|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 25, 2008 12:34:08 GMT -5
Somebody asked me recently what the pull of Greyhawk is/was. I kind of had a real roundabout answer and I trailed off wondering about it myself. I thought about it some more and this answer came to mind:
A world of S&S, by the creator of (and for use with) a number of universally appealling and easily interlinked S&S rulesets with various tips of the hat to various real living gamer contributors in one degree or another (countries, beings, etc.) of which that spirit of friendly dedication became lost or was rather invalidated in the way that the various revisions were anti-nostalgic by default upsetting a decade worth of fans at odds with the changes and continuance of product without more of that feeling of comradery.
Is that it? I'm sure I'm overlooking something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 25, 2008 12:42:46 GMT -5
I'd have to think about it for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 25, 2008 14:42:21 GMT -5
For me, the pull of Greyhawk is 1) because Gary Gygax created it, and since he was also the creator of AD&D, it is and always will be in my mind "The D&D world"; 2) nostalgia: when I look at that wonderful map by Darlene, it still gives me a good feeling and takes me back to that time when gaming was fresh and new; 3) scope: it allows for just about any sort of campaign and personalized flavor one would like to impose on it -- you could have a "Lord of the Rings" type of game, swashbuckling pirates at sea, a campaign of sieges and war... just about whatever you can imagine.
The tips of the hat to other gamers and influences are a bonus for those who have in an interest in the history of the whole thing. It's not just the setting I like -- it's the stories behind it, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 25, 2008 16:07:09 GMT -5
Yes, #3 is a good point. The phrase Gary often said to me about the Greyhawk material that I did with him was "broad strokes with space left for detailing" and specifically in regards to history: "No sense in not leaving plenty of blank pages to be filled in later." So he always had this openness right in the front of things and that is a "Greyhawkism" if I've ever heard it!
|
|
|
|
Post by amalric on Oct 27, 2008 9:45:45 GMT -5
For me, the pull of Greyhawk is 1) because Gary Gygax created it, and since he was also the creator of AD&D, it is and always will be in my mind "The D&D world"; 2) nostalgia: when I look at that wonderful map by Darlene, it still gives me a good feeling and takes me back to that time when gaming was fresh and new; 3) scope: it allows for just about any sort of campaign and personalized flavor one would like to impose on it -- you could have a "Lord of the Rings" type of game, swashbuckling pirates at sea, a campaign of sieges and war... just about whatever you can imagine. The tips of the hat to other gamers and influences are a bonus for those who have in an interest in the history of the whole thing. It's not just the setting I like -- it's the stories behind it, too. Well said that man! That pretty much sums up my feelings for it. |
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Oct 27, 2008 11:18:28 GMT -5
Is that it? I'm sure I'm overlooking something.
Ummm... you forgot alcoholic libations! And lots of distractions during game development and game sessions! ^__^
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Oct 27, 2008 11:21:27 GMT -5
As to "broad strokes" and "history"; we've said it before: Gary hated timelines! ! I, on the other hand, loved them! Hey--I was a History major--what can I say?? That's why Gary let me do the Mythus timeline! ^__^
|
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 27, 2008 12:15:06 GMT -5
History!?!? NOT HISTORY!?!? GAAAAAAAHHHH!!!  History as in the stuff featured in T$R (post-Gygax TSR) was a bad component in their range of products for sure(As we've been over it time and again! ) but what of other flaws? I think even worse than the "history" was what I call "the detailing of nothing". Most times the fictional history can't be separated from "the detailing of nothing" either. For instance, the descriptive books would have a lot of talk and when you get right down to brass tacks it was always a pack of feelings and suppositons that were never "ready for play". You could "mine" endless piles of T$R books and be left with a bunch of light touched game content (that was already in most likely in Dragon magazines as well) as the yield and it would even fill up a six page issue of the Strategic Review! Thats the only problem with "history". Fictional history in a game is just useless filler without game content. On the other hand, real history is 100% useful for any game. Fictional history is a great resource too but in a game product it seems to be a cheap filler device most of the time. Its just as useless as future speculation in a game product unless its a specific tract thats loaded with monsters and treasures that you most likely will encounter sooner rather than later! |
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 27, 2008 12:32:32 GMT -5
And furthermore... Sorry, I got all riled up. The text of the history of greyhawk is pertinent to the gazetteer and it fit all in one page if you removed the dynamic and relevant maps plus the less than page chronology surrounding it. All that is said is only useful as it pertains to the political divisions which are well statted. The 1983 box instead of writing more "yap" added even more stats in the form of the Glossography's encounter charts. If it had been T$R that had done this it would have had less game and more "yap, yap, yap" about the history. Thats the Greyhawk difference right there: better history better game. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 27, 2008 13:34:08 GMT -5
I love the history too. And Gary’s lackadaisical approach to that aspect of the setting would drive me nuts occasionally.
I would have liked to seen a Silmarillion for the Flanaess.
|
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 27, 2008 17:04:53 GMT -5
Yeah, but Gary wasn't into the tolkien approach on the fictional side. I think it could be done but then the question arises of who would do it. Out of the history that I know I don't think that I wouldn't get far content wise being the anti-sage that I am! |
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Oct 28, 2008 6:16:22 GMT -5
One useful date from Greyhawk history we've discussed right here--the date of Iuz's birth! Because Gary hadn't set a date, he occasionally made contradictory statements about this. The date and locality of Vecna and Kas would have been nice too... ^__^
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 28, 2008 6:29:25 GMT -5
The date and locality of Vecna and Kas would have been nice too... ^__^ That's an easy one. Gary was pretty emphatic that those two characters were not part of the Greyhawk setting. |
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 28, 2008 9:37:07 GMT -5
Hey yooz from Oyth! Its easy he's from Chicago in the 1930's! Seriously, I was going to write the Iuz story in the sidebar of the Gord the Rogue graphic novel but the comic guys never got back to Gary. So it just fizzled away. I was just rereading the e-mail and he said he didn't have the time to address my 7 questions about Iuz for the sidebar but he said they were answerable and needed an essay length answer. He agreed to answer all of it when he got the chance but once the deal sunk then that was it. He mentions that he would print up the list of questions though so he was very serious about revealing the answers so they might still be laying around his office. I wish that I had recalled it sooner to ask him if he ever scribbled out some of the details. Technically I could answer them myself but like I said I'm an anti-sage regarding GH and true knowledge can't be obtained in fiction. That is, I could write the answers to what I believe would have made Gary say, "Good show once again, old top, spot on!" but who is that going to serve, right? I talked to him all day on the phone about Greyhawk once and I hit on so many subjects but they were all right off the top of my head and he had the answers for too. Sometimes I wish that the graphic novel writing offers that he proposed never happened as he warped my view from a diehard fan who can say and do whatever he liked to a cowriter who is bound by secrecy and legalities. |
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Oct 28, 2008 18:17:42 GMT -5
The date and locality of Vecna and Kas would have been nice too... ^__^ That's an easy one. Gary was pretty emphatic that those two characters were not part of the Greyhawk setting. Heh! That's because Brian Blume developed them! But, nonetheless, they were in the 1E DMG and have become part-and-parcel with the Greyhawk campaign... |
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 29, 2008 11:29:07 GMT -5
Maybe one day I'll write Vecna into my campaign, I've always liked the character, but so far I've not considered him as part of the history.
|
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 29, 2008 13:51:36 GMT -5
If there is a shred of truth to that Monty Haul spoof in early DRAGON by Ward then Jake Jaquet owned the eye and hand in the Greyhawk campaign but it could've been ported in or fused from the Blume campaign since its exagerrated all over the bit.
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Oct 29, 2008 17:20:01 GMT -5
I seriously don't think that Gar-Bear had a problem with those items 'til the Blumes dissed him--and I reckon I can understand that! Anyhow, back in the 90s when I asked him about it, he simply said that it occured in "the legendary past", and then recited his mantra that he disliked timelines!! ^__^
|
|
|
|
Post by Merkholz on Oct 30, 2008 2:38:16 GMT -5
I have no problem with the Hand and Eye of Vecna popping up in a Greyhawk campaign but even if they do there's no reason for Vecna ever having lived on Oerth. People travel between worlds and planes all the time - why can't these artifacts have been imported to Oerth?
And, even though Vecna might have lived and died on Oerth, it's best if it was in the distant past from which very little information can be gleaned. I am a bit weary of having every fascinating event take place 900-1200 years before the campaign starts in 576 CY. Besides, if Keraptis the-not-as-powerful-as-Vecna was avtive in an older time then surely Vecna the legendary must be from an even more distant past.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 30, 2008 7:46:26 GMT -5
Hey Merkholz, good to see you again.
Greyhawk's history is pretty shallow. Timeline, characters, etc, it seems like writers are afraid to venture too far away from what Gary established as the base.
|
|
