box campaign set, has a very different feel than the later 2e and 3e stuff. It's pretty good, and a lot less uberhigh fantasy, pretty nice for borrowing ideas for a GH game. _________________ What would Raxivort do?<br />
Yeah, I loved those articles. I photocopied them all and had them in a binder. I sent Ed a letter one day, and got an answer later. The next year I sent him a copy of a book on my father's painting (he was a famous painter in Portugal). I forgot about it, until one day I got a copy of the grey box on the mail. He had remembered and had sent me a gift. I also bought all the first edition FR releases, they were pretty cool. The Magister, Red Wizards, etc... The FR weren't hopelessly munchkinized back then, and even though the feel for the two worlds was very different, it was a pretty good campaign. The fact is that I also have to admit to owning most 2nd edition FR products as well as a lot of 3rd edition. It's still worth it to mine for dieas, and it's still a good read. I am a sucker for fantasy worlds! _________________ Lisbon Portugal<br />
Munchkin is the term that comes to mind when I read about FR setting. NPCs are awfully powerful and there's almost non difference between epic character and deities.
IMO, deities are Powers beyond mortal status and quasi-godhood is a very, very, very long and exhausting path ( exceptions hopefully exist such as Vecna or Zagyg ).
But I think the big difference between GreyHawk and the Realms is that GreyHawk, being more historical realistic, is concerned with lands & territories whereas the Realms is above all concerned with characters. The novels for the FR line are too numerous to count, but all tell stories about characters with sometimes little bits of world's background... And usually Good vs Evil. _________________ What does not kill us, makes us stronger. Friedrich Nietzsche
In Greyhawk, the PCs are important and have impact on what goes on around them.
In FR, PCs are almost relegated to bit players because of all the epic level NPCs walking around.
Also, in FR every tavern owner is a "retired" 13th level Rogue with a +3 short sword hidden under the bar, and the bouncer is a 7th level Fighter will 20 STR.
In my opinion as first a player and then a DM, Greyhawk not only gives the DM more ability to customize his or her own campaign, it also is more open to alternating the subject matter of each campaign. In Greyhawk a DM has the ability to run multiple campaign themes during the same era and not have any overlap. The versatility of this setting is unmatched.
In Greyhawk, the PCs are important and have impact on what goes on around them.
In FR, PCs are almost relegated to bit players because of all the epic level NPCs walking around.
Also, in FR every tavern owner is a "retired" 13th level Rogue with a +3 short sword hidden under the bar, and the bouncer is a 7th level Fighter will 20 STR.
Mayhaps you have never visited the Gold Dragon Inn with an 11th level Wizard as a waiter?
My point was that Greyhawk was consciously assembled from a variety of sources. Gary and Rob were rather vehement about not using the "official" campaign or any of their character's stats. And many things we think of as "classic Greyhawk"... like Vecna... were not written by Gary at all.
Further, most of those things you associate with the FR are the direct result of TSR *gamers* doing the development. If GH had been developed in that kind of detail, you can be sure that they would have stuck all that crap in there, too. You can see it in "Paizohawk" and a little bit in the 2e material.
Gary and Ed both designed good settings. Its kind of amazing that GH is such a good setting given the way it was cobbled together from disparate sources, jammed full of in jokes, and contradicted EGG's home campaign intentionally.
FR always had too many high powered mages for my taste, but it wasn't a munchkin, high power, NPCs dominate setting as initially designed. And you can thank the Fates that TSR/WotC let GH languish or you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two settings at this point...
I agree with you Vormaerin regarding the "assembling" made with GreyHawk. As far as I know, Gary Gygax was never very concerned ( or at least, it did not worry him too much ) that it existed incoherences or discrepancies between two events or stories. And the leitmotiv was "be creative, build your own GreyHawk ( or whatever world the campaign takes place )".
Even famous NPC are not those that makes the world runs ( just make it a little better ). GreyHawk is about peoples, nations and lands. Not NPCs.
That's what is impossible with the Realms. The setting is very well build and coherent. There is very little place for freedom in a campaign. In the extreme, you even have to build encounters with major NPCs, otherwise the events will not go on. _________________ What does not kill us, makes us stronger. Friedrich Nietzsche
My point was that Greyhawk was consciously assembled from a variety of sources. Gary and Rob were rather vehement about not using the "official" campaign or any of their character's stats. And many things we think of as "classic Greyhawk"... like Vecna... were not written by Gary at all.
Yes and no. The fact that the published setting differs from the home campaigns doesn't mean that the feeling of the home campaigns is not carried over to the published stuff. Some of the deities, the quasi-deities, many well known NPCs, the result of famous adventures and so on carried over to the published version. Gary and RJK even went so far as to tell readers what had happened when they had played some of the adventures, the modules and novels were full of "by the way, that guy is a PC of mine", etc... (and this was some of the stuff I loved in GH because it gaves us much more a sense of a living, evolving campaign, as the Dragon articles slowly updated us on what was going on.
Regarding Vecna... first of all, the only things I think of as "classic campaign are those published under EGGs tutelage, as well as the Greyhawk Adventures and Greyhawk Ruins books. All later stuff is not "classic" by me. Sure, I have it all and like a lot of it, but if I were to say where my personal GH diverges from the TSR one, it is at the Fate of Istus ramification. By that time, roughly 88 or 89, I had begun an interesting experiment to keep GH fresh and surprising even to me, the DM. At the local gaming club I enlisted players to create random events tables to determine what happens during a season - the PCs get to the City of Greyhawk and the guards tell them "What, you didn't know Furyondy invaded the Wild Coast? Where the heck have you been", and that sort of think was played out by numerous players at the club (at one time as many as 20), each taking the roles of rulers. We used a system for resolving battles, sometimes played this out with miniatures (for battles with fewer than 1000 troops on each side) and so on. So when Fate of Istus came out, it was already out of phase with my campaign. Don't get me wrong, I bought all of the stuff and mined it for ideas. Some of the products I think are essential for a GH campaign and for DMs who don't have all the time in the world. Iuz the Old, Ivid the Undying, The Scarlet Brotherhood, Return to the Tomb of Horrors, for instance. But it's not "classic" for me, so I don't make the mistake of thinking that EGG wrote Vecna into the campaign...
Having said this.... perhaps as much as a third of the artifacts in the DMG 1st edition are directly tied to the GH world: Queen Ehlissia's Nightingale, Hewards Organ, the Cup and Talisman of Al'Akbar, the Codex of Infinite Planes, the Mace of St. Cuthbert, and others. There is a strong and I think "canon" tradition of using the artifacts to flesh out details in GH and personally, it doesn't shock me that Vecna became a part of this canon.
Vormaerin wrote:
Further, most of those things you associate with the FR are the direct result of TSR *gamers* doing the development.
Hmmm... they are the direct result of game designers deciding what the results were going to be. It is a lot rarer to see what we used to see in GH: an article explaining what the PCs were up to in Dragon, an appendix to a module telling us what had happened during actual play and so on. Literary needs (for the novels) drove the events and descriptions a lot more in the FR than in GH. Of course, your next argument partly explains why:
Vormaerin wrote:
If GH had been developed in that kind of detail, you can be sure that they would have stuck all that crap in there, too. You can see it in "Paizohawk" and a little bit in the 2e material.
Agree completely.
Vormaerin wrote:
Gary and Ed both designed good settings. Its kind of amazing that GH is such a good setting given the way it was cobbled together from disparate sources, jammed full of in jokes, and contradicted EGG's home campaign intentionally.
See, the point I am trying to make, and which you may not agree with, of course, is that the reason this is so is because 1) GH was a much more organic setting and 2) it didn't contradict the home campaigns that much, especially if we're talking flavor and feel. But yes, FR is a good setting and it was great when we finally got to see it after all those Dragon articles (see, in those days, this proximity to the events of real players made the FR much more interesting to me).
Vormaerin wrote:
FR always had too many high powered mages for my taste, but it wasn't a munchkin, high power, NPCs dominate setting as initially designed. And you can thank the Fates that TSR/WotC let GH languish or you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two settings at this point...
Again, I agree completely. Actually, FR is a pretty good setting, because it is always possible for DMs to adapt to a less high level kind of play. Sure, the video game generation of players will constantly try to move us into munchkinizing the game, but it's my direct experience that a few sessions of actual old style play instantly convinces them that this sort of play is much more rewarding.
Since GH seems to be going to die a natural death with the release of 4e, all's well that ends well....[/i] _________________ Lisbon Portugal<br />
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
Vormaerin goes on to note:
