Greyhawk Wars

[Dragonhelm]

Why were the Greyhawk Wars considered to be bad for the setting? What changes were made that didn't sit well with GH fans?

[night_druid]

Why were the Greyhawk Wars considered to be bad for the setting? What changes were made that didn't sit well with GH fans?

Destruction of the Shield Lands, Almor, the Iron League, and the Great Kingdom & successor states, I think.

[ripvanwormer]

The Flan got hit really hard by the conflict, with Tenh devastated and the Rovers almost extinct. People were upset that the Scarlet Brotherhood got "outed," so that instead of being a mysterious underground order they're now widely known as conquerors. It blew their cover.

I don't mind the wars so much, over all.

[Boddynock]

I'm curious looking at pre-GH war map (courtesy of this site http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gami ... index.html)
what Iuz was up to pre-war, did he have basically a small kingdom that expanded during the war or was he just wandering around causing trouble? Granted All I have is the 3.5 Living Greyhawk Gazetteer so I only know about post war Flanaess. Seems like an interesting time to adventure.

[JohnBiles]

I'm curious looking at pre-GH war map (courtesy of this site http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gami ... index.html)
what Iuz was up to pre-war, did he have basically a small kingdom that expanded during the war or was he just wandering around causing trouble? Granted All I have is the 3.5 Living Greyhawk Gazetteer so I only know about post war Flanaess. Seems like an interesting time to adventure.

Iuz had a large kingdom, got imprisoned by Zagyg and lost most of it, then was eventually released, went back to his Kingdom and during the Greyhawk Wars, built it up a lot.

[ripvanwormer]

Actually, check out this wiki article for more detail. Iuz was imprisoned for 65 years, and had only recently returned to his (smaller) kingdom in 576 CY. After a decade gathering allies in the Abyss, demon troops, consolidating his power, organizing the Greater and Lesser Bonehearts and so on, the Wars began.

[Samwise]

Details about what specifically was "wrong" with the Greyhawk Wars varies somewhat, but the complaints generally hit on three main issues regarding flavor:
1. It made the setting too black and white/Good vs. Evil, and reduced/eliminated the "grey"/balance element.
2. It made the setting too political.
3. It made the setting too high fantasy/Tolkien.
Often all of the above are followed with "like the Forgotten Realms".
For me, the first two are utter nonsense, though the last is pretty justified with the hackjob on the Spindrift Isles.

[night_druid]

I do have to say that the post-Wars materials by Carl Sargent was pretty enjoyable. Maybe not the right fit for GH, but very good. Its too bad he vanished on us I would really have liked to see him tackle a whole new setting of his creation from the ground up.

[Dread Delgath]

Details about what specifically was "wrong" with the Greyhawk Wars varies somewhat, but the complaints generally hit on three main issues regarding flavor:
1. It made the setting too black and white/Good vs. Evil, and reduced/eliminated the "grey"/balance element.
2. It made the setting too political.
3. It made the setting too high fantasy/Tolkien.
Often all of the above are followed with "like the Forgotten Realms".
For me, the first two are utter nonsense, though the last is pretty justified with the hackjob on the Spindrift Isles.

I had problems with post-Wars Greyhawk mainly because it became an automatic campaign backdrop, no matter how much you want to dial it up or down. I didn't like to have to pigeonhole my campaign or my players by prefacing any adventure with "What you knew about this part of the Flannaes is now changed because of the Wars..."

Although the campaign setting showed me what you can do to set up a campaign with a war-torn land backdrop, I think it did give my players the "Sauron's out there, looking for the One Ring" kind of feeling, and they could become involved with it, like it or not, (and one or two of my players hated this -- they didn't want to be heroic or noticed, they wanted to gain power & wealth secretly & start their own wars!) and were perturbed by thoughts of -- what if our PCs don't do well enough? Will this spell the doom of the Flannaes if I fail at low/middling levels?

I grew to disregard the post-Wars info & told the players to do the same, and that if they didn't want to take part in any wars or politics, they didn't have to, AND my NPC rulers would not bring up or be distracted by the Wars campaign treatment.

Eventually, I turned the clock back to pre-Wars Greyhawk & said it never happened.

EDIT: Basically, "canon" Greyhawk from this point forward interfered with the direction my campaign went. I disregarded the published wars & politics in favor of my & my players' machinations.

[Cebrion]

I'm with Samwise on this one(especially the Spindrift Isles bit).

The Duchy of Tehn was also devastated, as was the Horned Society. It would have been nice to see some development of those areas before they were sacked. You know, get people to emotionally invest in them before unleashing the horror.

[Havard]

This is a pretty interesting thread. Quite useful for those of us who are less familiar with Greyhawk too

I could see arguments for using both the pre-war and post war setting, but I do think that Campaign settings should evolve over time.

Havard

[Dread Delgath]

This is a pretty interesting thread. Quite useful for those of us who are less familiar with Greyhawk too

I could see arguments for using both the pre-war and post war setting, but I do think that Campaign settings should evolve over time.

Havard

I disagree with you about campaign settings evolving over time, Havard. I don't see the need to do it, since I usually run or play in sandbox campaigns where our group can move things in a completely different direction which nullifies any official, progressive campaign setting updates. Extra details on places that had little to no detail in an original released product (like what the 1983 GH box set did for the 1981 GH Folio) but using the majority of the GH Wars meant nullifying nearly everything some of what my players had worked for or accomplished.

Should I have considered one player's Bandit Kingdom stronghold as totally wiped out because of the events in GW Wars, he would have been pissed. If I had taken the time to devise a Battlesystem campaign to handle the action & pre-planned events, he would have lost nearly everything by "Campaign Setting Fiat" anyway. It was a no-win situation that caused me to break with the canon setting. But I did utilize some ideas, like increasing the movements & the massing of enemy troops in the Shield Lands, Bandit Kingdoms, Tehn, etc., but this was mainly for background flavor. If the PCs thought the events were worth checking out, they easily could. If not, (and they did not want to) they could ignore the events and continue on with their own plans. If our play had advanced far enough into the political spectrum of play, I may have wanted to stage a major war, but it would have involved 3 to 5 countries, not over half of the Flannaes.

Playing the Greyhawk Wars map/board game was fun, however! We had a lot of fun playing out "what if" scenarios, but incorporating the majority of the "set in stone" events of the GH Wars was out of the question.

Having said all that, I can see where some groups that do follow the canon campaign movements would like to keep moving their own campaign in the same direction of then-TSR/soon-to-be-WotC post-Wars GH setting, for tournament, Living Greyhawk or RPGA play... things should stay consistent from campaign to campaign, IF you're going to play with/against several other groups. Evolving the campaign makes sense in that regard, but that is a style of play I'm unable (or unwilling, as perspectives differ) to incorporate into my sandbox GH campaign.

One thing I thought would have made a great GH product was the same kind of GH Wars treatment on the Invoked Devastation & Rain of Colorless Fire! That would have been a great read, and even a booklet of Battlesystem scenarios would have been great fun to run.

[Dragonhelm]

Could it be, too, that Greyhawk Wars didn't go over well since it changed the world from Gary Gygax's vision?

[Dragonhelm]

I disagree with you about campaign settings evolving over time, Havard. I don't see the need to do it, since I usually run or play in sandbox campaigns where our group can move things in a completely different direction which nullifies any official, progressive campaign setting updates.

I can see both sides to this. In some cases, changes allow the setting to stay alive. Dragonlance would have been long-dead had it just ended at the end of Legends. Since then, we've developed several wonderful eras to game in.

You run into the problem of campaign settings becoming stagnant. A snapshot of the setting as a backdrop is fine if you just intend on releasing a few initial products. As further products come out, you might question whether they are sustainable without the story progressing or not.

[Havard]

I disagree with you about campaign settings evolving over time, Havard. I don't see the need to do it, since I usually run or play in sandbox campaigns where our group can move things in a completely different direction which nullifies any official, progressive campaign setting updates. Extra details on places that had little to no detail in an original released product (like what the 1983 GH box set did for the 1981 GH Folio) but using the majority of the GH Wars meant nullifying nearly everything some of what my players had worked for or accomplished.

I see your point Bob!
My line of thinking is partly similar to that of Dragonhelm, that in order to publish more products for a setting, it needs to be "updated" every now and then. Also, you will often be in situations like with Greyhawk where the original author is no longer available. Advancing the timeline is a good way for a new author give himself some freedom. I doubt that the authors would have been criticized less if they had stayed in Gary's age and done what they could there.

Although I'm not really sure I like the Sandbox concept on a whole, I think TSR made a big mistake in the way they chose to evolve their settings. I think creating different eras is a much better way of doing it, than updating the setting every year. MWP almost got it right, although the Age of Mortals begins way to soon after the War of the Lance. I would have time jumps of about 50 years, each effectively creating a new sandbox. This would also mean that if you started in any given era, it would be unlikely that you would actually play your way to the next era. When I say "new sandbox", I dont mean that they could come up with an entirely new setting though. A new era should ideally try to capture the essence of the setting, yet retaining an atmosphere of its own.

Mystara IMO failed this miserably. The Post-WotI setting fails to be as interesting as Pre-WotI as Post-WotI mostly means Pre-WotI with many of the plot ideas gone, replacing them with very few new. Similarly, the Almanacs created a metaplot which was revealed to the DM only one step at a time, which meant that I couldnt use any of it untill I knew where it was going.

Anyway that sort of sums up my feelings on this topic.

Havard

[Dragonhelm]

Although I'm not really sure I like the Sandbox concept on a whole, I think TSR made a big mistake in the way they chose to evolve their settings. I think creating different eras is a much better way of doing it, than updating the setting every year.

Star Wars is a great example of a setting with multiple eras of play, from KOTOR (formerly Tales of the Jedi, thank you!), Old Republic, Force Unleashed, Rebellion, New Republic, New Jedi Order, Legacy, etc. etc. Each one has something different to offer.

MWP almost got it right, although the Age of Mortals begins way to soon after the War of the Lance.

That's the way MWP inherited it. WotC set the Age of Mortals starting 30 years post-WotL. Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman set War of Souls at 40 years into the Age of Mortals. MWP took it over from there.

When I say "new sandbox", I dont mean that they could come up with an entirely new setting though. A new era should ideally try to capture the essence of the setting, yet retaining an atmosphere of its own.

Love it.

[Dread Delgath]

Different eras works for me. If the GH Wars had been set in CY 626, 50 years after the date in the Folio (CY576), I would have accepted it easier. Embroiling & changing countries, factions, NPC rulers & powerhouses tends to upset any campaign in progress who feature them.

[Samwise]

Could it be, too, that Greyhawk Wars didn't go over well since it changed the world from Gary Gygax's vision?

Given that it looked like Gary was setting things up for a major war with the various articles on the Flanaess that appeared in Dragon magazine, no.

Given that Gary wrote to the effect that the events of his campaign were the events of his campaign and not it was up to others to make their own history, no.

[Samwise]

The problem with different eras is ultimately the same as the problem with advancing the setting - you wind up with stuff that must happen in the future if playing in the past. No killing off pivotal characters or what not before their time.

Likewise the problem with never advancing a setting is that ultimately you will wind up with products that are just as incompatible with the development of any particular group as the advancement of the setting you chose to do is.

The real key is in how you advance the setting. If it is done with a series of adventures that involve very direct involvement by the players, with a good story, then you can bring your fans and customers along with you as you evolve your setting.
On this account, From the Ashes failed horribly, as it had only two poorly distributed adventures leading into it, one truly horrible "wargame" to play out the changes, and two rather atrocious adventures actually for play during the wars.
Contrast this to say the various adventures for Twilight: 2000, particularly the first series set in Poland. Or look at TORG, and how player feedback to published adventures and adventure seeds affected future products.

For myself, I have run a number of "historical" campaign arcs set in Keoland, and have not had any issues with players modifying or directing history away or around published material, or my own background material. Instead I simply take what they do, and incoporate any changes into my background, and go on from there. If that means rewriting my own stuff, that is fine with me.

[Dread Delgath]

Those are some good points, Samwise. I must say that for as little actual wargaming I've done, every time I have, the group would set up a particular scenario, play it out, notice serious flaws in strategy & tactics, and on occasion, play it again.

With the group of gamers I had in the mid 90's, playing the GH Wars boardgame was a fun past-time, and it was a game that this group could grok easily enough. Battlesystem would have overwhelmed them, however. We played several scenarios from the game book included and then played a couple of them over just for fun. I could have written the events into the background of my GH campaign, but I didn't take notes.

I can easily imagine Gary's group playing scenarios over, not because they didn't like the results & wanted to change the outcome, but just because it was fun, and it would have interested Gary & his group to test the limits of the game and the scenario's boundaries. I don't know if this is true or not, mind you, I'm only speculating.

Overall, I think GH Wars could have been great if the results were not specifically tied up into the future direction of the canon campaign. Had TSR made Wars to be open ended, leaving out the railroad tracks, I would have used it more readily & more often. All of Gary's Dragon articles on the wars he described in GH seemed to be more of this ilk than the all-out Flannaes Changing Events* route that TSR took.

(*see "Realms Changing Events" also brought about by TSR & their "Time of Troubles/Avatar" series of railro... I mean adventures...)

Twilight 2000 & TORG: I'd forgotten about these games. T2k was great, but I only played in the first module released. I never knew that the series of mods for it were actually world changing events. Good to know for future opportunities. TORG: I bought the set when it first came out, but immediately disliked it for the system it used. I was short on players, so no other opinions or game system knowledge backgrounds to bounce this game off of. But I do recall that this was the first time a published game (to my knowledge) ever tried to incorporate individual gaming groups into writing the events that shaped the world in TORG. I thought it was a great idea, but, as I said - I didn't have a gaming group at the time, nor did I know any RPGers anywhere near me, so there was no way to try this out.

[Havard]

The problem with different eras is ultimately the same as the problem with advancing the setting - you wind up with stuff that must happen in the future if playing in the past. No killing off pivotal characters or what not before their time.

Likewise the problem with never advancing a setting is that ultimately you will wind up with products that are just as incompatible with the development of any particular group as the advancement of the setting you chose to do is.

Interesting points Samwise!

It occurs to me that the problem isn't different eras, but how the products are presented. IMO TSR had a fairly autoritarian style in their presentation of their products; "These are the rules", "here is what has happened" etc.

It would have been much better if, when introducing a new era, they would include suggestions on how to adapt this to the events having taken place in the individual campaign instead of just forcing the same deal on everyone. It is possible that they were mostly aiming at new customer groups who had not played in the earlier setting, but this strategy seems like you are ignoring at least 50% of your customer base.

The real key is in how you advance the setting. If it is done with a series of adventures that involve very direct involvement by the players, with a good story, then you can bring your fans and customers along with you as you evolve your setting.
On this account, From the Ashes failed horribly, as it had only two poorly distributed adventures leading into it, one truly horrible "wargame" to play out the changes, and two rather atrocious adventures actually for play during the wars.

That would certainly affect things. To some degree, the same is true for Mystara. I wouldn't go as far in my criticism of Wrath of the Immortals, but the world changing module was flawed if not all bad. The same thing for Dragonlance with Dragons of Summer Flame I guess, which was a fairly controversial novel at the time. In both of these cases, executive decisions seriously harmed the end products compared to the plans of the writers.

Contrast this to say the various adventures for Twilight: 2000, particularly the first series set in Poland. Or look at TORG, and how player feedback to published adventures and adventure seeds affected future products.

Ah yes! Imagine if TORG had happened after the Internet became what it is today. I love how the outcome of various modules affected the course of the war. I wouldn't go as far as to say that this is the only way to go, but a more interactive approach with the fans is welcome, and I'm surprised we dont see more of that today, actually. I can see how that was more difficult in the past though.

TORG: I bought the set when it first came out, but immediately disliked it for the system it used. I was short on players, so no other opinions or game system knowledge backgrounds to bounce this game off of. But I do recall that this was the first time a published game (to my knowledge) ever tried to incorporate individual gaming groups into writing the events that shaped the world in TORG. I thought it was a great idea, but, as I said - I didn't have a gaming group at the time, nor did I know any RPGers anywhere near me, so there was no way to try this out.

Gah! TORG is one of my all time favorite RPGs. Today the system is clunky, but coming from games like RoleMaster and AD&D, it was a quick and fun system, which allowed us to reach a whole new level in terms of how we looked at the hobby. Experimenting with crossing the borders between settings, focusing on style and cool character concepts rather than XPs and Levels and the first system to use a mechanic giving players some control over the plot development and overruling die rolls was a real eye opener back then. Plus the fact that the game did not take itself seriously; it was all about having fun. In contrast to some other RPGs of the 90s

Havard

[Dread Delgath]

TORG: I disliked the system, but I did like the way the world was set up & presented. It's been close to 20 years since I looked at TORG, so I don't even recall even some of the rules, but I do recall something like the "benchmarks" where abilities were based on exponential numbers. I hate algebra, particularly exponents, and I strongly urge any fledgling, future game designers against using algebraic math in their game designs.

[Havard]

TORG: I disliked the system, but I did like the way the world was set up & presented. It's been close to 20 years since I looked at TORG, so I don't even recall even some of the rules, but I do recall something like the "benchmarks" where abilities were based on exponential numbers. I hate algebra, particularly exponents, and I strongly urge any fledgling, future game designers against using algebraic math in their game designs.

Hehe!
The brilliant thing about using exponential numbers is that it allowed TORG to run anything from man to man combat to space ship battles with the same system, without getting into situations like in D20 where you have extremely high numbers and the die roll doesnt matter anymore. This is especially useful in a cross genre game like TORG of course, where you could end up with situations like th Pegasus riding fantasy warrior setting out to destroy the Death Star...

We didn't quite get there, but my Austrialian "I can fix anything" pilot did go against a dragon with his salvaged combat helicopter...

Havard

[Dread Delgath]

TORG: I disliked the system, but I did like the way the world was set up & presented. It's been close to 20 years since I looked at TORG, so I don't even recall even some of the rules, but I do recall something like the "benchmarks" where abilities were based on exponential numbers. I hate algebra, particularly exponents, and I strongly urge any fledgling, future game designers against using algebraic math in their game designs.

Hehe!
The brilliant thing about using exponential numbers is that it allowed TORG to run anything from man to man combat to space ship battles with the same system, without getting into situations like in D20 where you have extremely high numbers and the die roll doesnt matter anymore. This is especially useful in a cross genre game like TORG of course, where you could end up with situations like th Pegasus riding fantasy warrior setting out to destroy the Death Star...

We didn't quite get there, but my Austrialian "I can fix anything" pilot did go against a dragon with his salvaged combat helicopter...

Havard

I just couldn't figure out TORG's exponential system, or whatever it was...

Drifting off topic for a sec: WEG's Star Wars system had an excellent, yet chart dependent scaling system in the Rules Companion. It used a "die cap" system. Since the system used all d6's, you could roll up to 7 or 8 d6's to hit depending on your attribute & skill dice totals. If f'rex, a single man fired a blaster at a Tie Fighter, his dice would be "capped" at 2 or 3; meaning that any die roll over that number wasn't counted when you added them up to compare against the Difficulty Number needed to hit the Tie Fighter.

Say you needed to roll an 8 to hit one of the panels on the fighter and you were rolling 8 dice. Only counting the dice you rolled 3 or under would be counted! Slim chances indeed, but IMO a very cool way to represent the scaled power of Tie Fighter armor vs. a hand held blaster. Likewise, IIRC, a Tie Fighter's guns could cause lots of damage to a single character, but the scaling rules against a capital ship would likewise be capped.

[Samwise]

Interesting points Samwise!

It occurs to me that the problem isn't different eras, but how the products are presented. IMO TSR had a fairly autoritarian style in their presentation of their products; "These are the rules", "here is what has happened" etc.

It would have been much better if, when introducing a new era, they would include suggestions on how to adapt this to the events having taken place in the individual campaign instead of just forcing the same deal on everyone. It is possible that they were mostly aiming at new customer groups who had not played in the earlier setting, but this strategy seems like you are ignoring at least 50% of your customer base.

Authoritarian is actually a good thing when done properly. A company, just like an individual DM, can impose the most outrageous evolutions of setting provided it is presented both in context and in a manner that is engaged with the players/customers.
"Screw the old, here is the new, suck it up" is guaranteed to alienate your established without guaranteeing the same degree of creation of a new base.

That would certainly affect things. To some degree, the same is true for Mystara. I wouldn't go as far in my criticism of Wrath of the Immortals, but the world changing module was flawed if not all bad. The same thing for Dragonlance with Dragons of Summer Flame I guess, which was a fairly controversial novel at the time. In both of these cases, executive decisions seriously harmed the end products compared to the plans of the writers.

I agree with you about WotI. It may have fallen short, but at least it tried. Of course I think part of the problem was the same thing that affected the Time of Troubles in FR and Fate of Istus in Greyhawk - it wound up as justification for rules changes rather than setting evolution.

Ah yes! Imagine if TORG had happened after the Internet became what it is today. I love how the outcome of various modules affected the course of the war. I wouldn't go as far as to say that this is the only way to go, but a more interactive approach with the fans is welcome, and I'm surprised we dont see more of that today, actually. I can see how that was more difficult in the past though.

I actually played TORG after its heyday, but the people I played with told me the stories, and I was quite impressed.
And I agree with you, as clunky as some bits may be, I like the system. If anything, I think D&D would be greatly enhanced by incorporating something like the TORG action card system, which as it happens is close to what is done in the RPGA living campaigns with their campaign cards. Likewise the TORG possibility point system is obviously a clear predecessor of the action point system as originally used in Eberron.