Username Password
  or Create an Account
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Greyhawk Wiki

#greytalk-discord
    JOIN THE CHAT
    Canonfire :: View topic - Village of Homlet 4e Coming
    Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion
    Village of Homlet 4e Coming [ Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next]
    Author Message
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 28, 2006
    Posts: 336
    From: Barony of Trellwood, The Great Kingdom

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:47 am  

    And here is the counter argument.

    If you consider a static never changing campaign your ideal then by all means ignore 4e Greyhawk if and when it comes out.

    However, we have seen changes made to Greyhawk with new editions, a case in point when 1/2 orcs, Monks and Assassins were removed from the rules (only to be added back in via the Scarlett Brotherhood source book). Greyhawk has changed. It will probably change again.

    I am not going to engage in a useless edition war with anyone here. If you don't like 4e I am not going to change your mind. But, don't tell me what is Greyhawk is or can be.

    When I run my campaign, it's my world, my rules. I will choose for myself what makes it to my game table. Conversely, if you want a more "pure" Greyhawk game (whatever that means) more power to you.

    I am finding it ironic that folks have been upset that Greyhawk has been ignored and left for dead by WotC and now that potentially (and I really only mean potentially) WotC might create new content for Greyhawk and people are upset that they might change things.

    You can't have it both ways. Either the setting grows (potentially bringing new blood to the table) or it atrophies (as it is doing right now). Since we don't control the IP of Greyhawk we don't get a lot of say in what happens to it.

    In conclusion while its nice to make bold statements and lines in the sand, we don't really know what WotC's intentions for Greyhawk are. All we know is that something called Village of Homlet is going to be made. Why don't we wait and see what is WotC is going to produce before we condemn it out of hand.

    My Two Coppers,

    ~~Saracenus
    Apprentice Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 24, 2005
    Posts: 46
    From: Toronto

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:02 am  

    Cosmology changes are annoying, but they don't necessarily have to break a setting. Counter to my gut feeling, sometimes no explanation for the changes is the best thing.
    As Saracenus pointed out, look at the Forgotten Realms. In 1st and 2nd Edition the Realms used the 'Great Wheel' for its cosmology, but in 3rd Edition the cosmology changed (more significantly than you'd think) to the 'Big Tree' (I can't remember its real name, but it looks like a tree). This invalidated all sorts of stuff from prior editions (including things from the Salvatore novels) and was just hand-waved with the old 'people used to believe in something else, but this is how the universe really works'. That really annoyed me, but...
    With the cosmology changes for 4th Edition they went the other way and explained it, and then you get the coming of Galactus (nice one Stonechild).
    I like the Great Wheel, I like the Blood War, but if they're going to change them I'd rather it just happen than having WOTC crash Luna into the Oerth to expalin it.
    Greyhawk as a setting survived the dissapearance of Assassins, Monks and even the temporary exclusion of Demons and Devils in previous editions. It can handle 4E.

    [EDIT Saracenus beat me to the Assasin and Monk thing Happy }
    _________________
    <a href="http://dave.monkeymartian.com/" target="_blank">Menage a Monster</a>: A gamer in the house of monsters
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:02 pm  

    Saracenus wrote:
    When I run my campaign, it's my world, my rules. I will choose for myself what makes it to my game table.

    ~~Saracenus


    This misses substantially the point.

    What individuals do or do not do with published material is entirely subjective. What Wotc (and formerly TSR) does or does not do with published material is entirely objective.

    Subjective discussions are interesting, useful and informative but since the only commonality most posters have on which to base discussion is objective, published, material, saying in essence "Have it your way in your campaign" more avoids a topic rather than engaging it.

    On an objective basis, 4e is substantially incompatible with much of Greyhawk's 30 plus year cosmology and continuity. That is an objective fact. That one can subjectively choose to accept this, ignore or it or fix in their campaign does not alter the objective comparison of published material with published material.

    Saracenus wrote:
    If you consider a static never changing campaign your ideal then by all means ignore 4e Greyhawk if and when it comes out. . . .

    However, we have seen changes made to Greyhawk with new editions, a case in point when 1/2 orcs, Monks and Assassins were removed from the rules (only to be added back in via the Scarlett Brotherhood source book). Greyhawk has changed. It will probably change again. . . .

    You can't have it both ways. Either the setting grows (potentially bringing new blood to the table) or it atrophies (as it is doing right now).


    This, again, side steps the issue.

    The objection is not that Greyhawk changes/evolves but HOW it does so. No one, not me anyway, is advocating stagnation.

    And while it is true that Greyhawk has previously evolved and in inconsistent ways at times, there is the matter of degree. Never before have the fundamental cosmological underpinnings of the setting and established continuity been disrupted to the degree they would be if the core 4e were applied without modification to Greyhawk.

    To continue the earlier automobile analogy, Greyhawk has changed from one model of automobile to another but it has never been changed into a tricycle or motorcycle. Or a boat. 4e, if applied without explanation or modification to Greyhawk, promises transformation on a scale previously unknown, so divergent as to warrant the adjective "alternative" to a 4e Greyhawk.

    Will 4e be applied wholesale to Hommlet? That is unknown. It is, however, a distinct possibility. As is some sort of FR-like explanation. Both are then, IMO, fit topics for discussion and such discussion does not prejudge the final product as it will, objectively, stand on its own, if and when published.

    Greyhawk can surely survive 4e but 4e Greyhawk may, depending on its execution, become iconic or the next Rose Estes-like alternate universe Greyhawk.
    _________________
    GVD
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 28, 2006
    Posts: 336
    From: Barony of Trellwood, The Great Kingdom

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:51 pm  

    GVD,

    Again with the irony. You claim that you are measuring objective criteria but then you sink your argument with this little snippet:

    GVDammerung wrote:
    The objection is not that Greyhawk changes/evolves but HOW it does so. No one, not me anyway, is advocating stagnation.

    And while it is true that Greyhawk has previously evolved and in inconsistent ways at times, there is the matter of degree.


    It’s all subjective at this point. We are now arguing where the line for too much change is and that is a subjective choice. Your tolerance for what constitutes “too much” change is radically different from mine.

    The motto of this site is “Rules change, Greyhawk endures.” The question becomes what aspects of Greyhawk endures when the rules shift. That again is an individual choice where one would consider the fluff of the setting set in stone and another has no objection to shifting to the new paradigm. Count me in the latter.

    So yeah, I am arguing from a subjective point of view on Greyahawk 4e because I will know if it is still Greyhawk to me when I see it. To me it doesn’t matter how much I quantifiably measure the changes 4e fluff and crunch brings to Greyhawk so long as the subjective experience at the table feels like Greyhawk to me and my players. Even more important are we having fun. If the answer to that question is yes then no problem. If it is no, I got plenty of material to convert for my own purposes.

    Subjectively Yours,

    ~~Saracenus
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 28, 2006
    Posts: 336
    From: Barony of Trellwood, The Great Kingdom

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:47 pm  

    Rasgon,

    An interesting post. I think some of this will be hand waved and others prolly will be explained. Here are a few comments.

    rasgon wrote:

    The Vale of the Lamia in the Abbor-Alz would have to go, since lamias have been retconned as fey. Graz'zt would no longer be a patron of lamias either, since they've been turned into a completely different creature (maybe the lamia of previous editions could be renamed).


    I am not sure why the switch to fey is a problem. There are plenty of fey living in "The World" (or Prime Material for us old-tymers): Eldrin, elves, gnomes, etc. Just because a creature has an origin of Aberration, Fey, Shadow, Immortal, Elemental, or Natural doesn't mean that it can't be born or live on a different one.

    As for worshiping Graz'zt there is nothing preventing Lamias from worshiping him, just as there isn't any reason why a community of elves couldn't worship him either.

    rasgon wrote:

    Dwarves no longer have the ability to see in the dark, and their strongholds are primarily above ground.


    I don't see a problem with the former, darkvision doesn't define a dwarf. And its a minor fluff change to say that dwarven Kingdoms are normally underground with the exception of the Principality of Ulek.

    rasgon wrote:

    A big part of 4e continuity is Orcus's attempt to replace the Raven Queen as ruler of the Shadowfell; it's difficult to square this with Oerth's gods of death.


    4e has already said that the Raven Queen replaced Nerull as the Death Deity in Open Grave. So, that change already is in play. Whether they hand wave it (it was always like this) or explain it (I have the Raven Queen as a hidden Wee Jess who gave up her magic domain to Baccob in exchange for sole dominion over Death during the "God War" in my campaign. The God War was the fight between the interloping Suel Pantheon with the everyone else, they lost. Only a few remain, think the combining of the Assir and Vanir in Norse mythology). Either way the Raven Queen will prolly be in 4e Greyhawk.

    rasgon wrote:

    The lack of a chaotic good alignment in 4th edition alters the presentation of gods like Trithereon and Kord. There are similar issues with the lack of a lawful neutral or neutral evil alignment. One could argue that the new alignments don't change the way a character is played, but in practice I think there's a substantial psychological difference when Trithereon and Pelor have the same listed alignment.


    I am not sure the alignment issue really matters. Alignment never really played a heavy lifting role for me in differentiating one god to the next. I am more interested in what the ethos of each god is and what is expect of their worshipers. I think there is enough room in the Good alignment for worshipers to approach things differently and even be in conflict.

    Interesting points Rasgon. I doubt they will address all of them because D&D development assumes that DMs will take ownership and answer those questions themselves. That is if the DMs even know the prior history. There is only some much you can cram into 3 books for a campaign. I am imagine a lot will get left out.

    Besides most "new" Greyhawk folk that enter the campaign via a 4e version are not going to be concerned with the weight of 30 years of history. That is for us.

    ~~Saracenus
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3084
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:01 pm  

    Saracenus wrote:
    I am not sure why the switch to fey is a problem.


    I'll answer this one:

    It's not just that they're fey, but that they're a completely different monster. There's no reason, other than the fact that they're called lamias, to associate them with the lamias of previous editions at all. Fey made out of thousands of insects don't have any reason to be hanging out in a vale worshiping a serpent goddess, while the lamias ruled by the half-serpent lamia nobles of previous editions did. Nagas or even yuan-ti would be a better match.

    Yes, 4e lamias could worship Graz'zt (and here I'm speaking of lamias in general, not the lamias of the Vale of the Lamia who worshiped a serpent goddess) - so could an orc or a minotaur or a flumph. But lamias were named as servants of Graz'zt for a reason that no longer applies. Graz'zt isn't a lord of fey or insects. Any connection would be arbitrary and senseless. Yeenoghu or Malcanthet would make as much sense, not that 4e has a place for Malcanthet. So Graz'zt has lost one of his classic attributes. Replacing it with a completely different monster would be pointless.

    So in asking the question of what Greyhawk things would be invalidated by the 4e changes - yes, that's one of them.

    I'm not here to bash 4e or participate in an edition war or anything like that. But as a whole, the 4th edition material feels to me like it's part of a different fantasy role-playing game, like Earthdawn or Warhammer Fantasy or RuneQuest or World of Warcraft, and the differences aren't only mechanical. If you like it, great; I like some of it too. But the fact that it's so different, and that it seems to be WotC's current policy to emphasize these differences rather than reconcile them, means that 4e Greyhawk will likely be a very different place.

    So I'm not going to go with you point by point debating why I think such-and-such does too make a difference. Believe me, I'd like to - your wrongness eats away at my insides like black dragon breath - but just as trying to fisk my list of problems misses the larger point, so trying to fisk your fisking only serves to further the distraction rather than advancing the conversation in a useful way.

    Oh, god, you have no idea how badly I want to show you how very wrong albeit very polite each and every word that you typed is. It hurts, lord, it does, but I will be strong.

    Oh, crap, I'm weak. So help me, I'm so very weak. One more, then:

    Quote:
    4e has already said that the Raven Queen replaced Nerull as the Death Deity in Open Grave. So, that change already is in play.


    This is the 4th edition core world, which is known simply as the World. It is not Oerth. It only has one moon, for one thing. It has nations and gods that Oerth does not have. The Nerull to which they refer is not Oerth's Nerull, any more than the 4e core Bane is the god Bane of the Forgotten Realms. The 4th edition core Nerull died long, long ago. The Raven Queen has ruled for eons. There is no reason to think that a theoretical 4th edition Greyhawk would follow that particular plot hook. The Forgotten Realms doesn't have a Raven Queen, but it was spared retconning one in.

    If they did splice a Raven Queen into Oerth because they feel Nerull or Wee Jas doesn't work well enough - and I wouldn't put it past them - that'd be a pretty significant change to the setting; more significant, I'd argue, than virtually any of the other ones I've mentioned.

    My fear is that they would change Oerth too much to make it more like the World. I fear that regardless of whether or not there is a 4e Greyhawk campaign setting, Greyhawk is dead - either from old players dying out or the setting being rendered unrecognizable as the Forgotten Realms has. I do not fear, however, that that every part of the World will be considered canon for Oerth. That is not the pattern I've been seeing. The whole point in creating the World instead of using Corehawk as 3e sometimes did is that the World is not Oerth; its continuity is independent of Oerth's, and the fact that it shares some names with Oerth should not fool you.

    Okay, I'm sated for now. Thank you for your patience. I'm sure you have more of it than I do.


    Last edited by rasgon on Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 28, 2006
    Posts: 336
    From: Barony of Trellwood, The Great Kingdom

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:27 pm  

    Rasgon,

    I actually have no animus towards you.

    I asked the question in good faith because the way you wrote it seemed like the change in origin was the issue for Lamias (which as you point out and now that I have read the actual entry now is not the case). The beetle swarm thing is a complete change and so I agree that the vale as written is a major change.

    As for the rest I will agree to disagree with you.

    I actually respect your almost encyclopedic recall of obscure Greyhawk lore. I actually enjoy talking with you during Greytalk chats, you have been most helpful when I have been looking for something off the beaten path. I would consider it a great shame if my writing would make it impossible for you to continue talking with me. If you change your mind I will be around.

    Ciao,

    ~~Saracenus
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3084
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:31 pm  

    Whoa, there. I didn't expect there to be animosity on either side. I am frustrated with the Great Wrongness of it All, but don't have any problem with you personally, Saracenus.

    I wasn't swearing off talking with you forever; I was just trying to bow out of this particular conversation, as it didn't seem to be productive.
    Novice

    Joined: Apr 21, 2009
    Posts: 1


    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:31 pm  

    WOTC can and will do what they want as far as translating the old Greyhawk material. The 'New 4e' Hommlet will always be a pale, bleached flour version of what was an excellent module because the 4e system is an inferior system. I frankly don't care what they do with their version. I am a solid AD&D/basic D&D and OD&D player/GM. I will continue to encourage all players and GMs to abandon the low quality, over-priced clunker of 4e in favor of any other version including Labrynth Lord, BFRPG, Castles and Crusades, 3.5e, and Pathfinder.

    Keith the Hammer
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 13, 2008
    Posts: 184
    From: Houston Texas

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:33 pm  

    cennedi wrote:

    At one point I asked the Devs why they chose Eberron and not FR or GH and the answer was that the Devs didn't want to have people criticizing and attacking every little thing they did that was not exactly canon. The Devs didn't want to listen to a torrent of complaints concerning the look of a sword or set of armor.


    Ok, this is a total BS argument. Here's a crazy idea, try advancing the story line a few years WITHOUT invoking a world changing apocalypse! No matter what they release they're going to get the Superfans come out of the wall and tell them that they did something wrong.

    Such is life. You can't please everyone and you're going to have detractors scream at you no matter what you do but if they do do anything to support Greyhawk, then Greyhawk will die taking the generation of gamers that built D&D along with it. We'll always have our current collections, we'll always have our communities and quite frankly, we don't need WotC to run a game in the setting. Where we need WotC is in the continuation of the story. We don't really need a re-envisioning of the old material, we need campaign progress. An update, preferably one based off of the LG campaign that ran for gods know how long.

    The thing is, when it looks like they aren't going to support it, it makes me rather sad. For a long time I was not able to game at all and when I was able to the only thing people wanted to play was Vampire.

    Hmmmm.... This gives me an idea....

    But now that I am able to play again and I see them basically tossing aside the last campaign world worth a damn and that seriously pisses me off.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3084
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:44 pm  

    Well, I understand the sentiment. As campaign worlds get more and more developed, the amount of creative freedom a designer retains lessens accordingly. Gary Gygax could invent just about anything he wanted; Carl Sargent was more limited, Roger Moore more so, and Erik Mona et. al were more limited still. Some people thrive within limitations, while others would rather just be able to make stuff up again like Gary Gygax could. That's why they nuked the Forgotten Realms - they had run out of places they could write about that would be "theirs" without having to worry much about what other people had done.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 20, 2005
    Posts: 158
    From: Little Rock, Arkansas

    Send private message
    Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:51 pm  

    Thank you for listing actual changes, Rasgon. It is refreshing to see examples and arguments rather than hyperbole.

    Succubi, cambions other than Iuz, lamias, and daemons are pretty minor potato monsters in Greyhawk who have little face-time other than a handful of encounters in some adventures. Changes to their nature hardly equates a change in Greyhawk any more than the lack of support for Gibberlings in post-Gygaxian Greyhawk. I have no idea why the Vale of the Lamia would have to go – Lamias are a creature in the Monster Manual. Daemons will, in all likelihood, be released in a future Monster Manual (and it is not like they had a write-up in 3E when the LGG was released). Powerful daemons like Anthraxus will very possibly be released in future 4E materials like the Demon Princes are currently being released – and it is not like a limited 4E Greyhawk book run should mention daemons in the first place (they just are not that important outside the Gord novels). As you stated, ecologies of monsters were never Greyhawk in the first place, and since any anticipated 4E Greyhawk line is unlikely to come close to touching ecologies of various beasties this is a fairly moot issue.

    Changes to the already present player races are significantly more pertinent. Though, I would argue that the changes have less of an impact than that produced by LGG with the heavy proliferation of demi-humans across the Flaneass.

    Halflings as river-boat folk has an impact. At best, I suspect most of us older folk could use it as an alternate Halfling culture to the hairfeet, tallfellows, and stouts. At worst, the Rhennee would be completely ret-conned into halflings – which would be bad.

    Having just read the 4E PH2 description of gnomes, I fail to see any issue with them also having significant population centers on the material world. Presumably, there would be more links to the Feywild in the Kron and Flinty Hills, County of Ulek, etc. That they can all turn invisible only enforces their illusionary abilities – hardly changing the nature of Greyhawk (and seemingly very appropriate for those in the Valley of the Mage). Of course, I was never a fan of gnomes and have never really used them much.

    Dwarves loosing Infravision/Darkvision seems no more hostile to Greyhawkiness than when Elves lost Infravision/Darkvision back in the day. I am unsure of your concern about dwarves building patterns. To quote page 97 of the Monster Manual, “They build remarkable fortress-cities among the peaks, under which they delve into the earth for riches and raw materials.” This sounds like what dwarves have always been.

    Teleporting Eladrin/Grey Elves is rather funky, I admit. Though Enstad shifting between the material world and the Feywild seems both appropriate for Greyhawk (fading lands) and a pretty nifty concept. I suspect we would all agree that a trip to Enstad should be more mystical than a trip to Verbobonc.

    If Dragonborn, Tieflings, Deva, Shifters, and Goliaths are given significant roles than yes, it will be a very significant impact on Greyhawk. If they are treated as minor races that players can choose if they want, than I fail to see why a couple extra humanoids among the dozens already there makes that big a difference.

    Fading Lands should most certainly still exist. The Feywild and Shadowfell give them a better reason to exist than they currently have.

    You are correct that Raven Queen has no place in Greyhawk, nor Orcus’s rivalry with her. Nor would I expect a 4E Greyhawk book to discuss any of it.

    Having never owned Q1, I feel confident that Greyhawk can maintain its character by totally ignoring anything to do with the adventure. At any rate, 4E gods are far more like the original Gygaxian gods than anything we have had since our esteemed steward left the helm. It will be refreshing to have the Greyhawk gods physically manifest across Greyhawk like they originally did without being total uber-beings able to level whole countries.

    The Negative Energy Plane can easily be a place in the Astral Sea or Elemental Chaos, and so, be used in any manner one wants. Again, I would not expect 4E Greyhawk to have any mention about the Negative Energy Plane even if it did exist in 4E cosmology.

    The Blood War was a significant part of From the Ashes? Perhaps I need to peruse Sergent’s work, as I cannot think of a single significant event in Greyhawk that involves the Blood War.

    Personally, I don’t use alignments and try to view each being as a 3 dimensional personality with its own hopes, dreams, and aspirations. I would expect the 4E Greyhawk godly write-ups to offer as much toward making each 3 dimensional as we have received in the past. However, if you find utility in the 9 alignments, than yes, the 4E alignment model offers less than before.

    4E druids, like everyone else in the world, still worship the gods. Obad-Hai, Beory, and Ehlonna would seem relevant as patrons.

    As you so aptly stated, whether any of the changes are pertinent is as much a matter of taste as anything else. Certainly, if 4E Greyhawk has massive sweeping changes like what was done with the Forgotten Realms, than yes, the character of the world will undeniably alter. However, I completely fail to see why the very nature of 4E would make Greyhawk unrecognizable. It remains to be seen whether WotC desires massive sweeping changes to every campaign setting it re-releases. Again, I thank you for presenting reason rather than hyperbole.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2005
    Posts: 221


    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:57 am  

    JHSII wrote:
    For me it's simple - Imagine that Chevrolet bought the rights to build the Yugo. They then renamed it "Corvette" for the 2010 model year and put one of those little Corvette plastic decals on it.

    Any guesses on how popular it would be?

    Would any of you want to buy a Corvette ZR-Yugo for $135,000?

    This is what Hasbro/WotC is trying to do. They want my business - they're going to have to do better. A whole lot better!!


    Sorry, but at best this is a poor analogy. I refuse to get into edition wars, but this is so far from the mark its not funny.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2005
    Posts: 221


    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:17 am  

    On the subject of gods, I will note that when working in a campaign world, they present equivallents to "core" gods, but not those gods. Look at Forgotten Realms. Admittedly they had to change the face of the world to accomplish some of it (well they didn't have to, but they did), but they have very different flavor from the core gods.

    As for Vale of the Lamia, I never liked Lamia as a name for lion centauroids. It just made no sense. And even if you keep the name and rename the fey bug monster, there is no reason to fret over it all. I agree that any greyhawk specific demonsdevils could easily be written up. A demon can be a seducer, they just have to be spiteful and violent if they don't get their way :)

    As long as they have the Dragonborn coming from the West, Goliaths from the remote mountains, shifters from the deep swamps and remote mountains, and Tieflings from Iuz's realm, everything will be fine. Deva are so low impact on the world its silly (overall anyway). If they don't keep the wheel cosmology (which is listed as an option in the DMG when world building, just not the one they use), then I suspect Celene merging with the Feywild, and the subsequent dimensional stresses this places on Oerth, will bring it inline with the Astral Sea, Shadowfell, etc. I've never really dealt with planar structure, so I know for me it won't matter much.

    I personally will always use the description in LGG for halflings. Which description you use has NO affect on their abilities. They are nimble and can duck out of the way of blows...k. whether they are boat folk or rural farmers and traders, I see no real difference here.

    As for the rest, OldOneEye has very succinctly replied to that :) I get the concerns, but honestly I've seen nothing in all of this a good DM couldn't get around with one or two quick decisions, just like any other edition of the game. :)
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Nov 14, 2005
    Posts: 221


    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:32 am  

    JHSII wrote:
    Sorry, but at best this is a poor analogy. I refuse to get into edition wars, but this is so far from the mark its not funny.


    No, it's the perfect analogy with what they are doing to/with Greyhawk.
    The changes they are making is turning Greyhawk into something that is NOT Greyhawk - but will bear the Greyhawk label. You may like what they're doing - or are planning to do - but that doesn't mean I have to sit here and stay silent as they tell me to go ***expletive deleted*** myself.[/quote]

    I wasn''t referring to it not being a different car repackaged as an existing one. But I do take issue with it being compared to a yugo. One is a mustang, one is a corvette. Completely different approaches to very similar desires. One is not markedly better than the other. One is more recognizeable, perhaps, but one is not necessarily better. That was my point. You may disagree with their direction - heck I may disagree with their direction, but as its their IP, they can make any change they want, and all we can do is either accept it or use it, or strip it for parts and rebuild our own frankenstein. :) But the value judgement that just because it involves 4E it is bad is just simply wrong. Different is not the same as bad, while some recognize that (props to ya Rasgon :) ), others fail to see that a branch in the road does not devalue the original road or the new road, just because it branched.....

    wow that was so incomprehensible its not funny. I'm not retyping it, because as bad as it is, its still closer to what I meant than anything else.
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Jun 12, 2003
    Posts: 273
    From: Boston

    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:38 am  

    rasgon wrote:
    Well, I understand the sentiment. As campaign worlds get more and more developed, the amount of creative freedom a designer retains lessens accordingly. Gary Gygax could invent just about anything he wanted; Carl Sargent was more limited, Roger Moore more so, and Erik Mona et. al were more limited still. Some people thrive within limitations, while others would rather just be able to make stuff up again like Gary Gygax could. That's why they nuked the Forgotten Realms - they had run out of places they could write about that would be "theirs" without having to worry much about what other people had done.


    A clean slate is always better for a new product line from a dev point of view, and I have heard numerous times that this is why Eberon was used for the RPGA's factions-style campaign (the one with level bumps that you play a drow. Don't get me started on level bumps or on letting people play drow).

    Living Greyhawk had the writing problem Rasgon mentions above. Some authors and Triad members knew the canon or researched it very well prior to writing a mod. Did they get everything right? No. Did they at least try? Yes. Some, like BK Triad member Austin "Theo" Judd, had actually spoken to Gygax about a few things so that we could get guidance from the master himself, so to speak (Theo liked to ask him about Stoink, iirc. He was always pissed that they killed off Stoink's old boss in the LGG. If you read the LGG closely, Theo mantained that there are several instances in there where it appears that WOTC was trying to eliminate Gygaxian NPCs and ideas from LG).

    Anyhow, other authors and Triad members cared less about what came before and only wanted to write the mod that they had in their head, regional flavor and Oerth history be damned. Part of the problem was that initial Triads were HIGHLY composed of administrators from Living City, people the RPGA were familiar enough with to trust initially to get the ball rolling on Oerth. While they may have had some familiarity with Greyhawk material, they had spent the previous years sorting through FR canon and producing, imo, pretty damn silly high-fantasy mods (LC PCs often would have +5 weapons at low levels due to cert trading and sharing). The result was that sometimes, early LG mods felt and looked more like LC mods.

    Example: There was one mod from the the BK's year 1 that had a mysterious tower, home to a high-level wizard, suddenly appear one day near Rookroost. Oh, and the Sherrif of Rookroost was detailed as being a 18th level lawful good fighter, or some such stupid nonsense. Worse, the map included with the event clearly showed that the mod author had no idea where Rookroost really was (I think it put trees north and south of the city, mountains to the west, a river to northeast, etc., etc., etc.). How this mod ever made it past SRM and RPGA HQ (who supposedly reviewed all regional mods back then), I'll never know. My bet is that the initial BK Triad, needing a mod post-haste for an upcoming convention, turned an unpublished LC mod into a LG BK mod. I eventually retconned that mod out of BK continuity in year 5, as soon as I became a Triad member. Whenever I get around to working on my great LG BK summary project, this mod won't be mentioned at all.

    On a random side note re: Orcus and Iuz, early Greyhawk products contain speculation that Iuz is actually Orcus' child. I forget when it was made official that he was Grazz't's spawn, but I'd actually be a bit impressed if WOTC, IF they made Oerth 4E, changed Iuz to being Orcus' kid. At least that would let me know that someone there might be paying attention to old books.

    Casey
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 30, 2001
    Posts: 170
    From: Niflheim, 9to5

    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:39 pm  

    aurdraco wrote:
    Whenever I get around to working on my great LG BK summary project, this mod won't be mentioned at all.
    [...]
    Casey


    I realize that this is off-topic, but I eagerly await this summary, Aurdraco! I played in some of the early BK modules myself, but never had a good sense of an over-all story arch or of any significant, campaign-altering events. Much of my at-home campaign is centered around the BK-SL region, so I am still interested.

    Also, thank you for your efforts to keep new material consistent with past material!

    Back to topic.
    Forum Moderator

    Joined: Feb 26, 2004
    Posts: 2566
    From: Ullinois

    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:47 pm  

    You guys all crack me up. Good to see everyone keeping it civil so far. Keep it going.

    As for car analogies, if I may...In my opinion, what is going on is something like this: Greyhawk in any edition has always been a sports car. There is the classic model and later models too but so far we don't have a new model. What I see is so far is more of what Wizards did in Core 3.x D&D and that is chop shopping this car for its best parts. I know the parts of the car are all good and well-made but I'm not always willing to collect(or pay for) all the parts I need to rebuild this car from scratch. It can be done but I don't have the patience. Most people would like to buy the whole car used and maybe tune it up with some different parts or some would like to drive a shiny new model right off the lot as is. That is if the new model ever goes from concept car at a show to factory floor. What we should be hoping for is not what model it will be, but will the engineers for our American sports car be made by Japan instead.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3084
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:39 pm  

    aurdraco wrote:
    I forget when it was made official that he was Grazz't's spawn


    The earliest mention of this relationship, if I recall correctly, was in the novel Artifact of Evil by Gary Gygax. We knew from Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth that Iggwilv had imprisoned Graz'zt in the past, but it wasn't until the novel series that Gygax revealed a child had resulted from this.

    The first RPG supplement to mention it was WG7 Castle Greyhawk, of all places, in the adventure that Scott Bennie (author of the seminal "Setting Saintly Standards" in Dragon Magazine, as well as the Ecology of the Rakshasa and FR's Old Empires) wrote. That was by far the most Greyhawk-heavy and interesting of what was mostly a series of parody adventures unconnected to the setting.

    I don't think it was mentioned again in the RPG line until the Carl Sargent era, though it continued to be a big part of Gary Gygax's Gord the Rogue series. I know it was mentioned in Iuz the Evil by Carl Sargent. The next mention was probably Return of the Eight.
    GreySage

    Joined: Aug 03, 2001
    Posts: 3084
    From: Michigan

    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:23 pm  

    MikelAmroni wrote:
    As for Vale of the Lamia, I never liked Lamia as a name for lion centauroids.


    Why not? It's one of the traditional portrayals of them, found in medieval bestiaries. D&D traditionally uses both the lion/ungulate form (for common lamias) and the serpent-bodied form (for lamia nobles) that form the two major depictions of the creature in ancient legend. It seems like a good compromise to me. There was a really cool "Ecology of the Lamia" in Dragon Magazine that added a third form, an entirely bestial lion/goat hybrid.

    Quote:
    A demon can be a seducer, they just have to be spiteful and violent if they don't get their way


    I'm glad you think so; I'd be happy to let you design for 4e. WotC apparently disagrees with you; they think that makes demons and devils too much alike. Devils are tempters and seducers with an interest in mortal souls, while 4e demons are angry elementals who want to break stuff. The idea of a 4th edition demon seducing someone is like a chaotic evil xorn or a crysmal seducing someone.

    Quote:
    As long as they have the Dragonborn coming from the West


    I'm not a fan of that idea at all. For one, it means every time someone wants to play a dragonborn, the DM has to invent a convoluted story that explains how it got into the Flanaess from the other end of the continent. That works once, but ruins the suspension of disbelief if it's invoked too many times. If you must permit dragonborn in Greyhawk, I think it's better to have them come from the Flanaess like all the other major races. This doesn't seem like a problem to me; it's not like humanoid dragons are something new to D&D; 2nd edition had dragon-kin (from the Dragon Mountain boxed set and reprinted in the Monstrous Compendium Annual Volume One), 3rd edition had half-dragons, spellscales, dragonspawn of Tiamat, and dragonborn of Bahamut. I'm sure there are other humanoid dragon-looking things in various obscure places. My concern isn't with dragonborn being added to the Flanaess, only with the idea that they're suddenly relatively common in every city and town, which is an impression that someone who uses published 4th edition adventures might well get. Being that it seems to be WotC's policy to make their campaign worlds all fit with published adventures, the demographics of the Flanaess seem potentially posed to change radically. With it, I fear the feel of Gygax's human-dominated, medieval European-style setting would be compromised.

    Would it still be Greyhawk? Well, we'll see. It would certainly contain many elements of Greyhawk, but I don't know that it would replicate the feel that I've come to associate with the setting very well.

    Whether or not this could be easily changed by the individual DM is, as GVD ably put it, beside the point. I greatly object to the view that it's illegitimate to discuss or review RPG products "because you can always just change them." By that standard, every RPG supplement is of equal quality and an equally good use of your money. It should be obvious that this isn't true, and, given that RPGs have varying levels of quality and usefulness (I would even be so bold as to say that this isn't entirely a subjective thing), it should be possible for us to say so without being shushed by the "you can just change it" brigade.
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:05 pm  

    The term "edition wars" and announcing one will disengage from a discussion so as not to engage in "edition wars" begs an obvious question.

    If one says, "I dislike 4e, and all things 4e, because I play/prefer Edition X," THAT is an edition war argument. Similarly, if one says "I love 4e and all things 4e, so if its 4e its fine," that too is an edition war argument, albeit a more camoflaged/politically correct one.

    To say, "4e includes material that is at odds with material in pre-4e setting X," THAT is _NOT_ and edition war argument. It is a comparison of the elements of 4e and setting X and a conclusion that they match up or don't match up and to what degree.

    Hiding behind "avoiding edition wars" is disingenuous in the second case.

    4e, as Rasgon has enumerated, is at odds in any number of particulars from published Greyhawk. THAT is NOT an edition war statement/argument.

    Hommlett is iconically Greyhawk both as T1 and as the lead in to the even more iconically Greyhawk TOEE. A 4e Hommlett, given that elements of 4e are at odds with elements of published GH, is cause for an immediate pause. And so saying no "edition war" is involved. In any way.
    _________________
    GVD
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Aug 05, 2004
    Posts: 1446


    Send private message
    Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:23 pm  

    OleOneEye wrote:
    At any rate, 4E gods are far more like the original Gygaxian gods than anything we have had since our esteemed steward left the helm. It will be refreshing to have the Greyhawk gods physically manifest across Greyhawk like they originally did without being total uber-beings able to level whole countries.


    I'm not sure where the first conclusion comes from. I don't see the 4e core deities as at all like anything Gygax ever created, expect where the names are the same names. What are the similarities (other than the names of some of them)?

    Greyhawk gods physically manifesting "like they originally did?" Hmmm. I agree that Greyhawk gods have in the past manifested physically on Oerth. However, they have not done so recently (with a few exceptions) because of the "noninterference pact." Changing that noninterference pact so that gods can go romping and stomping around the setting would be, I think, a big change to GH as published from the Folio to date - some 30 years of published history. I see no reason to do that, as other setting have that feature already, and reason not to - Greyhawk sans heavy godly interference is part of what makes Greyhawk unique. Also, IMO, gods are too easily deus ex machina devices or cheap villains (cheap in the sense that gods as villains are very common). If I am reading you correctly, I am of the opposite opinion.
    _________________
    GVD
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3764
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:22 am  

    Hommlet won't likely be a module at all, but a chapter/section in the DMG 3's "How to Role-play" section, similar to how Saltmarsh was introduced in a hardback and given some background in the past. It could very well be an chapter section that illustrates what role playing is about using Hommlet as the location, and telling how role-playing is not about running amuck in a delve of some kind, but is about walking into this particular village where instead of killing everything in sight you have to interact(non-violently) with everyone in sight(at least to start with:wink:). This is apparently a feature that is not played up much in WotC's 4e modules so far which are mostly hack-n'-slash delves with not much interaction. Urban adventures are of course perfect for role-playing. Heck, even running amok in Dorakaa in City of Skulls or Highport in the A-series/Slavers requires careful role-playing, as even though you may want to kill everything in sight, it is a deathwish to do so. Happy

    It'll probably just be another Greyhawk taster rather than the launch of a Greyhawk product line. What would be very intersting would be to see a series of articles on DDI(Dragon Magazine) that broke down in detail the features of each campaign setting and compared and contrasted them. Newer people might gain a better understanding of the settings then, plus there would also be some insight into the developers' opinions on what they thought were the defining features of the various settings and how they fit into 4e(or 4e fits into them).
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Journeyman Greytalker

    Joined: Sep 20, 2005
    Posts: 158
    From: Little Rock, Arkansas

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:24 pm  

    GVDammerung wrote:
    I'm not sure where the first conclusion comes from. I don't see the 4e core deities as at all like anything Gygax ever created, expect where the names are the same names. What are the similarities (other than the names of some of them)?

    The power of gods in relation to PCs as per the god's stats. In the 83 boxed set, high level PCs stood a chance of battling, say, Hextor. In 4E, high level PCs stand a chance of battling gods. However, 2E assumed gods were so tough that PCs could never challenge them and 3E made their power levels so high that PCs would have to be rediculously high 50th level or something.

    I absolutely agree with you that the 4E core deities have nothing to do with Greyhawk - nor would I expect them to have anything to do with a 4E campaign setting.

    GVDammerung wrote:
    Greyhawk gods physically manifesting "like they originally did?" Hmmm. I agree that Greyhawk gods have in the past manifested physically on Oerth. However, they have not done so recently (with a few exceptions) because of the "noninterference pact." Changing that noninterference pact so that gods can go romping and stomping around the setting would be, I think, a big change to GH as published from the Folio to date - some 30 years of published history. I see no reason to do that, as other setting have that feature already, and reason not to - Greyhawk sans heavy godly interference is part of what makes Greyhawk unique. Also, IMO, gods are too easily deus ex machina devices or cheap villains (cheap in the sense that gods as villains are very common). If I am reading you correctly, I am of the opposite opinion.

    The 83 boxed set does not have a noninterference pact. To my knowledge, that is a 2nd edition idea. Pretty much all of the gods which were given a write-up were described as manifesting on Oerth in the 83 set - not just Iuz, Wastri, Cuthbert, and Farlanghn as later writings indicate. I fail to understand why it would be a big change to Greyhawk to use the 83 gods' write-ups (though it would certainly be a big change to post non-interference pact writings).

    We are certainly in agreement that godly deus ex machina (or any deus ex machina, for that matter) is a bad thing, as well as using gods (or any other discrete group) as patrons/colleagues/villains more than once every 10 campaigns or so would cheapen them. However, with two decades of role-playing behind me, using them every once in a long while is refreshing.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3764
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:43 pm  

    Best be specific about gods manifesting. It's mostly the quasi-deities who are manifesing(i.e. the ones who were mortal relatively recently), and nearly all of them are doing so in a very low key manner. St. Cuthbert is not leading armies againt Iuz, Fharlanghn isn't doing the Forrest Gump "Walk Across the Flanaess" event, Celestian isn't showing up places juggling stars, and Incabulos is not riding around striking down mortals who cross his path. Laughing Wink

    And of course they are almost always in disguise. They influence those who act on events, but seldom influence events directly. I prefer that this is so due to an uspoken agreement among the gods- a mutual respect thing(or better still, a "you don't mess with my stuff; I don't mess with your stuff" sort of thing) and not any non-agression pact they all agreed to formally.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> World of Greyhawk Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    [ Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next]
    Page 2 of 5

    Jump to:  

    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


    Forums ©


    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.31 Seconds