Would you like to see WoG re-released? Now this sounds counter intuitive at first, but would there be enough widespread support? The folks at Paizo have done a pretty nifty job with Pathfinder (which I am now getting into) and certainly their resources are going that way for the foreseeable future (if it makes money, don't fix it).
But if someone were truly serious about resurrecting WoG, would it be a wise decision? Now if they've already started it, my bad. I've been out of the gaming scene for some time now.
I mean the world is pretty fertile we can all agree, but should we let old dogs lay (lie?). An adventure set in one of the current Pathfinder kingdoms is just as good as having it set in Sterich or Ulek or wherever. Would it be worth it to the owners? Would it be worth it to to us...sigh...old timers?
My, you have been out of the scene for a while, haven't you? Let me see if I can sum up all the discussion I can remember from the past few years...
WotC owns Greyhawk, and they're devoted to 4e now, which a lot of people hate and a lot of people love. (I fall into the hate category, btw, for a lot of reasons I won't go into here.) Thus, if Greyhawk is rereleased it will be in a 4e (or maybe 5e) version.
Some people have tried to - or at least thought about - purchasing the rights to Greyhawk. However, since certain Greyhawk concepts are indelibly linked to D&D itself, WotC feels it would be unwise to sell those rights. In essence, selling the rights to Greyhawk would be too much like selling the rights to D&D. Thus, nobody other than WotC is ever going to publish Greyhawk.
Over the last year or three, though, certain elements of Greyhawk (Acererak, the Tomb of Horrors, Hommlet, etc.) have been reworked as part of WotC's new "Points of Light" quasi-campaign world, much to the delight of some and much to the chagrin of others. Regardless of whether you like this or not, the new reworks are substantially different from the original versions - at times including details that make them incompatible with older Greyhawk materials (or, at least, more of a chore to retrofit).
Which brings us to the actual opinions found among the hordes of elated and/or horrified Greyhawk fans. Basically, there are three schools:
1) Some would love to see Greyhawk brought back, regardless of rules version and other details.
2) Some hope WotC brings Greyhawk back, provided they show proper respect for 'canon'.
3) Some hate the very idea and hope that WotC keeps their canon-perverting hands off of Greyhawk forever.
All three schools of thought have their pros and cons, of course, and you're welcome to take your pick. After all, the Internet being what it is, somebody is going to hate you no matter what.
Which leads us to more recent discussions. Around here, most of us are fairly content to stick with what's already published since we feel we can add/modify/update our own stuff without WotC's help. Of course, there are a few who fall into other camps, and that's okay. But if, by chance, Greyhawk were to be revived - whether by fans, by WotC, or by someone else - we've been debating what form it should take. Again there are three camps:
1) The "new" Greyhawk should resemble either the old folio version or the '83 boxed set, with minimal information beyond what was provided in those older versions. Everything written since then should be ignored by the new version, allowing today's DMs to include or exclude newer information as they see fit.
2) The "new" Greyhawk should resemble the World of Greyhawk as it currently stands, but updated and reorganized for the sake of clarification and to include various events from (insert your favorite product line here). This allows all of us old-timers to continue without breaking stride, and allows newbies to delve into the richness we've all appreciated for so long.
3) The "new" Greyhawk should be advanced in time - perhaps more than a century - and "freshened" so that it's basically a new world built on the old one. This makes it unnecessary to keep track of old canon as closely, and allows DMs to make Greyhawk their own once again.
Again, opinions are strongly held. Personally, I tend to oscillate between options 2 and 3.
I predict that virtually every comment that comes after mine will fall into or near one of the above six schools of thought. Of course, there are endless variations on each school, some of which are vociferously defended by their adherents. Have fun reading the rants if you should decide to research them.
I would only love to see more Gazetteers for other area of Greyhawk. We have the marklands, Iuz, Ivid, SB, how about a gazeteer for the Tiger and Wolf Nomads, the Baklunni states in the west, the Sheldomar Valley etc. And more detailed canon maps of the Flanaess.
And that is one of the issues I was curious about. Does WotC , should it re-release WoG follow "canon?"
What if they licensed it out to Paizo, they did a Pathfinder rules version and moved the story line just 50 yrs forward? 30yrs? 15yrs? 8yrs? Granted this is all hypothetical, but would there be support for it? Would there be support for 4e and a different rules set (like 3.5) at the same time? I'm just totally speculating here and not trying to cause problems.
Hi all -
I saw this post on the main CF! page...I went, ahhh, is Mort really re-doing / re-imaging WoG Comic? NO.....whew. That was close.
OK, now on to WoG v1.0 - it has been re-imagined by Paizo, it's called WoG 2.0 - or World of Golarion. Check it out...it has the same small size world that 1.0 has, the intrigue and suspense that we had in all areas before Living Greyhawk and then some. And with the Pathfinder Society Organized play you have some excellent adventures and with it being on the ground floor of game play and their own gaming system - you can be part of the movement.
I am now the Venture-Captain for the Las Vegas Lodge - with the honor and privilege coming from a background in Greyhawk and the work I've been doing over the years for Greyhawk and the local area. But look at who is who at Paizo. Lisa 'Greyhawk Mega-Babe' Stevens (GH Brand Manager during post-Sargent era), Erik Mona, Sean K. Reynolds (whom I totally disliked in his early writing career - but has come around to some good works as of late, and I'm excited to get the chance to meet him this week at NeonCon 2010), Jason 'Iuz the Evil' Bulhman (also at NeonCon)....I can go on.
I think Kim Mohan is still with WotC that can be traced back to the TSR/WotC days of good 'ol Greyhawk. Maybe one other person...three tops and you're pushing the boundaries.
So WoG 2.0 is the re-imagined WoG 1.0.
Pathfinder Society Venture-Captain
Las Vegas Lodge
Last edited by TheocratIssak on Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:31 am; edited 1 time in total
Greyhawk is like a farm with 90% of its fields unplanted. There is plenty of room to grow stuff. As to fan/customer support, that will be there because it is Greyhawk, but more so because it is still D&D(in some form) and people can take pretty much any new material and use it however they want to, for whatever campaign setting.
*Also, I have edited the title of the thread to actually describe what the thread is about. People should make a point of not posting misleading thread titles, and yes, "WoG re-released" is rather misleading- an exclamation point at the end would have been worse. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:29 pm; edited 2 times in total
The subject is near and dear to me, since Greyhawk has always been my first "true love."
But I'm at a loss as to whether or not I'd like to see it re-released, as I'm not sure that I'd like the people currently "in charge" to be involved in it. If they were, than I don't think my "childhood" Greyhawk would be recognizable in the "new" product.
I would completely support an unofficial equivalent. I mean, I understand that wotc owns the rights to Greyhawk, but just because they bought it does not mean they deserve to further it. More so, they certainly should not be respected for it. I mean, I do not count the 4E ToH remake as canon--have you read it? Edition of the game totally aside--it is a dumb adventure. Were it published for Swords & Wizardry (which I love) I would still denounce it as lame.
We should net-publish fan materials under AshBird or something. I am the last person to start a project, though (since my brother died I have largely not been able to care about anything material) but its still a good idea.
Personally, my last favorite officially published Greyhawk anything was Slavers (by the oh-so-snide) SKR. My last favorite Greyhawk anything was GVDammerung's Salinmoor stuff.
I am this (>--<) close to running a Skype game of either C&C or S&W using maptools and all that jazz. I have been wanting to try that out. I am so depressed...
We have few threads like this, but keep discussing things. It keeps things topical concerning what it currently going on with Greyhawk and people's views of it. Also, when people dig up threads, that first post date(granted, not everyone takes note of them) lets them know if people are even interested in the topic, which in this case they are because we are all rabid Greyhawk fans! _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Truth be told, I'd rather not see Greyhawk republished in the current 4E atmosphere, particularly if it would incorporate a lot of 4E and Living Greyhawk canon, most of which I don't like. There are a few things I'd want to see in any future Greyhawk release:
-No dragonborn, eladrin or tieflings. Just humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings. I think most of us can agree that a lot of Greyhawk's flavor, such as it is, can be derived from many of the original restrictions and tendencies of 1st Edition.
Ruleswise, I obviously wouldn't want to keep the level and class restrictions from the old game, but I would like to see them manifested in a role-playing context: dwarves who become magic-users tend to be ostracized and shunned by their peers, while halfling paladins would have different powers and abilities than their human counterparts.
-The timeline should be rewound to 576 CY and stay there. One of the biggest divisions among our fandom comes from our views of most of the canon that's occurred after Gary Gygax left, namely From The Ashes and its successors. Changes to the setting should only occur in published adventures, rather than in official canon material. Different sourcebooks can offer more in-depth information on different regions, but should not advance the timeline at all. History and backstory cribbed from Living Greyhawk or the Oerth Journal can and should be integgrated, but none of the subsequent canon developments after 576 CY.
-A treatment like what the Forgotten Realms got in 3E should be produced for the Flanaess as a whole, with color maps, Greyhawk-centric prestige classes and spells, with sourcebooks released later for different settings for particular areas. Flavorwise, it should be noted how the forces of good can compete and be at war with one another over different matters, as can the forces of evil-just as the forces of the Iron League might compete with one another in matters of trade and occasionally have border raids and retaliatory attacks, so too can the Scarlet Brotherhood and the forces of Iuz send demon assassins after one another.
That's what I'd want to see in any commercial Greyhawk release in the future. Whether or not it would be viable is another question entirely, but I feel that it would be the best way of maintaining Greyhawk's character as most of the fans can either support or at least live with. We can all pretty much agree on 576 CY, and from there individual gaming groups can go hog wild with what happens in their own campaigns. You can't stay truer to the spirit of Greyhawk than that, can you? ;)
No dragonborn, eladrin or tieflings . . . a lot of Greyhawk's flavor, such as it is, can be derived from many of the original restrictions and tendencies of 1st Edition.
Beings such as these are purely Forgotten Realms creations -- "born" of an incredibly "magic heavy" world, which Greyhawk isn't supposed to be. So I completely agree.
Dwarves who become magic-users tend to be ostracized and shunned by their peers, while halfling paladins would have different powers and abilities than their human counterparts.
I remember when demihuman magicians were limited in the magics they could practice. If I remember correctly, gnomes could only be Illusionists, etc. And dwarves eschewed magic altogether.
Its why "everyone" played a human -- only humans could do "anything." Demihumans had special abilities and such, but were limited on their "growth" potential.
The timeline should be rewound to 576 CY and stay there . . . Changes to the setting should only occur in published adventures, rather than in official canon material. Different sourcebooks can offer more in-depth information on different regions, but should not advance the timeline at all. History and backstory cribbed from Living Greyhawk or the Oerth Journal can and should be integgrated, but none of the subsequent canon developments after 576 CY . . . Flavorwise, it should be noted how the forces of good can compete and be at war with one another over different matters, as can the forces of evil-just as the forces of the Iron League might compete with one another in matters of trade and occasionally have border raids and retaliatory attacks, so too can the Scarlet Brotherhood and the forces of Iuz send demon assassins after one another.
I agree completely. Remember the war over the Falkland Islands? Great Britain and Argentina -- neither a particularly "evil" nation. Just a disagreement. Trade disagreements take place all the time.
I think the Greyhawk Wars -- as a whole -- changed the setting in ways that many here don't like.
A treatment like what the Forgotten Realms got in 3E should be produced for the Flanaess as a whole, with color maps, Greyhawk-centric prestige classes and spells, with sourcebooks released later for different settings for particular areas . . . We can all pretty much agree on 576 CY, and from there individual gaming groups can go hog wild with what happens in their own campaigns.
Excellent! I'm all for that.
Whether or not it would be viable is another question entirely, but I feel that it would be the best way of maintaining Greyhawk's character as most of the fans can either support or at least live with . . . You can't stay truer to the spirit of Greyhawk than that, can you?
Well, you get my vote on that score. I believe that you've outlined a reinvigorated Greyhawk that most here could live with and that I -- personally -- would support. You and I can certainly agree on the outline that you've presented here.
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