So what happened to Greyhawk?

[JonestheSpy]

On the Eberron vs Forgotten Realms thread, there's some mentions of something bad happening to Greyhawk. Now, is this just emotive ways of saying WOTC decided to discontinue publishing Greyhawk material, or is there some narrative somewhere that nukes the Flaness?

[Keld Denar]

As of CY 498 (2008, the last year of Living Greyhawk), Greyhawk was still in good condition. There was a little bit of a scuffle between the former Circle members, but Mordy hashed things out pretty good, Iuz was prevented from ascending, and terrible war in and around the Great Kingdom was pretty much averted. So yea...business as usual in Greyhawk, at least according to all the material I've seen. It hasn't been upgraded to 4e yet, probably because of the amount of Gygaxian IP still remaining in it, but yea, we'll see...

[FoE]

I'll tell you what's dead. Vaudeville! You know what killed it? The talking pictures! But you can still make it, kid; you just gotta have a gimmick!

[Thurbane]

My comments in the thread were in reference to the lack of supprt for Greyhawk from 3.0 onwards. It put's me in mind of slowly smothering a faithful old dog with a pillow...

[Kaiyanwang]

Well, you see, more than a lack of support, wotc diluited Greyhawk into the official setting (example: Iggwilv and FCI, Mordenkainen and PH.. Otto, Bugby and PH + CM)

Wotc published a Gazeteer in early 3.0, IIRC..

Nevertheless, take a look in Dragon magazine if you have access: they printed several issues with something for Greyhawk, like regional feats, creatures, and other little things (like the priceless Oerthblood, thank you Eldariel ).

[Yora]

I think Greyhawk doesn't really fit into WotCs portfolio. It's too generic for their marketing, which aims more for a WHAM-approach that you get with Eberron and that other setting inspired by the Forgotten Realms.

[Zeta Kai]

...that other setting inspired by the Forgotten Realms.

I see what you did there.

Yeah, GH is unmarketable for two reasons: It's infested with material that is at least partially owned by the estate of Gary Gygax, and it's so generic as to be almost invisible. The second point is kinda WotC's own fault, though, as they didn't help matters by making so many elements of GH part of the non-setting default for 3E.

[Fishy]

Speaking of which, did the default non-setting for 4E ever get a name?

[Matthew]

Yeah, GH is unmarketable for two reasons: It's infested with material that is at least partially owned by the estate of Gary Gygax, and it's so generic as to be almost invisible. The second point is kinda WotC's own fault, though, as they didn't help matters by making so many elements of GH part of the non-setting default for 3E.

As far as I am aware, virtually nothing of Greyhawk is currently owned by the Gygax estate; it just never was a particularly detailed or heavily novelised setting, so there is nothing really to market beyond the stuff that was already purposefully made generic.

Speaking of which, did the default non-setting for 4E ever get a name?

Greyhawk?

[Kaiyanwang]

Speaking of which, did the default non-setting for 4E ever get a name?

In ENworld I've seen it called Point of Light - I don't know if properly.

[bosssmiley]

tl:dr: D&D mechanics stopped modelling Greyhawk, and started modelling Eberron.

long version: Over years and editions, the mechanics of D&D-as-written grew away from modelling the game world as presented in published Greyhawk material, and ended up modelling, well, RAW D&Dland as we know it today. The Tome Series showed us (with f'ing maths!) that RAW D&Dland is, in fact, a world which has more in common with an unconstrained munchkin power fantasy (*cough* the Tippyverse *cough*) than it does with the magical medieval fantasy of Greyhawk, Lankhmar, Dragonlance, Harn, Birthright, etc.

Greyhawk was effectively put out to pasture and replaced by dungeonpunk Eberron, post-apocalyptic FRINO, and now the revived Athas (the prototypical 'D&Dland as results from play'); all of which actually fitted with what the game mechanics said the world was supposed to be like.

[kjones]

I'll tell you what's dead. Vaudeville! You know what killed it? The talking pictures! But you can still make it, kid; you just gotta have a gimmick!

I, for one, am a tumbler!

Have a cookie.

[Tam_OConnor]

Well, all the Dungeon Adventure Paths (Shackled City, Age of Worms, Savage Tide) were set in Totally-Not-Greyhawk, with Manzorian=Mordenkainen, the Free City=Greyhawk, plenty of obscure Greyhawk deities, etc. I don't think they were ever officially acknowledged, but it's pretty darn transparent, even for a Faerun fellow like me.

[LibraryOgre]

I'll tell you what's dead. Vaudeville! You know what killed it? The talking pictures! But you can still make it, kid; you just gotta have a gimmick!

I don't got a gimmick. I gotta whole show. I call it "The Aristocrats!"

[Tiktakkat]

As far as I am aware, virtually nothing of Greyhawk is currently owned by the Gygax estate; it just never was a particularly detailed or heavily novelised setting, so there is nothing really to market beyond the stuff that was already purposefully made generic.

Not even virtually, just nothing.
Gygax retained rights to the Gord the Rogue character, and the right to use all proper nouns that had already appeared in the Gord books, but that was it. Those rights in no way affected TSR's, and thus WotC's and Hasbro's, rights to everything else connected to the setting, up to and including all the names of PCs-turned-NPCs and deities, including the dozen or so variations on the name "Gygax", like Zagyg/Xagyg.

Conversely in regards to rights, due to "something" (pick your choice of descriptors), WotC does not own the rights to the majority of the Living Greyhawk adventures. They cannot print them, distribute them, reference the plots or NPCs, or anything else, except for the core adventures. They bought them on a limited term license, and now they are all in a worse limbo than all those Dragon Magazine articles WotC did not have author contact information for.
As a result, as far as canon continuity, Living Greyhawk is an almost total loss. They could use some of the core plots and developments, and anything appearing in the web articles they posted, but that is about it. That means picking it up again means a reset back to the LGG, or whatever other timeline advancement gimmick they want to use.

The relationship between what Paizo published in the magazines (referred to by some as "Paizohawk") is caught in related issues, as the LG admins were "less than enthused" at the concept of Paizo publishing material that might contradict their development, and WotC not wanting Paizo to have full access to the IP for a variety of reason. That is why you got the thinly- and no-so-thinly-disguised Greyhawk elements in the adventure paths, and even worked into things like Core Beliefs articles.

[Matthew]

Not even virtually, just nothing.

Depends how you look at it; there are likely still bits and pieces of Greyhawk lore mentioned but never elaborated on that only exist in detail within the "Greyhawk Bible", which remains the heavily guarded intellectual property of the Gygax estate. Hard to say with any real surety, as that becomes a matter of defining Greyhawk canon and speculation as to what the "bible" contains. Certainly nothing published by TSR/WotC can be said to not be owned by Hasbro (to the extent that such things can be owned).

[JonestheSpy]

Hmmm. I think it's pretty odd that some folks think of Greyhawk as "generic", when it seems to me the the Forgotten Realms was really just Ed Greenwood's attempt to redo it with different names...

Myself, I thought the history of Greyhawk was a lot more engrossing- probably because of the detail Gygax poured into it, and I thought that the deities are far more interesting (and they're not having apocolyptic conflicts every other moonth, which is a plus in my book). Interesting that the gods of Greyhawk were pretty much the only eleement that was fully integratet into the later editions - wish they's included a few more into core; Trithereon beats Kord for a chaotic good diety hands down.

[FoE]

I, for one, am a tumbler!

Have a cookie.

COOKIES!

*Nom nom nom*

Cookie Monster fall off wagon again.

[Tiktakkat]

Depends how you look at it; there are likely still bits and pieces of Greyhawk lore mentioned but never elaborated on that only exist in detail within the "Greyhawk Bible", which remains the heavily guarded intellectual property of the Gygax estate. Hard to say with any real surety, as that becomes a matter of defining Greyhawk canon and speculation as to what the "bible" contains. Certainly nothing published by TSR/WotC can be said to not be owned by Hasbro (to the extent that such things can be owned).

Ummm . . . no.
What you are talking about are personal campaign notes. Those are far from a setting "bible" to start with, and less so for Greyhawk because Gary's home version of Greyhawk was radically different from the published setting to begin with. Everything from the map to the deities to the level of detail was simply different to a greater or lesser degree.
As for it being a "bible" and not just a random scattering of pages erased and overwritten time and again, or for it being "heavily guarded" and not just thrown in a trunk and forgotten about until someone offers cash for it, those are almost completely outside projections as opposed to accurate descriptions.

As such, any of that material, while certainly being intellectual property, is not Greyhawk intellectual property, as defined by law. That is why Castle Zagig is not Castle Greyhawk, no matter how much people want to wax endlessly about it really being so, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and never mind Gary saying it was only inspired by his notes about the original, not replicated from them.

Gary's old campaign stories were certainly always mega-cool, but past a certain point they were just that - old campaign stories, and not hidden "lore". That is even more true when you consider his penchant for ex post facto ad hoc "canon creation" when suitably egged on to provide the answer to some otherwise irrelevant question.

[Blackfang108]

Hmmm. I think it's pretty odd that some folks think of Greyhawk as "generic", when it seems to me the the Forgotten Realms was really just Ed Greenwood's attempt to redo it with different names...

Oh, Faerun's generic (somewhat less so with the incluson og portions of ruines Abeir, but still). Greyhawk's even MORE generic.

[Person_Man]

tl:dr: D&D mechanics stopped modelling Greyhawk, and started modelling Eberron.

long version: Over years and editions, the mechanics of D&D-as-written grew away from modelling the game world as presented in published Greyhawk material, and ended up modelling, well, RAW D&Dland as we know it today. The Tome Series showed us (with f'ing maths!) that RAW D&Dland is, in fact, a world which has more in common with an unconstrained munchkin power fantasy (*cough* the Tippyverse *cough*) than it does with the magical medieval fantasy of Greyhawk, Lankhmar, Dragonlance, Harn, Birthright, etc.

Greyhawk was effectively put out to pasture and replaced by dungeonpunk Eberron, post-apocalyptic FRINO, and now the revived Athas (the prototypical 'D&Dland as results from play'); all of which actually fitted with what the game mechanics said the world was supposed to be like.

On this note, I've always thought that it was odd that WotC didn't write the core books to be 90% generic, and then publish nothing but setting specific books with setting specific classes, feats, rules, etc. With that formula, they could publish a far greater volume of books over a much longer period of time. Players could choose the setting that they like the most, and each form of D&D would have it's own distinct genre and play style.

Instead, they published a long set of additions to core (Complete, Races, Environment, PHBII, ToB, Incarnum, ToM, etc), the sheer weight of which made 3.5 pretty much ungovernable by in terms of balance (later books are far more powerful then earlier books) and ease of play (do we really need a dozen different forms of magic, blade magic, psionics, etc?). And concurrently, they published a ton of material for FR and Eberron, but not much else.

It's weird. I guess it's because the generic stuff sells better then the setting specific stuff. But if you can hook people into a game world that they like, then you can also hook them into peripherals (novels, miniatures, board games, computer games) more easily.

[Matthew]

Ummm . . . no.
What you are talking about are personal campaign notes. Those are far from a setting "bible" to start with, and less so for Greyhawk because Gary's home version of Greyhawk was radically different from the published setting to begin with. Everything from the map to the deities to the level of detail was simply different to a greater or lesser degree.
As for it being a "bible" and not just a random scattering of pages erased and overwritten time and again, or for it being "heavily guarded" and not just thrown in a trunk and forgotten about until someone offers cash for it, those are almost completely outside projections as opposed to accurate descriptions.

As such, any of that material, while certainly being intellectual property, is not Greyhawk intellectual property, as defined by law. That is why Castle Zagig is not Castle Greyhawk, no matter how much people want to wax endlessly about it really being so, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and never mind Gary saying it was only inspired by his notes about the original, not replicated from them.

Gary's old campaign stories were certainly always mega-cool, but past a certain point they were just that - old campaign stories, and not hidden "lore". That is even more true when you consider his penchant for ex post facto ad hoc "canon creation" when suitably egged on to provide the answer to some otherwise irrelevant question.

Ummm... yes.

It all depends on what you are defining as Greyhawk canon. Clearly if you do not consider Castle Zagyg to actually be Castle Greyhawk then you are defining canon by the "brand" or ownership of the brand. That is fine, but it is hardly the only point of view of how to classify canon.

The "Greyhawk Bible" is a collection of notes in a black leather binder that Gygax used to run Castle Greyhawk at various conventions and such up until his death. It is doubtful it has been "thrown in a trunk", though it may end up being sold to a private collector given the lack of activity at Gygax Games. The last person to have access to it outside the Gygax estate was Jeff Talanian, and what he had access to were photocopies (which he is prevented from talking about by a non-disclosure contract).

Of course, it is all "made up" ad hoc, that is rather the point; the question is only "who has the authority to make it up?" or rather "who do you accept has the authority to make it up?" For some, it is whoever owns the brand, for others it is particular designers or originators, and for still others it is their own game master.

On this note, I've always thought that it was odd that WotC didn't write the core books to be 90% generic, and then publish nothing but setting specific books with setting specific classes, feats, rules, etc. With that formula, they could publish a far greater volume of books over a much longer period of time. Players could choose the setting that they like the most, and each form of D&D would have it's own distinct genre and play style.

Instead, they published a long set of additions to core (Complete, Races, Environment, PHBII, ToB, Incarnum, ToM, etc), the sheer weight of which made 3.5 pretty much ungovernable by in terms of balance (later books are far more powerful then earlier books) and ease of play (do we really need a dozen different forms of magic, blade magic, psionics, etc?). And concurrently, they published a ton of material for FR and Eberron, but not much else.

It's weird. I guess it's because the generic stuff sells better then the setting specific stuff. But if you can hook people into a game world that they like, then you can also hook them into peripherals (novels, miniatures, board games, computer games) more easily.

Basically, it is fear of fan base fragmentation, ala AD&D/2e.

[Tiktakkat]

Ummm... yes.

It all depends on what you are defining as Greyhawk canon. Clearly if you do not consider Castle Zagyg to actually be Castle Greyhawk then you are defining canon by the "brand" or ownership of the brand. That is fine, but it is hardly the only point of view of how to classify canon.

Actually, it is.
Fanon is not canon, no matter how good it might be, or who created it.
The moment the published Greyhawk setting material diverged from the Greyhawk home campaign, the home campaign materials became fanon.
It may be fun to read, but it is not part of the published setting any more.
Likewise the additions, subtractions, and modifications any individual makes for his home game do not in any way constitute an alteration or obligation on the part of the IP holder to recognize, especially considering how copyright law views publishing such material.

At that rate you may as well assert that everyone who has ever run Greyhawk as a home campaign has a hidden store of "secret" canon material that perpetually confuses the IP ownership status for WotC.

[NorseItalian]

It's weird. I guess it's because the generic stuff sells better then the setting specific stuff. But if you can hook people into a game world that they like, then you can also hook them into peripherals (novels, miniatures, board games, computer games) more easily.

I always preferred that 3.5 had a set world to refer to (plus the characters. I kinda miss seeing everything acted out by Jozan, Lidda, Tordek, Krusk, and not Mialee) but 4E at least has the little bit of background about <insert-name-here-world>.

[Person_Man]

Basically, it is fear of fan base fragmentation, ala AD&D/2e.

Wait, why would it be a problem (or why was it a problem) if you have 10 groups of 200,000 people buying your stuff instead of 1 group of 1,000,000 people buying your stuff? I understand that when you publish a book, you want as many people as possible buying it. But writers are a dime a dozen. The cost of publishing a book is basically the costs for paper, printing, and shipping from China, plus 5% of the net for royalties. You could hold an Eberron style contest every month for a year, and then have a dozen unique campaign worlds to build upon. And you wouldn't have to play test anything (not that they do now) as you could just give each campaign world one author-god to determine what balance is in his world.

I for one used to buy setting specific materials for ALL of the old 2e stuff, especially the novels (I was young, don't judge me). So there's going to be a certain hard core of D&D fans who will buy all/most of your material, no matter how many different settings there are.

Anywho, I'm not asking to be belligerent. I'm asking because I know that you have a much deeper knowledge of what went on in earlier editions then I do, as I really wasn't paying attention to the business/marketing angle of it when I was in high school.

[Matthew]

Actually, it is.

Fanon is not canon, no matter how good it might be, or who created it.
The moment the published Greyhawk setting material diverged from the Greyhawk home campaign, the home campaign materials became fanon.
It may be fun to read, but it is not part of the published setting any more.
Likewise the additions, subtractions, and modifications any individual makes for his home game do not in any way constitute an alteration or obligation on the part of the IP holder to recognize, especially considering how copyright law views publishing such material.

At that rate you may as well assert that everyone who has ever run Greyhawk as a home campaign has a hidden store of "secret" canon material that perpetually confuses the IP ownership status for WotC.

Actually, it is not.

Defining canon is an interesting and difficult problem. This is most starkly demonstrated when canon is changed by a new party that has purchased the intellectual property. In that regard canon is a mutable object that can be distorted, changed, and transmogrified at the will of the current owner. In fact, that is no canon at all, just ownership of brand and the exercise of legal power to define what that brand means. At that point you have "current canon" and "previous canon", and potentially more sub categories as the property changes hands over time.

That is to say, canon is itself related to a particular moment in time, and at the moment the "Greyhawk Bible" is non-canonical, but in 1985 a good deal of it was canonical.

Wait, why would it be a problem (or why was it a problem) if you have 10 groups of 200,000 people buying your stuff instead of 1 group of 1,000,000 people buying your stuff? I understand that when you publish a book, you want as many people as possible buying it. But writers are a dime a dozen. The cost of publishing a book is basically the costs for paper, printing, and shipping from China, plus 5% of the net for royalties. You could hold an Eberron style contest every month for a year, and then have a dozen unique campaign worlds to build upon. And you wouldn't have to play test anything (not that they do now) as you could just give each campaign world one author-god to determine what balance is in his world.

I for one used to buy setting specific materials for ALL of the old 2e stuff, especially the novels (I was young, don't judge me). So there's going to be a certain hard core of D&D fans who will buy all/most of your material, no matter how many different settings there are.

Anywho, I'm not asking to be belligerent. I'm asking because I know that you have a much deeper knowledge of what went on in earlier editions then I do, as I really wasn't paying attention to the business/marketing angle of it when I was in high school.

As far as I understand it, when WotC took over TSR their analysis of the situation was that the multiple campaign worlds had split the fan base so that only fragments of it were buying products that previously all of it would have bought, resulting in the gradual decline of the company. With this in mind, WotC set about a policy of reunification, aiming to rebuild a unified "D&D" fan base with D20/3e. The situation might well be economically different now than it was in 1999, but the current strategy appears to be the one they have had for the last ten years.

[Tiktakkat]

Actually, it is not.

Defining canon is an interesting and difficult problem. This is most starkly demonstrated when canon is changed by a new party that has purchased the intellectual property. In that regard canon is a mutable object that can be distorted, changed, and transmogrified at the will of the current owner. In fact, that is no canon at all, just ownership of brand and the exercise of legal power to define what that brand means. At that point you have "current canon" and "previous canon", and potentially more sub categories as the property changes hands over time.

That is to say, canon is itself related to a particular moment in time, and at the moment the "Greyhawk Bible" is non-canonical, but in 1985 a good deal of it was canonical.

So what you are referring to is non-canonical, if it even exists at all, and you acknowledge that the IP owner can changes things at will.
So . . . it is that simple.
House rules and fanon preference are not canon - your game is your game, the IP is the IP.
The concept of retcon does not invalidate the existence of canon - just because it can be changed, no matter the cause of the change, does not mean it is not a real thing.
Ownership is relevant - that is why it is called copyright, and why copyright covers the production of derivative works.
It is 2009. That material, if it exists, whatever it may be, is fanon at best.

Wait, why would it be a problem (or why was it a problem) if you have 10 groups of 200,000 people buying your stuff instead of 1 group of 1,000,000 people buying your stuff?

. . .

Anywho, I'm not asking to be belligerent. I'm asking because I know that you have a much deeper knowledge of what went on in earlier editions then I do, as I really wasn't paying attention to the business/marketing angle of it when I was in high school.

Basically, those are not the right sales figures. The three core books sell a million or more copies over their lifetime, but the follow up books do not come close, even less so for setting specific books.
And because of economies of scale, selling print runs of 50,000 books to 10 different groups of people is immensely different in returns from selling a print run of 500,000 books to 1 group of people.
Also, the costs are a bit different, since most products go through multiple levels of dealers, so a company like WotC may be making about one-eigth of the MSRP, at best, from each copy. When that combines with economy of scale to drop print runs under 50,000, setting books become a great way to go broke by "making it up on volume".
I picked most of that up from casual talks with store owners and industry people over the years. They will not give you precise numbers, but if you are polite they will give you the general outline.

[Matthew]

So what you are referring to is non-canonical, if it even exists at all, and you acknowledge that the IP owner can changes things at will.

So . . . it is that simple.

House rules and fanon preference are not canon - your game is your game, the IP is the IP.

The concept of retcon does not invalidate the existence of canon - just because it can be changed, no matter the cause of the change, does not mean it is not a real thing.

Ownership is relevant - that is why it is called copyright, and why copyright covers the production of derivative works.

It is 2009. That material, if it exists, whatever it may be, is fanon at best.

There is no such thing as fanon, but we are clearly talking at cross purposes here.

Yes, the current "official canon" of Greyhawk is whatever the current owners of the intellectual property hold to be canon, including things that were previously canon unless they say it no longer is. There may be unpublished items from before 1985 that were considered canon at that time, never published, and not currently disavowed by WotC, which is what I said are likely to exist [i.e. little bits and pieces].

[Tiktakkat]

There is no such thing as fanon, but we are clearly talking at cross purposes here.

Yes, the current "official canon" of Greyhawk is whatever the current owners of the intellectual property hold to be canon, including things that were previously canon unless they say it no longer is. There may be unpublished items from before 1985 that were considered canon at that time, never published, and not currently disavowed by WotC, which is what I said are likely to exist.

It does not have to be disavowed by WotC, anymore than WotC needs permission from anyone to bring out a new Greyhawk product with whatever content they feel like.
Obviously they cannot seize manuscripts written by others that were not sold to them, but neither do they have to give such any acknowledgement.
To paraphrase History of the World Part I, "It's good to be the IP holder."

[quick_comment]

Instead, they published a long set of additions to core (Complete, Races, Environment, PHBII, ToB, Incarnum, ToM, etc), the sheer weight of which made 3.5 pretty much ungovernable by in terms of balance (later books are far more powerful then earlier books)

Really? Nothing in ToB or MoI is above T3. Nothing in Psionics is above T2. Core? Core has the goddamn batman.